We don't need to mention Bush in every single article
Are we talking about the same Bush trying to pass a law exonerating himself from war crimes? That Bush? I think ALL of you Americans need to talk more about this bastard until he is impeached or imprisoned.
But because you Americans ARE PUSSIES, you aren't going to DO anything. I can't wait until they come for you, friend. Fortunately I live FAR away.
The game will last roughly 40 to 50 hours and required FOUD DVDs?!
That's ok, Oblivion only needed ONE DVD and I STILL play it. 40 to 50 hours, heheheh I think I know that type of game. Do not use brain and follow the exact path we have set for you.
That's too funny, modded as flamebait by some brainless neocon follower.
Yeah BWJones, how can you be so unpatriotic? I am shocked and I think I am going to faint. In fact, you must be a terrorist for not Supporting Our Troops and Our Great Leader Who Can Do No Wrong.
Funny, I got a call last night from a telemarketer that went something like this:
"Hi Mr. So and so? I wonder if you had a minute so I could remind you that your telephone number will be off the "Do Not Call list" next year, and to offer you our automatic "Do Not Call" list renewal service. For just $1.95 a month our company will track your telephone number and automatically renew your status on this list for you every five years..."
I'm joking, of course. But how far away are we from this?:)
They're meant as a means to control the populace and nothing more.
Please elaborate.
If by "controlling the populace" you mean increasing adherence to the law, then in effect you are deterring crime. However a camera won't force you to go to church on Sundays or turn you into a philanthropist, or file your tax return on time.
I actually went to their website (as horrible as it is), and for some reason I couldn't see any reference to the data (or even to their claims) anywhere on the site.
I think this is the usual case of "lets make bogus claims that support our political agenda, since no one will bother to get their own copy of the data to prove us wrong". Fairly striking was the fact that they admitted the neighborhood with the highest number of cameras showed the smallest crime rate. Perhaps we could assume that the crime rate wasn't always this low, which is why so many damned cameras were installed in the first place...
Isn't there something about not impeding the ability to move freely about the country?
Yes, and there's something about not impeding the ability to move freely from country to country, too. Article 13 of the universal declaration of human rights states:
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Just remember it is a PRIVILEGE to fly not a RIGHT.
No see I paid for that flight, give me my damned seat. I have am entitled to it. The declaration of human rights guarantees that I should be allowed to cross international borders without hindrance. Whether I do it by plane, car, ship or on foot, it's a right. My documents are up to date, and I have complied with all national laws. I've paid my departure taxes. I am not a criminal. Why do you say flying is not a right?
I might as well say that your breathing is a privilege, not a right. Nowhere in your country's laws does it explicitly state that you are allowed to breathe.
Come on! Pre-crime counts just as much as 9-11. In fact, just the other day I accidentally flew my flight simulator plane into the Sears tower. Uh oh, perhaps I should turn mysel NO CARRIER
If I understand you, this isn't right. When there is a great deal of interest in shorting a stock, the result is an influx of sellers into the market which drives the price down.
No it doesn't.
I agree what according to supply and demand, it should - but supply and demand says that when there's an oversupply, buyers will be less willing to pay top dollar for the widget and sellers will accept a discounted price to reduce their inventory.
But with short selling, the objective of the seller is to screw you. Every extra penny is a bit of extra profit for the seller, therefore there is NO downward pressure. If anything, there is UPWARD pressure. No one is "desperate" to short a stock. You either take my price, or leave it. This can cause the price to increase a bit - and this can cause buyers to think "now is the time to buy, the price is going up" - increasing demand. It can also cause the first people who shorted at a lower price to rethink their position and cover their short sale before losing too much, also adding to demand.
It is so damned easy to lose money by shorting stock. The timing has to be perfect. And it takes a LOT of balls to hold a short position for a long time.
Surely the value of the $CURRENCY would fall and/or inflation would rise dramatically instead?
That would be the "standard" way of thinking.
IANAE (an economist), but not necessarily. Look at the dot-com bubble in 2001. Tech stocks were a SURE thing, anyone and everyone made oodles of money in stocks (at least, anyone who invested in tech), and instead of inflation we saw economic expansion - because people (corporations) invested their profits in - more tech! Only when the bubble popped the correction came when the people who thought they were rich found out that really they weren't. All they had was lots of fancy paper in the form of stock certificates.
So in a sense what happened was that money was borrowed from the future and invested in tech infrastructure. Those who really ended up paying for that investment are the people who lost, but still today we benefit from all that excess capacity in our communication systems. To the point where sending data around the world is almost free. Despite what the telcos would have you believe.
Shorting is simply selling what you don't have. Stock certificates are just pieces of paper. And your broker probably has a huge inventory of stock in his portfolio. So when you "short" something you are basically telling your broker that you agree to sell a stock that you don't own. There's no problem with this, since there are rigid mechanisms in place (today) to avoid fraud.
If you sell stock you don't own you HAVE to buy it back OR make good the monetary difference at some point in the future.
So let's say you "short" 100 shares of SCO when it is at $10 a share (yeah right). Your broker deposits $1000 in your account and records your sale. He may or may not have to adjust his own share inventory at this point, but as far as you are concerned you just "made" $1000.
Now if the price goes up, say to $15 per share, it would cost you $1500 to buy those 100 shares back. If you have plenty of money in your investment account your broker will just let it slide. But if you run out of credit (ie you don't have more than $1500), your broker will oblige you to buy back the stock, since he no longer has any assurance that you will be able to pay if the stock keeps going up. This is how you get screwed with short sales.
On the other hand, if the stock goes DOWN, say to $5 a share, then you are laughing, because once you decide to "cash in" on your investment, you "buy back" the 100 shares you sold at the current price of $500 ($5 per share). That means you pay $500 out of your account. But remember that your broker has already put $1000 in your account from the short sale you made earlier. So you've earned the balance - $1000 you were given for "selling" the stock short, less $500 to "buy back" the stock and close your commitment with your broker leaves you a profit of $500.
This is a bit off-topic but I felt like writing. Hopefully you understand "short" selling now. Just remember that ALL stocks tend to RISE in value over time (unless there's something REALLY wrong with the company/sector/economy). It's not easy to make money by selling short, but when you spot a stock that is ridiculously overvalued, well, what goes up must also come down at some point. Judging when to buy and when to sell is what makes the difference between people who lose on Wall St. and people who win. And remember, if it was easy, everyone would be rich.
Slashdot Mirror
Fascism is not necessarily authoritarian.
What? History kinda disagrees with you. Please point out the historical example of non authoritarian fascism.
you could have contributed something worthwhile to the discussion.
I did. I contributed a link to a Time article. What are YOU contributing, besides banter?
We don't need to mention Bush in every single article
Are we talking about the same Bush trying to pass a law exonerating himself from war crimes? That Bush? I think ALL of you Americans need to talk more about this bastard until he is impeached or imprisoned.
But because you Americans ARE PUSSIES, you aren't going to DO anything. I can't wait until they come for you, friend. Fortunately I live FAR away.
The game will last roughly 40 to 50 hours and required FOUD DVDs?!
That's ok, Oblivion only needed ONE DVD and I STILL play it. 40 to 50 hours, heheheh I think I know that type of game. Do not use brain and follow the exact path we have set for you.
That's too funny, modded as flamebait by some brainless neocon follower.
Yeah BWJones, how can you be so unpatriotic? I am shocked and I think I am going to faint. In fact, you must be a terrorist for not Supporting Our Troops and Our Great Leader Who Can Do No Wrong.
Sympathy, guy. I laughed.
Also why so many people migrate from basket-case country X to first-world country Y.
I dunno, I migrated from first world country Y to basket-case country X. You can keep your first world. I'd rather keep my money.
Therefore I call upon the will of the Canadian people to ignore Intuit's right to intellectual property.
Ugh, I'd gladly set up a torrent if it wasn't (drumroll) tax software... real pirates don't pay tax anyway!
Fascism has nothing to do with an attempt to crack down on copyright violators.
No, but it does have a LOT to do with telling you what you can and can't do in the privacy of your own home.
Funny, I got a call last night from a telemarketer that went something like this:
:)
"Hi Mr. So and so? I wonder if you had a minute so I could remind you that your telephone number will be off the "Do Not Call list" next year, and to offer you our automatic "Do Not Call" list renewal service. For just $1.95 a month our company will track your telephone number and automatically renew your status on this list for you every five years..."
I'm joking, of course. But how far away are we from this?
Also, exactly how unbiased can you expect the vice president of Microsoft's "Tustworthy Computing" department to be? What ELSE is he going to say?
Why isn't this story in the "It's funny, laugh" section?
What types of crimes are they not able to solve with the cameras?
Theft of those very cameras? I know, low blow, but I couldn't resist.
They're meant as a means to control the populace and nothing more.
Please elaborate.
If by "controlling the populace" you mean increasing adherence to the law, then in effect you are deterring crime. However a camera won't force you to go to church on Sundays or turn you into a philanthropist, or file your tax return on time.
I actually went to their website (as horrible as it is), and for some reason I couldn't see any reference to the data (or even to their claims) anywhere on the site.
I think this is the usual case of "lets make bogus claims that support our political agenda, since no one will bother to get their own copy of the data to prove us wrong". Fairly striking was the fact that they admitted the neighborhood with the highest number of cameras showed the smallest crime rate. Perhaps we could assume that the crime rate wasn't always this low, which is why so many damned cameras were installed in the first place...
and there are large parts of the GPL which are open to different interpretation.
For instance, the definition of "derived work"
I thought that copyright law was pretty clear on what a "derived work" is. The GPL does not modify copyright law.
Why limit yourself to a Place and Time-shifting TV Recording when you can call it...
A SPACIAL-TEMPORAL DISPLACEMENT AUDITORY VISUAL TRANSLATIONAL DEVICE!
Wow, that sound so good I think we should scrap the copyright idea and go straight for a patent!
Isn't there something about not impeding the ability to move freely about the country?
Yes, and there's something about not impeding the ability to move freely from country to country, too. Article 13 of the universal declaration of human rights states:
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Just remember it is a PRIVILEGE to fly not a RIGHT.
No see I paid for that flight, give me my damned seat. I have am entitled to it. The declaration of human rights guarantees that I should be allowed to cross international borders without hindrance. Whether I do it by plane, car, ship or on foot, it's a right. My documents are up to date, and I have complied with all national laws. I've paid my departure taxes. I am not a criminal. Why do you say flying is not a right?
I might as well say that your breathing is a privilege, not a right. Nowhere in your country's laws does it explicitly state that you are allowed to breathe.
Sources, please?
Come on! Pre-crime counts just as much as 9-11. In fact, just the other day I accidentally flew my flight simulator plane into the Sears tower. Uh oh, perhaps I should turn mysel NO CARRIER
If I understand you, this isn't right. When there is a great deal of interest in shorting a stock, the result is an influx of sellers into the market which drives the price down.
No it doesn't.
I agree what according to supply and demand, it should - but supply and demand says that when there's an oversupply, buyers will be less willing to pay top dollar for the widget and sellers will accept a discounted price to reduce their inventory.
But with short selling, the objective of the seller is to screw you. Every extra penny is a bit of extra profit for the seller, therefore there is NO downward pressure. If anything, there is UPWARD pressure. No one is "desperate" to short a stock. You either take my price, or leave it. This can cause the price to increase a bit - and this can cause buyers to think "now is the time to buy, the price is going up" - increasing demand. It can also cause the first people who shorted at a lower price to rethink their position and cover their short sale before losing too much, also adding to demand.
It is so damned easy to lose money by shorting stock. The timing has to be perfect. And it takes a LOT of balls to hold a short position for a long time.
14/f/cali here
It's funny. I don't mind being without net access at our summer cottage
That's funny because I have no problem getting onto the net at your summer cottage.... oops?
to hell with you all, I just patented telepathy 2.0. Neener neener neener! Pay me.
Do you think God would bless the internet after seeing Goatse?
Before or after He is slashdotted?
Surely the value of the $CURRENCY would fall and/or inflation would rise dramatically instead?
That would be the "standard" way of thinking.
IANAE (an economist), but not necessarily. Look at the dot-com bubble in 2001. Tech stocks were a SURE thing, anyone and everyone made oodles of money in stocks (at least, anyone who invested in tech), and instead of inflation we saw economic expansion - because people (corporations) invested their profits in - more tech! Only when the bubble popped the correction came when the people who thought they were rich found out that really they weren't. All they had was lots of fancy paper in the form of stock certificates.
So in a sense what happened was that money was borrowed from the future and invested in tech infrastructure. Those who really ended up paying for that investment are the people who lost, but still today we benefit from all that excess capacity in our communication systems. To the point where sending data around the world is almost free. Despite what the telcos would have you believe.
Shorting is simply selling what you don't have. Stock certificates are just pieces of paper. And your broker probably has a huge inventory of stock in his portfolio. So when you "short" something you are basically telling your broker that you agree to sell a stock that you don't own. There's no problem with this, since there are rigid mechanisms in place (today) to avoid fraud.
If you sell stock you don't own you HAVE to buy it back OR make good the monetary difference at some point in the future.
So let's say you "short" 100 shares of SCO when it is at $10 a share (yeah right). Your broker deposits $1000 in your account and records your sale. He may or may not have to adjust his own share inventory at this point, but as far as you are concerned you just "made" $1000.
Now if the price goes up, say to $15 per share, it would cost you $1500 to buy those 100 shares back. If you have plenty of money in your investment account your broker will just let it slide. But if you run out of credit (ie you don't have more than $1500), your broker will oblige you to buy back the stock, since he no longer has any assurance that you will be able to pay if the stock keeps going up. This is how you get screwed with short sales.
On the other hand, if the stock goes DOWN, say to $5 a share, then you are laughing, because once you decide to "cash in" on your investment, you "buy back" the 100 shares you sold at the current price of $500 ($5 per share). That means you pay $500 out of your account. But remember that your broker has already put $1000 in your account from the short sale you made earlier. So you've earned the balance - $1000 you were given for "selling" the stock short, less $500 to "buy back" the stock and close your commitment with your broker leaves you a profit of $500.
This is a bit off-topic but I felt like writing. Hopefully you understand "short" selling now. Just remember that ALL stocks tend to RISE in value over time (unless there's something REALLY wrong with the company/sector/economy). It's not easy to make money by selling short, but when you spot a stock that is ridiculously overvalued, well, what goes up must also come down at some point. Judging when to buy and when to sell is what makes the difference between people who lose on Wall St. and people who win. And remember, if it was easy, everyone would be rich.