Not to sound rude or anything (especially since this is a complaint about parents in general), but what is wrong with "our" parents. Don't they teach reading at home? I was reading fairly well at age four and while I'd like to think of myself as the pinnacle of evolution and a genius beyond comprehension even I am forced to believe that my parents had something to do with it. Read for your kids, read with your kids, give them things to read. The world is a much duller place without it.
My idea would be for something that lets everyone tag and then only uses the most popular tags (or a slightly more complex sorting routine). That still doesn't change the underlying problem though. People tag things for their own personal use (see flickr, del.icio.us etc) and not for other peoples use (see slashdot). I mean, honestly, how many times a week does the average user search old slashdot articles? But, but, but it's TAGGING. It has to be good, right?
It all reminds me of a story I heard a few weeks back. One of the high profile IT-bubble people met a friend while walking his dog. The friend just loved the dog and asked if he could buy it. "Sure", he said. "It will only cost you $100.000". Needless to say the other guy thought he was crazy and didn't buy the dog. A short while later they ran in to each other again and he asks his friend if he managed to sell the dog. "Sure", he said. "And above the asking price no less". Stunned, his friend just looks at him. "The guy that bought it gave me two cats which are worth $70.000 each instead".
Most likely not a true story, but it might help explain some of the millions.
Oh, there are legal repercussions all right. It is a court of law. Another flawed analogy might help. Look at it like the headmaster of a school. At first you complain to him/her and if you're not happy with what happens (or the other party is not) then you take it up with the school board. I'm not sure how 'smalls claim' court works in the US, but there might be similarities.
Bottom line is, of course he was going to appeal, he was sentenced by a screenshot.
I'm not sure that you understand options correctly. You are right in that you are dealing with risk, but not quite in the way you see it. The farmer and his oranges would work a little bit different. He doesn't sell an unknown quantity at a fixed price (which would be the case if his harvest is ruined) but rather he is selling a right (or in the case or some other instruments, an obligation) to buy a fixed quantity at a fixed price at a fixed point. The main advantage to a farmer (and we should really talk about futures or forwards if we are dealing with farmers) is that he knows the amount of money he will be paid. He doesn't have to wonder if he can buy the new machine or if the price of oranges might fall.
As for the other party of this deal, the buyer of the option/future/forward he is not doing this out of the good of his heart in order to help the farmer. Ignoring true speculative dealings (as I did with the farmer) he is doing it for just the same reason that the farmer is doing it. Perhaps he has an OJ factory and wants to know how much he will pay for oranges 2 months from now, without actually having to buy them now, store them in a warehouse and pray that his oranges wont be bed in 2 months.
Of course, you might deal with these financial instruments for a lot of other reasons. Locking in a profit, speculate, leverage et cetera.
Well, I guess that is one way of viewing it. Another way would be that the first instance is almost political in nature whereas the others are more legally focused. Any case that is important will be appealed after the first round by one or both of the sides. After that there is one more chance of appeal, which is not a 'gimme' like the other one.
What is worth to take not of as well is how the Swedish legal system works. In the first instance there is no judge to quote the law at you and then throw the book on you. Instead it's a group of people (I want to say three, but don't trust that) that usually have some sort of political agenda. You don't need a law degree to judge in the first instant, you need little more then the clothes you wear and some political work. As you move one step up though, things get more organised and proper, which this case is evidence of if nothing else.
Now, I don't mean to make the Swedish legal system sound whimsical and pointless, it's just that you have to understand it.
Not that long ago this post would have read as a sarcastic piece instead of a true event. It would have been the equivalent of "I took a plane from Siberia to Florida and boy was it cold when I landed". Sad state of affairs.
It all reminds me of a quote by Hamilton. I can't remember it just now, but I'm sure that if I get modded funny enough, they guy that has the quote in his signature will notice this and post.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Not to sound rude or anything (especially since this is a complaint about parents in general), but what is wrong with "our" parents. Don't they teach reading at home? I was reading fairly well at age four and while I'd like to think of myself as the pinnacle of evolution and a genius beyond comprehension even I am forced to believe that my parents had something to do with it. Read for your kids, read with your kids, give them things to read. The world is a much duller place without it.
But then you wouldn't have to buy something to eat while waiting for the coffee to cool down.
You'd be surprised how much a few tiny trinkets at compound interest during all that time would be worth.
My idea would be for something that lets everyone tag and then only uses the most popular tags (or a slightly more complex sorting routine). That still doesn't change the underlying problem though. People tag things for their own personal use (see flickr, del.icio.us etc) and not for other peoples use (see slashdot). I mean, honestly, how many times a week does the average user search old slashdot articles? But, but, but it's TAGGING. It has to be good, right?
Middle-click is your friend.
It all reminds me of a story I heard a few weeks back. One of the high profile IT-bubble people met a friend while walking his dog. The friend just loved the dog and asked if he could buy it. "Sure", he said. "It will only cost you $100.000". Needless to say the other guy thought he was crazy and didn't buy the dog. A short while later they ran in to each other again and he asks his friend if he managed to sell the dog. "Sure", he said. "And above the asking price no less". Stunned, his friend just looks at him. "The guy that bought it gave me two cats which are worth $70.000 each instead".
Most likely not a true story, but it might help explain some of the millions.
Bill, is that you?
Oh, there are legal repercussions all right. It is a court of law. Another flawed analogy might help. Look at it like the headmaster of a school. At first you complain to him/her and if you're not happy with what happens (or the other party is not) then you take it up with the school board. I'm not sure how 'smalls claim' court works in the US, but there might be similarities.
Bottom line is, of course he was going to appeal, he was sentenced by a screenshot.
I'm not sure that you understand options correctly. You are right in that you are dealing with risk, but not quite in the way you see it. The farmer and his oranges would work a little bit different. He doesn't sell an unknown quantity at a fixed price (which would be the case if his harvest is ruined) but rather he is selling a right (or in the case or some other instruments, an obligation) to buy a fixed quantity at a fixed price at a fixed point. The main advantage to a farmer (and we should really talk about futures or forwards if we are dealing with farmers) is that he knows the amount of money he will be paid. He doesn't have to wonder if he can buy the new machine or if the price of oranges might fall.
As for the other party of this deal, the buyer of the option/future/forward he is not doing this out of the good of his heart in order to help the farmer. Ignoring true speculative dealings (as I did with the farmer) he is doing it for just the same reason that the farmer is doing it. Perhaps he has an OJ factory and wants to know how much he will pay for oranges 2 months from now, without actually having to buy them now, store them in a warehouse and pray that his oranges wont be bed in 2 months.
Of course, you might deal with these financial instruments for a lot of other reasons. Locking in a profit, speculate, leverage et cetera.
Well, I guess that is one way of viewing it. Another way would be that the first instance is almost political in nature whereas the others are more legally focused. Any case that is important will be appealed after the first round by one or both of the sides. After that there is one more chance of appeal, which is not a 'gimme' like the other one.
But look at the low rates of shoplifting in the US. Clearly it is working. Chewbacca is a wookie.
What is worth to take not of as well is how the Swedish legal system works. In the first instance there is no judge to quote the law at you and then throw the book on you. Instead it's a group of people (I want to say three, but don't trust that) that usually have some sort of political agenda. You don't need a law degree to judge in the first instant, you need little more then the clothes you wear and some political work. As you move one step up though, things get more organised and proper, which this case is evidence of if nothing else.
Now, I don't mean to make the Swedish legal system sound whimsical and pointless, it's just that you have to understand it.
Not that long ago this post would have read as a sarcastic piece instead of a true event. It would have been the equivalent of "I took a plane from Siberia to Florida and boy was it cold when I landed". Sad state of affairs.
Dear company executive, if you by accident would make sure I win the election next yet then there is no end to what we can do together.
Yours truly,
GWB
------
That wasn't very hard or costly.
Hopefully it would be able to tell us.
Who wouldn't, death penalty or not.
100% of houses being robbed has windows. Coincidence? I think not!
Yes, killing yourself in the process is a real problem. How on earth will they get past that!
Then how about the four of you keep your old keyboards?
Typosquatting?
Well, if you're going to have an overlord, I can think of worse things then an Amazon.
Hey, don't you let thinking get in the way of what I say! ;)
Funny how the meaning stays more or less the same if you replace "the universe" with "the usa". =)
Not if you are already situated on the 'close' border of it, i.e. not on earth but on some other planet.
It all reminds me of a quote by Hamilton. I can't remember it just now, but I'm sure that if I get modded funny enough, they guy that has the quote in his signature will notice this and post. ;)