Haha...no. I sometimes fish Kingfish tournaments with some friends of mine. Luckily one of them owns his own company and can foot most of the bill because there is no way I can handle the cost alone. Quick back of the napkin:
$200k 32ft center console boat (includes motors and electronics) ~$1k/fishing rod and we use 6 of them $100s in bait and other tackle
We fished last weekend and used 300 gallons in gas ($900) and 2 dozen blue runners (live bait fish) that are about $15-$25 each. You can do it cheaper with a smaller boat and cheaper tackle, but that can limit the spots you can fish and thus limit your chances of winning. Speaking of winning, a first place in a tournament can win you $10k - $30k. Get enough points through the season and you get invited to a national tournament where you can win a $200k or so boat. In the end we were fishing a lot for 'fun' before so started doing tournaments to add the excitement.:)
It always amazes me how much time/effort/money people will put into their hobbies.
5k/year for a hobby actually isn't too bad when it comes to hobbies. The time he puts in is probably above and beyond most other hobbies though.
It's funny because I was just talking to a friend about a 'hobby' I and some friends do and he was floored at the cost. Got me thinking it might be time to find a new, cheaper hobby lol...
I have books from Karl Marx, Rand, Smith, etc... what does that make me? 'Studies' like the one above mostly deal with extremes. The super liberal or gun toting militant conservative. The problem is that most people are somewhere in the middle. When pushed very few people agree with everything one side or the other is for or against.
Why are you against better healthcare for less money?
No one is against that! You're starting with a faulty premise that socialized medicine will lead to better healthcare for less money. Given the track record of anything the government does, many people are suspicious of that claim.
as Katrina, the stock market collapse and socialized medicine providing better care for less money keep proving.
Huh? Katrina problems were caused by waaay too much government bureaucracy. A smaller more nimble government would have been able to mobilize much better than it did. Instead you have large state government pointing at large fed government and then everyone in between pointing at everyone else. Fail.
The stock market collapse could have been avoided with smaller government (well more like government not meddling where it doesn't belong, ie, in the mortgage market). Cheap money (gov. caused), the 'american dream' (gov. caused), and unlimited mortgages (again gov. caused) have led to this down turn. Read up on how FNM and FRE pushed everyone else out of the mortgage buying/underwriting market. Since they were backed by big gov. they could offer rates below market to people who normally wouldn't qualify. And here we are with record default rate. Fail.
As far as the health care thing goes, I haven't seen any proof that the gov. would actually do a better job than we have now. Countries who offer universal health care have long waiting lists to get simple things done. Is it overall cheaper? I'm not sure how it could be unless we start paying doctors less, lower malpractice insurance premiums or put price caps on meds. I would argue doing any of those things will end up leading to less quality care. I also have a problem thinking that people in this country currently aren't getting healthcare. That's crap too. Emergency healthcare is pretty much guaranteed by law. I wish I could find it online, but a study followed 3 people and looked at their healthcare. The person that came out the best was the illegal alien with no insurance (above a student with minimal insurance and a working woman with 'full' coverage). We may not have 'socialized' medicine today, but we apparently have enough to take care of someone who no insurance and no ability to pay any bills.
This has been baffling me for a while now. Why would you deliberately elect someone into office who doesn't understand what government does or how to use it effectively?
Effective and government in the same sentence? You have to be kidding. FNM and FRE should give you a clue about the ineffectiveness of government. People like to ignore that FNM and FRE pretty much killed the private market for buying mortgages. Everyone assumed that FNM and FRE would be gov. backstopped (which they were), and they offered lower rates than anyone else. They also bought any loan under they 411k, nearly regardless of risk (also b/c they were gov. backed). Of course this helped further the gov. agenda of 'everyone deserves a house regardless of if they can actually pay for it.'
How long do you expect to wait for private enterprise to properly maintain roads and bridges or put out fires?
Strawman argument. I didn't say no government, just less government (and especially less Federal government). Move the majority of power back to the states and towns so that the people can get back to governing themselves.
Why are you "anti-taxes". Taxes do a lot of good things.
I'm not anti-taxes per se, just anti unnecessary tax (and most of those end up being federal in nature). I'm glad you used roads are your example. State roads are generally paid for from state and local taxes. The highway system is also the responsibility of the state, but the federal government gives them money to help. The kicker is that this money is yours and mine to begin with, yet the state must jump through hoops and satisfy other conditions (drinking ages, speed limits, other randoms) to get the money back. Then of course the 'management' of said money means some gov official gets their cut. So between the provisions the states must agree to get their money back and the fed cut you now have less states rights and more fed control over the states. IMHO, that is a bad thing since each state knows better how it needs to be governed (think Texas is not CA).
You also used local services as your example. These are paid with local taxes (again something I think is fine).
The federal government should only be collecting money for defense of the nation and other national services. Instead they use taxes they collect as a hammer to make the states do as they want. IMHO, the closer government is to the people being governed the better, so I would much rather have the city or state dealing with taxes rather than the federal government.
I'm also following your basic reasoning. I want a fiscal conservative in the white house. Bush has been a disaster in this regard, but I have a feeling Obama will manage to outspend even him (if that's possible). If you watch or read any of Ron Pauls interviews on our current financial mess he's been spot on the whole time. He is the only candidate that I've seen that even has a clue about the economics of our country.
As far as the other elections I'm voting anti-incumbent across the board. It's time for a real change (an no, Obama isn't anymore change than McCain regardless of what he wants you to believe), and the only way to get it is to remove who is up there and try someone new. Plus I'm still irked they let this whole bailout package go through.
I agree! Where is my smaller government candidate? I don't think those actually exist anymore. I'll probably just end up writing in Ron Paul, not because I believe in everything he says and wants to do, but he's the only one who has shown he as ANY clue about the current financial mess we're in.
If you assume that naked shorting wasn't allowed you can never have more shares shorted than are outstanding on the stock.
The main issue that you're describing though is known as a short squeeze. Shares of a stock are generally always available to buy, but you may have to pay a higher price to get them. When all of the shorts cover the act of covering can itself drive up the stock price. This upward movement is known as the short squeeze. Take a look at what happened to Volkswagon stock last week. So many shorts covered at once it pushed the stock up 50-60% in a day.
So anyway, in all that time I have never once dropped a laptop.
I agree. The only time I've come close to 'dropping' a laptop was when I tripped over the power cord of an old Dell. All the macs have the magnetic cord which pretty much means tripping over it has been eliminated.
Short selling also gives investors who think a stock is overpriced a way to express that thought. The SEC has found through small studies that allowing short sales does help the stock reach an 'efficient' price at a faster rate.
Keep in mind I'm talking about actual short selling and not naked short selling.
I would think that you need to first find a open source project that interests you. If you lack the interest you won't want to work on it your free time. Second, find a project that is active. It doesn't have to be a huge project, but you want one that has active users and developers. After that get on the mailing list/bug lists and start tracking down bugs. Fix the bugs if you can. If can't, ask the mailing list how you can help by documenting where in the code the bug exists (most bug reports are from a users standpoint so simply finding where in the code the bug is located can be a huge help). If you're polite, listen, and are helpful people will want to work with you.
Who cares if Clinton got a BJ. He and Hilary both have a lot of other skeletons in their closets. What I'm saying is that they all do from both parties. If Palin using a personal email account for gov. business and using her influence to get someone fired pisses you off, then be consistent in your views to everyone across all parties. If you do that you quickly realize that few if any elected officials would be people you could vote for.
Both sides are full of hypocrites and it makes me sick. The only way a change can occur is if everyone wakes up and quits thinking their 'side' is the best (b/c it sure as hell isn't much different than the other 'side').
Good point and one a lot of balding guys fail to realize. If you don't look good or can't pick up girls bald more than likely you won't be able to with hair either. 'Sexy' has nothing to do with the hair on your head.
About 20 years ago, I could see that I was going to go bald like my dad did, and I decided to just live with it. No drugs, plugs, or rugs.
I agree! My dad was one of the 1:7 who was clearly going bald in his late teens, early 20s. I've ended up being one of the 3:7 who have some hair loss at 31, but it's not something you notice when you see me (and I keep my hair fairly short already). I just can never grow the really long hair again that I had when I was in HS and college, which is something I wouldn't do anyways.
When the day comes that I'm noticeably balding, I'll shave my head. I never even realized baldness was that big of deal until I started seeing those sunday morning infomercials.
Now, if they could find the gene to stop the hair from growing on the back of my neck and other random places I'd be all for that! lol
Of course a small penis is a disease. A minor one at first sight, but it can lower people's self-esteem and cause severe psychological diseases, such as depression.
This sort of thing needs to be punished wherever it's found and "everyone does it" is just not an excuse.
I'm with you here. Lets start with a full investigation into Obama and his various real estate dealings with Resco. Next we can take a look at Clinton and the crooks he pardoned his last day in office. Bush has plenty of his own dealings we can investigate further also.
is this the same woman who apparently pressured a state employee to sack someone to keep her relatives happy?
I'm not defending her at all, but this sort of cronyism happens all the time. Boards and CEOs, politicians, kids and their parents, police, etc... If this sort of thing bothers you that much then there probably isn't anyone left that you can, in good conscience, vote for. This country is in a sad state of affairs and in all reality neither candidate that we've been given the choice between is going to fix anything.
Someone who finally has a clue. I've traveled a lot since 9/11 and have never had a problem taking my laptop anywhere. Customs agents ask you a few questions and then generally move you along.
And even in professional sports it's not set by the government. The owners and players often agree to some cap on a per team basis. Sports like baseball have a 'soft' cap where you can spend all you want, but have to pay a luxury tax.
I might have to take my entire savings and dump into GS since they'll most likely be running our entire financial system when this is all said and done. LOL
The department announced that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson had appointed Neel Kashkari to oversee the Troubled Assets Relief Program and the newly created Office of Financial Stability.Kashkari, a former executive at Goldman Sachs, is currently the assistant secretary of the Treasury for International Economics and Development.
That's hardly the case. I used to work for derivatives traders, and I still have plenty of pals in the industry. The ones I've talked to aren't worried at all. They're certainly irritated that they have to help pay for bailouts of people who are worse risk managers than them, but they aren't particularly worried.
True, and I was mostly talking about the big financials. I have friends who are currency traders and they are doing fine, accept that their leverage has been cut back quite a bit. Currency trading usually relies on that leverage, but they are making it work.
But there's a risk of systemic failure that goes well beyond what a normal correction would bring. Winding things down gracefully is a lot less traumatic (and a lot less expensive) than doing it all in one go because credit suddenly evaporates. That was the lesson learned in the Great Depression, and although we one day might have to re-learn it, I doubt it will be under Bernanke.
Worrying about a GD style meltdown at this point is a little late. Where was Bernanke when FNM and FRE were going to town buying up subprime loans? Where were they when CA, FL, and others had house prices going up 20%/year b/c of not just lax lending standard, but no lending standards at all? Wait, money was being made to the tune of Billions of dollars for all their buddies so it's okay to look away. I'm no economic genius, but it wasn't hard to see years ago what the end was going to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Haha...no. I sometimes fish Kingfish tournaments with some friends of mine. Luckily one of them owns his own company and can foot most of the bill because there is no way I can handle the cost alone. Quick back of the napkin:
$200k 32ft center console boat (includes motors and electronics)
~$1k/fishing rod and we use 6 of them
$100s in bait and other tackle
We fished last weekend and used 300 gallons in gas ($900) and 2 dozen blue runners (live bait fish) that are about $15-$25 each. You can do it cheaper with a smaller boat and cheaper tackle, but that can limit the spots you can fish and thus limit your chances of winning. Speaking of winning, a first place in a tournament can win you $10k - $30k. Get enough points through the season and you get invited to a national tournament where you can win a $200k or so boat. In the end we were fishing a lot for 'fun' before so started doing tournaments to add the excitement. :)
5k/year for a hobby actually isn't too bad when it comes to hobbies. The time he puts in is probably above and beyond most other hobbies though.
It's funny because I was just talking to a friend about a 'hobby' I and some friends do and he was floored at the cost. Got me thinking it might be time to find a new, cheaper hobby lol...
I have books from Karl Marx, Rand, Smith, etc... what does that make me? 'Studies' like the one above mostly deal with extremes. The super liberal or gun toting militant conservative. The problem is that most people are somewhere in the middle. When pushed very few people agree with everything one side or the other is for or against.
No one is against that! You're starting with a faulty premise that socialized medicine will lead to better healthcare for less money. Given the track record of anything the government does, many people are suspicious of that claim.
Huh? Katrina problems were caused by waaay too much government bureaucracy. A smaller more nimble government would have been able to mobilize much better than it did. Instead you have large state government pointing at large fed government and then everyone in between pointing at everyone else. Fail.
The stock market collapse could have been avoided with smaller government (well more like government not meddling where it doesn't belong, ie, in the mortgage market). Cheap money (gov. caused), the 'american dream' (gov. caused), and unlimited mortgages (again gov. caused) have led to this down turn. Read up on how FNM and FRE pushed everyone else out of the mortgage buying/underwriting market. Since they were backed by big gov. they could offer rates below market to people who normally wouldn't qualify. And here we are with record default rate. Fail.
As far as the health care thing goes, I haven't seen any proof that the gov. would actually do a better job than we have now. Countries who offer universal health care have long waiting lists to get simple things done. Is it overall cheaper? I'm not sure how it could be unless we start paying doctors less, lower malpractice insurance premiums or put price caps on meds. I would argue doing any of those things will end up leading to less quality care. I also have a problem thinking that people in this country currently aren't getting healthcare. That's crap too. Emergency healthcare is pretty much guaranteed by law. I wish I could find it online, but a study followed 3 people and looked at their healthcare. The person that came out the best was the illegal alien with no insurance (above a student with minimal insurance and a working woman with 'full' coverage). We may not have 'socialized' medicine today, but we apparently have enough to take care of someone who no insurance and no ability to pay any bills.
Effective and government in the same sentence? You have to be kidding. FNM and FRE should give you a clue about the ineffectiveness of government. People like to ignore that FNM and FRE pretty much killed the private market for buying mortgages. Everyone assumed that FNM and FRE would be gov. backstopped (which they were), and they offered lower rates than anyone else. They also bought any loan under they 411k, nearly regardless of risk (also b/c they were gov. backed). Of course this helped further the gov. agenda of 'everyone deserves a house regardless of if they can actually pay for it.'
Strawman argument. I didn't say no government, just less government (and especially less Federal government). Move the majority of power back to the states and towns so that the people can get back to governing themselves.
I'm not anti-taxes per se, just anti unnecessary tax (and most of those end up being federal in nature). I'm glad you used roads are your example. State roads are generally paid for from state and local taxes. The highway system is also the responsibility of the state, but the federal government gives them money to help. The kicker is that this money is yours and mine to begin with, yet the state must jump through hoops and satisfy other conditions (drinking ages, speed limits, other randoms) to get the money back. Then of course the 'management' of said money means some gov official gets their cut. So between the provisions the states must agree to get their money back and the fed cut you now have less states rights and more fed control over the states. IMHO, that is a bad thing since each state knows better how it needs to be governed (think Texas is not CA).
You also used local services as your example. These are paid with local taxes (again something I think is fine).
The federal government should only be collecting money for defense of the nation and other national services. Instead they use taxes they collect as a hammer to make the states do as they want. IMHO, the closer government is to the people being governed the better, so I would much rather have the city or state dealing with taxes rather than the federal government.
I'm also following your basic reasoning. I want a fiscal conservative in the white house. Bush has been a disaster in this regard, but I have a feeling Obama will manage to outspend even him (if that's possible). If you watch or read any of Ron Pauls interviews on our current financial mess he's been spot on the whole time. He is the only candidate that I've seen that even has a clue about the economics of our country.
As far as the other elections I'm voting anti-incumbent across the board. It's time for a real change (an no, Obama isn't anymore change than McCain regardless of what he wants you to believe), and the only way to get it is to remove who is up there and try someone new. Plus I'm still irked they let this whole bailout package go through.
I agree! Where is my smaller government candidate? I don't think those actually exist anymore. I'll probably just end up writing in Ron Paul, not because I believe in everything he says and wants to do, but he's the only one who has shown he as ANY clue about the current financial mess we're in.
If you assume that naked shorting wasn't allowed you can never have more shares shorted than are outstanding on the stock.
The main issue that you're describing though is known as a short squeeze. Shares of a stock are generally always available to buy, but you may have to pay a higher price to get them. When all of the shorts cover the act of covering can itself drive up the stock price. This upward movement is known as the short squeeze. Take a look at what happened to Volkswagon stock last week. So many shorts covered at once it pushed the stock up 50-60% in a day.
I agree. The only time I've come close to 'dropping' a laptop was when I tripped over the power cord of an old Dell. All the macs have the magnetic cord which pretty much means tripping over it has been eliminated.
Short selling also gives investors who think a stock is overpriced a way to express that thought. The SEC has found through small studies that allowing short sales does help the stock reach an 'efficient' price at a faster rate.
Keep in mind I'm talking about actual short selling and not naked short selling.
I would think that you need to first find a open source project that interests you. If you lack the interest you won't want to work on it your free time. Second, find a project that is active. It doesn't have to be a huge project, but you want one that has active users and developers. After that get on the mailing list/bug lists and start tracking down bugs. Fix the bugs if you can. If can't, ask the mailing list how you can help by documenting where in the code the bug exists (most bug reports are from a users standpoint so simply finding where in the code the bug is located can be a huge help). If you're polite, listen, and are helpful people will want to work with you.
Who cares if Clinton got a BJ. He and Hilary both have a lot of other skeletons in their closets. What I'm saying is that they all do from both parties. If Palin using a personal email account for gov. business and using her influence to get someone fired pisses you off, then be consistent in your views to everyone across all parties. If you do that you quickly realize that few if any elected officials would be people you could vote for.
Both sides are full of hypocrites and it makes me sick. The only way a change can occur is if everyone wakes up and quits thinking their 'side' is the best (b/c it sure as hell isn't much different than the other 'side').
Good point and one a lot of balding guys fail to realize. If you don't look good or can't pick up girls bald more than likely you won't be able to with hair either. 'Sexy' has nothing to do with the hair on your head.
I agree! My dad was one of the 1:7 who was clearly going bald in his late teens, early 20s. I've ended up being one of the 3:7 who have some hair loss at 31, but it's not something you notice when you see me (and I keep my hair fairly short already). I just can never grow the really long hair again that I had when I was in HS and college, which is something I wouldn't do anyways.
When the day comes that I'm noticeably balding, I'll shave my head. I never even realized baldness was that big of deal until I started seeing those sunday morning infomercials.
Now, if they could find the gene to stop the hair from growing on the back of my neck and other random places I'd be all for that! lol
I'm with you here. Lets start with a full investigation into Obama and his various real estate dealings with Resco. Next we can take a look at Clinton and the crooks he pardoned his last day in office. Bush has plenty of his own dealings we can investigate further also.
I'm not defending her at all, but this sort of cronyism happens all the time. Boards and CEOs, politicians, kids and their parents, police, etc... If this sort of thing bothers you that much then there probably isn't anyone left that you can, in good conscience, vote for. This country is in a sad state of affairs and in all reality neither candidate that we've been given the choice between is going to fix anything.
But, but...it's more fun to blame it on capitalism. Oh, and Bush.
Actually, if she wasn't bright enough to sign anything else into law, yes!
Sadly there is no real shrink the size of government candidate :(
Someone who finally has a clue. I've traveled a lot since 9/11 and have never had a problem taking my laptop anywhere. Customs agents ask you a few questions and then generally move you along.
And even in professional sports it's not set by the government. The owners and players often agree to some cap on a per team basis. Sports like baseball have a 'soft' cap where you can spend all you want, but have to pay a luxury tax.
I might have to take my entire savings and dump into GS since they'll most likely be running our entire financial system when this is all said and done. LOL
True, and I was mostly talking about the big financials. I have friends who are currency traders and they are doing fine, accept that their leverage has been cut back quite a bit. Currency trading usually relies on that leverage, but they are making it work.
Worrying about a GD style meltdown at this point is a little late. Where was Bernanke when FNM and FRE were going to town buying up subprime loans? Where were they when CA, FL, and others had house prices going up 20%/year b/c of not just lax lending standard, but no lending standards at all? Wait, money was being made to the tune of Billions of dollars for all their buddies so it's okay to look away. I'm no economic genius, but it wasn't hard to see years ago what the end was going to be.