Trained to do what? Make random transactions and hope they work out? That's what happened here. The fact that it may turn out to be profitable (and obviously nobody knows that yet) has nothing to do with the size of the blunder. Otherwise it's like having red come up in roulette and saying "See. You can make money this way."
To be long-term profitable you need to have a positive expectation. The actual outcome on any individual trade is not important. What matters is what its expectation was. For instance, If I flip a coin and you risk $2 to win $1, and you call it right, then sure, you won $1, but your mathematical expectation was to lose fifty cents. And if you did it, say, a million times, when it was over you'd be down pretty close to half a million dollars. And it wouldn't really matter what happened on any paticular flip.
So whether or not this works for them doesn't change the fact that it was an egregious blunder.
As an aside, I doubt that they will make money it. Their biggest problem now is that eeryone knows their postion. That fact alone will work to keep the prices depressed, as traders know that any time the prices rise this outfit will sell into the market. So no smart trader will be willing to pay a higher price until the position is liquidated. Their statment that will keep it long term is simply an attempt on their part to reduce that effect. If they even hinted that they were going to sell the prices would drop immediately.
saying "I'm not going to eat anything" would retain the correct meaning.
Yes, I realize what you're saying, but the only way to really say it is No voy a comer nada, which literally translates to "I'm not going to eat nothing."
There is no Spanish word for "anything," because it's not particularly useful the way it is in English. The best you can do is say cualquier cosa, which translates to "whatever thing." So to avoid the double negative you have to say either "No voy a comer algo" (I'm not going to eat something) or "no voy a comer cualquier cosa" which is even worse.
So, that brings us back around to where it started with this double negative stuff, and I'm not going to write nothing more.;-)
Using should of indicates you don't truly understand verb conjugation in your own language. It's a different case from a change in pronunciation or a change in a word's meaning, which can evolve all they like without breaking anything or creating more "special cases."
Double negatives are just fine in some languages. In Spanish, for instance, not using double negatives sounds weird. For example, it's right to say "I'm not going to eat nothing," and really odd to say "I'm not going to eat something." A Spanish listener would wonder exactly what the "something" is you're not going to eat, as if you had something specific in mind.
there isn't a grandmaster out there who thinks it is not a theoretical draw.
Not thinking it's not a draw is not nearly the same thing as thinking it's a draw. And I'll bet there are a bunch who think it's probably a draw, but are not certain, as that would be the reasonable position to hold.
And by the way (to stray from this topic to that of the match) Adams played like crap in those games. And I'll bet lots of grandmasters would agree with that.
No, banks exist to make money for their shareholders.
If you look at it like that, then Assursys also exists to make money for its owners. But that doesn't mean the owners don't think what they do also helps outs the world in some small way.
but the number of people I know that are very uncareful about "protection," drink/smoke themselves comatose, street-race or otherwise drive in a retarded manner, drink and drive, etc etc is just disturbing.
Those are exactly the kind of things it takes time to learn. When you're young you think you're invulnerable, that you'll live forever, and bad things are always temporary. You overestimate your physical and mental abilities, and underestimate risk. You just generally have poor judgement. You have to have seen enough before you can know different.
young adults are a lot less mature than 20 years ago
I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on
frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond
words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and
respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise
[disrespectful] and impatient of restraint.
That was said by Hesiod, 2700 years ago. And Socrates (may have) said:
The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their
households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They
contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties
at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.
So it may be simply that your perspective has changed:-)
No kidding.
Are they going to have those hideous "intel inside" stickers? To me that's got all the class of a car with TURBO written on the side. Might as well put a spoiler on the damn thing.
While convenient, it is just screaming for disaster!
For sufficiently small values of "disaster."
disaster |di.zast.r| noun
1. a sudden event, such as an accident or a natural catastrophe, that causes great damage or loss of life.
2. Accidentally printing off a bunch of pages.
Slashdot Mirror
Trained to do what? Make random transactions and hope they work out? That's what happened here. The fact that it may turn out to be profitable (and obviously nobody knows that yet) has nothing to do with the size of the blunder. Otherwise it's like having red come up in roulette and saying "See. You can make money this way."
To be long-term profitable you need to have a positive expectation. The actual outcome on any individual trade is not important. What matters is what its expectation was. For instance, If I flip a coin and you risk $2 to win $1, and you call it right, then sure, you won $1, but your mathematical expectation was to lose fifty cents. And if you did it, say, a million times, when it was over you'd be down pretty close to half a million dollars. And it wouldn't really matter what happened on any paticular flip.
So whether or not this works for them doesn't change the fact that it was an egregious blunder.
As an aside, I doubt that they will make money it. Their biggest problem now is that eeryone knows their postion. That fact alone will work to keep the prices depressed, as traders know that any time the prices rise this outfit will sell into the market. So no smart trader will be willing to pay a higher price until the position is liquidated. Their statment that will keep it long term is simply an attempt on their part to reduce that effect. If they even hinted that they were going to sell the prices would drop immediately.
In Spanish? Then you're not doing it right. You must be thinking in English.
You're right, in English. Another guy wrote a similar reply, and here's what I said.
Yes, I realize what you're saying, but the only way to really say it is No voy a comer nada, which literally translates to "I'm not going to eat nothing."
There is no Spanish word for "anything," because it's not particularly useful the way it is in English. The best you can do is say cualquier cosa, which translates to "whatever thing." So to avoid the double negative you have to say either "No voy a comer algo" (I'm not going to eat something) or "no voy a comer cualquier cosa" which is even worse.
So, that brings us back around to where it started with this double negative stuff, and I'm not going to write nothing more. ;-)
Using should of indicates you don't truly understand verb conjugation in your own language. It's a different case from a change in pronunciation or a change in a word's meaning, which can evolve all they like without breaking anything or creating more "special cases."
Double negatives are just fine in some languages. In Spanish, for instance, not using double negatives sounds weird. For example, it's right to say "I'm not going to eat nothing," and really odd to say "I'm not going to eat something." A Spanish listener would wonder exactly what the "something" is you're not going to eat, as if you had something specific in mind.
I think it was in response to a post in which part of what I wrote was this:
So I guess I got what I deservedI think that's an impostor. That one has a G, not a Q. I am a bit chagrined by this list, though.
To form them, yes. After that they don't care. Liquids disperse without pressure.
So that the next guy doesn't say "Fuck it. Why should I bother?"
It hasn't even been partly proven.
there isn't a grandmaster out there who thinks it is not a theoretical draw.
Not thinking it's not a draw is not nearly the same thing as thinking it's a draw. And I'll bet there are a bunch who think it's probably a draw, but are not certain, as that would be the reasonable position to hold.
And by the way (to stray from this topic to that of the match) Adams played like crap in those games. And I'll bet lots of grandmasters would agree with that.
I don't think you can measure speed in shitloads. Say, you didn't have anything to do with that Kessel Run timing, did you?
(Yeah, I saw the smiley.)
Next tie please proofread before posting.
If you look at it like that, then Assursys also exists to make money for its owners. But that doesn't mean the owners don't think what they do also helps outs the world in some small way.
You're right. There is only one person posting to all these accounts, so clearly he is both prolific and schizophrenic.
Those are exactly the kind of things it takes time to learn. When you're young you think you're invulnerable, that you'll live forever, and bad things are always temporary. You overestimate your physical and mental abilities, and underestimate risk. You just generally have poor judgement. You have to have seen enough before you can know different.
That was said by Hesiod, 2700 years ago. And Socrates (may have) said:
So it may be simply that your perspective has changed :-)
No kidding.
Are they going to have those hideous "intel inside" stickers? To me that's got all the class of a car with TURBO written on the side. Might as well put a spoiler on the damn thing.
It was a silly joke. But still, I'd have to rate all of your examples as way more disastrous than accidentally printing out too many pages of paper.
For sufficiently small values of "disaster."
disaster |di.zast.r| noun
1. a sudden event, such as an accident or a natural catastrophe, that causes great damage or loss of life.
2. Accidentally printing off a bunch of pages.
Do you have a keyboard down there?
And after twenty minutes of listening to that annoying noise, your load fails.
1 gram of fiber, 13 grams of sugar. Not nearly as bad as, say, a snickers bar, but not exactly what I would call "nutri-grain."
Well so far, here's an OS X anti-virus program that works as well as Norton:
#include <stdio.h>
int main (int argc, const char * argv[]) {
printf("No viruses found.\n");
return 0;
}
Here I am trying to have a nice peaceful breakfast and there you go making me laugh. :-)