Everyone should be on a level playing field, but I'm not going to stop cheating first, I'll cheat until the government forces me to stop. But someone should really step up their game and force me to stop cheating.
I was thinking more of negotiating contracts that require adherence to EPA standards, even if in a country they don't apply in. Then independently test the effluent/runoff.
I don't owe on anything I couldn't sell in a week at 1.2x loan, so if I had my credit canceled today, I could have al my debts paid off by the month's end. The two times I have day-traded, I was clear about what I needed and by when, started, made money, and quit. I know more than one person who became addicted. They "could have" walked away at any time, but never would. Turns into a gambling addiction.
I know people whose accounts were halved and worse, and haven't recovered.
The DJIA has never been down over a 10 year period (even if it didn't always beat inflation). But in any one industry or stock, you can see losses. And tracking mutual funds usually have lower fees, making them double-good. Even buying in in '29, you made it back in ~25 years. So, unless you think we are on the cusp of something worse than the Great Depression, then I wouldn't worry about it. Personally, I think the US is unrecoverable. So I moved. If the US collapses, I'll never have trouble with food, or the basics. And even in crashes, land never really goes that low, as it's a finite resource, pretty much always appreciating at inflation+. But my 401(k) (in John Hancock), is up 10% per year (average) for the past 10 years. Even when the "market" was down, I still made money.
Day trading made me enough to live off. But it was painful. The "best" strategy was to buy anyone who had a sudden loss (excepting news of bankruptcy). It was almost an over-adjustment, and rose 3-5% the next day. Just doing that, and nothing else, and you'd make 20% per year (including the ones that didn't pan out). But, the market goes up an average of 8% per year, and most of those gains are overnight. So, to take advantage of the market movements in general, throw it in Google or Apple overnight (or whatever passes for a blue chip in the days where GM is bankrupt and IBM is down to selling peanuts on the street corner for revenue). Sell first thing in the morning, then play the news. Also, I'd pick 5-10 stocks that were researched to be "stable" and then buy on variations. Every stock goes up and down 1% or so in a day. So buy low, sell high, and always be out by sundown (even at a loss).
The human psychology doesn't work well for that, so it's stressful, scary, painful, and full of loss. but also makes gains. It also requires you be otherwise unemployed, because playing your tricks 20 minutes late will just lose you money.
Lots of people talk about "wage slaves" but I'm much happier as a wage slave, knowing that I'm getting paid this month, than worrying about whether I'll make enough this month to pay rent.
You would trust the guy? "HI, I'm a big shot in the drug industry with a position and pull to do stuff in the industry. The industry is causing problems, and I refuse to correct them."
I can only infer that he knows he's evil, but he can't do the right thing because he's too weak willed to explain it to the shareholders. In any case, he seems to be implying that he's evil.
Yeah, every year, I put in the legal max in my 401(k). Also max the Roth, and went with the HDHP when work offered it, and got another $10k in yet another "retirement" account (the only account that's legally pre-tax going in and post-tax going out). I'd have kept that up, except the employer canceled the HDHP plan after a couple years. I was about the only one using it, and I was using it for a retirement account. I bought my first house in '99 and traded up in '03. Got a few houses now, leveraging the previous to buy the next, then renting them out. I'll stop at 10, or retire at 55, whichever comes first. The portfolio is increasing faster than wages, but wages are necessary for cash, as the houses are all "gains" that can't be realized yet (at least not for my plans).
The rule of the stock market is there's never a bad time to buy in. The more you buy, the more you'll have, even if you have to wait 10 years. And since I presume you are more than 10 years from retirement, the most you can invest in index funds (I go more risky with small cap and emerging markets), the more you'll have in 10 years. Don't even consider risk until 10 years out from retirement. A penny saved is a dollar earned, and all that.
Retiring with enough money is 99% mindset, 1% execution.
They already bring it down with the journalists they let in the press room. Perhaps a national lottery for access to the press room would be better. But complaining over the class of journalists is elitist and undemocratic.
And they don't work. If you are running rich, you need an oxygenation. If you are running lean, you need an octane booster. They are nearly opposite, so you don't get both in one. So you need to know the problem before you toss in an additive.
You don't expect to get caught. Also, you time your "fake" trips to be well off from your regular routine. The dongle will be sending back "parked in the garage" at the time of the crash. Then you just plug it in and claim it must have malfunctioned. Just because you are too dumb to fool someone else, doesn't mean we all are.
I've seen cars tuned to pass emissions with the cat removed. They ran like shit, but you could make them run long enough to "fool" the required tests. It's also not illegal to fool the tests. You can tune a car for the test, test it, then modify it (or swap out "illegal" parts for "legal" ones, test, then put them back). I had that "officially" recommended to me when my mod passed emissions, but didn't pass the visual test. The visual test is performed by Alaska to verify any modifications are approved by California, and is unrelated to the performance of the parts. If you can pass the emissions test, you'll fail if your part makers didn't pay the CARB tax.
All your claims about "real" polygraph tests sound like something you read on the interwebs.
Probably. The interwebs generally gets a hold of training manuals and such. I was "trained" by a professional test giver. The "ideal" is likely what you'd see on the interwebs, taken from "official" manuals. The rest was from how a trained administrator relates how they are used in criminal investigations (and to a lesser extent, job interviews).
People like me could never pass a polygraph. They'll ask me if I ever used illegal drugs, and I'll say "no". They assume that's a lie, as everyone does it (including the last 44 presidents). From there, it turns into a game, trying to get me to confess to something I've never done. "If you confess, it'll all be over". That's a line straight from the torture of the Inquisition, which is what polygraphs are based on.
That is the question they try to answer. No more, no less.
What do you do when the parents don't say no? There's an uncle that rapes the children. When he does it, he goes to prison. You know that in 6 months, when he gets out (short sentences, he just raped kiddies, not like he had 10g of drugs on him - they get life), he'll be back and rape the kids again. Aside from failing to protect the children from that one messed up relative, the parents are "good".
So, do you rip the children away from "good" parents (with a flaw). Or leave the children there, expecting them to get raped?
I avoided buying a house that would lock me into debt I can't handle, instead renting for 4 years; now I own a house I'll have paid off when I'm 30, and be completely out of debt and have no rent at that time.
And I did the opposite. Told by my parents to make sure I can afford it, I bought what I couldn't afford. When the market went up 10%, I made 50% more than if I had bought what I could afford, and infinitely more than if I'd rented. Sure, I could sell down and have no payment, but it's nicer to make $100k/yr working, and $100k/yr owning property. Why make $100k, spending $20k on a rental, when you can make $200k in income and appreciation?
My parents have always told me to live within my means. It's a good lesson to learn, but too constraining. Understand the lesson, but know when to break the rules.
My parents were both midwest-born, and neither well traveled. They have good advice, but only in a very narrow sphere. And I always was outside it. So the rules were useless to me, even if the reasons behind them were sound, and sometimes applicable.
The problem is that parents lie to their children. The children (at least the smart ones) know it. So yeah, kids stop listening to their parents.
Ad for things like career advice, I made more at age 25 (in a regular salaried corporate job) than my parents made in any one year of their lives. Doesn't sound like I was in need of career advice from them. My mother first left the US when she was 60+. I'd been to 20 countries by 20, and ended up moving to one of them. The grandkids by age 5 have been to more countries than all their grandparents (combined count). So the 5 year old is more well traveled than the grandparents.
Yes, in general, parents know best, but that doesn't mean it's true for any specific family.
I've done some things that some people probably think me a bad parent for. If you tell them the stove is hot, they'll want to see how hot. If you let them get burned (hopefully mildly) they'll remind you daily that the stove is hot. So I try to burn the kids. Once I was in a parking lot, and told the 4 year old to stay close. He wasn't listening, and was running into traffic, right when a car was coming past. Mom nearly had a heart attack. I grabbed him by the shirt and held him back where he could see how close the car came, hopefully to learn the lesson to stop and watch better. Every moment is a teaching moment. You just have to be smart enough to see them and caring enough to try.
True in the US. Not elsewhere. I was in Paris at the Notre Dame, and the 7 year old decided to wander off and took out a noisemaker he had gotten elsewhere. A security guard noted the disturbance and escorted him out. Since we weren't outside, the security guard didn't know what to do, so he walked him to the nearest police officer, probably said something to the effect of "lost kid, your problem now" (despite the fact that the security guard made him lost by walking him out of the building he was in). The police didn't seem bothered at all that an "unsupervised" kid was dropped off to him.
It's only some places where no positive encounters come from the police.
My sister worked CPS. They weren't all bad. Funny was that so many were abused women workers looking to take down anyone who reminds them of their abusers.
I'm so glad I moved out of the US. My wife is a klutz. She's managed to hurt herself plenty. The oldest got her grace. He's been to the hospital 4 times or so in 8 years. 9 stitches on his eye, done in full surgery because of how close it was to his eye. Arm broken falling from a playground thing. Arm stitches from falling through a glass table (tempered, not safety). Thankfully, all but one were when he was in the care of someone else. So we have witnesses and paper trails demonstrating that we had no lack of supervision or damage caused by us.
If we were in the US, all it would have taken would be a single report by someone to have us under a microscope.
That said, the risk that a child will be kidnapped is not zero.
It rounds to zero. There's something like one kidnapping a month in the US (the kidnapping that people "fear" the kidnapping by a stranger with a violent history). There are tens to hundreds of thousands of kidnappings a year in the US, almost all by family members (most by parents). So you see the huge numbers thrown up, and nearly all are warring exes fighting.
If you do nothing to "secure" your children from kidnapping, they are more likely to be struck by lightning than kidnapped.
If you want to piss off the test giver, feel free to talk about he answer like you have something to say. They require yes/no answers. But they'll ramble on in the questions, and if you ramble back, then the test giver is the one that fails.
I've never had a chance to go for clearance. Despite it being illegal, the jobs that require it only hire those already with it. So ex-military get jobs they can't do because you can bill a warm body that's not doing the job (but could, if they had the skills) but can't bill a warm body banned by law/clearance from working on the project.
Point of order, you didn't fail the test. You were told you failed. An actual failure must be documented, with the results given per-question and raw data given so a re-reading of the results is possible. You were interrogated. There's a difference.
A "real" polygraph wouldn't follow the pattern you gave. He "accused" you of various crimes. In a "real" polygraph, the questions should all be presented before the test, so that no question is a "surprise". You may have been properly prepped, but the manner in which you described it isn't how it should happen. In an interrogation, the test is a "failure" 100% of the time, and they use the failure to abuse and harass, but doesn't give useful information. If you "pass" it's proof that the person being tested is lying, and has been trained to beat a polygraph.
Your facts are so weak that you stoop to attacking me callimg me a liar an psychopath.
The fact is, you are a liar. You brought up winter first, then changed the goalposts again, anything to distract from the facts.
Sorry but living next to a rail track and listening to the occasional train does not make you a train and shipping expert. Without references all you are saying is opinion.
Yes, it's only opinion. And it's based in more facts than you have, and without lying bisases you spew. You don't have facts. You have a wrong opinion, and selection bias.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone should be on a level playing field, but I'm not going to stop cheating first, I'll cheat until the government forces me to stop. But someone should really step up their game and force me to stop cheating.
I was thinking more of negotiating contracts that require adherence to EPA standards, even if in a country they don't apply in. Then independently test the effluent/runoff.
I don't owe on anything I couldn't sell in a week at 1.2x loan, so if I had my credit canceled today, I could have al my debts paid off by the month's end. The two times I have day-traded, I was clear about what I needed and by when, started, made money, and quit. I know more than one person who became addicted. They "could have" walked away at any time, but never would. Turns into a gambling addiction.
I know people whose accounts were halved and worse, and haven't recovered.
The DJIA has never been down over a 10 year period (even if it didn't always beat inflation). But in any one industry or stock, you can see losses. And tracking mutual funds usually have lower fees, making them double-good. Even buying in in '29, you made it back in ~25 years. So, unless you think we are on the cusp of something worse than the Great Depression, then I wouldn't worry about it. Personally, I think the US is unrecoverable. So I moved. If the US collapses, I'll never have trouble with food, or the basics. And even in crashes, land never really goes that low, as it's a finite resource, pretty much always appreciating at inflation+. But my 401(k) (in John Hancock), is up 10% per year (average) for the past 10 years. Even when the "market" was down, I still made money.
Day trading made me enough to live off. But it was painful. The "best" strategy was to buy anyone who had a sudden loss (excepting news of bankruptcy). It was almost an over-adjustment, and rose 3-5% the next day. Just doing that, and nothing else, and you'd make 20% per year (including the ones that didn't pan out). But, the market goes up an average of 8% per year, and most of those gains are overnight. So, to take advantage of the market movements in general, throw it in Google or Apple overnight (or whatever passes for a blue chip in the days where GM is bankrupt and IBM is down to selling peanuts on the street corner for revenue). Sell first thing in the morning, then play the news. Also, I'd pick 5-10 stocks that were researched to be "stable" and then buy on variations. Every stock goes up and down 1% or so in a day. So buy low, sell high, and always be out by sundown (even at a loss).
The human psychology doesn't work well for that, so it's stressful, scary, painful, and full of loss. but also makes gains. It also requires you be otherwise unemployed, because playing your tricks 20 minutes late will just lose you money.
Lots of people talk about "wage slaves" but I'm much happier as a wage slave, knowing that I'm getting paid this month, than worrying about whether I'll make enough this month to pay rent.
You would trust the guy? "HI, I'm a big shot in the drug industry with a position and pull to do stuff in the industry. The industry is causing problems, and I refuse to correct them."
I can only infer that he knows he's evil, but he can't do the right thing because he's too weak willed to explain it to the shareholders. In any case, he seems to be implying that he's evil.
Yeah, every year, I put in the legal max in my 401(k). Also max the Roth, and went with the HDHP when work offered it, and got another $10k in yet another "retirement" account (the only account that's legally pre-tax going in and post-tax going out). I'd have kept that up, except the employer canceled the HDHP plan after a couple years. I was about the only one using it, and I was using it for a retirement account. I bought my first house in '99 and traded up in '03. Got a few houses now, leveraging the previous to buy the next, then renting them out. I'll stop at 10, or retire at 55, whichever comes first. The portfolio is increasing faster than wages, but wages are necessary for cash, as the houses are all "gains" that can't be realized yet (at least not for my plans).
The rule of the stock market is there's never a bad time to buy in. The more you buy, the more you'll have, even if you have to wait 10 years. And since I presume you are more than 10 years from retirement, the most you can invest in index funds (I go more risky with small cap and emerging markets), the more you'll have in 10 years. Don't even consider risk until 10 years out from retirement. A penny saved is a dollar earned, and all that.
Retiring with enough money is 99% mindset, 1% execution.
Because they are still better than the Republican candidates.
They already bring it down with the journalists they let in the press room. Perhaps a national lottery for access to the press room would be better. But complaining over the class of journalists is elitist and undemocratic.
yeah, it's called "gasoline".
And they don't work. If you are running rich, you need an oxygenation. If you are running lean, you need an octane booster. They are nearly opposite, so you don't get both in one. So you need to know the problem before you toss in an additive.
You don't expect to get caught. Also, you time your "fake" trips to be well off from your regular routine. The dongle will be sending back "parked in the garage" at the time of the crash. Then you just plug it in and claim it must have malfunctioned. Just because you are too dumb to fool someone else, doesn't mean we all are.
I've seen cars tuned to pass emissions with the cat removed. They ran like shit, but you could make them run long enough to "fool" the required tests. It's also not illegal to fool the tests. You can tune a car for the test, test it, then modify it (or swap out "illegal" parts for "legal" ones, test, then put them back). I had that "officially" recommended to me when my mod passed emissions, but didn't pass the visual test. The visual test is performed by Alaska to verify any modifications are approved by California, and is unrelated to the performance of the parts. If you can pass the emissions test, you'll fail if your part makers didn't pay the CARB tax.
All your claims about "real" polygraph tests sound like something you read on the interwebs.
Probably. The interwebs generally gets a hold of training manuals and such. I was "trained" by a professional test giver. The "ideal" is likely what you'd see on the interwebs, taken from "official" manuals. The rest was from how a trained administrator relates how they are used in criminal investigations (and to a lesser extent, job interviews).
People like me could never pass a polygraph. They'll ask me if I ever used illegal drugs, and I'll say "no". They assume that's a lie, as everyone does it (including the last 44 presidents). From there, it turns into a game, trying to get me to confess to something I've never done. "If you confess, it'll all be over". That's a line straight from the torture of the Inquisition, which is what polygraphs are based on.
That is the question they try to answer. No more, no less.
What do you do when the parents don't say no? There's an uncle that rapes the children. When he does it, he goes to prison. You know that in 6 months, when he gets out (short sentences, he just raped kiddies, not like he had 10g of drugs on him - they get life), he'll be back and rape the kids again. Aside from failing to protect the children from that one messed up relative, the parents are "good".
So, do you rip the children away from "good" parents (with a flaw). Or leave the children there, expecting them to get raped?
Come on, which is it?
I avoided buying a house that would lock me into debt I can't handle, instead renting for 4 years; now I own a house I'll have paid off when I'm 30, and be completely out of debt and have no rent at that time.
And I did the opposite. Told by my parents to make sure I can afford it, I bought what I couldn't afford. When the market went up 10%, I made 50% more than if I had bought what I could afford, and infinitely more than if I'd rented. Sure, I could sell down and have no payment, but it's nicer to make $100k/yr working, and $100k/yr owning property. Why make $100k, spending $20k on a rental, when you can make $200k in income and appreciation?
My parents have always told me to live within my means. It's a good lesson to learn, but too constraining. Understand the lesson, but know when to break the rules.
My parents were both midwest-born, and neither well traveled. They have good advice, but only in a very narrow sphere. And I always was outside it. So the rules were useless to me, even if the reasons behind them were sound, and sometimes applicable.
The problem is that parents lie to their children. The children (at least the smart ones) know it. So yeah, kids stop listening to their parents.
Ad for things like career advice, I made more at age 25 (in a regular salaried corporate job) than my parents made in any one year of their lives. Doesn't sound like I was in need of career advice from them. My mother first left the US when she was 60+. I'd been to 20 countries by 20, and ended up moving to one of them. The grandkids by age 5 have been to more countries than all their grandparents (combined count). So the 5 year old is more well traveled than the grandparents.
Yes, in general, parents know best, but that doesn't mean it's true for any specific family.
I've done some things that some people probably think me a bad parent for. If you tell them the stove is hot, they'll want to see how hot. If you let them get burned (hopefully mildly) they'll remind you daily that the stove is hot. So I try to burn the kids. Once I was in a parking lot, and told the 4 year old to stay close. He wasn't listening, and was running into traffic, right when a car was coming past. Mom nearly had a heart attack. I grabbed him by the shirt and held him back where he could see how close the car came, hopefully to learn the lesson to stop and watch better. Every moment is a teaching moment. You just have to be smart enough to see them and caring enough to try.
True in the US. Not elsewhere. I was in Paris at the Notre Dame, and the 7 year old decided to wander off and took out a noisemaker he had gotten elsewhere. A security guard noted the disturbance and escorted him out. Since we weren't outside, the security guard didn't know what to do, so he walked him to the nearest police officer, probably said something to the effect of "lost kid, your problem now" (despite the fact that the security guard made him lost by walking him out of the building he was in). The police didn't seem bothered at all that an "unsupervised" kid was dropped off to him.
It's only some places where no positive encounters come from the police.
My sister worked CPS. They weren't all bad. Funny was that so many were abused women workers looking to take down anyone who reminds them of their abusers.
I'm so glad I moved out of the US. My wife is a klutz. She's managed to hurt herself plenty. The oldest got her grace. He's been to the hospital 4 times or so in 8 years. 9 stitches on his eye, done in full surgery because of how close it was to his eye. Arm broken falling from a playground thing. Arm stitches from falling through a glass table (tempered, not safety). Thankfully, all but one were when he was in the care of someone else. So we have witnesses and paper trails demonstrating that we had no lack of supervision or damage caused by us.
If we were in the US, all it would have taken would be a single report by someone to have us under a microscope.
So the problem isn't too many kids, but too many levels in the house. Go California split. Multi-level, one floor.
That said, the risk that a child will be kidnapped is not zero.
It rounds to zero. There's something like one kidnapping a month in the US (the kidnapping that people "fear" the kidnapping by a stranger with a violent history). There are tens to hundreds of thousands of kidnappings a year in the US, almost all by family members (most by parents). So you see the huge numbers thrown up, and nearly all are warring exes fighting.
If you do nothing to "secure" your children from kidnapping, they are more likely to be struck by lightning than kidnapped.
Yeah, because children deserve to be abused, if they can't pick the right parents to be born to.
If you want to piss off the test giver, feel free to talk about he answer like you have something to say. They require yes/no answers. But they'll ramble on in the questions, and if you ramble back, then the test giver is the one that fails.
I've never had a chance to go for clearance. Despite it being illegal, the jobs that require it only hire those already with it. So ex-military get jobs they can't do because you can bill a warm body that's not doing the job (but could, if they had the skills) but can't bill a warm body banned by law/clearance from working on the project.
Wow, you can't even follow a conversation. The first mention of summer was by you.
Let's review. I mentioned winter. After you did. Long before my mention of seasons, you said:
Do you have any idea the cost of keeping a rail line through Siberia, Alaska and Northern BC open during the winter?
You lie like we can't just look up and see your bald faced lies. Your parents must be so proud.
Point of order, you didn't fail the test. You were told you failed. An actual failure must be documented, with the results given per-question and raw data given so a re-reading of the results is possible. You were interrogated. There's a difference.
A "real" polygraph wouldn't follow the pattern you gave. He "accused" you of various crimes. In a "real" polygraph, the questions should all be presented before the test, so that no question is a "surprise". You may have been properly prepped, but the manner in which you described it isn't how it should happen. In an interrogation, the test is a "failure" 100% of the time, and they use the failure to abuse and harass, but doesn't give useful information. If you "pass" it's proof that the person being tested is lying, and has been trained to beat a polygraph.
Your facts are so weak that you stoop to attacking me callimg me a liar an psychopath.
The fact is, you are a liar. You brought up winter first, then changed the goalposts again, anything to distract from the facts.
Sorry but living next to a rail track and listening to the occasional train does not make you a train and shipping expert. Without references all you are saying is opinion.
Yes, it's only opinion. And it's based in more facts than you have, and without lying bisases you spew. You don't have facts. You have a wrong opinion, and selection bias.