I got married on a beach in the British Virgin Islands with 30 of our closest friends/family after a fun week of sailing. Our reception was walking 30 feet from the ceremony into the beach bar where we all celebrated and partied all night long.
Your wedding is supposed to be special, not a "big format event" (unless that's what does it for you).
Who pays your salary to flip burgers all day? You don't solve world hunger serving fast food to people who could go without eating for weeks due to build up.
I'm an American that has lived in the UK for 4 years. So I have a little dispute about just claiming all these public healthcare systems "just work".
Sure not having to (directly) pay for health insurance is nice. However I have seen some of the huge downsides of nationalized insurance. My wife fractured her knee cap a while back. It took them 2 weeks to review the x-rays and actually tell her it was fractured, meanwhile telling her to just be careful when she walks, thus probably making things worse. It then took more than 8 weeks to get her first physiotherapy appointment. 8 *weeks* just to start. Then she finally went and it was basically garbage, they could have sent an email to her with some instructions for how much they helped her. Anyway, they only had her do a few physio session, then stop. Her knee didn't improve, and when she needed more physio she had to wait another 8-10 weeks just to start up again. Needless to say this has really hampered her recovery not being able to start proper therapy right away.
The moral of the story is not about some bad advice or crappy physio, that can happen anywhere. The major problem is the time delays. I have seen it with my wife and other things with friends, and definitely read about it many times here (with much more serious conditions than we experienced).
On the plus side, we had a baby here and no complaints. That was wonderful.
But all in all I've seen how ridiculous wait times with national insurance can really affect an injury, and that is enough for me to say that you can't just say "it works" here without some major qualifications.
As opposed to Mozilla, which gets most of it's funding from Google for defaulting to use Google as the search engine. While Chrome does not default to Google search, it gives you options of what search engine to use. Yeah, I magically trust Mozilla more..
Also, please enlighten us how your privacy rights are infringed upon moreso using Chrome vs. Firefox?
But nevermind, you'll just stay modded +5 on here because you stated something about pro-privacy, even though it's unfounded.
Look at me! I stated the obvious "omg my data is in the cloud for the evil corporations + governments to see!!" and want my +5 insightful please.
You need to stop using the internet, dig a hole in the forest, and sit in it with your tin foil hat. That way no one will know what you are doing and the rest of us can actually enjoy technology.
It takes no thought and works for clearing my head during a commute when I don't have the energy to think about work. Just like every other iphone game, nothing specific about angry birds here. It was just one of the first good ones.
For every wise investment to do better than just the average of stocks, SOMEONE has to lose.
Wrong.
Example: Person A owns Stock B that only has 1 share and begins at a market price of $1. Years later the market is pricing this share at $10. Person A wants to sell his share (perhaps to retire), so sells it to Person B. Person B now holds the share which cost him $10 and it is valued at $10.
Person A wealth created = $9 Person B wealth created = $0
Wealth has been "created", someone does not _have_ to lose.
If you had been talking about futures, then yes it is pure zero sum game. So someone has to make money and lose money on the transaction. However, even there you certainly cannot claim that there has been no _value_ created.
Example: Person A produces and sells corn. Person A wants to be able to forecast his revenue and expenses for the next year with some degree of accuracy. He see's that corn is currently selling for what he considers a "fair" price. However the corn he is planning to sell is growing and won't be ready for another few months. He doesn't want to take the risk that the price of corn will go down so much in the coming months that he will take a loss on this crop if he invests too much into growing it. In order to lock in the current price, Person A takes a short position in corn futures (making money when the price goes down), thus hedging himself against a large price decrease.
Person B, the evil speculator, thinks the price of corn will increase in the coming months from his weather forecasts and wants to make some money from his projections. So Person B buys a corn future, and will make money if the price goes up.
Thus Person A and Person B are matched up on a financial exchange. A makes money when the price of corn goes down, B makes money when the price of corn goes up.
Scenario 1) Corn increases in price 10% at the expiration of the future. B has made money on the futures contract. A has lost money on the futures contract. However, A is able to sell his real corn at this 10% higher price than he thought. If he sold the proper number of futures, then he has a zero profit gain on the futures contract and his corn sales. A is flat on profit, but completely eliminated the price risk of corn moving against him. B is financially better off, and A is better off because he can sleep at night not having to worry about corn prices tumbling. VALUE HAS BEEN CREATED FOR BOTH SIDES.
Scenario 2) Corn decreased in price 10% at the expiration of the future. Person A made money on his future, which offset the reduced price he had to sell his corn again. He is flat on the future + selling corn. Again, he didn't have to worry about the price falling. Person B has lost 10% of his investment because his projection was wrong. A is flat but has no risk, B has lost money on his speculation. VALUES HAS BEEN CREATED FOR ONE SIDE. No matter what happens, A doesn't have to worry about price movements.
Without evil speculators, who is going to take the long position in the corn futures? Someone selling corn has no reason to double his exposure to corn prices by buying futures. You can't tell me pure market makers are going to do this because they don't want to hold onto the long futures any longer than necessary, and there is no one to sell them to without speculators. Financial markets like that only work because there are people with real reasons for buying something and there are people willing to speculate. To even link this more to the topic at hand, high frequency trading creates even more liquidity in the market and reduces bid/ask spreads. Fact.
But just mod me down for explaining what you don't want to hear. There is value in financial services and value is created through financial services.
Nothing really depressing about that. Just shows what a random insignificant piece of this whole puzzle we really are. Which is again not depressing, but rather amazing that we can do so much, given that fact. Sure we have limitations, but that's ok.
If it's caused by man, it might be more easy to reverse by man. If it's not caused by man, maybe man can't (or at least not as realistically) reverse it?
Look at the size of the thing. I do not see a tactical unit trundling something that big so that they can see 20m through a wall.
Yeah, look at the size of computers 40 years ago. We should have stopped the research then and blindly criticized because they were so big and not practical.
Slashdot Mirror
"As millions of fans sit glued to their sets next Sunday"
It's this Sunday not next Sunday! =) Grammatically correct or not I don't know, but "this Sunday" is so much clearer.
Bombs+weapons+expressed desire to use them = probably a bad guy. "Probably" should not be enough for prison, though.
So if I see someone walking down the street with a bomb and expressing his desire to use it, but he hasn't yet.. I should just let him walk by?
Sorry but there is a point where "probably" has to be good enough.
Those are supposed to be big, formal events.
Really?
I got married on a beach in the British Virgin Islands with 30 of our closest friends/family after a fun week of sailing. Our reception was walking 30 feet from the ceremony into the beach bar where we all celebrated and partied all night long.
Your wedding is supposed to be special, not a "big format event" (unless that's what does it for you).
If all new games were $30-40 and no used game market they would make WAY more money than now.
You're right, they should patten the design to show a 5 day week with the temperature....
What is a jeeze?
Who pays your salary to flip burgers all day? You don't solve world hunger serving fast food to people who could go without eating for weeks due to build up.
Every time you capitalize god my comprehension of your post diminishes.
I'm an American that has lived in the UK for 4 years. So I have a little dispute about just claiming all these public healthcare systems "just work".
Sure not having to (directly) pay for health insurance is nice. However I have seen some of the huge downsides of nationalized insurance. My wife fractured her knee cap a while back. It took them 2 weeks to review the x-rays and actually tell her it was fractured, meanwhile telling her to just be careful when she walks, thus probably making things worse. It then took more than 8 weeks to get her first physiotherapy appointment. 8 *weeks* just to start. Then she finally went and it was basically garbage, they could have sent an email to her with some instructions for how much they helped her. Anyway, they only had her do a few physio session, then stop. Her knee didn't improve, and when she needed more physio she had to wait another 8-10 weeks just to start up again. Needless to say this has really hampered her recovery not being able to start proper therapy right away.
The moral of the story is not about some bad advice or crappy physio, that can happen anywhere. The major problem is the time delays. I have seen it with my wife and other things with friends, and definitely read about it many times here (with much more serious conditions than we experienced).
On the plus side, we had a baby here and no complaints. That was wonderful.
But all in all I've seen how ridiculous wait times with national insurance can really affect an injury, and that is enough for me to say that you can't just say "it works" here without some major qualifications.
Why support version 3.6 when the current is 9.0.1?
*cough*
I was quite confused for a moment.
As opposed to Mozilla, which gets most of it's funding from Google for defaulting to use Google as the search engine. While Chrome does not default to Google search, it gives you options of what search engine to use. Yeah, I magically trust Mozilla more..
Also, please enlighten us how your privacy rights are infringed upon moreso using Chrome vs. Firefox?
But nevermind, you'll just stay modded +5 on here because you stated something about pro-privacy, even though it's unfounded.
that were backing up tens of terabytes every day.
I stopped reading there. Sorry but most of us don't need to backup tens of terabytes every day.
Look at me! I stated the obvious "omg my data is in the cloud for the evil corporations + governments to see!!" and want my +5 insightful please.
You need to stop using the internet, dig a hole in the forest, and sit in it with your tin foil hat. That way no one will know what you are doing and the rest of us can actually enjoy technology.
So what you are saying is that we'll have to do a NAT behind the Sun once ipv6 is allocated to every solar system in the universe?
Fuck.
It takes no thought and works for clearing my head during a commute when I don't have the energy to think about work. Just like every other iphone game, nothing specific about angry birds here. It was just one of the first good ones.
For every wise investment to do better than just the average of stocks, SOMEONE has to lose.
Wrong.
Example:
Person A owns Stock B that only has 1 share and begins at a market price of $1. Years later the market is pricing this share at $10. Person A wants to sell his share (perhaps to retire), so sells it to Person B. Person B now holds the share which cost him $10 and it is valued at $10.
Person A wealth created = $9
Person B wealth created = $0
Wealth has been "created", someone does not _have_ to lose.
If you had been talking about futures, then yes it is pure zero sum game. So someone has to make money and lose money on the transaction. However, even there you certainly cannot claim that there has been no _value_ created.
Example:
Person A produces and sells corn. Person A wants to be able to forecast his revenue and expenses for the next year with some degree of accuracy. He see's that corn is currently selling for what he considers a "fair" price. However the corn he is planning to sell is growing and won't be ready for another few months. He doesn't want to take the risk that the price of corn will go down so much in the coming months that he will take a loss on this crop if he invests too much into growing it. In order to lock in the current price, Person A takes a short position in corn futures (making money when the price goes down), thus hedging himself against a large price decrease.
Person B, the evil speculator, thinks the price of corn will increase in the coming months from his weather forecasts and wants to make some money from his projections. So Person B buys a corn future, and will make money if the price goes up.
Thus Person A and Person B are matched up on a financial exchange. A makes money when the price of corn goes down, B makes money when the price of corn goes up.
Scenario 1) Corn increases in price 10% at the expiration of the future. B has made money on the futures contract. A has lost money on the futures contract. However, A is able to sell his real corn at this 10% higher price than he thought. If he sold the proper number of futures, then he has a zero profit gain on the futures contract and his corn sales. A is flat on profit, but completely eliminated the price risk of corn moving against him. B is financially better off, and A is better off because he can sleep at night not having to worry about corn prices tumbling. VALUE HAS BEEN CREATED FOR BOTH SIDES.
Scenario 2) Corn decreased in price 10% at the expiration of the future. Person A made money on his future, which offset the reduced price he had to sell his corn again. He is flat on the future + selling corn. Again, he didn't have to worry about the price falling. Person B has lost 10% of his investment because his projection was wrong. A is flat but has no risk, B has lost money on his speculation. VALUES HAS BEEN CREATED FOR ONE SIDE. No matter what happens, A doesn't have to worry about price movements.
Without evil speculators, who is going to take the long position in the corn futures? Someone selling corn has no reason to double his exposure to corn prices by buying futures. You can't tell me pure market makers are going to do this because they don't want to hold onto the long futures any longer than necessary, and there is no one to sell them to without speculators. Financial markets like that only work because there are people with real reasons for buying something and there are people willing to speculate. To even link this more to the topic at hand, high frequency trading creates even more liquidity in the market and reduces bid/ask spreads. Fact.
But just mod me down for explaining what you don't want to hear. There is value in financial services and value is created through financial services.
No it's not, but they should add an option on your itunes account to be able to block in-app purchasing (if this isn't already there).
I only want the apple store to be able to charge me, is that too much to ask?
Stop complaining on Slashdot and get back to work!
Nothing really depressing about that. Just shows what a random insignificant piece of this whole puzzle we really are. Which is again not depressing, but rather amazing that we can do so much, given that fact. Sure we have limitations, but that's ok.
...to report that these child porn sites were taken down.
If it's caused by man, it might be more easy to reverse by man. If it's not caused by man, maybe man can't (or at least not as realistically) reverse it?
Seems rather important.
Look at the size of the thing. I do not see a tactical unit trundling something that big so that they can see 20m through a wall.
Yeah, look at the size of computers 40 years ago. We should have stopped the research then and blindly criticized because they were so big and not practical.
Give it a rest, yes it's big. For now.
Well aren't you so smart!
I don't know, the more appropriate explanation would have been "magic!".