With you right up until 'allopathic'. The use of that word outs you as an 'alternative' medicine nutjob.
If the pain model used in medicine is immature and inadequate, it still represents the best we have. I very much hope that if it is immature and inadequate that some serious research is going into that area.
Because any of the alt-med crap may as well have been pulled out of my butthole. I'd rather have immature than a blend of fantasy and charlatanry.
There is just no way I'm spending to months salary on shiny rocks for a girl. Unless it's twice this month's, which would still be $0 (taking a little career break:)
I mean, that's ludicrous. That's a serious proportion of a car, or mortgage paid down, or hell, an amazing holiday.
I was talking about the desktop, it's a massive upgrade there as well. If you've not tried it you missing out. OS boot times and app start times are massively improved over any hard disk I've ever seen.
Jesus christ man, what planet (or moon) are you living on where that's even remotely true? The repubs power grab and over-spend every bit as much as the other clowns.
Not sure I'd call the USA phones high end, necessarily. They have less cores because samsung have to compromise and use third party chips in order to get LTE. I know the Qualcomm stuff is good, but I'm not sure I'd wager on it being *that* good.
Geekbench also seems to have recorded multiple scores for the S III that are above the 1601 reported for the iPhone 5.
All in all I'd say that there's actually no useful information here at all,
So all the folks running the exchanges and other hacked services, if indeed they were hacked and not just subject to fraud by the owners, were all fools who hadn't taken 10 minutes to learn basic security?
Face it, whatever the security of the protocol, the record of the bitcoin community and the services run by said community is deservedly in the gutter.
I guess it would be nice if it was more often recognised that it is a secondary purpose, rather than the centre of the known universe and more important than any/all other economic activity...
And that would be every bit as illegal as artificially pumping stock you have an interest in.
The whole market is full of human scum, it's true. The only point I'm trying to make is that a short sale is no different to any other in this respect.
I view that the other way round - One way or another I will be tech support for my mother. It would be easier for me, as someone that doesn't use windows any more, to support her using linux.
But frankly at this point I don't want the hassle of moving her from one OS that she knows how to use badly to another she doesn't know at all.
I love libertarians, no consistency. First you call people decrying this stuff statist scum, then in the next breath you're supporting the current financial markets, some of the most state-supported, sponsored and backed-up institutions around.
I can see a reason, if that's your only criteria, to allow companies to sell shares and raise cash. I'm not sure I see what the trading afterwards is good for in that worldview. It might encourage people to buy shares, so they can trade them.
But in that case why should it be illegal for someone to lend their shares to a second party, who sells them to a third party then re-buys later and gives the same number back?
Me, I still don't see what the stock trading market adds to a company. After initial sales it's not like they get any of the crazy money that's flying around.
And maybe you don't want to take the risk, you just want to hold the stock and collect a nice fee every so often.
And maybe you don't think they're going down short term, it's no disadvantage to you to charge some schmuck to borrow your stock and lose money on a failed short.
If it's insider trading its illegal whichever way you're betting.
Maybe the guy loaning out the stock, or the guy going long is party to news that they have a groundbreaking product due to launch ahead of schedule that the competition are going to be years catching up to. In this case going long is no more gambling than going short.
The fund manager doesn't think the stocks are going down, that's why he's holding them and that's why he's comfortable loaning them out, as has been explained to you many times. The short seller doesn't magically force the stock to drop in price, he's gambling just as much as everyone else is,
You really are trying so very hard not to understand here, aren't you?
Or they may be worth more, and now you have a fee as well as better priced stocks. You really have nothing here etash.
Let me spell it out for you - You're the lending party. You think the stocks are going up, long term (which is why you hold them and loaned them out in the first place). The other guy, the short seller thinks they'll go down (which is why he wants to sell them and pay you back later). The third party, the buyer also thinks they'll probably go up or he wouldn't buy.
Every single party knows the lay of the land and the intentions of the other parties, and sees the trade as potentially advantageous to themselves, they just disagree on where the market is going. There is no fraud here. It's no different to any other trade.
You may as well say that a stock buyer is committing fraud because he's taking your stock in the expectation that the stock goes up, if he hadn't bought your stock you'd be much better off today than when you sold yesterday! Damn him and his fraud!
All parties enter this transaction voluntarily and in the expectation of profit. That some of them may be wrong is why the whole of the stock market is a gamble.
Unless this is naked shorting (which should be and is in many places banned) then you do own the stock you're selling, though under a lending agreement with a broker. And you don't sell it under market price either, you want the selling part of your transaction as high as possible.
Presumably the broker isn't an idiot either - they wouldn't loan you the stock if they thought you would be capable of crashing the price, and they do get a fee out of you for every loan.
Your guy in the example there is on the hook for quite a bit of cash if he guesses the market wrong.
But he's better off than if he had just sat on them, which he may have been planning to do anyway.
For instance a fund manager has got a lot of long-term holdings in his fund. So long as he has the same number of stocks in the same firms this time next week, he's happy. In the mean time, lending them out to short-term shorters actually gives him another income stream, without otherwise affecting his holdings.
Why would you not present the whole story? The lender isn't some rube off the street, they're usually a very established broker that sees an advantage to the transaction for themselves - they get to keep the same amount of stock and levy a fee.
Naked short selling is a different game altogether and I agree it shouldn't be allowed. Standard shorting, however, seems to me just as valid as going long.
The person that lends the stocks still has their stocks, and usually a fee, at the end. Regardless of the price they are better off than if they just sat on them.
Shorting has no more potential to distort the market than the opposite, going long. You can pump up a stock's price by either buying a lot (and if the market doesn't support you you'll lose that cash again) or by various illegal pumping methods. Shorting is no different. You can downwardly affect a price by heavy shorting, sure, but you'll lose a hell of a lot if the market disagrees. And if you otherwise try to artificially make the value plummet you'll be committing one of various illegal acts.
There's no need to be afraid of shorting, unless you think stocks should always and only ever go up.
It's simply trying to monetise your (presumed) knowledge of the company and its trading.
Slashdot Mirror
With you right up until 'allopathic'. The use of that word outs you as an 'alternative' medicine nutjob.
If the pain model used in medicine is immature and inadequate, it still represents the best we have. I very much hope that if it is immature and inadequate that some serious research is going into that area.
Because any of the alt-med crap may as well have been pulled out of my butthole. I'd rather have immature than a blend of fantasy and charlatanry.
There is just no way I'm spending to months salary on shiny rocks for a girl. Unless it's twice this month's, which would still be $0 (taking a little career break :)
I mean, that's ludicrous. That's a serious proportion of a car, or mortgage paid down, or hell, an amazing holiday.
I was talking about the desktop, it's a massive upgrade there as well. If you've not tried it you missing out. OS boot times and app start times are massively improved over any hard disk I've ever seen.
Some performance increase?
Have you ever used one? Best upgrade (in terms of noticeable speed/responsiveness) increase since doubling the RAM on that old pentium box in 1996....
Republicans? Small government?
Jesus christ man, what planet (or moon) are you living on where that's even remotely true? The repubs power grab and over-spend every bit as much as the other clowns.
And take a lot of people's money with them!
I'll stick to the normal economy for now, at least there I have some form of legal redress.
Fine, you're saying that the current bitcoin community is, in general, a bad place to put any financial faith (and therefore money).
I agree.
Actually it's exynos, Samsung's ARM, not tegra.
Not sure I'd call the USA phones high end, necessarily. They have less cores because samsung have to compromise and use third party chips in order to get LTE. I know the Qualcomm stuff is good, but I'm not sure I'd wager on it being *that* good.
Geekbench also seems to have recorded multiple scores for the S III that are above the 1601 reported for the iPhone 5.
All in all I'd say that there's actually no useful information here at all,
So all the folks running the exchanges and other hacked services, if indeed they were hacked and not just subject to fraud by the owners, were all fools who hadn't taken 10 minutes to learn basic security?
Face it, whatever the security of the protocol, the record of the bitcoin community and the services run by said community is deservedly in the gutter.
You could get alarm clocks that you switched off by throwing or whacking back in the 80s. Not new.
I guess it would be nice if it was more often recognised that it is a secondary purpose, rather than the centre of the known universe and more important than any/all other economic activity...
And that would be every bit as illegal as artificially pumping stock you have an interest in.
The whole market is full of human scum, it's true. The only point I'm trying to make is that a short sale is no different to any other in this respect.
I view that the other way round - One way or another I will be tech support for my mother. It would be easier for me, as someone that doesn't use windows any more, to support her using linux.
But frankly at this point I don't want the hassle of moving her from one OS that she knows how to use badly to another she doesn't know at all.
Lol.
I love libertarians, no consistency. First you call people decrying this stuff statist scum, then in the next breath you're supporting the current financial markets, some of the most state-supported, sponsored and backed-up institutions around.
Yup, sure, nobody ever called anything after an animal before Apple released Mac OS X.
What colour is the sky on your planet?
Does gambling on shares do that at all?
I can see a reason, if that's your only criteria, to allow companies to sell shares and raise cash. I'm not sure I see what the trading afterwards is good for in that worldview. It might encourage people to buy shares, so they can trade them.
But in that case why should it be illegal for someone to lend their shares to a second party, who sells them to a third party then re-buys later and gives the same number back?
Me, I still don't see what the stock trading market adds to a company. After initial sales it's not like they get any of the crazy money that's flying around.
So what? There's still no fraud there.
And maybe you don't want to take the risk, you just want to hold the stock and collect a nice fee every so often.
And maybe you don't think they're going down short term, it's no disadvantage to you to charge some schmuck to borrow your stock and lose money on a failed short.
If it's insider trading its illegal whichever way you're betting.
Maybe the guy loaning out the stock, or the guy going long is party to news that they have a groundbreaking product due to launch ahead of schedule that the competition are going to be years catching up to. In this case going long is no more gambling than going short.
No, I didn't.
The fund manager doesn't think the stocks are going down, that's why he's holding them and that's why he's comfortable loaning them out, as has been explained to you many times. The short seller doesn't magically force the stock to drop in price, he's gambling just as much as everyone else is,
You really are trying so very hard not to understand here, aren't you?
Or they may be worth more, and now you have a fee as well as better priced stocks. You really have nothing here etash.
Let me spell it out for you -
You're the lending party. You think the stocks are going up, long term (which is why you hold them and loaned them out in the first place).
The other guy, the short seller thinks they'll go down (which is why he wants to sell them and pay you back later).
The third party, the buyer also thinks they'll probably go up or he wouldn't buy.
Every single party knows the lay of the land and the intentions of the other parties, and sees the trade as potentially advantageous to themselves, they just disagree on where the market is going. There is no fraud here. It's no different to any other trade.
You may as well say that a stock buyer is committing fraud because he's taking your stock in the expectation that the stock goes up, if he hadn't bought your stock you'd be much better off today than when you sold yesterday! Damn him and his fraud!
All parties enter this transaction voluntarily and in the expectation of profit. That some of them may be wrong is why the whole of the stock market is a gamble.
Unless this is naked shorting (which should be and is in many places banned) then you do own the stock you're selling, though under a lending agreement with a broker. And you don't sell it under market price either, you want the selling part of your transaction as high as possible.
Presumably the broker isn't an idiot either - they wouldn't loan you the stock if they thought you would be capable of crashing the price, and they do get a fee out of you for every loan.
Your guy in the example there is on the hook for quite a bit of cash if he guesses the market wrong.
But he's better off than if he had just sat on them, which he may have been planning to do anyway.
For instance a fund manager has got a lot of long-term holdings in his fund. So long as he has the same number of stocks in the same firms this time next week, he's happy. In the mean time, lending them out to short-term shorters actually gives him another income stream, without otherwise affecting his holdings.
Why would you not present the whole story? The lender isn't some rube off the street, they're usually a very established broker that sees an advantage to the transaction for themselves - they get to keep the same amount of stock and levy a fee.
You're really grasping at straws here.
Naked short selling is a different game altogether and I agree it shouldn't be allowed. Standard shorting, however, seems to me just as valid as going long.
The person that lends the stocks still has their stocks, and usually a fee, at the end. Regardless of the price they are better off than if they just sat on them.
Shorting has no more potential to distort the market than the opposite, going long. You can pump up a stock's price by either buying a lot (and if the market doesn't support you you'll lose that cash again) or by various illegal pumping methods. Shorting is no different. You can downwardly affect a price by heavy shorting, sure, but you'll lose a hell of a lot if the market disagrees. And if you otherwise try to artificially make the value plummet you'll be committing one of various illegal acts.
There's no need to be afraid of shorting, unless you think stocks should always and only ever go up.
It's simply trying to monetise your (presumed) knowledge of the company and its trading.