value-is-what-you-get

Musk stated that the primary reason they do not file patents on much of their technologies related to SpaceX is because their primary competitors are governments which makes patents more or less unenforceable. USA is not the only customer on Earth!

spacex isn't necessarily doing it better. they are offering to do it cheaper. very likely bidding has been based on what they think they can charge, not cost. Musk has applied the same basic process to SpaceX as he used with Tesla. He calls it engineering based on first principles. This is a world of difference from engineering and design based on analogy. He explains all this in several of his interviews. Do you think the ModelS is the safest car ever tested by a fluke? It s a concious effort to design to a standard. With rockets, his thinking process is basically to add up the weight of all components and fuel, multiply by the price per pound, and then minimize the cost to form all the constituant parts into a rocket. Certainly safety is a number one priority as well. I will go out on a limb and suggest SpaceX will run the safest launch program ever with live people. With rockets andastronauts it s really easy to price better than the competition because you re competing with governments - the least efficient way to get things done. What an ideal circumstamce when the low bid turms out to be the highest quality!

The more people that see Earth from space, the better. The more we learn there is nothing out there to support our survival anywhere but on Earth, the better. We launch people into space but guess what - we are all people in space - existing in a thin film on a blue eyeball we call Earth. Here are some first hand observations and quotes on the subject: http://www.spacequotations.com/earth.html yeah but it will stay expensive for your everyday man. Personally i would pay a lot of money to go to the ISS. I would kill my own mother to go there :D . But most people dont care, and it will stay too expensive untill we get something of value from outside earth, economically. It's important only to send up world leaders. The everyday man will reap the benefits of their adjusted psyche. Perhaps a prerequisite to assuming power. Would only require a tiny sliver of the $1.75 Trillion global defence spending budget.

The more people that see Earth from space, the better. The more we learn there is nothing out there to support our survival anywhere but on Earth, the better. We launch people into space but guess what - we are all people in space - existing in a thin film on a blue eyeball we call Earth. Here are some first hand observations and quotes on the subject: http://www.spacequotations.com/earth.html

Hey the stocks dropping a bit but that's no reason to delete the thread(s) :o EDIT: Found it - please feel free to delete this subject

I believe the basic concept here is to analyze without knowing how it did! Great idea, but now we are biased by knowing the result.

That you are asking the board indicates to me that you know it is wrong and it doesn't sit well with you. Follow your instinct. You already know what you want to do. If the moral aspect doesn't appeal to you then perhaps the fact that you are training them to do your job might help sway your decision. You're company is exporting intellectual capital/knowledge by illegal means. Bad enough it happens, but at least pay the proper costs to do so.

To paraphrase, I believe Buffett told Becky Quick on CNBC interview that Bitcoin is an instantaneous money order in essence. As a result, it has no intrinsic value in and of itself so buying them as an investment doesn't make sense and using them for transactions subjects the holder to speculative fluctuations in the exchange rate. It's not a matter of liking it or not - it's an assessment of value. I understand the value as a result of scarcity argument, but that's not an investment, it's price speculation. I also understand the value in terms of computing power required to "mine" each subsequent coin increasing the cost of each additional coin, but just because something costs a lot doesn't give it intrinsic value. Quite frankly, they will be "all that" when world currencies are quoted in Bitcoins not the other way around. Widespread acceptance is they key here. All Bitcoin has to do to get there is replace the visceral feel and centuries old previous value store of heavy gold, displace the existing global currencies (US Dollar, Euro, Renmninbi etc) by convincing governments to forfeit their money printing capabilities . . . no need to continue past this point.

Thanks for posting! Fair warning though - there will be all kinds of interesting TED talks listed next to it tempting you to watch them rather than doing whatever it is you are supposed to be doing!!!! ;D Good quote "most people have no idea whether their fund manager is charging them 1% or 1.5% per year on their life savings but will clip coupons to save a dollar on toothpaste"

+1

That would be one Manhattan per month for 11 years. That,s a lot of subways!

Suppose the US had their only permanently unfrozen and one of their largest naval bases in a territory that was largely inhabited by English speaking pro-American people which used to be part of the United States. For geographical comparison, let's say the territory in question is the States of Florida and Georgia, with the base in question being in Florida. Then, the Florida/Georgia government becomes bankrupt and starts shopping around a deal to bail them out. Seems like the best deal is what the Cubans are offering so they decide to become indebted to them. Then of course all of the pro-American citizens in the former US territory (Florida) become enraged and demonstrate and oust the leader who is contemplating this deal with the enemy. Now the territory is in flux and control over their largest naval base is in jeopardy and all the pro-American english speaking citizens in the zone containing said naval base start getting worried about the anti-Americans who are on the other side of this argument and are also citizens of the same territory but in a different region. What would the American response to this situation be? Would they be hailed as heroes in the press for looking out for their own, restoring order and showing strength in light of political upheaval? Why is Putin compared to Hitler for a similar response? The military-industrial complex requires only one fuel - an enemy - and without it would wither and shrink. Invert, always invert.

Does anyone else laugh at the same "that is, since present management took over" line every year? I know it's coming but I chuckle every time!

I hope he gets a word in edge wise. ::) Yeah with WEB and Ted, Todd and Traci present, just think of the time value he'll be wasting!

Hope he gets some good jabs in on Kernan!

As I recall, the mark to market provision also gave him some excellent tax losses in the first couple of years as well. Essentially additional float in the form of cash taxes not paid.

It totally depends on how much you drive. I drive 25K km a year and buying a car that is around two years old and getting rid of it when it is 4-5 years old has been the least cost method of car ownership for me. The main slug of depreciation has occurred, the major components will not fail under 125K km so no major expenses there (in fact my current car has factory drivetrain warranty still) and there will be value left at 4-5 years old before the terminal slide in value occurs. My wife on the other hand drives maybe 5K km a year so we bought a mint condition Lincoln Town Car (last of the rear drive models - they're good for 500K-1,000K km life ;D) and will undercoat it and maintain it for probably 10 years anyway. Comes down to usage.

Pierre Berton

Munger on oil "it's the height of stupidity to drill our own oil. We should use everyone else's first, then start drilling." Munger on oil prices "If you think oil prices are high, you ain't seen nothing yet"

This is definitely not typical value investing but it is interesting. The fact is this guy is not "letting it ride" towards an inevitable zero but has amassed such a return from compressing the compounding period from years to minutes. If you compound at 10% a net of 20 times a year it adds up quickly. It s a gambler's mentality (most likely outcome given what's known) applied to market inefficiency. I don't see how this inevitably goes to zero as the string of bad luck that would be required would be a number of pump and dump stocks in a row actually take off and succeed. It's labour intensive - not my cup of tea - but not destined to fail either.

Our freight rate for products we import from China (less than container loads) is around 17% all in landed in Ontario Canada. Goes from China to Prince Rupert, them on a train to Toronto warehouse. Identical freight manufactured in California costs more to ship! Was a pleasant surprise to be sure. Reminds me of a quote by the foremost expert on the life of Andrew Carnegie. He was asked what he thought Carnegie might say if told that today we mine iron ore, put it on a ship to China or Korea, they turn it into rolled steel and ship it back to North America. He figured Carnegie would say it s a good time to get into the steel business!

Thanks for posting MrB Always enjoy seeing something complicated explained simply and logically

True, but I always wondered why you can't just sell cash-covered puts. I would love to do that, but apparently it's not allowed. Is it a technical limitation to simply make brokers disallow an order if the cash isn't there, and freeze the cash if it is? I would think they could just "virtually" subtract from your buying power until the option expires or is bought back. Edit: I realize selling puts in a registered account is against CRA law, but it would be nice if that changed. I'd like to sell cash-covered puts in my registered accounts as well. I don't think it's a technical limitation since what you suggest would happen in a margin account anyway if you sold puts that, when exercised, would put you outside your buying power. It's probably more like this: Put=Short=Against Rules.

Yet they allow you to buy $215 strike September TSLA (Tesla Motors) call options. This is likely because they want you not to take speculative bets? Yes - heaven help me if I would risk my retirement by agreeing to accept money in exchange for agreeing to purchase a security far below it's current market price. I'm probably much better off buying calls for a few pennies each on that biotech that just invented that new pill that's bound to cure everything!! :P :o

Does anyone have an explanation for Revenue Canada's treatment of options in registered accounts? Specifically, I can buy a put - giving me the option to go short the underlying (which is not allowed) but I can not sell a put giving me the option to go long the underlying (which is allowed). Is this a case of "selling what you don't own is short and short isn't allowed" without actually considering the nature of the instrument? Thanks in advance!