And take a lot of people's money with them!

I'll stick to the normal economy for now, at least there I have some form of legal redress.

Fine, you're saying that the current bitcoin community is, in general, a bad place to put any financial faith (and therefore money).

I agree.

Actually it's exynos, Samsung's ARM, not tegra.

Not sure I'd call the USA phones high end, necessarily. They have less cores because samsung have to compromise and use third party chips in order to get LTE. I know the Qualcomm stuff is good, but I'm not sure I'd wager on it being *that* good.

Geekbench also seems to have recorded multiple scores for the S III that are above the 1601 reported for the iPhone 5.

All in all I'd say that there's actually no useful information here at all,

So all the folks running the exchanges and other hacked services, if indeed they were hacked and not just subject to fraud by the owners, were all fools who hadn't taken 10 minutes to learn basic security?

Face it, whatever the security of the protocol, the record of the bitcoin community and the services run by said community is deservedly in the gutter.

You could get alarm clocks that you switched off by throwing or whacking back in the 80s. Not new.

I guess it would be nice if it was more often recognised that it is a secondary purpose, rather than the centre of the known universe and more important than any/all other economic activity...

And that would be every bit as illegal as artificially pumping stock you have an interest in.

The whole market is full of human scum, it's true. The only point I'm trying to make is that a short sale is no different to any other in this respect.

I view that the other way round - One way or another I will be tech support for my mother. It would be easier for me, as someone that doesn't use windows any more, to support her using linux.

But frankly at this point I don't want the hassle of moving her from one OS that she knows how to use badly to another she doesn't know at all.

Lol.

I love libertarians, no consistency. First you call people decrying this stuff statist scum, then in the next breath you're supporting the current financial markets, some of the most state-supported, sponsored and backed-up institutions around.

Yup, sure, nobody ever called anything after an animal before Apple released Mac OS X.

What colour is the sky on your planet?

Does gambling on shares do that at all?

I can see a reason, if that's your only criteria, to allow companies to sell shares and raise cash. I'm not sure I see what the trading afterwards is good for in that worldview. It might encourage people to buy shares, so they can trade them.

But in that case why should it be illegal for someone to lend their shares to a second party, who sells them to a third party then re-buys later and gives the same number back?

Me, I still don't see what the stock trading market adds to a company. After initial sales it's not like they get any of the crazy money that's flying around.

So what? There's still no fraud there.

And maybe you don't want to take the risk, you just want to hold the stock and collect a nice fee every so often.

And maybe you don't think they're going down short term, it's no disadvantage to you to charge some schmuck to borrow your stock and lose money on a failed short.

If it's insider trading its illegal whichever way you're betting.

Maybe the guy loaning out the stock, or the guy going long is party to news that they have a groundbreaking product due to launch ahead of schedule that the competition are going to be years catching up to. In this case going long is no more gambling than going short.

No, I didn't.

The fund manager doesn't think the stocks are going down, that's why he's holding them and that's why he's comfortable loaning them out, as has been explained to you many times. The short seller doesn't magically force the stock to drop in price, he's gambling just as much as everyone else is,

You really are trying so very hard not to understand here, aren't you?

Or they may be worth more, and now you have a fee as well as better priced stocks. You really have nothing here etash.

Let me spell it out for you -
You're the lending party. You think the stocks are going up, long term (which is why you hold them and loaned them out in the first place).
The other guy, the short seller thinks they'll go down (which is why he wants to sell them and pay you back later).
The third party, the buyer also thinks they'll probably go up or he wouldn't buy.

Every single party knows the lay of the land and the intentions of the other parties, and sees the trade as potentially advantageous to themselves, they just disagree on where the market is going. There is no fraud here. It's no different to any other trade.

You may as well say that a stock buyer is committing fraud because he's taking your stock in the expectation that the stock goes up, if he hadn't bought your stock you'd be much better off today than when you sold yesterday! Damn him and his fraud!

All parties enter this transaction voluntarily and in the expectation of profit. That some of them may be wrong is why the whole of the stock market is a gamble.