hah, I didnt pay much attention to that part... I actually havent seen either of them. I did check netflix to try once, which is how I learned this, but never pursued it further./shrug
This speaks more towars the speculators having the ability to act on information. They stayed out of the way while prices dropped, and avoided buying high to sell low. Once things settled out, the market was down, and it is time to start buying and being in play as things went up.
the speculators trading each barrel many times over before it reaches its end point is definitely a problem , as they have the ability to influence the timing of a sale to be certain that they make money, or at least lose as little as possible.
taking delivery is not selling however. If a speculator has to actaully take it ( or find storage ) , then the cost of storing or shipping to another market has to be weighed against the loss that may have occured had prices dropped. Taking delivery doesnt mean that the supply has to be made available immediately. If there is enough cash available to the speculator, then they are not in a situation where they have to sell what has been delivered to them at current market rates.
I have noticed this on many netflix titles. If there is a good movie and a crappy sequel, only the crappy sequel is available to stream. Funny how this only stops me from using netflix to watch something that I am interested in.
i would agree with your last statement, there is more value to be milked if we stay within the current system. I am a proponent of changes to that system, but my vote counts much less than the people who are interested in keeping things as is.
Your list of price reduction items all require a long term implementation. None of these things would bring a noticeable change to the consumers daily life in the short term. Finding a reserve is much different than developing it, and bringing production to the world. There may be a quick dip in comodities pricing, but the pump price would ride high, and the typical slow price retreat may be seen. This would likely see only a modest reduction ( based on previous performance:)) The rest of the list would take a long time to mature into a market disrupting force in the same ways.
This would seem to be correct, but the article that has sparked this conversation is showing that increasing supply does not help. The supply seems to stay just below demand, which allows for a constant increase. Increased domestic drilling should increase global supply , and as it is outside of the OPEC manipulation, they would have to be reducing by the same amount as US increases for everything to remain static, assuming that the domestic increase accounts for more than the shift to the demand curve. the increase in the supply has to be doing something, or is so small that it is irrelevant ( which would really make me laugh at the politicians and pundits).
the interesting link here then is why the current market on gasoline only responds to the future expectation. We know what the current barrel of oil cost, what the transport and refining cost, and what the value is of the gas in the tank under the gas station. The selling price that it is set to is irrelevant to what its production cost was, it is set to a future speculation, which is as far in to the future as is required to give an excuse for the price.
or you would see more refined gas exported to other countries, and when that failed, you would see refineries shutting down. There is no reason for someone to lose money in this game. If your bet is that the price will go up, and you control the markets, the price will go up.
or maybe just convince people that they have to use your money to buy something that everyone needs, such as oil. If anyone refuses this, then you could invade them with your guns and enslave them. That is way too far out to think it could happen in the real world though.
The original point of this type of buyer was to assist farmers throughout the year. The farmers have a very difficult time as their product only sells once a year ( for simplicitys sake) and at the same time as all other farmers. This causes the market to flood, and the price to drop dramatically. The speculators could buy and store product and smooth out the release to market while allowing the farmers to receive the capital they need in return for their efforts to continue their production.
When this system was originally set up, there was a rule that there could be only one trader per farmer in the market, to avoid traders selling to traders and artificially raising the prices of the goods.
Oil should not be traded this way, as the supply is created consistently, and the market needs much less of this smoothing effect. The regulators that were to watch over commodities markets get shit on on a regular basis as the law makers get purchased by the massive amount of cash that the traders bring.
We could be at a point that even if demand fell off, the traders who last purchased the oil have enough cash that they dont have to actually sell it, they can just wait until demand picks bak up, and always sell high. The other option is have a bubble in the price, and leave the rest of the population holding the stocks when the price falls out, so the traders get theirs, and the people who managed to remove demand and drop the price take the loss ( sort of like housing speculation).
there have been documented cases where the global demand has gone down and the global supply has gone up, and yet the prices have increased. There is something else at work beyond simple supply and demand.
I think the idea is that if you have aspirin in your system during the attack, then you have better odds. If you take it every day, then you have a chance of having aspirin in you system at the time of the heart attack.
but why start at 79? If this started at a round 80, then that covers all things starting with 8. If it starts with 81, then we are just shifting a year to start with a familiar 1 within the decade. When a 10 year period is chosen that starts with an odd point, I instantly want to see the source data to know what may lie on the cusp that could be making the speaker's point more or less interesting.
I am not sure why these random sets of ten years were chosen, but as the second set doubled the first set, then being 2/3 of the way to the previous total in 3 years is pretty much on track to match the first growth rate.
there used to be a tactic (not sure if it is still applied) where DEA would put a sign up saying drug enforcement checkpoint 2 miles. This would be about a half a mile before an exit. The checkpoint didnt exist, but there would be plenty of DEA at the top of the next exit, waiting for any suspicious looking types that may be attempting to dodge a checkpoint.
The cops would tell you that the search is occuring under probable cause. I agree with you that it is utter bullshit, but the fact is, a cop can claim probable cause if you are wearing boots or a hat (both provide room to hide something). They can lean on their training, say that they noticed something, and began asking questions. This then led to the discovery of contraband, which proves the initial probable cause justified. If you try to defend against this, then you are calling into question the training of ALL police officers, and you are not going very far with that in the court system. If you win, all evidence that leaned on the training of police that was ever admitted to court just became questionable.
I have passed through these Texas checkpoints mulitple times, all many years ago. The last time I was in a car by myself, with Georgia plates. I was in my early 20s, with dreadlocks. It was amazing that the 3 or 4 cars ahead of me got waved through and probably didnt get below 10 mph, while I got pointed at and motioned to pull to the side. The search was on at that point. They wanted to take everything in my car apart, and I asked for the dogs as I had a long way to go and wanted to spend as little time as possible in their company. I got pulled over 3 more times in the next 40 miles, and avoided more searches by asking each cop to call back to the border patrol.
there are videos on how to avoid trouble with cops during a conversation. Keep the doors locked, only open the window as little as possible. be polite, but dont do anything that gives a good view, or can be claimed as giving a good view. If done correctly then at least your lawyer can poke holes in the search.
you're right. I can go into my photo app and choose share, then choose either picasa or G+. I saw the dialog, but didnt go further. My original issue still stands where the image is automatically sent to G+, and then lost in a pile. Why send it up if the best way to share is to manually send it using a (potentially) different program. I will change my auto setting now, and take a look to see if picasa has any purpose as a standalone app/link on my phone now. thanks...
this exactly. When I see google+ on a pc browser, and it tells me that my photos have auto-uploaded, it still isnt easy to quickly grab a pic and share it out or bury it. Apparently this all has effects on other picasa albums, and as I was never a picasa user I dont have anything set up for sharing permissions and such. This just seems like such an easy things to integrate into the phone camera that would make me want to use the service, and instead it only annoys me.
The other big fail for me is that it offers me to connect to any and every contact that google can connect me to, whether they are a member or not. To me that is just shameless connection of me to people that I know that may not be interested in being tracked this way. I havent tried to add people to circles in months because of this.
There is no way to prove that the disk being copied is yours! Of course, somebody is providing physical media in this case, unlike torrents that are just outright stolen and distributed without any restriction. It is amazing the lengths that these people can go to that do no good at all for protecting their cause.
Given that the info is released by the organization that arranged the action ( and could therefore get some big negative publicity for it ) , I dont think I trust the number at all.
Slashdot Mirror
unfortunately, the president and congresspeople who created this organization swore that pledge also.
Otherwise I agree with you.
hah, I didnt pay much attention to that part... I actually havent seen either of them. I did check netflix to try once, which is how I learned this, but never pursued it further. /shrug
This speaks more towars the speculators having the ability to act on information. They stayed out of the way while prices dropped, and avoided buying high to sell low. Once things settled out, the market was down, and it is time to start buying and being in play as things went up.
the speculators trading each barrel many times over before it reaches its end point is definitely a problem , as they have the ability to influence the timing of a sale to be certain that they make money, or at least lose as little as possible.
taking delivery is not selling however. If a speculator has to actaully take it ( or find storage ) , then the cost of storing or shipping to another market has to be weighed against the loss that may have occured had prices dropped. Taking delivery doesnt mean that the supply has to be made available immediately. If there is enough cash available to the speculator, then they are not in a situation where they have to sell what has been delivered to them at current market rates.
I have noticed this on many netflix titles. If there is a good movie and a crappy sequel, only the crappy sequel is available to stream. Funny how this only stops me from using netflix to watch something that I am interested in.
i would agree with your last statement, there is more value to be milked if we stay within the current system. I am a proponent of changes to that system, but my vote counts much less than the people who are interested in keeping things as is.
Your list of price reduction items all require a long term implementation. None of these things would bring a noticeable change to the consumers daily life in the short term. Finding a reserve is much different than developing it, and bringing production to the world. There may be a quick dip in comodities pricing, but the pump price would ride high, and the typical slow price retreat may be seen. This would likely see only a modest reduction ( based on previous performance :)) The rest of the list would take a long time to mature into a market disrupting force in the same ways.
This would seem to be correct, but the article that has sparked this conversation is showing that increasing supply does not help. The supply seems to stay just below demand, which allows for a constant increase. Increased domestic drilling should increase global supply , and as it is outside of the OPEC manipulation, they would have to be reducing by the same amount as US increases for everything to remain static, assuming that the domestic increase accounts for more than the shift to the demand curve. the increase in the supply has to be doing something, or is so small that it is irrelevant ( which would really make me laugh at the politicians and pundits).
the interesting link here then is why the current market on gasoline only responds to the future expectation. We know what the current barrel of oil cost, what the transport and refining cost, and what the value is of the gas in the tank under the gas station. The selling price that it is set to is irrelevant to what its production cost was, it is set to a future speculation, which is as far in to the future as is required to give an excuse for the price.
or you would see more refined gas exported to other countries, and when that failed, you would see refineries shutting down. There is no reason for someone to lose money in this game. If your bet is that the price will go up, and you control the markets, the price will go up.
or maybe just convince people that they have to use your money to buy something that everyone needs, such as oil. If anyone refuses this, then you could invade them with your guns and enslave them. That is way too far out to think it could happen in the real world though.
The original point of this type of buyer was to assist farmers throughout the year. The farmers have a very difficult time as their product only sells once a year ( for simplicitys sake) and at the same time as all other farmers. This causes the market to flood, and the price to drop dramatically. The speculators could buy and store product and smooth out the release to market while allowing the farmers to receive the capital they need in return for their efforts to continue their production.
When this system was originally set up, there was a rule that there could be only one trader per farmer in the market, to avoid traders selling to traders and artificially raising the prices of the goods.
Oil should not be traded this way, as the supply is created consistently, and the market needs much less of this smoothing effect. The regulators that were to watch over commodities markets get shit on on a regular basis as the law makers get purchased by the massive amount of cash that the traders bring.
We could be at a point that even if demand fell off, the traders who last purchased the oil have enough cash that they dont have to actually sell it, they can just wait until demand picks bak up, and always sell high. The other option is have a bubble in the price, and leave the rest of the population holding the stocks when the price falls out, so the traders get theirs, and the people who managed to remove demand and drop the price take the loss ( sort of like housing speculation).
there have been documented cases where the global demand has gone down and the global supply has gone up, and yet the prices have increased. There is something else at work beyond simple supply and demand.
I think the idea is that if you have aspirin in your system during the attack, then you have better odds. If you take it every day, then you have a chance of having aspirin in you system at the time of the heart attack.
but why start at 79? If this started at a round 80, then that covers all things starting with 8. If it starts with 81, then we are just shifting a year to start with a familiar 1 within the decade. When a 10 year period is chosen that starts with an odd point, I instantly want to see the source data to know what may lie on the cusp that could be making the speaker's point more or less interesting.
I am not sure why these random sets of ten years were chosen, but as the second set doubled the first set, then being 2/3 of the way to the previous total in 3 years is pretty much on track to match the first growth rate.
I dont think all of this list is finished, but they have almost stopped the sluts from taking birth control
there used to be a tactic (not sure if it is still applied) where DEA would put a sign up saying drug enforcement checkpoint 2 miles. This would be about a half a mile before an exit. The checkpoint didnt exist, but there would be plenty of DEA at the top of the next exit, waiting for any suspicious looking types that may be attempting to dodge a checkpoint.
I am just glad that these zones dont propagate out from international airports. The ratio would approach 100% real fast.
The cops would tell you that the search is occuring under probable cause. I agree with you that it is utter bullshit, but the fact is, a cop can claim probable cause if you are wearing boots or a hat (both provide room to hide something). They can lean on their training, say that they noticed something, and began asking questions. This then led to the discovery of contraband, which proves the initial probable cause justified. If you try to defend against this, then you are calling into question the training of ALL police officers, and you are not going very far with that in the court system. If you win, all evidence that leaned on the training of police that was ever admitted to court just became questionable.
I have passed through these Texas checkpoints mulitple times, all many years ago. The last time I was in a car by myself, with Georgia plates. I was in my early 20s, with dreadlocks. It was amazing that the 3 or 4 cars ahead of me got waved through and probably didnt get below 10 mph, while I got pointed at and motioned to pull to the side. The search was on at that point. They wanted to take everything in my car apart, and I asked for the dogs as I had a long way to go and wanted to spend as little time as possible in their company. I got pulled over 3 more times in the next 40 miles, and avoided more searches by asking each cop to call back to the border patrol.
there are videos on how to avoid trouble with cops during a conversation. Keep the doors locked, only open the window as little as possible. be polite, but dont do anything that gives a good view, or can be claimed as giving a good view. If done correctly then at least your lawyer can poke holes in the search.
you're right. I can go into my photo app and choose share, then choose either picasa or G+. I saw the dialog, but didnt go further. My original issue still stands where the image is automatically sent to G+, and then lost in a pile. Why send it up if the best way to share is to manually send it using a (potentially) different program. I will change my auto setting now, and take a look to see if picasa has any purpose as a standalone app/link on my phone now.
thanks...
this exactly. When I see google+ on a pc browser, and it tells me that my photos have auto-uploaded, it still isnt easy to quickly grab a pic and share it out or bury it. Apparently this all has effects on other picasa albums, and as I was never a picasa user I dont have anything set up for sharing permissions and such. This just seems like such an easy things to integrate into the phone camera that would make me want to use the service, and instead it only annoys me.
The other big fail for me is that it offers me to connect to any and every contact that google can connect me to, whether they are a member or not. To me that is just shameless connection of me to people that I know that may not be interested in being tracked this way. I havent tried to add people to circles in months because of this.
well, it is a triangle that is curved into a ball, obviously
for some torrents this is true.
There is no way to prove that the disk being copied is yours! Of course, somebody is providing physical media in this case, unlike torrents that are just outright stolen and distributed without any restriction. It is amazing the lengths that these people can go to that do no good at all for protecting their cause.
Given that the info is released by the organization that arranged the action ( and could therefore get some big negative publicity for it ) , I dont think I trust the number at all.