I am not a trader. Trading is a fool's game. Short term stock valuations are basically a random walk, which is what you are trying to exploit. The fact is only about 15% of traders exceed market performance when trading costs are factored in at for any one year. Worse yet actively managed portfolios show NO correlation in performance from year to year and are tax inefficient as well. You might be successful for a few years if you are lucky, but time catches up to even the Bill Millers and Peter Lynchs. The big hedge funds with their high paid managers are the worst of all - ridiculous costs and terrible performance. Some of them famously went BK, Long Term Capital Management, staffed by Nobel Laureates. MF Global run by an ex-Goldman CEO.
What works reliably is diversification, cost minimization and time, which yields this:
I don't care if an individual stock goes boom. I don't put a significant percentage of my money in any one company. And I am certainly not hopping from stock to stock like the boobs on CNBC would have you do.
And it isn't about buy and hold. It's about realizing what the statistics of the broad market are, and moving from one asset class to another to when your diversification becomes unbalanced due to valuation changes. For example in 2009 I was buying hand over fist because my bonds were up and stocks were down.
Now let's look at your ridiculous suggestion that the value of a stock is completely unrelated to the financial strength of a company. Suppose a company's value goes to zero, i.e. it goes bankrupt. What is it's value then? 0. So in fact there is a clearly demonstrable relationship at least at one point.
The stock market is not gambling. Gambling a zero sum game where participants obtain a percentage of the result minus the house take.
The stock market is a positive sum game, which if you are smart about using low trading cost strategies to participate you will get about a 7% annual return on your investment. Of course the standard deviation of this is large, but none the less that's what it's been for the past 200 years.
While there is a lot of noise in the signal studies are out there which show the value of individual stocks approximates the time discounted future earnings of companies.
There are boat loads of economic models of this going back almost 100 years. Here is one:
This article is preposterous. 100 milliseiverts is the lowest level for which there is believed to be an increased risk long term of getting cancer. The increase in rate is believed to be about 2%.
Now for the adult population the rate of thyroid cancer is about 1% of all cancers, or.25% of the population.
Throw in the fact that the cure rate for thyroid cancer is 95% or so and it is apparent that the odds of any of these people dying from this exposure is quite small.
There was a time when people were surprised by the frenetic pace of baseball.
"It is a game which is peculiarly suited to the American temperament and disposition; the nine innings are played in the brief space of two and one half hours, or less."
Human beings have a fundamental ethical duty to treat each other with respect.
When this breaks down all sorts of horrors follow. The Belmont Study arose from some situations where lack of respect and lack of autonomy were coincidental.
What Linus is doing is unethical. While the individuals he is treating this way are not likely to suffer significantly because they generally have good autonomy, it is still unethical.
IP law is one facet of the law that governs private property. There are other, much older forms of IP than the statutory copyright and patent law we have today. That being trade secrets and common law copyright. The Founders recognized that modern patent and copyright law is a significant improvement over the older IP law.
The recognition of the special benefits of these relatively new forms of IP law (at the time of the Founding of the Republic) is one of the reasons there is a special clause in the Constitution. Trade secrets are bound to contract law so you are pretty unlikely to be able to get rid of that aspect of personal property law. The issue of Copyright law over-riding common law copyrights was a large point of contention some hundreds of years ago. It might interesting to see if common law copyrights would become possible again if statutory copyrights were abolished. But I would not advise taking on that experiment.
You ask why have government regulate it? Well there is a history behind it. If you think current forms of IP are bad, you might want to consider that common law copyright and trade secrets have no expiration, and in the case of trade secret there is no disclosure requirement.
There are other aspects to this too. While correlation does not imply causation, modern patent law has been adopted by industrial societies almost universally. And the industrial revolution (really only the second major advance in human prosperity, after the development of agriculture) immediately followed the development of patent law in England. While you can argue that it was a coincidence, it is very important to consider that it may NOT have been a coincidence before you abolish it.
> When laws exist that effectively preclude the poor from gaining wealth, we now have inequality in the law, and that is what the article describes.
Much of law defines the property and the rights of property owners. All of this prevents the poor from gaining wealth, and is inequitable in that the poor don't benefit from it. However personal property is also regarded as one of the Inalienable Rights bestowed on man by the Creator by the Founders of this nation.
IP law is just one facet of this. The idea that it is any different in this regard is preposterous.
IP law's justification is that it encourages the development of the useful arts. It is important to realize that progress in technology is the ONLY proven way to increase the standard of living. As such any institution that can be shown to accomplish this end deserves a special place in society. The Founders recognized this and gave it special status in the Constitution of the United States of America.
If it can be shown these laws are ineffective toward this goal they should be abolished. If they are shown to be inefficient they need to be made efficient. But the idea that they are unreasonable based on equity is not reasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think we've gotten around to charging the bereaved families for the bullets. Yet.
Posit two things that are really not measurable (spatial ability and creativity) and then suggest they are correlated.
A whole lot of rainbows and moonbeams on this one.
I am not a trader. Trading is a fool's game. Short term stock valuations are basically a random walk, which is what you are trying to exploit. The fact is only about 15% of traders exceed market performance when trading costs are factored in at for any one year. Worse yet actively managed portfolios show NO correlation in performance from year to year and are tax inefficient as well. You might be successful for a few years if you are lucky, but time catches up to even the Bill Millers and Peter Lynchs. The big hedge funds with their high paid managers are the worst of all - ridiculous costs and terrible performance. Some of them famously went BK, Long Term Capital Management, staffed by Nobel Laureates. MF Global run by an ex-Goldman CEO.
What works reliably is diversification, cost minimization and time, which yields this:
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histretSP.html
I don't care if an individual stock goes boom. I don't put a significant percentage of my money in any one company. And I am certainly not hopping from stock to stock like the boobs on CNBC would have you do.
And it isn't about buy and hold. It's about realizing what the statistics of the broad market are, and moving from one asset class to another to when your diversification becomes unbalanced due to valuation changes. For example in 2009 I was buying hand over fist because my bonds were up and stocks were down.
Now let's look at your ridiculous suggestion that the value of a stock is completely unrelated to the financial strength of a company. Suppose a company's value goes to zero, i.e. it goes bankrupt. What is it's value then? 0. So in fact there is a clearly demonstrable relationship at least at one point.
The stock market is not gambling. Gambling a zero sum game where participants obtain a percentage of the result minus the house take.
The stock market is a positive sum game, which if you are smart about using low trading cost strategies to participate you will get about a 7% annual return on your investment. Of course the standard deviation of this is large, but none the less that's what it's been for the past 200 years.
While there is a lot of noise in the signal studies are out there which show the value of individual stocks approximates the time discounted future earnings of companies.
There are boat loads of economic models of this going back almost 100 years. Here is one:
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/28288/0000041.pdf
The idea that stock prices are not related to the worth of the company is not supportable at all.
Not being able to discern pixels is wasting information.
It's a nice aesthetic effect but if you are looking at text or examining an image for critical purposes you want to be able to discern pixels.
This article is preposterous. 100 milliseiverts is the lowest level for which there is believed to be an increased risk long term of getting cancer. The increase in rate is believed to be about 2%.
Now for the adult population the rate of thyroid cancer is about 1% of all cancers, or .25% of the population.
Throw in the fact that the cure rate for thyroid cancer is 95% or so and it is apparent that the odds of any of these people dying from this exposure is quite small.
China owns about 8% of the US debt.
US debt is about 80% owned by the US.
That's the point. 31" is really too small for 4K. My 30" 2560x1600 has plenty of pixel density.
What I really want is a 60 Hz 40" IPS 4K monitor.
Problem:
1. Too much CO2
2. Too much waste heat from power generation
Solution:
1. Fewer people
2. Move earth further out from sun
3. Reflect sunlight
There was a time when people were surprised by the frenetic pace of baseball.
"It is a game which is peculiarly suited to the American temperament and disposition; the nine innings are played in the brief space of two and one half hours, or less."
All of the cars that I've purchased in the past 20 years come with a valet key.
I wonder what would happen if you used that?
That was common in western cultures in the 17th and 18th centuries.
It's why the Constitution has a prohibition against it in Article 3 under treason:
"no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
Comfy.
Carter had this little problem. He told the truth. He didn't secretly swap arms for hostages.
These sorts of things don't make you popular as President.
This article would not have appeared in print in those regimes.
It makes a very big difference if you have an independent judiciary that can trow cases out based on this sort of behavior.
Which has happened.
The deadliest poisons are organic products.
Botulitim
Ricin
Dart Frog Venom
Beaked Sea Snake Venom
Strychnine
Amatoxin
Fiddleback Spider Venom
worth of donations?
Let me guess. $100,000 worth of Surface Pros and Windows Phones that retailers have been unable to sell.
Give me a break $100,000 is nothing. This is a problem that requires far more work.
I wonder when Paypal will stop processing donations to the EFF.
The Belmont Study provides profound guidance on this topic.
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/belmont.html#xrespect
Human beings have a fundamental ethical duty to treat each other with respect.
When this breaks down all sorts of horrors follow. The Belmont Study arose from some situations where lack of respect and lack of autonomy were coincidental.
What Linus is doing is unethical. While the individuals he is treating this way are not likely to suffer significantly because they generally have good autonomy, it is still unethical.
IP law is one facet of the law that governs private property. There are other, much older forms of IP than the statutory copyright and patent law we have today. That being trade secrets and common law copyright. The Founders recognized that modern patent and copyright law is a significant improvement over the older IP law.
The recognition of the special benefits of these relatively new forms of IP law (at the time of the Founding of the Republic) is one of the reasons there is a special clause in the Constitution. Trade secrets are bound to contract law so you are pretty unlikely to be able to get rid of that aspect of personal property law. The issue of Copyright law over-riding common law copyrights was a large point of contention some hundreds of years ago. It might interesting to see if common law copyrights would become possible again if statutory copyrights were abolished. But I would not advise taking on that experiment.
You ask why have government regulate it? Well there is a history behind it. If you think current forms of IP are bad, you might want to consider that common law copyright and trade secrets have no expiration, and in the case of trade secret there is no disclosure requirement.
There are other aspects to this too. While correlation does not imply causation, modern patent law has been adopted by industrial societies almost universally. And the industrial revolution (really only the second major advance in human prosperity, after the development of agriculture) immediately followed the development of patent law in England. While you can argue that it was a coincidence, it is very important to consider that it may NOT have been a coincidence before you abolish it.
> When laws exist that effectively preclude the poor from gaining wealth, we now have inequality in the law, and that is what the article describes.
Much of law defines the property and the rights of property owners. All of this prevents the poor from gaining wealth, and is inequitable in that the poor don't benefit from it. However personal property is also regarded as one of the Inalienable Rights bestowed on man by the Creator by the Founders of this nation.
IP law is just one facet of this. The idea that it is any different in this regard is preposterous.
IP law's justification is that it encourages the development of the useful arts. It is important to realize that progress in technology is the ONLY proven way to increase the standard of living. As such any institution that can be shown to accomplish this end deserves a special place in society. The Founders recognized this and gave it special status in the Constitution of the United States of America.
If it can be shown these laws are ineffective toward this goal they should be abolished. If they are shown to be inefficient they need to be made efficient. But the idea that they are unreasonable based on equity is not reasonable.
Lots of channel options, the new UI is pretty simple and it should integrate well with an HD TV.
I don't like the Ipad for this - 10" screen is too small to share watching a film with a spouse.
Another good option would be a smart TV.
Either way you are gathering more data, not less.
The analogy this article is based on is not valid.
No-fly lists aren't a test. It's more like a vaccine which we don't know what the positive effects of. The negatives are well publicized though.