That's right 140 pages, supposedly [right...], of this article.
Note to slashdot: For Christ's sake, could you please knock this shit the fuck off? Just use a simple "Next" and "Previous" okay? what do you say?
I know it's an effective way for people, like me, who buy ad-free pages, to burn through their accounts, but really, guys, come on... It's not about 'money' it's about being a pain in the ass.
They needed specialized tools with some mechanical inclination. They had to do it relatively quick and quietly.
Wow, you just reminded me of something with that story and comment. Back in 1965, my dad's best War buddy, Pete, had a '64 Corvette (Pete had taken me out for a long drive, and it was incredible). Anyway, in summer of '65, I heard them tell a story, that Pete and his wife Marlies had been out on the town, and drove home (Orinda, CA), parked the 'Vette, and went inside to call it a night.
Not even 15 minutes after they'd gone inside, Marlies thought she'd left something in the car, opened the door from the house to the garage, and 4 bikers just scrambled right out of the garage.
Pete told me that when he heard his wife yelling, he ran out there, and the guys (Angels, Oakland) had a winch system on a big apparatus, with chains wrapped around the bottom of the engine, and it was already completely, cleanly disconnected; all they needed to do was crank the winch and they would have been rolling out into the cul-de-sac with Pete's Vette engine. A close call, but that took discipline and some know-how.
Also, if pocketing all the cash results in a low take for the scammers, think how little the legit truckers must get in profits under normal circumstances!
That's a very good observation. I recall reading, a number of years ago, that since President Reagan's days there was a lot of deregulation in trucking, partly in an effort to break the Teamsters. And, as a result, the collateral damage was a large increase in longer hours behind the wheel, a marginally capable pool of 'new' immigrant drivers and the NAFTA, which had a lot of Mexican truckers, who were obviously unfamiliar with US highway driving, crossing all the way to Canada and East.
Over the last 15 years or so the number of trucks increased about 40% but the number of miles driven nearly doubled. Also, the number of automobiles involved in fatal crashes with trucks declined by around 40%, but trucker fatalities only dropped by about 6%. I'm not saying that 'proves' anything, but it certainly looks like truckers, on average, are pulling more miles, and getting themselves killed in solo accidents, as a result. [My brain isn't hooked-up for math, tonight, but before the declines in fatalities, on the highways, in general, 2/3 of the accidents involving big trucks were caused by cars, so, if auto fatalities, in general, have declined, and they have, then truck fatalities should have also declined at a much better rate, if all things were considered equal]
Driving a truck is no party. I used to drive a car, heheh, about 100,000 miles a year. And I remember, mid-to-late 80s or so, realizing that a fair number of trucks, out on the Interstates, late at night, seemed to do little things that they didn't do in the 'old days.' Truckers used to be the best drivers on the road, and they very well might still be. But that is one tough way to make a decent living.
I only drove a cab for a few years, a piece of cake compared to a transport truck, and even that was a bit rough. I leased my car 24/7, and there were plenty of times I could drive, but not walk (not without a great deal of discomfort). No doubt truckers are suffering a lot of physical ailments, besides having to avoid a-holes cruising in their blind spots, and all the other crazy shit that cars and their drivers come up with.
I know how tempting it is to be more amused at the two Russians' clever little scam, but driving long hauls, and not getting compensated, because of a couple of scumbags? If there's any justice Vlad and his pal will end up in a joint, on a block with some Teamsters. I guarantee they won't be laughing and feeling so fucking smart then.
Shortly after they port Duke Nukem Forever, of course.
Ah Hah! More skeptics! Well, I gues this press release from 3D Realms ought to put the naysayers to rest. Now where is it? Oh yeah, here, a firm release date:
"If the company distributes the dividend, the short seller is also "short the dividend"
You're correct there. I stand corrected. The dividend is paid by the short seller to the firm that loaned them the stock to sell. I'd forgotten that, but a short seller is working on a short time period, in terms of the deadline for closing out the short sale. I never paid a dividend out because I was timing things. and I was using the options mechanism, so I was participating ONLY in the movement of the stock price, up or down, from the point at which the stock was valued on the Market at the time of the sale or purchase of an option.
What we don't often consider is this, in options: On the date of payment of a dividend on a stock (the ex-dividend date), the price of the stock, technically drops by the exact amount of the dividend. These dividend dates are already factored into the price of the call and put options, BUT, if the stock is moving in price, against the interests of the seller, then the buyer may exercise the options earlier (right before the dividend date). However, the value of the options contract also drops on the ex-dividend date.
when I was working with options we were always cognizant of dividends, not because they cost much, they have little effect, actually on option prices, but because they impact the psychology and 'plans' on the buyers' end. What it all means is that I was never paying dividends to anybody, when using options to participate in the movement of stocks or Indexes, but i would 'shop' for options that included upcoming ex-dividends in their pricing, of course. Like i mentioned yesterday, it all required paying a lot of attention to factors besides my feeling, or beliefs, about underlying values of the company being considered for a short. That goes for before-the-decision to purchase or sell, and every day of the time period where i was on the hook for various options.
I would have to look into straight short sales of stocks, as opposed to Options, in order to find differences in the rules and mechanisms for pricing. I preferred options because of the huge leverage. On a short term deal (options contract, with an expiration date) it was a lot cheaper to spend $150-400 or so to participate in the rise or fall of 100 shares, that it would have been to borrow, or buy, the underlying shares at 100 times the value of one share. very risky, but a much wider risk/reward ratio, also. And at a far cheaper point of entry into the market in the stock.
Again, as far as dividends and interest rates, and anything else that could affect the stock's value... those factors are priced in to the current 'bid/ask' on the option contract, and the effect of that pricing-in (the 'cost' in other words) was compared to my own fair market assumptions. A wide gap meant do not consider, whereas a smaller gap meant: more attractive.
Options are really the way to go, if one already holds stocks, individually or in mutual funds, etc. Because the prices of the options contracts are so closely tied to the underlying values, an investor can use them in two very straightforward ways: To take advantage of a rise in the value of their holdings, without having to close out their positions in the held stocks, OR, to use the option as insurance, by paying a premium, upon purchase for the option, (That premium being the 'most' one stands to lose) that only loses value if the underlying stocks rise. Of course the offset in the lost premium might negate the 'paper' profit in the rise in value of the person's holdings, but the holdings, if not sold, have in fact risen. So, it's like insurance that way.
I love Warren Buffet, too. But he does not look at the market and simply buy into the market 'dips', as was inferred by the person I responded to yesterday. he's knows far better than to do that, because many of us realize that sometimes, these 'dips' are trying to tell us something, and buying into them, based on some sort of broker-advocated 'dogma' can be fata
Even newbie investors know that stock prices have no inertia and that a sudden drop in price not accompanied by bad news is an opportunity to buy cheap
That's a good one. Maybe you meant "Only newbie investors" instead of "even newbie investors"
You think buying into a fall in the market is always a good idea?. That's newbie rule 1, and newbie rule 2 is buy and sell on the news. The deal is this: The 'news' comes out, after the fact of a big up or down, not before. Otherwise nobody (led by your fellow newbies) would ever lose money.
Even buying into a sustained sideways market, that is heading down over time, has been likened to catching razor blades falling from the sky. Any one of them won't hurt you all that much, but after a while you bleed to death, anyway.
Brokers, and other salesman, have worked for years to condition people to buy on downward movements. Those brokers need commissions, and the people they've coached? You got it, newbs.
Don't forget short sellers must issue dividends to the people that buy their shorts. So if you massively shorted a profitable company to manipulate its price you would have a huge liability when the company issued a dividend.
No dividends paid by the short sellers. They borrowed the shares, sold them on the open market, money deposited from the proceeds in their accounts (with a minus sign next to it on their statements). Then, when the price falls, of the underlying stock, they buy back the number of shares borrowed, That's the idea, of a short sale, anyway.
Now, when they sold the borrowed shares, if a dividend becomes due, then the buyer gets the dividend from the company issuing the shares. The holders of record are the recipients of dividends and those dividends are paid by the company, not by the previous owners of the stock.
Buyers of shares have no idea they are even participating in a 'short'. Why not? Well, for one thing, the law says you can only initiate a 'short' on an uptick in the underlying stock, meaning: The stock price is on a rise. So, another anonymous buyer of the security is participating in a rising market in that stock. I am dealing in Option contracts that represent the price movement, over time, of a security, not the securities themselves. The market maker simply prices the loaned shares, based on the next transaction in the stock after my order, I never actually see them. The Optiions market runs on the principle that you best against a market only when the most recent transaction in the stock or Index was higher than the previous, and you bet in favor of a rising market only when the most recent transaction was a downward movement in price.
I did Options in the 80s and early 90s, and back then (and still) the term 'naked' was slang for 'uncovered'. I was betting against certain stocks and the market, as a whole, at times. I did not own the S&P 500 Index, so if I sold a 'call' on the S&P, that transaction was naked. The most I stood to gain was the strike price on the Option, which represented, loosely speaking, the price movement up, or down, of 100 shares of the underlying security. As the contract reached expiration it was time to either close out the deal, or, if the stock or Index rose suddenly, to buy back the calls. If the Option was sold as 'covered', it meant I had the underlying stock, and if I wasn't paying attention, a person holding calls on the stock could 'exercise' the call, and I had no choice but to deliver the real shares.
Let's say there is 7 weeks to go on XYZ stock, and the last transaction in the Market, for sale of XYZ was 'up' 12 cents at $100.12, and I decide to sell a 'call' on the stock of XYZ at a $97.50 strike price. I am betting that the stock will be worth, equal to or less than, $97.50 in 7 weeks. So I sell, say 10 calls, representing 1,000 shares of XYZ and pocket $300 per contract ($3000). The most I can gain is my $3000 [If the stock does indeed head south in time]. I'm on a margin account, and as long as I have enough credit i can ride out what I hope are temporary upticks in the XYZ. But if it keeps rising, the price of each is rising out there also, and it's rising fast because holders of those calls, who bought them at lower prices are seeing price reaction based on the XYZ movement in the open market AND the fact that Time is running out for a turnaround in XYZ. If XYZ options are at 8 bucks and I get cute, the holders of the calls can 'exercise them, and all of a sudden I need to come up with 1,000 shares of XYX at over $100 apiece. My $3k deposit, from the sale of the options, is dwarfed by a $100k+ obligation. This is not for everybody, that's for sure.
But I never sold 'covered' options, only 'naked' ones. It was speculative and dangerous, because the maximum profit was the amount collected on the sale of an option, and the potential loss was, theoretically, sky-high if not infinite. In the 'naked' scene you had to pay very careful attention to both price movement in
And to me, the worst culprits in the whole mess (the ratings agencies Moody's and S&P) got off scot free
Wow, I love it when they oversimplify and then break out the hyperbole. Let me ask you something, mr genius, given that there aren't three guys in the world who can explain OR even price the CDOs, other MBS's and all the really wacko derivatives that served, on paper, top lay off counter-party risk, but actually amounted to little more than a little friendly, global bankers' game of Pyramid scheme, until it all falls down and who gets to pay... You honestly think the ratings Agencies are at fault?
Let me try to explain: The CDOs, that were invented by Goldman's 'rocket scientists' number One, are the tip of the iceberg. The really esoteric paper instruments are far more dangerous, far less able to be priced and probably have a mark-to-market value... that is, the holders are considering their value to be X, for purposes of lending out a factor of X, AND borrowing based upon a factor of X. A high school math kid might see a 'model' here: Using the same Asset value to leverage both loans and borrowings. meanwhile, the so-called 'free market'/regulation sucks wizards, have steadily increased the leverage ratios on both ends AND, simultaneously de-fanged any sort of oversight.
Yeah Moody's is really looking like the 800 lb gorilla, eh? Not!
you feel bad for the poor bankers who loaned all their cash out and don't have any for small business. You crack me up. Ask yourself this: Who do the big banks give a fuck about, most; Wal-Mart and out-sourcing, or your proverbial 'small' retailer, and good ol' holy christmas. My heart pumps ice cold piss for the Banks. But I feel bad for the people, you know, the ones the republicans assume are too stupid to know better. The american public has just bought into an investment that nobody can explain, unless "Oh Noes!!!!" counts. That violates the first rule of investment (according to me, everybody else is on their own): Never pretend to understand that which you don't, never go along with a salesman that can't put it in simple terms in under 20 words, and 'investing half as much' does not make a bad deal better.
I hear figures like $75 Trillion kicked around in terms of all those crazy counter-party risk 'instruments' that make the current batch under the microscope look like child's play. How far do you figure 700 Billion or a Trillion is going to go when the biggest loads of paper are buttwipe material? That's going to require major league leverage, and guess what? They don't have it, it isn't going to happen. So don't bet your life on banks, insurance companies and monopolies to have an 11th hour Jimmy Stewart-style change-of-heart. Chances of that: Zero.
I'd love to be selling big phone 'switches' right now...a trainload to Fidelity, couple more to whomever has Merrill's mutual funds. Last I looked, a joe sixpack could call an 800 number and have his entire account marked to market (via bid/ask auction), and have the proceeds in cash money markets almost instantly. when enough guys get the idea, that's when those big switches come in real handy.
My favorite part of your, let's call it, charitably, a 'theory' was that line; "I read it somewhere on the Internet." All I'm going to say is, let one of your kids or your wife handle the family budget.
Record companies seem to have no problem paying artists less than the statutory royalties via one-sided contracts.
I get it. So when artists are hell-bent on signing away their rights [which, by the way is the equally realistic way of stating your 'version'] the labels should do what? Refuse the extra cash? Provide the kids with in-house legal reps? Blush and say, "Ohhhh, you shouldn't have " and then take it?
They haven't had any problem because artists want the bigtime so bad they're stupid about almost anything else. Never get in between a fool and his money. I realize it's vicious out there, but as long as there are whores, there are going to be pimps.
Fact-checking is always a good idea. First off Coca-Cola still uses a cocaine-free coca leaf extract prepared at a Stepan Company plant in Maywood, New Jersey.
And, according to the latest DEA study on whether or not current US domestic production of various substances is sufficient for both domestic needs AND ongoing export, the following chemicals, that have always been produced here in the US, were considered:
amobarbital
amphetamine
codeine (for sale)
codeine (for conversion),
dextropropoxyphene
dihydrocodeine
fentanyl
glutethimide
hydrocodone (for sale)
hydromorphone
methadone (for sale)
methadone intermediate
methamphetamine (for conversion)
methamphetamine (for sale)
morphine (for conversion)
noroxymorphone (for sale)
opium
oxycodone (for sale)
sufentanil
thebaine
That list means, basically, that we have all the heroin and cocaine and methamphetamine production, in the United States, already, to keep domestic drug consumption a totally US-based industry.
As well, cocaine, in the US, has always been used in various eye surgeries (Ask any former member of a gang that 'did' surgical pharmacies. [There's a lot of blow around]. And Brompton Cocktail is still used, widely, in later stage terminal cancers, in the US and elsewhere. (As you may know, despite evidence in your reply to the contrary, a "Brompton' contains heroin, cocaine, pure ethyl alcohol, and (occasionally, depending on the nature/location of the discomfort) thorazine.
With all due respect, opinions are just that, but, when you decide to argue 'drugs', with me, you've headed down a slippery slope. Just so you know.
I have enjoyed reading the opinions and expressed concerns regarding drug legalization, here tonight.
But, there are three main areas where drugs impact the Economy:
The cost of the substances, domestically
The cost of law enforcement, judicial proceedings and incarceration
Civil impact: Lost production, lawsuits from victims of the intoxicated, etc
Costs of the drugs. I have bought kilos of coke in Bogota, and kilos of great weed in Mexico, and the price/cost differential between the source and the domestic, consumer Market, is astounding. The US produces many tons of codeine here. It's actually a by-product of one of the ingredients of Coca-Cola. And that means that the same source of the codeine, is also all about heroin, or the refined, less efficacious pain killer, morphine. The notion that legalization would divert the same bottom-line 'expenses' [In terms of 'street' consumption] to foreign criminals is absolutely false and misleading. Less-efficient morphine and 'alternatives' like 'Demerol' are only used in the US because the FBI criminalized heron in the Twenties (1926, I think, look it up, google Harry Anslinger). Heroin is far more efficient in pain management. That means a lower burden on Health Care expenses, also, if it were legally available in the US medical industry.
Law Enforcement. Okay, assuming we can ignore, for now, the notion that the War on Drugs is chiefly about establishing hegemony in the trade, and a steady source of for-profit incarcerated individuals for Wackenhut and other beneficiaries of the 'three-strike' laws, the savings in manpower, and other budgetary aspects, would be staggering. This would allow two things, besides real dollar savings: Diverting of manpower toward crimes with victims, and a huge resulting savings in incarceration. [The US taxpayer is underwriting the profits of private enterprise in the Prison Business, under the current paradigm.] As well, parts of the current law enforcement budget could be diverted towards intervention and treatment, which, besides being a necessary effort, would also lower the costs on the current Health Care system, and would allow the Churches to go back to preaching, and butt out of social policy.
Civil impact changes would be too broad for a quick summary like this. But, obviously, the lowered price of drugs, themselves, and the reality that drugs would be regulated insofar as content, purity and manufacturing safety are concerned, would lower the overall impact of drug use on total expendable income in the US by factors that might be difficult to imagine, at first. Drug legalization would involve the use of the same mechanisms of judicial and insurance realities, as well as the ability of individual States to regulate how, where and when they would be made available, as well as civil penalties for irresponsible usage, etc.
Is it a be all, end all? I seriously doubt it. I have been clean & sober for well over a decade. I don't recommend drug use. But I also don't recommend the criminalization of drug use, at all. It should be an individual's choice, with rights and responsibilities in the exercise of that choice. The 'right' being the ability to know that something is what it purports to be, and that help is available if someone needs to walk away from something they can't, apparently 'handle.' And the 'responsibility' is obvious: That the exercise of choice does not negatively impact others. Just my 2 cents, that's all.
Nice try, but the fact is, the Republican group, in charge of managing the election outcome, knew, beyond any doubt, that far more than enough votes had been cast for Gore, in the State of Florida, and then not counted, based on flimsy interpretation of flimsier guidelines, to give Gore the Presidency.
269 votes??? Guess again, pal, and put away the calculator and the 'models.' Two (2) votes, only, would have accomplished the same outcome, and both of those votes, of course, were on the Supreme Court.
Next thing you know, this guy's going to come up with 100k guys kept Nixon from beating Kennedy, when, in fact, one guy was responsible: Mayor Richard Daley.
The US has been at war with unions since the 1930s. And not just in the US. All those hit lists and 'targeting' documents and maps that we provided right-wing paramilitary forces throughout Central and South America were aimed, primarily, at terrorist 'union organizers', human 'rights' extremists, and Catholic priests and bishops concerned with social 'justice', etc.
This is America, You don't have to be Shakespeare to speak your mind. What makes you think anyone wants to read your crap!
First, I don't care at all. But, the point is, if someone does read what one has to say, it seems some effort should have been made to make the writing understandable (by the way, understandable, and agreeable, are two different concepts, AC, just in case you forgot that, which seems likely)
And yes, this is America, where people are not only ignorant, but proud of it, and it's no secret, either here, or overseas. It's quite obvious. It's sad that your version of 'free', as related to speech, is most likely in reference to the freedom to make sense or not, but so be it. Rant on in Freedom, all ye proud (yet anonymous), ignorant patriots!
many many people on here will hate this post because well I think a reasonable price should be determined and...
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but, your ideas are neither important enough, nor articulated well enough, to be hated, or even understood, for the most part, by most people. If I were you, (besides being near-fatally depressed at the degenerated state of my written skills) I would spend a lot less time in self-absorbed anticipation of these 'hateful' reactions that you refer to, and a lot more time on subjects like punctuation, writing for clarity, sentence structure, etc. You're welcome.
We can disagree without hatred. I have actually seen this, in person, on numerous occasions. And whether I like your ideas, or not, is totally beside the point. I do the same thing, and get the same result, when I write in haste. Better writing skills are available to you, and anyone else who wants them; there really is no barrier. Better writing will allow your ideas to be 'considered' and that is a far better outcome than having them be either loved, or hated.
No kidding. Thanks for this piece, it was very well written. I was almost tempted to suggest using paragraph tags, but you know something; nobody here in the US reads anything, anyway, so what's the difference? The ruling class knows that the bigger the lie, the more likely it is, to be believed by the most people.
The evidence is so overwhelming, and the cracks in the system, and the steady diet of bigger and bigger lies, is so overwhelming, the people miss it, or just cannot bring themselves to admit that 'it's come to this.' I have traveled the world, I was lucky that way. Kids in the UK are like college professors, as far as history is concerned, compared to my own people. And that sounds like a putdown, but I don't mean it that way. Americans, on the street, on the buses, in the fields, working in the community, maybe raising cash for actual benevolent charities, and whatnot, are a good people, but when it comes to dealing with authority or the unknown, they are just crippled. My mother died of cancer, in Orange County, California, in '83. Her father was a socialist, Worker's party, in Madison, Wisconsin. My mom was at the Ambassador the night Bobby Kennedy was killed. On the last day of her life she said, "Look, I know things look bleak, but have faith, the American taxpayers and working class will reach a point of enough-is-enough, and they'll rise up."
It hurts me to admit the number of times I was actually glad that she had passed, and wasn't around to see the latest atrocity. My daughter called me last year and said she was scared. This may not mean much to a lot of younger guys, but decent men do not want their children scared, or in danger, ever. I was alarmed, because she's bright, creative, and was 18 then, and I asked her, "What's up Bunny? What's scaring you?" And she said, "Daddy, I'm scared of what the world will be like when I'm your age." I don't even remember what I said to her, because what can a man say to that, in the face of all this?
And the same survey shows that 92% of made-up statistics without sources are made-up on the spot to support conclusions that are similarly made-up.
Oh really, well guess what asshole, you should be careful about throwing around disinformational talking points. Bite this one bitch, from the Voice of America:
Feel better? Oh wait! This just in, whoa... it says one hundred percent of the people sitting in your chair, are self-delusional asshats. You really made the grade, pal. What is it, a full Moon tonight? Seems to be a lot more mental midgets on the loose, somehow.
It's funny, and hypocritical in the extreme how everybody keeps claiming that.
Hey, guess what? Nobody said Saddam never had any WMDs. We knew he had them. Because we sold them to him. Look it up, asshole, Why do you figure we got the Center for Disease Control and several big Universities to spot Saddam a shitload of chemicals? Because he was going after the Iranians.
Remember them, or The Pueblo, dumbfuck? We were pissed because the Iranians got rid of the Shah that our CIA installed over there, the dictator that the Iranians finally got rid of. Saddam was our man on the front lines of Iran, you pathetic, dull fuck. US Special Forces targeting guys and their CIA handlers were the ones doing the 'aiming', courtesy of AWACS planes up in the sky. The fact that he killed a lot of Kurds didn't matter to US foreign policy, or our hypocritical 'morality' at all. Why?
Because the Turks hated the Kurds, and guess what else? The Turks had let us have radar bases and nuclear launchpads aimed at Moscow for a couple decades. They're our buddies and the Turks are still doing ethnic cleansing against the Kurds, right now, and we don't give a fuck, as a country of freedom lovers, I mean.
It's been a genuine pleasure giving you a cram course in well-documented recent US Foreign Policy, but, I can tell by the link to that cartoonish, un-captioned news item, that you probably think of as 'proof', that you won't understand stupid little things like 'facts' or 'matters of record.' Right? Right.
But don't worry, my dear little retarded patriot. There's a Plan B, just for you. And the best part of it is, it's easy, which is a real break for you, eh Bubba? And it goes like this: You're gonna switch off the old Dell, go have a last can of lukewarm Coors, and come back and sit down at your desk.
Then, open the drawer, and pull out the anti-negro.45, and slap in a clip. Now, at this point, I'm going to guess that one of your last thoughts might be something along the lines of, "How did he know I had a life not worth living?" But don't worry about all that, because this is your moment, and you've got your patriotic duty to do.
So, just imagine that the gun is 'actually' that Cub Scout's dick that you sucked in the bathroom at Church that time. Then make sure the the end of the barrel is right up against the roof of your mouth (after all, this would be the worst time for one more of those endless fuckups you used to call your 'life', right?), This is the best part: You pull the trigger, with American pride. Your country first. Amen.
See how easy that is? I mean, who needs to get out of the boat, run back into the jungle alone, get wounded, just to save a couple of his men, like that Commie, John Kerry, right? We'll show 'em who the real heroes are, tonight. This may be the first logical, or meaningful, thing that you ever had anything to do with, in your pathetic, lonely excuse for a so-called life. I'll say a little prayer to jesus for you, so you know your future in the afterlife will be guaranteed, after that, for sure.
Well, they seemed to release other messages and video around the time of the event that helped make the case and build support for war...
I remember seeing a tape in the days a bit later, after the destruction of all those people, and the cops and the firemen, and of course, the buildings. And the tape was being pitched as bin Laden being all happy at the success of the mission, right?
But as I watched it (and bear in mind I hadn't heard any conspiracy stuff yet], I saw a guy enter the room, bin Laden with a quizzical look on his face, the heavyset guy pops a tape in a VCR, and Osama seemed just as surprised as could be. it looked as if this was the first word, he might even have asked who did this, because I don't speak the language but it looked he was inquiring and then getting details from the guy who brought the tape, and being almost shocked as more was revealed.
It was a gut feeling I had, with no axe to grind or anything like that. I have no proof of anything, but I've seen gut reactions from New Yorkers who were on the scene, like those 4 or 5 firemen, across the street and a little up the block, describing the successive demolition-like sequence of 'booms' with smoke and dust being blown out the windows of each floor as the thing just pancaked down, nice and neat like, into its own foundation, where Giuliani could order the beams to be carted off, and in effect, tampered with the biggest crime scene in American history. A demolition expert even said it 'was no accident that the beams happened to have been blown, all the way down, in pieces that fit perfectly on the flatbeds' that ended up carting them away.
And, you know, I remember the Daily News with, "Ford to New York: Drop Dead." And the Republicans, Reagan and Nixon, laughing and calling it Jew York. That's an insult to everybody in that city. I grew up in San Francisco, loved my City, and I might have been pretty upset when the Yanks beat the Giants in the Series.
But I went to New York, over the years, a lot, and you can't go there, and hang with the people, and look around, for long at all, without falling in love with that City.
But I swear to their god, if we find out that these Trotskyist so-called neo-con traitors had anything to do with this... well, all I can say is that anybody who thinks we should leave it to the invisible man in the sky, for the meting out of justice, is deluding themselves.
If I was a New Yorker, I'd make it my life's work to find out what really happened, gather my thoughts and ammo, and clean this mess up once, and for all. And where's the military? Every member of the officer corps puts his hand on a Bible, and swears to defend the Constitution from its enemies, both within, and without. So, when does that start? I apologize for the rant, but this stuff hurts, if you stick around long enough.
Sounds really dumb if you're thinking that your shoe is just talking to your iPod. That's not all that's happening.
Yeah it sounds great. I wonder how long it'll be before armed robbers in Central Park, or Golden Gate Park, have their own little decoy transmitter and a wireless setup, and can 'target' only guys and ladies from the 'right' zip codes or even better, telephone exchanges or addresses. This and the whole RFID thing, wow, the Land of Opportunity, ya gotta love it!
Honestly, is Apple trying to completely destroy its brand?
Only since 10.2.7
But, to be fair, it only looks, feels and seems to operate that way. In the US, the corporate oligopoly, and their subordinates, in Politics, the Media, and Organized Religion, use a method that has proven to be almost immune to logic, decency, etc., since time immemorial; they aim at the good old LCD. You know, the Lowest Common Denominator.
And thanks to the schools at the grade and high school levels here in the US, (not Japan, the UK, parts of Europe), they have a huge, malleable mass of dunderheads to lead around by the nose.
Although there is a ton of Market Risk in the air, now, I wouldn't start shorting AAPL, just yet, based on fundamentals, or their relatively brief grasp of the marketplace, but... I'd be careful.
I wish Apple would spin off the old Apple Computer to anyone who actually cares about the platform's one-time potential. But if things play out the way they appear, and history means anything, chances are somebody will pick up the computer division for around 4 bucks, and change. (Have to be patient)
Apple, like many companies, underestimates the force of the, sometimes dormant, but long term intrinsic logic of the markets, while overestimating their ability to market, or 'buy' their way out of 'anything.'
I do not 'want' this to happen, at all, because if the market goes south, as rapidly and steeply as it appears possible, it's going to be a long, devastating trip. And the folks who get hurt the most will be the ones with iPod doodads in their fucking sneakers (the few), and regular working people (the many).
Apple is only doing exactly what everyone else is doing or trying to do. When I hear the word 'innovation', in relation to Apple, it always cracks me up. I'll bet if a Director brought that word up in a business meeting with the Board, at Apple, the company would find a way to have the poor wretch Baker Act'd, no matter which State they happened to be in at the time. (Hints: Florida, cuckoo clocks...)
Also note that the people in Africa are so very poor largely because the people in power are crooks and thugs who derive advantage from their misery
That is, easily, the most uninformed, shallow and inaccurate explanation of what ails Africa that I have ever seen. And there's a lot of bullshit out there, so congratu-fucking-lations, you moron.
Here's a couple facts Mr I-Read-Maslow-Asshat:
1 - The basic story on political and military strife on that continent goes back to colonizers drawing arbitrary political boundaries, and ignoring tribal 'boundaries and areas of influence that had existed for centuries [see: divide & conquer]
2 - The UN's Food distribution programs, since World War II, have been dumping the same food products, on targeted areas, where those same products were already being grown, and available. [that's known as 'dumping', and yes, genius, it put the farmers out of business
3 - The World Health Organization gave multinational pharmaceutical conglomerates a 'pass' enabling them to dump expired/out=of-date antibiotics throughout the entire Continent [making it common for a lady w/a headache in Nairobi, to waltz in and buy 2000 ampicillin tabs in a grocery store [Put down Maslow and check out shifting-gen viruses, rise of AIDS and HCV, etc]
4 - Even five minutes of objective research will yield the fact that the chief explanation for malnutrition in Africa, is the peoples' inability to afford food [we use 14pounds of grain, here in the US, to make one pound of meat, and the taxpayers subsidize the corn guys, or is it McDonald's and Arby's etc, being subsidized. Either way, the thugs in Africa have a lot less to do with it, than the greedy, spoiled assholes over here. 'Your' self-absorbed ("not my problem, irrelevant") fellow asshats, in other words.
I suggest you augment your reading, and maybe try to focus on reading for retention, for a change. That welded shut mind might seem comfy, to you, but you probably should have educated it first. Oops.
Slashdot Mirror
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | (10) | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141
That's right 140 pages, supposedly [right...], of this article.
Note to slashdot: For Christ's sake, could you please knock this shit the fuck off? Just use a simple "Next" and "Previous" okay? what do you say?
I know it's an effective way for people, like me, who buy ad-free pages, to burn through their accounts, but really, guys, come on... It's not about 'money' it's about being a pain in the ass.
Wow, you just reminded me of something with that story and comment. Back in 1965, my dad's best War buddy, Pete, had a '64 Corvette (Pete had taken me out for a long drive, and it was incredible). Anyway, in summer of '65, I heard them tell a story, that Pete and his wife Marlies had been out on the town, and drove home (Orinda, CA), parked the 'Vette, and went inside to call it a night.
Not even 15 minutes after they'd gone inside, Marlies thought she'd left something in the car, opened the door from the house to the garage, and 4 bikers just scrambled right out of the garage.
Pete told me that when he heard his wife yelling, he ran out there, and the guys (Angels, Oakland) had a winch system on a big apparatus, with chains wrapped around the bottom of the engine, and it was already completely, cleanly disconnected; all they needed to do was crank the winch and they would have been rolling out into the cul-de-sac with Pete's Vette engine. A close call, but that took discipline and some know-how.
That's a very good observation. I recall reading, a number of years ago, that since President Reagan's days there was a lot of deregulation in trucking, partly in an effort to break the Teamsters. And, as a result, the collateral damage was a large increase in longer hours behind the wheel, a marginally capable pool of 'new' immigrant drivers and the NAFTA, which had a lot of Mexican truckers, who were obviously unfamiliar with US highway driving, crossing all the way to Canada and East.
Over the last 15 years or so the number of trucks increased about 40% but the number of miles driven nearly doubled. Also, the number of automobiles involved in fatal crashes with trucks declined by around 40%, but trucker fatalities only dropped by about 6%. I'm not saying that 'proves' anything, but it certainly looks like truckers, on average, are pulling more miles, and getting themselves killed in solo accidents, as a result. [My brain isn't hooked-up for math, tonight, but before the declines in fatalities, on the highways, in general, 2/3 of the accidents involving big trucks were caused by cars, so, if auto fatalities, in general, have declined, and they have, then truck fatalities should have also declined at a much better rate, if all things were considered equal]
Driving a truck is no party. I used to drive a car, heheh, about 100,000 miles a year. And I remember, mid-to-late 80s or so, realizing that a fair number of trucks, out on the Interstates, late at night, seemed to do little things that they didn't do in the 'old days.' Truckers used to be the best drivers on the road, and they very well might still be. But that is one tough way to make a decent living.
I only drove a cab for a few years, a piece of cake compared to a transport truck, and even that was a bit rough. I leased my car 24/7, and there were plenty of times I could drive, but not walk (not without a great deal of discomfort). No doubt truckers are suffering a lot of physical ailments, besides having to avoid a-holes cruising in their blind spots, and all the other crazy shit that cars and their drivers come up with.
I know how tempting it is to be more amused at the two Russians' clever little scam, but driving long hauls, and not getting compensated, because of a couple of scumbags? If there's any justice Vlad and his pal will end up in a joint, on a block with some Teamsters. I guarantee they won't be laughing and feeling so fucking smart then.
We're open for biz here, too.
And no, we do NOT have a bounty for shooting Trick 'r Treaters from a Cessna or Piper Cub; that was voted down 4-3
Regards,
lord_gov.flipper@yahoo.com
Yulia Nova's boogie, here we come!
Ah Hah! More skeptics! Well, I gues this press release from 3D Realms ought to put the naysayers to rest. Now where is it? Oh yeah, here, a firm release date:
"When the Leafs win the Cup"
You're correct there. I stand corrected. The dividend is paid by the short seller to the firm that loaned them the stock to sell. I'd forgotten that, but a short seller is working on a short time period, in terms of the deadline for closing out the short sale. I never paid a dividend out because I was timing things. and I was using the options mechanism, so I was participating ONLY in the movement of the stock price, up or down, from the point at which the stock was valued on the Market at the time of the sale or purchase of an option.
What we don't often consider is this, in options: On the date of payment of a dividend on a stock (the ex-dividend date), the price of the stock, technically drops by the exact amount of the dividend. These dividend dates are already factored into the price of the call and put options, BUT, if the stock is moving in price, against the interests of the seller, then the buyer may exercise the options earlier (right before the dividend date). However, the value of the options contract also drops on the ex-dividend date.
when I was working with options we were always cognizant of dividends, not because they cost much, they have little effect, actually on option prices, but because they impact the psychology and 'plans' on the buyers' end. What it all means is that I was never paying dividends to anybody, when using options to participate in the movement of stocks or Indexes, but i would 'shop' for options that included upcoming ex-dividends in their pricing, of course. Like i mentioned yesterday, it all required paying a lot of attention to factors besides my feeling, or beliefs, about underlying values of the company being considered for a short. That goes for before-the-decision to purchase or sell, and every day of the time period where i was on the hook for various options.
I would have to look into straight short sales of stocks, as opposed to Options, in order to find differences in the rules and mechanisms for pricing. I preferred options because of the huge leverage. On a short term deal (options contract, with an expiration date) it was a lot cheaper to spend $150-400 or so to participate in the rise or fall of 100 shares, that it would have been to borrow, or buy, the underlying shares at 100 times the value of one share. very risky, but a much wider risk/reward ratio, also. And at a far cheaper point of entry into the market in the stock.
Again, as far as dividends and interest rates, and anything else that could affect the stock's value... those factors are priced in to the current 'bid/ask' on the option contract, and the effect of that pricing-in (the 'cost' in other words) was compared to my own fair market assumptions. A wide gap meant do not consider, whereas a smaller gap meant: more attractive.
Options are really the way to go, if one already holds stocks, individually or in mutual funds, etc. Because the prices of the options contracts are so closely tied to the underlying values, an investor can use them in two very straightforward ways: To take advantage of a rise in the value of their holdings, without having to close out their positions in the held stocks, OR, to use the option as insurance, by paying a premium, upon purchase for the option, (That premium being the 'most' one stands to lose) that only loses value if the underlying stocks rise. Of course the offset in the lost premium might negate the 'paper' profit in the rise in value of the person's holdings, but the holdings, if not sold, have in fact risen. So, it's like insurance that way.
I love Warren Buffet, too. But he does not look at the market and simply buy into the market 'dips', as was inferred by the person I responded to yesterday. he's knows far better than to do that, because many of us realize that sometimes, these 'dips' are trying to tell us something, and buying into them, based on some sort of broker-advocated 'dogma' can be fata
That's a good one. Maybe you meant "Only newbie investors" instead of "even newbie investors"
You think buying into a fall in the market is always a good idea?. That's newbie rule 1, and newbie rule 2 is buy and sell on the news. The deal is this: The 'news' comes out, after the fact of a big up or down, not before. Otherwise nobody (led by your fellow newbies) would ever lose money.
Even buying into a sustained sideways market, that is heading down over time, has been likened to catching razor blades falling from the sky. Any one of them won't hurt you all that much, but after a while you bleed to death, anyway.
Brokers, and other salesman, have worked for years to condition people to buy on downward movements. Those brokers need commissions, and the people they've coached? You got it, newbs.
No dividends paid by the short sellers. They borrowed the shares, sold them on the open market, money deposited from the proceeds in their accounts (with a minus sign next to it on their statements). Then, when the price falls, of the underlying stock, they buy back the number of shares borrowed, That's the idea, of a short sale, anyway.
Now, when they sold the borrowed shares, if a dividend becomes due, then the buyer gets the dividend from the company issuing the shares. The holders of record are the recipients of dividends and those dividends are paid by the company, not by the previous owners of the stock.
Buyers of shares have no idea they are even participating in a 'short'. Why not? Well, for one thing, the law says you can only initiate a 'short' on an uptick in the underlying stock, meaning: The stock price is on a rise. So, another anonymous buyer of the security is participating in a rising market in that stock. I am dealing in Option contracts that represent the price movement, over time, of a security, not the securities themselves. The market maker simply prices the loaned shares, based on the next transaction in the stock after my order, I never actually see them. The Optiions market runs on the principle that you best against a market only when the most recent transaction in the stock or Index was higher than the previous, and you bet in favor of a rising market only when the most recent transaction was a downward movement in price.
I did Options in the 80s and early 90s, and back then (and still) the term 'naked' was slang for 'uncovered'. I was betting against certain stocks and the market, as a whole, at times. I did not own the S&P 500 Index, so if I sold a 'call' on the S&P, that transaction was naked. The most I stood to gain was the strike price on the Option, which represented, loosely speaking, the price movement up, or down, of 100 shares of the underlying security. As the contract reached expiration it was time to either close out the deal, or, if the stock or Index rose suddenly, to buy back the calls. If the Option was sold as 'covered', it meant I had the underlying stock, and if I wasn't paying attention, a person holding calls on the stock could 'exercise' the call, and I had no choice but to deliver the real shares.
Let's say there is 7 weeks to go on XYZ stock, and the last transaction in the Market, for sale of XYZ was 'up' 12 cents at $100.12, and I decide to sell a 'call' on the stock of XYZ at a $97.50 strike price. I am betting that the stock will be worth, equal to or less than, $97.50 in 7 weeks. So I sell, say 10 calls, representing 1,000 shares of XYZ and pocket $300 per contract ($3000). The most I can gain is my $3000 [If the stock does indeed head south in time]. I'm on a margin account, and as long as I have enough credit i can ride out what I hope are temporary upticks in the XYZ. But if it keeps rising, the price of each is rising out there also, and it's rising fast because holders of those calls, who bought them at lower prices are seeing price reaction based on the XYZ movement in the open market AND the fact that Time is running out for a turnaround in XYZ. If XYZ options are at 8 bucks and I get cute, the holders of the calls can 'exercise them, and all of a sudden I need to come up with 1,000 shares of XYX at over $100 apiece. My $3k deposit, from the sale of the options, is dwarfed by a $100k+ obligation. This is not for everybody, that's for sure.
But I never sold 'covered' options, only 'naked' ones. It was speculative and dangerous, because the maximum profit was the amount collected on the sale of an option, and the potential loss was, theoretically, sky-high if not infinite. In the 'naked' scene you had to pay very careful attention to both price movement in
Wow, I love it when they oversimplify and then break out the hyperbole. Let me ask you something, mr genius, given that there aren't three guys in the world who can explain OR even price the CDOs, other MBS's and all the really wacko derivatives that served, on paper, top lay off counter-party risk, but actually amounted to little more than a little friendly, global bankers' game of Pyramid scheme, until it all falls down and who gets to pay... You honestly think the ratings Agencies are at fault?
Let me try to explain: The CDOs, that were invented by Goldman's 'rocket scientists' number One, are the tip of the iceberg. The really esoteric paper instruments are far more dangerous, far less able to be priced and probably have a mark-to-market value... that is, the holders are considering their value to be X, for purposes of lending out a factor of X, AND borrowing based upon a factor of X. A high school math kid might see a 'model' here: Using the same Asset value to leverage both loans and borrowings. meanwhile, the so-called 'free market'/regulation sucks wizards, have steadily increased the leverage ratios on both ends AND, simultaneously de-fanged any sort of oversight.
Yeah Moody's is really looking like the 800 lb gorilla, eh? Not!
you feel bad for the poor bankers who loaned all their cash out and don't have any for small business. You crack me up. Ask yourself this: Who do the big banks give a fuck about, most; Wal-Mart and out-sourcing, or your proverbial 'small' retailer, and good ol' holy christmas. My heart pumps ice cold piss for the Banks. But I feel bad for the people, you know, the ones the republicans assume are too stupid to know better. The american public has just bought into an investment that nobody can explain, unless "Oh Noes!!!!" counts. That violates the first rule of investment (according to me, everybody else is on their own): Never pretend to understand that which you don't, never go along with a salesman that can't put it in simple terms in under 20 words, and 'investing half as much' does not make a bad deal better.
I hear figures like $75 Trillion kicked around in terms of all those crazy counter-party risk 'instruments' that make the current batch under the microscope look like child's play. How far do you figure 700 Billion or a Trillion is going to go when the biggest loads of paper are buttwipe material? That's going to require major league leverage, and guess what? They don't have it, it isn't going to happen. So don't bet your life on banks, insurance companies and monopolies to have an 11th hour Jimmy Stewart-style change-of-heart. Chances of that: Zero.
I'd love to be selling big phone 'switches' right now...a trainload to Fidelity, couple more to whomever has Merrill's mutual funds. Last I looked, a joe sixpack could call an 800 number and have his entire account marked to market (via bid/ask auction), and have the proceeds in cash money markets almost instantly. when enough guys get the idea, that's when those big switches come in real handy.
My favorite part of your, let's call it, charitably, a 'theory' was that line; "I read it somewhere on the Internet." All I'm going to say is, let one of your kids or your wife handle the family budget.
I get it. So when artists are hell-bent on signing away their rights [which, by the way is the equally realistic way of stating your 'version'] the labels should do what? Refuse the extra cash? Provide the kids with in-house legal reps? Blush and say, "Ohhhh, you shouldn't have " and then take it?
They haven't had any problem because artists want the bigtime so bad they're stupid about almost anything else. Never get in between a fool and his money. I realize it's vicious out there, but as long as there are whores, there are going to be pimps.
Hi,
Fact-checking is always a good idea. First off Coca-Cola still uses a cocaine-free coca leaf extract prepared at a Stepan Company plant in Maywood, New Jersey.
And, according to the latest DEA study on whether or not current US domestic production of various substances is sufficient for both domestic needs AND ongoing export, the following chemicals, that have always been produced here in the US, were considered:
That list means, basically, that we have all the heroin and cocaine and methamphetamine production, in the United States, already, to keep domestic drug consumption a totally US-based industry.
As well, cocaine, in the US, has always been used in various eye surgeries (Ask any former member of a gang that 'did' surgical pharmacies. [There's a lot of blow around]. And Brompton Cocktail is still used, widely, in later stage terminal cancers, in the US and elsewhere. (As you may know, despite evidence in your reply to the contrary, a "Brompton' contains heroin, cocaine, pure ethyl alcohol, and (occasionally, depending on the nature/location of the discomfort) thorazine.
With all due respect, opinions are just that, but, when you decide to argue 'drugs', with me, you've headed down a slippery slope. Just so you know.
I have enjoyed reading the opinions and expressed concerns regarding drug legalization, here tonight.
But, there are three main areas where drugs impact the Economy:
Costs of the drugs. I have bought kilos of coke in Bogota, and kilos of great weed in Mexico, and the price/cost differential between the source and the domestic, consumer Market, is astounding. The US produces many tons of codeine here. It's actually a by-product of one of the ingredients of Coca-Cola. And that means that the same source of the codeine, is also all about heroin, or the refined, less efficacious pain killer, morphine. The notion that legalization would divert the same bottom-line 'expenses' [In terms of 'street' consumption] to foreign criminals is absolutely false and misleading. Less-efficient morphine and 'alternatives' like 'Demerol' are only used in the US because the FBI criminalized heron in the Twenties (1926, I think, look it up, google Harry Anslinger). Heroin is far more efficient in pain management. That means a lower burden on Health Care expenses, also, if it were legally available in the US medical industry.
Law Enforcement. Okay, assuming we can ignore, for now, the notion that the War on Drugs is chiefly about establishing hegemony in the trade, and a steady source of for-profit incarcerated individuals for Wackenhut and other beneficiaries of the 'three-strike' laws, the savings in manpower, and other budgetary aspects, would be staggering. This would allow two things, besides real dollar savings: Diverting of manpower toward crimes with victims, and a huge resulting savings in incarceration. [The US taxpayer is underwriting the profits of private enterprise in the Prison Business, under the current paradigm.] As well, parts of the current law enforcement budget could be diverted towards intervention and treatment, which, besides being a necessary effort, would also lower the costs on the current Health Care system, and would allow the Churches to go back to preaching, and butt out of social policy.
Civil impact changes would be too broad for a quick summary like this. But, obviously, the lowered price of drugs, themselves, and the reality that drugs would be regulated insofar as content, purity and manufacturing safety are concerned, would lower the overall impact of drug use on total expendable income in the US by factors that might be difficult to imagine, at first. Drug legalization would involve the use of the same mechanisms of judicial and insurance realities, as well as the ability of individual States to regulate how, where and when they would be made available, as well as civil penalties for irresponsible usage, etc.
Is it a be all, end all? I seriously doubt it. I have been clean & sober for well over a decade. I don't recommend drug use. But I also don't recommend the criminalization of drug use, at all. It should be an individual's choice, with rights and responsibilities in the exercise of that choice. The 'right' being the ability to know that something is what it purports to be, and that help is available if someone needs to walk away from something they can't, apparently 'handle.' And the 'responsibility' is obvious: That the exercise of choice does not negatively impact others. Just my 2 cents, that's all.
Nice try, but the fact is, the Republican group, in charge of managing the election outcome, knew, beyond any doubt, that far more than enough votes had been cast for Gore, in the State of Florida, and then not counted, based on flimsy interpretation of flimsier guidelines, to give Gore the Presidency.
269 votes??? Guess again, pal, and put away the calculator and the 'models.' Two (2) votes, only, would have accomplished the same outcome, and both of those votes, of course, were on the Supreme Court.
Next thing you know, this guy's going to come up with 100k guys kept Nixon from beating Kennedy, when, in fact, one guy was responsible: Mayor Richard Daley.
You must be new here*
The US has been at war with unions since the 1930s. And not just in the US. All those hit lists and 'targeting' documents and maps that we provided right-wing paramilitary forces throughout Central and South America were aimed, primarily, at terrorist 'union organizers', human 'rights' extremists, and Catholic priests and bishops concerned with social 'justice', etc.
Unions... that's a good one.
* In America
Sorry for the dumb vocabulary question, but, are we talking about an item of clothing, here, or those chicks that frequent bars around the University?
First, I don't care at all. But, the point is, if someone does read what one has to say, it seems some effort should have been made to make the writing understandable (by the way, understandable, and agreeable, are two different concepts, AC, just in case you forgot that, which seems likely)
And yes, this is America, where people are not only ignorant, but proud of it, and it's no secret, either here, or overseas. It's quite obvious. It's sad that your version of 'free', as related to speech, is most likely in reference to the freedom to make sense or not, but so be it. Rant on in Freedom, all ye proud (yet anonymous), ignorant patriots!
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but, your ideas are neither important enough, nor articulated well enough, to be hated, or even understood, for the most part, by most people. If I were you, (besides being near-fatally depressed at the degenerated state of my written skills) I would spend a lot less time in self-absorbed anticipation of these 'hateful' reactions that you refer to, and a lot more time on subjects like punctuation, writing for clarity, sentence structure, etc. You're welcome.
We can disagree without hatred. I have actually seen this, in person, on numerous occasions. And whether I like your ideas, or not, is totally beside the point. I do the same thing, and get the same result, when I write in haste. Better writing skills are available to you, and anyone else who wants them; there really is no barrier. Better writing will allow your ideas to be 'considered' and that is a far better outcome than having them be either loved, or hated.
No kidding. Thanks for this piece, it was very well written. I was almost tempted to suggest using paragraph tags, but you know something; nobody here in the US reads anything, anyway, so what's the difference? The ruling class knows that the bigger the lie, the more likely it is, to be believed by the most people.
The evidence is so overwhelming, and the cracks in the system, and the steady diet of bigger and bigger lies, is so overwhelming, the people miss it, or just cannot bring themselves to admit that 'it's come to this.' I have traveled the world, I was lucky that way. Kids in the UK are like college professors, as far as history is concerned, compared to my own people. And that sounds like a putdown, but I don't mean it that way. Americans, on the street, on the buses, in the fields, working in the community, maybe raising cash for actual benevolent charities, and whatnot, are a good people, but when it comes to dealing with authority or the unknown, they are just crippled. My mother died of cancer, in Orange County, California, in '83. Her father was a socialist, Worker's party, in Madison, Wisconsin. My mom was at the Ambassador the night Bobby Kennedy was killed. On the last day of her life she said, "Look, I know things look bleak, but have faith, the American taxpayers and working class will reach a point of enough-is-enough, and they'll rise up."
It hurts me to admit the number of times I was actually glad that she had passed, and wasn't around to see the latest atrocity. My daughter called me last year and said she was scared. This may not mean much to a lot of younger guys, but decent men do not want their children scared, or in danger, ever. I was alarmed, because she's bright, creative, and was 18 then, and I asked her, "What's up Bunny? What's scaring you?" And she said, "Daddy, I'm scared of what the world will be like when I'm your age." I don't even remember what I said to her, because what can a man say to that, in the face of all this?
Oh really, well guess what asshole, you should be careful about throwing around disinformational talking points. Bite this one bitch, from the Voice of America:
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-09-10-voa59.cfm/> [voanews.com]
Feel better? Oh wait! This just in, whoa... it says one hundred percent of the people sitting in your chair, are self-delusional asshats. You really made the grade, pal. What is it, a full Moon tonight? Seems to be a lot more mental midgets on the loose, somehow.
Hey, guess what? Nobody said Saddam never had any WMDs. We knew he had them. Because we sold them to him. Look it up, asshole, Why do you figure we got the Center for Disease Control and several big Universities to spot Saddam a shitload of chemicals? Because he was going after the Iranians.
Remember them, or The Pueblo, dumbfuck? We were pissed because the Iranians got rid of the Shah that our CIA installed over there, the dictator that the Iranians finally got rid of. Saddam was our man on the front lines of Iran, you pathetic, dull fuck. US Special Forces targeting guys and their CIA handlers were the ones doing the 'aiming', courtesy of AWACS planes up in the sky. The fact that he killed a lot of Kurds didn't matter to US foreign policy, or our hypocritical 'morality' at all. Why?
Because the Turks hated the Kurds, and guess what else? The Turks had let us have radar bases and nuclear launchpads aimed at Moscow for a couple decades. They're our buddies and the Turks are still doing ethnic cleansing against the Kurds, right now, and we don't give a fuck, as a country of freedom lovers, I mean.
It's been a genuine pleasure giving you a cram course in well-documented recent US Foreign Policy, but, I can tell by the link to that cartoonish, un-captioned news item, that you probably think of as 'proof', that you won't understand stupid little things like 'facts' or 'matters of record.' Right? Right.
But don't worry, my dear little retarded patriot. There's a Plan B, just for you. And the best part of it is, it's easy, which is a real break for you, eh Bubba? And it goes like this: You're gonna switch off the old Dell, go have a last can of lukewarm Coors, and come back and sit down at your desk.
Then, open the drawer, and pull out the anti-negro .45, and slap in a clip. Now, at this point, I'm going to guess that one of your last thoughts might be something along the lines of, "How did he know I had a life not worth living?" But don't worry about all that, because this is your moment, and you've got your patriotic duty to do.
So, just imagine that the gun is 'actually' that Cub Scout's dick that you sucked in the bathroom at Church that time. Then make sure the the end of the barrel is right up against the roof of your mouth (after all, this would be the worst time for one more of those endless fuckups you used to call your 'life', right?), This is the best part: You pull the trigger, with American pride. Your country first. Amen.
See how easy that is? I mean, who needs to get out of the boat, run back into the jungle alone, get wounded, just to save a couple of his men, like that Commie, John Kerry, right? We'll show 'em who the real heroes are, tonight. This may be the first logical, or meaningful, thing that you ever had anything to do with, in your pathetic, lonely excuse for a so-called life. I'll say a little prayer to jesus for you, so you know your future in the afterlife will be guaranteed, after that, for sure.
I remember seeing a tape in the days a bit later, after the destruction of all those people, and the cops and the firemen, and of course, the buildings. And the tape was being pitched as bin Laden being all happy at the success of the mission, right?
But as I watched it (and bear in mind I hadn't heard any conspiracy stuff yet], I saw a guy enter the room, bin Laden with a quizzical look on his face, the heavyset guy pops a tape in a VCR, and Osama seemed just as surprised as could be. it looked as if this was the first word, he might even have asked who did this, because I don't speak the language but it looked he was inquiring and then getting details from the guy who brought the tape, and being almost shocked as more was revealed.
It was a gut feeling I had, with no axe to grind or anything like that. I have no proof of anything, but I've seen gut reactions from New Yorkers who were on the scene, like those 4 or 5 firemen, across the street and a little up the block, describing the successive demolition-like sequence of 'booms' with smoke and dust being blown out the windows of each floor as the thing just pancaked down, nice and neat like, into its own foundation, where Giuliani could order the beams to be carted off, and in effect, tampered with the biggest crime scene in American history. A demolition expert even said it 'was no accident that the beams happened to have been blown, all the way down, in pieces that fit perfectly on the flatbeds' that ended up carting them away.
And, you know, I remember the Daily News with, "Ford to New York: Drop Dead." And the Republicans, Reagan and Nixon, laughing and calling it Jew York. That's an insult to everybody in that city. I grew up in San Francisco, loved my City, and I might have been pretty upset when the Yanks beat the Giants in the Series.
But I went to New York, over the years, a lot, and you can't go there, and hang with the people, and look around, for long at all, without falling in love with that City.
But I swear to their god, if we find out that these Trotskyist so-called neo-con traitors had anything to do with this... well, all I can say is that anybody who thinks we should leave it to the invisible man in the sky, for the meting out of justice, is deluding themselves.
If I was a New Yorker, I'd make it my life's work to find out what really happened, gather my thoughts and ammo, and clean this mess up once, and for all. And where's the military? Every member of the officer corps puts his hand on a Bible, and swears to defend the Constitution from its enemies, both within, and without. So, when does that start? I apologize for the rant, but this stuff hurts, if you stick around long enough.
Yeah it sounds great. I wonder how long it'll be before armed robbers in Central Park, or Golden Gate Park, have their own little decoy transmitter and a wireless setup, and can 'target' only guys and ladies from the 'right' zip codes or even better, telephone exchanges or addresses. This and the whole RFID thing, wow, the Land of Opportunity, ya gotta love it!
Only since 10.2.7
But, to be fair, it only looks, feels and seems to operate that way. In the US, the corporate oligopoly, and their subordinates, in Politics, the Media, and Organized Religion, use a method that has proven to be almost immune to logic, decency, etc., since time immemorial; they aim at the good old LCD. You know, the Lowest Common Denominator.
And thanks to the schools at the grade and high school levels here in the US, (not Japan, the UK, parts of Europe), they have a huge, malleable mass of dunderheads to lead around by the nose.
Although there is a ton of Market Risk in the air, now, I wouldn't start shorting AAPL, just yet, based on fundamentals, or their relatively brief grasp of the marketplace, but... I'd be careful.
I wish Apple would spin off the old Apple Computer to anyone who actually cares about the platform's one-time potential. But if things play out the way they appear, and history means anything, chances are somebody will pick up the computer division for around 4 bucks, and change. (Have to be patient)
Apple, like many companies, underestimates the force of the, sometimes dormant, but long term intrinsic logic of the markets, while overestimating their ability to market, or 'buy' their way out of 'anything.'
I do not 'want' this to happen, at all, because if the market goes south, as rapidly and steeply as it appears possible, it's going to be a long, devastating trip. And the folks who get hurt the most will be the ones with iPod doodads in their fucking sneakers (the few), and regular working people (the many).
Apple is only doing exactly what everyone else is doing or trying to do. When I hear the word 'innovation', in relation to Apple, it always cracks me up. I'll bet if a Director brought that word up in a business meeting with the Board, at Apple, the company would find a way to have the poor wretch Baker Act'd, no matter which State they happened to be in at the time. (Hints: Florida, cuckoo clocks...)
That is, easily, the most uninformed, shallow and inaccurate explanation of what ails Africa that I have ever seen. And there's a lot of bullshit out there, so congratu-fucking-lations, you moron.
Here's a couple facts Mr I-Read-Maslow-Asshat:
I suggest you augment your reading, and maybe try to focus on reading for retention, for a change. That welded shut mind might seem comfy, to you, but you probably should have educated it first. Oops.