How is a person's retirement fund getting poorer if the price of a stock rebounds in a week?
Because the stock price dropping by more than a small amount indicates a significant amount of selling, and there's a decent chance that a chunk of that selling came from big funds.
Wait for Trump to say something stupid that knocks a chunk of money off of a stock, wait a few hours for it to crash, buy low, and sell it after a week when the price rebounds. Once again, the ultra-wealthy with their high-frequency traders get richer, and normal people's retirement funds get poorer....
Yeah I wasn't saying they were.
No, but it looked like you were.
No, giant OLED panels on the outside of your car and on the interior of the windshield. It's $500 with ads, $50,000 without.
Well, *technically* it's not supposed to be zero, but the plane is 200 feet long and you're supposed to have 150 feet of visibility. In other words, you can see only half a second in front of you.
The plane's length and its landing speed aren't necessarily equal. That said, it's amusing that the first plane I looked up—the 767—the landing speed is up to 199 MPH, and that does just happen to equate to almost exactly half a second.
But it is at least as likely that having shorter telomeres predisposes you to be less active, choosing to sit more than other people. In fact, I would argue that genes affecting behavior is far more likely than behavior affecting genes. Without a truly randomized study with a control group, I don't see how you can convincingly prove causation.
Jeez Editors. Next - Kim (or whatever) Kardishan breaks a fingernail (which had an open web browser).
Come on, you really can do better. Even with just flat out troll / clickbait headlines you can do better. We can help you make some up!
Beware, beware the angry AC.
That's always the problem with your "unless/except when it isn't" routine. It's a cynical statement, but that's all it is. It doesn't support the assertion, but it does't refute the assertion either. It also neither supports nor refutes alternative ideas and assertions to explore.
Exactly. You mostly get it. MightyMartian is not the only reader of Slashdot and thus, not the only person I'm writing for.
But this is not cynicism. This is purely a logical observation. I could equally assert that the Grays (a particular species of aliens that supposedly anal probe human test subjects) are behind global warming. Or God is angry at us for Facebook and turning up the thermostat. When unfounded, assertions are equally useless to us.
When evidence and reason are introduced, I then actually have to defend those assertions with something. I'm sure it'll be amusing to hear me explain how the Grays are hiding their giant coal burning mothership behind the Moon (obviously NASA is in on it!) or God's giant hand is just as completely undetectable to us as is the vast knob of his thermostat.
Then you can decide just how crazy I am.
And then you wonder why people are still so adamant on their side, despite all the work you've done arguing against them.
MightyMartian isn't going to be rationally talked out of a position he/she didn't get into rationally in the first place. But maybe next time, there will be more to that post (and who knows, maybe some persuasive evidence even!) than just a touchie feelie assertion.
is supposed to generate 1.2C
Sounds like it's more than 1.2 C which is why I used the higher numbers. And your math has sharply improved. Even with the lower number of 1.2 C per doubling, you will not get a 0.1 C increase in temperature from increasing CO2 from 400 ppm to 500 ppm. It'll be just under 0.4 C.
To add a third increase of 1.2C, we need to get the concentration up to 2240ppm. There's not enough oil in the world to get CO2 concentrations up this high.
Not in proven reserves, at least. There's also coal which does have enough. But at this point, we're speaking of using a lot of fossil fuels for a long time to get that level of direct radiative effects.
I thought Apple was only renting space to developers [slashdot.org], and got a fixed percentage from them. Isn't setting/raising prices something developer's should decide to do? Or are things somehow different in the UK?
Basically, when you sell something in any of Apple's stores, you choose a price tier in your default currency, and prices in other currencies are based on that price combined with the current exchange rates. For example, if I create a book right now, and specify tier 10 everywhere, that's $9.99 in USD, or $13.99 in CAD. If the Canadian dollar increases relative to the dollar, in a year, tier 10 could be $9.99 in the U.S. and $12.99 in CAD. In theory, the amount paid will always be approximately equal to $9.99 in USD.
To add further complexity, Apple provides some alternate price tiers that let you charge lower prices in developing countries, and for books, even lets you set per-country price tiers, IIRC, which could distort pricing even further... but that's a side discussion.
A better measure is the Big Mac Index [wikipedia.org]. A McDonalds Big Mac contains more commodities, and a significant portion of the price is in the service sector. In the UK, the average price of a Big Mac is 2.99UKP. In America, it is $4.79. So the fair market conversion should be about 0.62. So the pound is currently undervalued against the dollar, and Apple is screwing the Brits.
That's silly. The Big Mac in the UK is likely made with British beef, British bread, British lettuce, British tomatoes, etc. Expecting the same exchange rate is completely unrealistic when you're talking about buying goods that are made outside the EU.
Mind you, I'm not saying the 1:1 conversion rate that Apple is using isn't Apple's way of giving the middle finger to the UK for Brexit, nor am I saying that I agree with it, but the rate ought to be set based on roughly the average conversion rate over the past few months or so, and that rate isn't anywhere near 0.62:1. Realistically, looking at recent trends, a 0.82:1 rate is probably pretty reasonable. Add to that Apple's usual safety margin, and I'd expect more like 0.85:1.
"Well hello there Charlie Brown, you blockhead." -- Lucy Van Pelt