Correct me if I'm wrong, but the best you can make out of a short deal is to double your money? So that's a MASSIVE investment you made there!
For inquiring minds; the reason you can only double on a short is that technically you borrow and sell it.
You "pay" enough money to cover the shares to your broker, who keeps it as a security for the duration of the deal.
When you close the short deal, your broker buys enough new shares to cover your initial loan you get the difference between what they sold the shares (start of transaction) for and what they bought them for (end of transaction).
Thus if a stock is completely wiped out while you're shorting it, your gain will be;
Gain = (InitialPrice-FinalPrice)/InitialPrice = 100%
If the stock falls 50% you instead make;
Gain = (1-0.5)/1 = 50%
It's extremely risky to invest in short deals if you don't constantly keep on top of the investment. Say you shorted SCO way back when everyone thought it was going to die but instead it doubled or even trippled it's value, in that case you stand to loose far more than you initially invested.
Gain = (1-3)/1 = -200% (ouch)
But your broker will actually terminate part of or your entire short deal as you become unable to cover the re-purchase price.
Now if you change your mind and say it was a sell option that made you all that cash, your credibility might actually go up...
It's actually much more difficult when the text is in swedish, as you can no doubt see for yourself below!
Aanyway, in swedish we combine words in a fairly odd fashion, so that "fashion victim" becomes a single word, "fashionvictim". The combinations can become arbitrarily long, but that's typically avoided. But "interior decorator meeting" would become "interiordecoratormeeting". Now the technique of internal scrambling could for instance turn that into "ioieerorcrtetmtaidonrneg" which is cleary much harder to decode than "inoiterr dcartooer mieentg". One example of this in the text below is "kapacitetstaket" (capacity ceeling) which is scrambled to kaecskatatetpit.
*** scrambled swedish Saab kan fnsöirnva fårn Sveigre. Äaergn Graenel Mrotos har blueatst att molnastrela bliar bara ska trkllvaeis på en pltas i Euopra.
Kmapen såtr mlalen Thälottlran och tyksa Rüssihelsem.
Om Tholtalrätn frraoölr sdriten om tgniklirnleevn rkreisar 6 300 poesenrr frloröa jbebon.
Blir pdeokriotunn deormät kvar i Vgevsiäsrte beedtyr det en oietlnrdg önnkig av aanetlt bilar som ska byaggs. För att krlaa det sllkue Saab bhöeva nnälsyatla och ifnöra tksfiert så att kaecskatatetpit på 40 balir per timme ödake till 60 blair per tmime.
Vi mtsåe jboba hråt för att vsia att vi är en ksroinmsunäskreg podrisourotnkt, sgeär Paul Åknelrud, oörrfadnde i Mtalels vtelarksduksbb på Saab tlil adnbfalotet.se.
Han är orilog att fkiebran i Tarlättlohn kemomr att lgägas ner helt om GM väjelr att sasta på Rüsseiehlsm.
Det böeehvr itne bli så men rskein finns helt krlat, seägr han.
In this version, I've done full scramble - scrambling the position of every letter within a word...
yhW I wtoer sith prepa
I ma a clsthospoigy owh sha eenb rkniwog rfo csMroftoi ni fedterinf iceisatacp icsen 1996.
In 2000 I cteeodmpl ym hPD in egoiictvn oghycyoslp ormf hte nsrvieUtyi fo xTesa ta
iusAnt sytiugdn wdor giceritnoon and rdaieng stoniiqucia. I oenjdi eht lpayTereC team ni
2002 to eplh get a ttbere ceitsifnic astinedrdungn of hte etnesfbi fo yarpeelCT nda tohre
igrenda gooselechnti hitw the lgao fo inevcihga a tgear on-ceesrn ngdaeir xieecpeern.
Duirng my fstri ryea whit het mtea I vgea a sirees fo tklsa no tvlneera ghplicsolcyoa ioptcs,
smeo fo hwcih dtaiseting grsotn nistdeeragme. At eht uxrc of teh rgmeanteedsi aws taht
eth taem edelevib thta ew regcnizoed rswdo yb koognil ta the eulnoit ahtt geos nuoadr a
woleh wodr, hlewi I ibedlvee ahtt we reogienzc iliddvnuia eteltrs. nI ym young ercare sa a
erdniag sicytpoglsoh I had vrnee oudceernten a lmoed of eraignd hatt euds owrd spaeh
as cperuptael utsin, adn enkw of no hcstygsploios owh were ownikgr on uchs a eomld.
Btu it tsrun tou ahtt eht oedml dah a vyer gnlo oyisrth htat I aws iruniamlaf thiw.
Here's a reading excercise for you - all letters that are longer than 3 letters have been "internally scrambled" meaning that first and last letter are kept in position and all other letters are randomly placed within the word. Sounds like it would be impossible to read? You be the judge...
The text was taken from the article
Why I wtroe this peapr
I am a psloigycshot who has been wokirng for Msoiforct in defnfiert ciceaipats scine 1996.
In 2000 I cmelpoted my PhD in ctnogiive pchygosloy form the Uiisvretny of Teaxs at
Atisun sinytdug word rntogiiocen and rndaeig aiiuiqcostn. I jeiond the CTlreyape team in
2002 to hlep get a beettr sictenfiic usdrnanidtneg of the betnifes of CeyraTlpe and oehtr
reidnag toegchoelnis with the goal of aicnivehg a great on-sercen rdieang eenpcixree.
Duirng my fsrit year wtih the taem I gvae a seiers of tklas on reanvlet pogyichcosall tciops,
smoe of which iitgnaestd srnotg deemenisgrat. At the crux of the dnaesiegmret was that
the taem bvieeled taht we reezocignd wodrs by lokiong at the olinute that goes aorund a
wlhoe wrod, wlihe I bleeievd taht we renczogie iidivandul lttrees. In my yonug caeerr as a
rineadg plisgschooyt I had neevr eecuroenntd a mdoel of raiedng taht used wrod sphae
as pcetupreal uints, and kenw of no poslghycoitss who were wionrkg on such a meodl.
But it turns out that the moedl had a vrey long hotsriy taht I was uilfmaanir wtih.
Well, say spammers send their messages to 2 million recipients, and each spend, on average, 10 seconds reading and deleting said spam. That comes out at 231 days of _completely wasted_ life. Life that can never be given back to whoever lost it.
Even worse, since that's time spent awake, it's more like a year of real time. Say the spammer sends 100 such spams, he would then have _wasted_ an entire lifetime. We can thus, by the "An eye for an eye, a minute for a minute" rule, confiscate the rest of his life!
I use internet explorer, and every time a site wants to install Gator, I get the option to trust Gator or not, "Yes", "No" or "Always trust The Gator Corporation". This means I (and all other users) must _always_ hit no, because we don't trust Gator. Missing just once, because you're in a hurry or too drunk to safely operate a mouse, you're in deep shite.
Well, I have an idea, maybe it is even patentable... wait for it...
How about a "NEVER EVER EVER EVER trust The Gater Corporation" option? I mean, if I don't trust them once (I don't) chances are I won't trust them again (I won't)... Thus, preventing the "install gator?" question from ever appearing again.
cheers,
m
Slashdot Mirror
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the best you can make out of a short deal is to double your money? So that's a MASSIVE investment you made there!
For inquiring minds; the reason you can only double on a short is that technically you borrow and sell it.
You "pay" enough money to cover the shares to your broker, who keeps it as a security for the duration of the deal.
When you close the short deal, your broker buys enough new shares to cover your initial loan you get the difference between what they sold the shares (start of transaction) for and what they bought them for (end of transaction).
Thus if a stock is completely wiped out while you're shorting it, your gain will be;
Gain = (InitialPrice-FinalPrice)/InitialPrice = 100%
If the stock falls 50% you instead make;
Gain = (1-0.5)/1 = 50%
It's extremely risky to invest in short deals if you don't constantly keep on top of the investment. Say you shorted SCO way back when everyone thought it was going to die but instead it doubled or even trippled it's value, in that case you stand to loose far more than you initially invested.
Gain = (1-3)/1 = -200% (ouch)
But your broker will actually terminate part of or your entire short deal as you become unable to cover the re-purchase price.
Now if you change your mind and say it was a sell option that made you all that cash, your credibility might actually go up...
cheers,
m
It's actually much more difficult when the text is in swedish, as you can no doubt see for yourself below!
Aanyway, in swedish we combine words in a fairly odd fashion, so that "fashion victim" becomes a single word, "fashionvictim". The combinations can become arbitrarily long, but that's typically avoided. But "interior decorator meeting" would become "interiordecoratormeeting". Now the technique of internal scrambling could for instance turn that into "ioieerorcrtetmtaidonrneg" which is cleary much harder to decode than "inoiterr dcartooer mieentg". One example of this in the text below is "kapacitetstaket" (capacity ceeling) which is scrambled to kaecskatatetpit.
*** scrambled swedish
Saab kan fnsöirnva fårn Sveigre. Äaergn Graenel Mrotos har blueatst att molnastrela bliar bara ska trkllvaeis på en pltas i
Euopra.
Kmapen såtr mlalen Thälottlran och tyksa Rüssihelsem.
Om Tholtalrätn frraoölr sdriten om tgniklirnleevn rkreisar 6 300 poesenrr frloröa jbebon.
Blir pdeokriotunn deormät kvar i Vgevsiäsrte beedtyr det en oietlnrdg önnkig av aanetlt bilar som ska byaggs. För att
krlaa det sllkue Saab bhöeva nnälsyatla och ifnöra tksfiert så att kaecskatatetpit på 40 balir per timme ödake till 60 blair
per tmime.
Vi mtsåe jboba hråt för att vsia att vi är en ksroinmsunäskreg podrisourotnkt, sgeär Paul Åknelrud, oörrfadnde i Mtalels
vtelarksduksbb på Saab tlil adnbfalotet.se.
Han är orilog att fkiebran i Tarlättlohn kemomr att lgägas ner helt om GM väjelr att sasta på Rüsseiehlsm.
Det böeehvr itne bli så men rskein finns helt krlat, seägr han.
In this version, I've done full scramble - scrambling the position of every letter within a word...
yhW I wtoer sith prepa
I ma a clsthospoigy owh sha eenb rkniwog rfo csMroftoi ni fedterinf iceisatacp icsen 1996. In 2000 I cteeodmpl ym hPD in egoiictvn oghycyoslp ormf hte nsrvieUtyi fo xTesa ta iusAnt sytiugdn wdor giceritnoon and rdaieng stoniiqucia. I oenjdi eht lpayTereC team ni 2002 to eplh get a ttbere ceitsifnic astinedrdungn of hte etnesfbi fo yarpeelCT nda tohre igrenda gooselechnti hitw the lgao fo inevcihga a tgear on-ceesrn ngdaeir xieecpeern.
Duirng my fstri ryea whit het mtea I vgea a sirees fo tklsa no tvlneera ghplicsolcyoa ioptcs, smeo fo hwcih dtaiseting grsotn nistdeeragme. At eht uxrc of teh rgmeanteedsi aws taht eth taem edelevib thta ew regcnizoed rswdo yb koognil ta the eulnoit ahtt geos nuoadr a woleh wodr, hlewi I ibedlvee ahtt we reogienzc iliddvnuia eteltrs. nI ym young ercare sa a erdniag sicytpoglsoh I had vrnee oudceernten a lmoed of eraignd hatt euds owrd spaeh as cperuptael utsin, adn enkw of no hcstygsploios owh were ownikgr on uchs a eomld. Btu it tsrun tou ahtt eht oedml dah a vyer gnlo oyisrth htat I aws iruniamlaf thiw.
Here's a reading excercise for you - all letters that are longer than 3 letters have been "internally scrambled" meaning that first and last letter are kept in position and all other letters are randomly placed within the word. Sounds like it would be impossible to read? You be the judge... The text was taken from the article Why I wtroe this peapr
I am a psloigycshot who has been wokirng for Msoiforct in defnfiert ciceaipats scine 1996. In 2000 I cmelpoted my PhD in ctnogiive pchygosloy form the Uiisvretny of Teaxs at Atisun sinytdug word rntogiiocen and rndaeig aiiuiqcostn. I jeiond the CTlreyape team in 2002 to hlep get a beettr sictenfiic usdrnanidtneg of the betnifes of CeyraTlpe and oehtr reidnag toegchoelnis with the goal of aicnivehg a great on-sercen rdieang eenpcixree.
Duirng my fsrit year wtih the taem I gvae a seiers of tklas on reanvlet pogyichcosall tciops, smoe of which iitgnaestd srnotg deemenisgrat. At the crux of the dnaesiegmret was that the taem bvieeled taht we reezocignd wodrs by lokiong at the olinute that goes aorund a wlhoe wrod, wlihe I bleeievd taht we renczogie iidivandul lttrees. In my yonug caeerr as a rineadg plisgschooyt I had neevr eecuroenntd a mdoel of raiedng taht used wrod sphae as pcetupreal uints, and kenw of no poslghycoitss who were wionrkg on such a meodl. But it turns out that the moedl had a vrey long hotsriy taht I was uilfmaanir wtih.
An eye for an eye, a minute for a minute;
Well, say spammers send their messages to 2 million recipients, and each spend, on average, 10 seconds reading and deleting said spam. That comes out at 231 days of _completely wasted_ life. Life that can never be given back to whoever lost it.
Even worse, since that's time spent awake, it's more like a year of real time. Say the spammer sends 100 such spams, he would then have _wasted_ an entire lifetime. We can thus, by the "An eye for an eye, a minute for a minute" rule, confiscate the rest of his life!
There's the argument you requested!
cheers,
m
I use internet explorer, and every time a site wants to install Gator, I get the option to trust Gator or not, "Yes", "No" or "Always trust The Gator Corporation". This means I (and all other users) must _always_ hit no, because we don't trust Gator. Missing just once, because you're in a hurry or too drunk to safely operate a mouse, you're in deep shite. Well, I have an idea, maybe it is even patentable... wait for it... How about a "NEVER EVER EVER EVER trust The Gater Corporation" option? I mean, if I don't trust them once (I don't) chances are I won't trust them again (I won't)... Thus, preventing the "install gator?" question from ever appearing again. cheers, m