Re: "Short selling" is on FUTURES, not on already owned stock.
What? Short selling is not nor has it ever been only in futures. Futures do not deal in individual stocks. Futures only deal in stock indices.
Short selling is the selling of a stock that the seller doesn't own. More specifically, a short sale is the sale of a security that isn't owned by the seller, but that is promised to be delivered.
And short selling in no more "GAMBLING" than actually buying the stock. In one you hope the stock will go up, in the other you hope the stock will go down.
The only difference is that with short selling you don't own the stock.
As for instituting a policy requiring a minimum time to hold you just show that you really don't have a clue. Why should I as an investor put any money in anything in which I can't get out of it when I think it is best?
Please talk from a place where you have actual knowledge and not from the fallacies you live with.
Why are we still having to talk about this? Time and time again the MPAA and the RIAA have shown that they do not and will not engage in an honest discourse. That they will always lie and distort to support an unsupportable view on reality.
But I would like to try a an experiment in which I did something like this with a common card for groceries or gas.
It would go something like this. "Add if you can and take if you need."
My opinion is that more would take than give because it would be like what we face in America with more than 50% of the people getting more back in taxes than they paid in. (Why should anyone get back $6560.97 in a refund when they only paid $159.27 in taxes? True story)
But I would really like to see what happens with something like that. Something that the community would try to enforce with a sound reasonableness towards truly working to be a help to those that could be helped.
With memories of the housing slump still fresh, many people could simply return to BitTorrent and download movies for free instead of going to the movies or paying for VOD.
It's pretty clear that there is no statement of support or cheering on or anything here. Janko is simply reporting a simple fact. Some group of people will continue to find unauthorized means of accessing content a better deal than authorized offerings. I don't see how that's objectionable at all.
This is the same issue we have here in America with just about every news outlet: To mention it (in their minds) is to condone it.
Look at racism. News outlets will not tell you the race of anyone unless it's a white person.
I have used bluetooth headsets for many years and to keep myself from looking like a insane person I would always hold the phone in a visible place so that people would know know I am talking on the phone.
All publications should be taxed at the same rate. Weekly or daily publication will by nature pay more tax and monthly will pay less. So to set an arbitrary tax rate based on price is not valid.
For big names movies the price is much more than that ($6.00) through the outlets that people usually access them. On-Demand, Anyone?
You are right that they make them much less valuable because I want to be able to watch the movie how I want not how I am told to watch it.
Let me put it this way I would watch hundreds more movies a year at a price of say $1.99 than I watch at $6.00.
So lets do the math I currently watch about 2 movies a year On-Demand (basically only because I am bored) but I would buy 7 or 8 a month at least if I only had to pay $1.00 or $1.99. (Redbox is cool but never has the movie I want because of limited stock, although I also do Netflix) so right now they make about $16.00 a year from me, but if they changed they would make between $96 and $191 a year from me.
The DHS somehow thinks that taking down domains is protecting the "Homeland".
I.C.E refuses to actually stop illegal immigration, but thinks that it should be "Enforcing" it's restrictions on people that are born or live here legally.
The DOJ is spending all of it's resources on piracy, but does nothing about the problems caused by the financial crisis.
And during all of this the President of this great country ignoring all of the turmoil all over the world thinks it a great idea to film an episode of Oprah.
On the post: European Nations Wish To Ban Negative Thoughts Or Investments On Their Financial Position
Re: "Short selling" is on FUTURES, not on already owned stock.
And short selling in no more "GAMBLING" than actually buying the stock. In one you hope the stock will go up, in the other you hope the stock will go down.
The only difference is that with short selling you don't own the stock.
As for instituting a policy requiring a minimum time to hold you just show that you really don't have a clue. Why should I as an investor put any money in anything in which I can't get out of it when I think it is best?
Please talk from a place where you have actual knowledge and not from the fallacies you live with.
On the post: Dear MPAA: Stomp Your Feet And Repeat It As Many Times As You Want, But Infringement Is Not Theft
Will truth ever actually prevail?
On the post: European Nations Wish To Ban Negative Thoughts Or Investments On Their Financial Position
Re: Re: The difference
On the post: European Nations Wish To Ban Negative Thoughts Or Investments On Their Financial Position
Re: The difference
On the post: European Nations Wish To Ban Negative Thoughts Or Investments On Their Financial Position
Poor, poor pitiful fool!
Freedom of capital when hindered bites back in a very harsh way.
On the post: 'Jonathan's Card' Raises Interesting Ethical Debate: Who Decides Which Uses Of A Shared Resource Are 'Right'?
All I can say is...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
But I would like to try a an experiment in which I did something like this with a common card for groceries or gas.
It would go something like this. "Add if you can and take if you need."
My opinion is that more would take than give because it would be like what we face in America with more than 50% of the people getting more back in taxes than they paid in. (Why should anyone get back $6560.97 in a refund when they only paid $159.27 in taxes? True story)
But I would really like to see what happens with something like that. Something that the community would try to enforce with a sound reasonableness towards truly working to be a help to those that could be helped.
On the post: Stealing Isn't Saving, But Sharing Isn't Stealing
Just a small comment on...
This is the same issue we have here in America with just about every news outlet: To mention it (in their minds) is to condone it.
Look at racism. News outlets will not tell you the race of anyone unless it's a white person.
On the post: Would People Stop Using Mobile Phones If More Evidence Shows Them To Be Carcinogenic?
Re: Re:
;-)
On the post: Entrepreneur Magazine's History Of Suing Entrepreneurs For Using The Word Entrepreneur Gets More Attention
Isn't it ironic...
On the post: With A Choice Between $100 Million In Cash & Fantasyland, The Labels Choose Fantasyland
Re: Re: The carriage makers will starve...
On the post: With A Choice Between $100 Million In Cash & Fantasyland, The Labels Choose Fantasyland
Re: Re: The carriage makers will starve...
On the post: With A Choice Between $100 Million In Cash & Fantasyland, The Labels Choose Fantasyland
The carriage makers will starve...
On the post: Dow Jones Sues Texas; Says Taxing The Wall Street Journal Is A First Amendment Violation
Fair and equal taxation.
On the post: Why Does Hollywood Insist On Making Online Movies So Annoying?
Re: Re: Re: Mike you are wrong...
On the post: Why Does Hollywood Insist On Making Online Movies So Annoying?
Re: Re: Re: Mike you are wrong...
On the post: Why Does Hollywood Insist On Making Online Movies So Annoying?
Re: Re: Mike you are wrong...
On the post: Why Does Hollywood Insist On Making Online Movies So Annoying?
Mike you are wrong...
You are right that they make them much less valuable because I want to be able to watch the movie how I want not how I am told to watch it.
Let me put it this way I would watch hundreds more movies a year at a price of say $1.99 than I watch at $6.00.
So lets do the math I currently watch about 2 movies a year On-Demand (basically only because I am bored) but I would buy 7 or 8 a month at least if I only had to pay $1.00 or $1.99. (Redbox is cool but never has the movie I want because of limited stock, although I also do Netflix) so right now they make about $16.00 a year from me, but if they changed they would make between $96 and $191 a year from me.
But really do they even think about that? No.
On the post: Homeland Security Demands Mozilla Remove Firefox Extension That Redirects Seized Domains
State of the Union
The TSA gropes kids for fun and profit.
The DHS somehow thinks that taking down domains is protecting the "Homeland".
I.C.E refuses to actually stop illegal immigration, but thinks that it should be "Enforcing" it's restrictions on people that are born or live here legally.
The DOJ is spending all of it's resources on piracy, but does nothing about the problems caused by the financial crisis.
And during all of this the President of this great country ignoring all of the turmoil all over the world thinks it a great idea to film an episode of Oprah.
The State of the Union is STRONG!
On the post: Homeland Security Demands Mozilla Remove Firefox Extension That Redirects Seized Domains
Re: Re: Re:
So you think we now live in a country where retaliation for asking justifiable questions of a Government Agency is going happen?
If we are at that state then I think more and more of us should be asking those questions. Not hoping.
On the post: Homeland Security Demands Mozilla Remove Firefox Extension That Redirects Seized Domains
Re: Re:
"~nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law~"
Without due process we might as well live in a dictatorship or totalitarian country.
Asking for confirmation that what they are doing is legal and that they have followed due process is not getting "cutesy".
Next >>