If any of the futures exchanges are already started, there will be people who get option calls as the price changes. They're forced to sell or put in funds to cover their options.
Options don't work that way. They give the buyer the option, to buy (for call options) or sell (for put options) at a particular price, but without an obligation to do so. Their value can go to zero, but cannot go below. So there is no "call".
It is also possible to directly short sell, or buy long, but "normal" investors are generally restricted from doing so.
The explanation is not always mundane. There have been several examples of small plane pilots intentionally spoofing people by flying in formation with weird synchronized lights. That is almost as cool as the guys that faked all crop circles. I really admire these people. Their ingenuity and hard work have made the world a more interesting place.
You forgot the proliferation of unregulated derivatives.
Since housing prices never go down, the sub-prime mortgage derivatives were a sure-thing, and there was no point in regulating something when there was no risk.
Windows as a primary OS is somewhat vague. Server or Desktop?
For 4 out of 5, that would be "neither".
Maybe 15% of Google uses their version of Ubuntu for desktop.
I have been to the Googleplex many times. I have seen plenty of Linux desktops, and plenty of people using Macbooks. I have never, not once, seen anyone working on a Windows desktop or laptop for anything other than testing.
3) You're forgetting the stock market crash of 2007.
That was not a "stock market crash". It was a housing crash. The stock market decline was the consequence, not the cause... and I didn't forget about it. I specifically mentioned it three times in the post you replied to.
It is not clear if many of these people are actually buying. But even if they are, it is not the same as buying on margin, since they are not using the purchased asset as collateral, so there is no margin-call that can force them to sell and accelerate a crash.
Put $10,000 on your Visa
CC companies don't give people more credit than they can be expected to service. If their credit limit is $10k, then they have income, and other assets. Financially irresponsible people more often have a credit limit of between $0 and $500.
1% of the population running up a $10k debt is not going to crash the economy.
If you look at the history of crashes, nearly all have one thing in common: Many people investing with borrowed money. This happened with tulips, the South Sea Bubble, the 1929 crash, and the sub-prime mortgage crash. I am unaware of any bubble that did not involve a lot of people borrowing or buying on margin.
So far that is not happening with bitcoin.
What effects will it have on companies that accept, use, or hold it, market-makers on exchanges and futures, etc. ?
I may be going way out on a limb here, but I think they will lose money.
My theory is that it was created by a national actor with the intent of crashing national economies.
All the bitcoins in the world total to $300B. For comparison, the recent financial crisis wiped out $20 trillion.
Also, the financial crisis hit people at the bottom the hardest, people that were struggling to pay their mortgages, and were then evicted from their homes when they lost their jobs.
Bitcoin is different. The people buying can mostly afford the loss, and much of the value is just paper profits. I bought my stash on a lark when the value crossed $1/BTC, mostly just out of curiosity of how the whole thing worked. They have turned out to be worth way more than I ever expected, but if the crash came tomorrow, it would not make one iota of difference to how I live my life.
But when stocks or currencies crash there are often lots of innocent victims who never made the choice to invest in them.
Stock crashes have way less effect on "normal" people than currency, bond, or real estate crashes, because no one expects equities to be stable. We shrugged off stock crashes in 1987, 1991, 2001. The financial crisis was far worse because no one expected housing prices to crash, and a huge part of our economy relied on their stability. Nobody is relying on bitcoin to be stable, or even as stable as equities.
I'm not sure why you resent the people that have put forth years and years of effort
Because they received subsidies and exclusive use of public right-of-ways, and now they are trying to abuse their monopoly positions.
Try putting in your own connection to the internet and then come back and complain
I don't have a legal right-of-way to do that. The market can't fix the problem when there is no market.
Net Neutrality should not be necessary. It is needed because the government screwed up, and sold/leased/gave-away the right-of-ways to a single vendor in most areas. What they should have done is either build, or required the first vendor to build, a publicly owned conduit, such as a 12" PVC pipe, that any bonded company could later use to pull cable or fiber. This would have cost little extra, since the cost of the pipe is low compared to the cost of the trenching. But it would have drastically lowered the barriers to entry, and allow real competition. I would also make upgrades much easier.
FedEx, UPS, and the Postal Service don't each require their own set of roads. We should not expect every ISP to dig their own trenches.
Eugenics could be implemented in a great many ways, as easily with the carrot as the stick.
But in practice the stick was used more often. Adolf didn't give the untermensch any choice, and Oliver Wendell Holmes didn't give Carrie Buck a say either.
if true, everyone who replaces employees with automation will have to hire more people. That isn't possible.
Look, nobody is claiming that ALL automation increases employment, because that is clearly false. For instance, automation of agriculture drastically reduced agricultural employment.
Nobody is even claiming that ALL restaurant automation increases employment. For instance, there is no evidence that automatic french fryers increase employment. Why would they?
They are only claiming that automation of order-taking (using kiosks, apps, or webpages) creates more jobs than it eliminates. Although that claim may be questionable, there is no reason that it "isn't possible".
There are clear historical examples of automation increasing employment. Jevon's Paradox was first observed when better steam engines led to higher demand for coal, which lead to higher employment of coal miners.
Kiosks may drive greater sales as well. As an Aspie, I would be more willing to go to a restaurant where I could place my order without human interaction.
Many others likely feel the same. When I am buying groceries, I will wait in the self-check-out line even when human checkers are available. I am usually not the only one waiting.
Both of those statements contradict what you have posted in the past. Unless you think the Bible Belt is in southern California and "fundies" mean first gen Chinese immigrants, you are lying once again.
I have never lived in SoCal, other than a few months at Camp Pendleton and a CAX at Twentynine Palms. I have lived (and currently live) in NorCal, specifically San Jose. I grew up in Tennessee. My spouse is a 1st gen Chinese immigrant, but I am white.
If you can show me any of my posts that are inconsistent with these facts, please let me know, and I will patiently explain to you how your reading comprehension failed you.
Add to that that at some point during a crash, people will stop mining, because the electricity used will get more expensive than what they earn from it.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that as miners drop out, it becomes easier for the remaining miners to find valid blocks, so the return on electricity used should not drop, and may even go up.
Do you know any actual fundies? I know plenty because I grew up in the Bible Belt and I am related to them. They object to embryonic research. They may not completely understand what it is, but they object to it.
They encourage research on the existing lines.
No they don't. They are called "Fundamentalists" because they do not engage in ideological compromise.
But they are not hypocrites about embryonic research, which is what is being discussed... unless you think fundies are running secret embryonic cell research labs.
In general, sure, they are mostly hypocrites... as are many progressives.
A few benefits do not outweigh the possible dangers
Perhaps you could list what you perceive as "possible dangers". The artificial scarcity in organs causes suffering and many unnecessary deaths. But it also inflates black market prices, and likely leads to more abuses, not fewer. If it was legal to compensate donors, the supply would go up, and prices would fall, possibly by an order of magnitude, leading to far less incentive for abuse.
A hospital that harvests a human kidney can turn around and sell it for more than $250,000. None of that goes to the donor's family.
Hitler didn't invent eugenics. It was a popular cause long before the 3rd Reich. Plato advocated selective breeding of humans in 400BC (he also advocated plenty of other fascist policies). In the early 1900s, eugenics was popular in America and even the Supreme Court approved sterilization of undesirables. The Nazis drew much of their inspiration from America.
A new kidney would have saved him. We need a plan to grow new organs, even if it's in pigs or in brainless human bodies. Of course the Christian fundamentalists will never let this happen.
The fundies object to embryonic research. Kidneys and other organs are grown from somatic cells, ideally taken from the recipient.
A more immediate solution would be a free market in organs, which would increase the donor pool. Ignorant people object, by claiming that selling organs would lead to abuses, without realizing that the hospitals already buy and sell organs. It is only illegal for the donor to receive a portion of the money. So the money incentivizes everyone but the person capable of increasing the supply.
Fucking hypocrites.
You may disagree with them (as do I), but what about their behavior is hypocritical?
Slashdot Mirror
Current regulations do not let them fly without anti-collision lights over US Airspace.
FAA regulations don't apply to military aircraft flying in military airspace.
If any of the futures exchanges are already started, there will be people who get option calls as the price changes. They're forced to sell or put in funds to cover their options.
Options don't work that way. They give the buyer the option, to buy (for call options) or sell (for put options) at a particular price, but without an obligation to do so. Their value can go to zero, but cannot go below. So there is no "call".
It is also possible to directly short sell, or buy long, but "normal" investors are generally restricted from doing so.
there's just always some mundane explanation.
The explanation is not always mundane. There have been several examples of small plane pilots intentionally spoofing people by flying in formation with weird synchronized lights. That is almost as cool as the guys that faked all crop circles. I really admire these people. Their ingenuity and hard work have made the world a more interesting place.
You forgot the proliferation of unregulated derivatives.
Since housing prices never go down, the sub-prime mortgage derivatives were a sure-thing, and there was no point in regulating something when there was no risk.
Windows as a primary OS is somewhat vague. Server or Desktop?
For 4 out of 5, that would be "neither".
Maybe 15% of Google uses their version of Ubuntu for desktop.
I have been to the Googleplex many times. I have seen plenty of Linux desktops, and plenty of people using Macbooks. I have never, not once, seen anyone working on a Windows desktop or laptop for anything other than testing.
No leveraging eh?
Ever heard of USDT/Tethers?
Yes, I have heard of USDT and Tether. What do they have to do with leveraging or debt?
3) You're forgetting the stock market crash of 2007.
That was not a "stock market crash". It was a housing crash. The stock market decline was the consequence, not the cause ... and I didn't forget about it. I specifically mentioned it three times in the post you replied to.
An awful lot of people are buying BTC with credit cards
It is not clear if many of these people are actually buying. But even if they are, it is not the same as buying on margin, since they are not using the purchased asset as collateral, so there is no margin-call that can force them to sell and accelerate a crash.
Put $10,000 on your Visa
CC companies don't give people more credit than they can be expected to service. If their credit limit is $10k, then they have income, and other assets. Financially irresponsible people more often have a credit limit of between $0 and $500.
1% of the population running up a $10k debt is not going to crash the economy.
What happens when Bitcoin crashes?
If you look at the history of crashes, nearly all have one thing in common: Many people investing with borrowed money. This happened with tulips, the South Sea Bubble, the 1929 crash, and the sub-prime mortgage crash. I am unaware of any bubble that did not involve a lot of people borrowing or buying on margin.
So far that is not happening with bitcoin.
What effects will it have on companies that accept, use, or hold it, market-makers on exchanges and futures, etc. ?
I may be going way out on a limb here, but I think they will lose money.
My theory is that it was created by a national actor with the intent of crashing national economies.
All the bitcoins in the world total to $300B. For comparison, the recent financial crisis wiped out $20 trillion.
Also, the financial crisis hit people at the bottom the hardest, people that were struggling to pay their mortgages, and were then evicted from their homes when they lost their jobs.
Bitcoin is different. The people buying can mostly afford the loss, and much of the value is just paper profits. I bought my stash on a lark when the value crossed $1/BTC, mostly just out of curiosity of how the whole thing worked. They have turned out to be worth way more than I ever expected, but if the crash came tomorrow, it would not make one iota of difference to how I live my life.
But when stocks or currencies crash there are often lots of innocent victims who never made the choice to invest in them.
Stock crashes have way less effect on "normal" people than currency, bond, or real estate crashes, because no one expects equities to be stable. We shrugged off stock crashes in 1987, 1991, 2001. The financial crisis was far worse because no one expected housing prices to crash, and a huge part of our economy relied on their stability. Nobody is relying on bitcoin to be stable, or even as stable as equities.
There isn't anything out there that can handle Acrobat, MS office, Outlook, Exchange and other items, other than Windows.
If you list functional requirements instead of specific applications, then there are plenty of alternatives.
The "Big Five" tech companies are Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft. Only one of them uses Windows as their primary OS.
Implementing SAP
Outsourcing
Outsourcing your SAP implementation
Whenever I talk to someone from a company that uses SAP, I always ask if they are satisfied with SAP and would choose to use them again.
So far, this many have said yes: 0.
For comparison, this is the number that have said they are happy with Oracle's ERP: 0.
I'm not sure why you resent the people that have put forth years and years of effort
Because they received subsidies and exclusive use of public right-of-ways, and now they are trying to abuse their monopoly positions.
Try putting in your own connection to the internet and then come back and complain
I don't have a legal right-of-way to do that. The market can't fix the problem when there is no market.
Net Neutrality should not be necessary. It is needed because the government screwed up, and sold/leased/gave-away the right-of-ways to a single vendor in most areas. What they should have done is either build, or required the first vendor to build, a publicly owned conduit, such as a 12" PVC pipe, that any bonded company could later use to pull cable or fiber. This would have cost little extra, since the cost of the pipe is low compared to the cost of the trenching. But it would have drastically lowered the barriers to entry, and allow real competition. I would also make upgrades much easier.
FedEx, UPS, and the Postal Service don't each require their own set of roads. We should not expect every ISP to dig their own trenches.
just uncheck this in your email reader. done.
It is possible that you don't even need to do that. Some email clients do not read remote content by default.
Gmail used to do that. But they changed their policy in 2013, around the same time they dropped their "Don't be evil" motto.
Eugenics could be implemented in a great many ways, as easily with the carrot as the stick.
But in practice the stick was used more often. Adolf didn't give the untermensch any choice, and Oliver Wendell Holmes didn't give Carrie Buck a say either.
if true, everyone who replaces employees with automation will have to hire more people. That isn't possible.
Look, nobody is claiming that ALL automation increases employment, because that is clearly false. For instance, automation of agriculture drastically reduced agricultural employment.
Nobody is even claiming that ALL restaurant automation increases employment. For instance, there is no evidence that automatic french fryers increase employment. Why would they?
They are only claiming that automation of order-taking (using kiosks, apps, or webpages) creates more jobs than it eliminates. Although that claim may be questionable, there is no reason that it "isn't possible".
There are clear historical examples of automation increasing employment. Jevon's Paradox was first observed when better steam engines led to higher demand for coal, which lead to higher employment of coal miners.
Kiosks may drive greater sales as well. As an Aspie, I would be more willing to go to a restaurant where I could place my order without human interaction.
Many others likely feel the same. When I am buying groceries, I will wait in the self-check-out line even when human checkers are available. I am usually not the only one waiting.
It certainly doesn't hold true for the restaurant industry, because there is only so much people can eat
On average, Americans eat out 4.2 times per week. That is 20% of the 21 meals. There is huge potential for growth.
In some cultures, eating out is so common that apartments often have no kitchen.
I'll bet you would like the Nazi position on organ donation. They seem like a group who would provide many.
Nope. Once the cyanide gets into the bloodstream, it messes up the organs, and they are no longer viable for transplant.
Both of those statements contradict what you have posted in the past. Unless you think the Bible Belt is in southern California and "fundies" mean first gen Chinese immigrants, you are lying once again.
I have never lived in SoCal, other than a few months at Camp Pendleton and a CAX at Twentynine Palms. I have lived (and currently live) in NorCal, specifically San Jose. I grew up in Tennessee. My spouse is a 1st gen Chinese immigrant, but I am white.
If you can show me any of my posts that are inconsistent with these facts, please let me know, and I will patiently explain to you how your reading comprehension failed you.
Add to that that at some point during a crash, people will stop mining, because the electricity used will get more expensive than what they earn from it.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that as miners drop out, it becomes easier for the remaining miners to find valid blocks, so the return on electricity used should not drop, and may even go up.
“Fundies” don’t object to embryonic research.
Do you know any actual fundies? I know plenty because I grew up in the Bible Belt and I am related to them. They object to embryonic research. They may not completely understand what it is, but they object to it.
They encourage research on the existing lines.
No they don't. They are called "Fundamentalists" because they do not engage in ideological compromise.
So yes there is a lot of hypocrisy among them.
But they are not hypocrites about embryonic research, which is what is being discussed ... unless you think fundies are running secret embryonic cell research labs.
In general, sure, they are mostly hypocrites ... as are many progressives.
A few benefits do not outweigh the possible dangers
Perhaps you could list what you perceive as "possible dangers". The artificial scarcity in organs causes suffering and many unnecessary deaths. But it also inflates black market prices, and likely leads to more abuses, not fewer. If it was legal to compensate donors, the supply would go up, and prices would fall, possibly by an order of magnitude, leading to far less incentive for abuse.
A hospital that harvests a human kidney can turn around and sell it for more than $250,000. None of that goes to the donor's family.
Hitler didn't invent eugenics. It was a popular cause long before the 3rd Reich. Plato advocated selective breeding of humans in 400BC (he also advocated plenty of other fascist policies). In the early 1900s, eugenics was popular in America and even the Supreme Court approved sterilization of undesirables. The Nazis drew much of their inspiration from America.
A new kidney would have saved him. We need a plan to grow new organs, even if it's in pigs or in brainless human bodies. Of course the Christian fundamentalists will never let this happen.
The fundies object to embryonic research. Kidneys and other organs are grown from somatic cells, ideally taken from the recipient.
A more immediate solution would be a free market in organs, which would increase the donor pool. Ignorant people object, by claiming that selling organs would lead to abuses, without realizing that the hospitals already buy and sell organs. It is only illegal for the donor to receive a portion of the money. So the money incentivizes everyone but the person capable of increasing the supply.
Fucking hypocrites.
You may disagree with them (as do I), but what about their behavior is hypocritical?