rkbabang

She could be on to something. That's really an interesting theory which thus far I hadn't considered. That the females of the species are very busy, while the males of the species have time to shoot the shit. I wonder if anyone has ever studied that? Surely there are men out there who would have the time for such an inquiry. :)

I was being sarcastic. One or two ladies on this and other financial forums does not change the overwhelming sausage-festedness. The thing is you see women on Twitter engage in political debate which can be as contentious or even more nasty than exchanges on financial forums. Which begs the question - Why don't women engage in financial forums? Avoidance of mansplaining? General disinterest? I know this is VERY un-PC to say these days, but just as the Google memo author was correct about the lack of women in Computer Science and other tech fields is simply general disinterest, I believe the same is true for finance. It has nothing to do with intelligence or aptitude, it is simply that women don't pursue these as interests. Not only professionally but as hobbies either. There are many like me for whom investing is a hobby, not a profession, but not many women. There are many for whom tinkering with programming or electronics is a hobby not a profession, but not many women. Now whether this is nurture or nature I don't know. I suspect to some extent it is both. The same reason you don't see very many men teaching Kindergarten.

I bought a cup of coffee this morning from Dunkin' Donuts because I woke up late and didn't make it at home like I usually do. Before you say that isn't discretionary I have free coffee in the break room at work (but it is even worse than DD), so buying it at DD instead is discretionary. Looking back at my Amazon order history the last things I bought that you could call discretionary was an Instant Pot on PrimeDay and an Apple TV 4K a few days before that. EDIT: I've also purchased a number of kindle books and audible audio books in the last month, but I don't consider that discretionary, because in my own personal hierarchy of needs books are located just below food, water, and shelter.

From the article: "To achieve that vision, ICE is partnering with heavyweights from the worlds of technology, consulting, and retail: Microsoft, Boston Consulting Group, and Starbucks." Starbucks implies coffee. But I agree with you. The world's gold is worth $trillions and (almost) nobody is buying their morning coffee with it.

LOL. If someone who isn't rich does this you probably just saw my grandmother.

LOL. The same as everything you wrote above can be said for anyone who deals with cash. You said it yourself all of the banks launder drug money to one extent or another (as do grocery stores and retail outlets when drug dealers buy stuff with cash). None of that is anything new. Why would cash on the internet be any different from physical cash in that respect?

They haven't thought this through. Every one of those holding altcoin/token needs to meet KYC enhanced DD requirements, and there is only one investable altcoin (Bitcoin). Then you have to choose to hold your Bitcoin in a hackable account, instead of in your own annonymous 'unhackable' account at Mt Gox Take out those who can't pass the DD, don't need the annonymity, and who don't want the more attractive 'direct' account at Mt Gox - and it's a very small market. We wish them luck, but it doesn't look promising. SD No. Everyone buying or trading or holding crypto through them needs to meet KYC enhanced DD requirements. No one "has" to hold their Bitcoin with them. The same could be said for Coinbase yet "Coinbase has twice as many customers as Charles Schwab.” You can build a trusted network on top of a trustless one, just not vice versa. Not so sure.... Agreed that a NYSE BTC counterpart to Chicago BTC Futures and Options is a desirable thing. Agreed that buyer/seller enhanced DD isn't their responsibility - IF they are PURELY an exchange. BUT .. why would you use a regulated channel to buy/sell Bitcoin, in scale? When the whole value-add of Bitcoin is it's annonymity, and its ability to evade capital and regulatory controls. It can only be a small but very active market I would suggest that the only reason for this is so that institutions can trade BTC Futures and Options. Limit the trades to just Bakkt, evidence that all FI's trading through Bakkt have to have an enhanced DD US account, and institutional BTC hedging becomes much easier. Problem is that any trading done through a fraudulent DD US account, will make Bakkt complicit - as it has just abetted a theft. And a great many people, have a very strong incentive, to do exactly that. Agreed it's a good idea. But these are just two of the more obvious things they don't seem to have thought through. But we wish them luck. SD Some might not care about evading regulatory controls and simply want a currency which can not be inflated by governments. In fact the lack of regulatory certainty is probably what is keeping institutional investors on the sidelines. There are other ways already for people who do not like KYC.

They haven't thought this through. Every one of those holding altcoin/token needs to meet KYC enhanced DD requirements, and there is only one investable altcoin (Bitcoin). Then you have to choose to hold your Bitcoin in a hackable account, instead of in your own annonymous 'unhackable' account at Mt Gox Take out those who can't pass the DD, don't need the annonymity, and who don't want the more attractive 'direct' account at Mt Gox - and it's a very small market. We wish them luck, but it doesn't look promising. SD No. Everyone buying or trading or holding crypto through them needs to meet KYC enhanced DD requirements. No one "has" to hold their Bitcoin with them. The same could be said for Coinbase yet "Coinbase has twice as many customers as Charles Schwab.” You can build a trusted network on top of a trustless one, just not vice versa.

http://fortune.com/longform/nyse-owner-bitcoin-exchange-startup/

This is true long term, just as the market is efficient long term. Scientific consensus will tend to head in the direction of the truth...eventually. But in the mean time you have things like politics getting in the way such as with the government telling us all that saturated fat and cholesterol will kill us and we should be eating tons of carbs, high omega-6 vegetable oils, and trans fats. It took a couple of generations, millions dead of diabetes and heart disease, and the invention of the internet to turn that one around.

So you answer the way any surgeon does. "Not on purpose" :)

The draft is clearly unconstitutional. The 13th Amendment is written in plain English and doesn't need an idiot in a robe to interpret it. '"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." The government doesn't follow its own highest laws, yet expects us to consider it to be legitimate.

No I would never do that now. I'm saying that I didn't see it that way back then. Maybe you were an anarchist your whole life, but I graduated from high school a 'good' patriotic American. It took me years to get rid of that brainwashing. I'm saying that after spending ages 5-18 in government indoctrination camps you can't really blame these kids for not knowing what you and I now know. I look at them as the victims of systematic long term brainwashing.

"He's the one who gives his body as the weapon for the war and without him all this killing can't go on." - Donovan - Universal soldier How’s that analysis work when there is a draft? Well the draft complicates matters severely ... Draft is one of the biggest crimes against freedom. Do you know the song "and the band played Waltzing Matilda" by Eric Bogle? One of the saddest songs ever written imo. I still say try to desert when drafted if at all possible but I realize that's very difficult to do while keeping yourself safe. Nation states truly are savages in such situations. I agree in principle with everything you say, but the reality is that 17-18 year olds signing up for the military are fresh out of 12 years and 14,000 hours of government indoctrination. I came very close to signing up myself for the promise of free college. I wasn't an anarchist/libertarian then, just an 18 year old kid from a relatively poor family fresh out of the indoctrination centers wondering how the hell I was going to pay for college. I ended up taking student loans and not signing up. Mostly because I didn't want to spend 1 weekend a month away from my girlfriend, as the weekends were going to be the only time we would be able to see each other. If you are blaming the 18 year olds for signing up or for complying with their draft letters, you are blaming the victims, not the perpetrators. You are looking at the symptoms, not the causes. It is no small achievement to rid your mind of that kind intense and long term brainwashing from your most formative years. Some do, but just go have a look at the politics section of this board, most don't. “Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society" --John Dewey "Our common schools reach, with more or less directness and intensity, all the children belonging to the State, children who are soon to be the State.” --Horace Mann "It is the State which educates its citizens in civic virtue, gives them a consciousness of their mission, and welds them into unity." --Benito Mussolini

"He's the one who gives his body as the weapon for the war and without him all this killing can't go on." - Donovan - Universal soldier How’s that analysis work when there is a draft?

Yes - but it may not be healthy! That's quite a general statement that, while for some might be true, for others it may not be true at all. I have someone in my extended family that thinks everyone should talk about everything all of the time, and old wounds should be constantly re-opened. I think this type of thinking often causes way more trouble than it helps. Bringing back old things that people have gotten over and already learned how to live with. Sometimes people find ways of putting the past in the past, leaving it there and going on with their lives. Drudging all that up and reliving all of it every time someone is curious or thinks they are 'helping' isn't always a good thing. Everyone is different and some people may benefit from talking about it, but I wouldn't say that everyone would. Sometimes it's better to not force someone to talk about something they don't want to talk about. Often people who say that it is 'healthy' to talk about things are saying this for self-serving reasons and don't necessarily have the best interest of the other person at heart. You always need to ask yourself if you want to talk about it for the good of the other person, or simply because you want to hear it regardless of the consequences to the other person.

This is what I think as well. From what you've said, it doesn't sound like he wants to talk about it. If he hadn't, he probably would have said a straight "no" when you asked him years ago. I'm as anti-war as anyone you will meet, but I don't blame the troops. He was a young man, put in a situation that was completely out of his control. He did what he had to do in those circumstances to survive. I know this is easier said than done, but my advice would be to try to let it go.

I own a number of penny stocks in Fidelity account, but I ran into this for the first time this week trying to put an order in to buy HAUP, it gave me the same reason as above “Pink Sheets without information”.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2018/07/27/jake-wilson-mollie-tibbetts-iowa-missing-missing-vigil-la-porte-brooklyn-evansdale-girls-waterloo/839536002/

I love it when people go "things should have happened the way I imagine it, and it didn't, therefore it's not true". That's not how life works. I could tell you a bunch of stuff that happened to me or friends of mine that don't fit neatly into "what should've happened" or "what usually happens" and yet it's true stuff. The pattern I'm noticing is of a huge double standard with these kinds of stories. If some random dude online tells a story of almost being robbed and maybe killed or badly hurt by a bunch of guys and getting away or whatever, it's like, "oh man, glad you're ok, that sucks", but if a woman tells a story of almost being attacked/raped/etc, it's suddenly the Spanish inquisition and none of it is credible because all of a sudden everybody's an expert in how real stories should be told. I just shared a story I saw for what it is. I'm not asking you to make an investment decision based on it. I don't know if it's true, but I find the opposition to it to be pretty weak, yet along predictable lines. +1. People watch way too much TV. Most crimes are never reported, and most crimes that are reported are never investigated. There was no one missing or kill d here. The police took a report then went back to writing speeding tickets and looking for drugs.

I think I was almost car jacked once when I was younger, about 19 or 20. I stopped at a red light and suddenly my passenger side door opens and some guy starts getting in. Luckily I was the first car at the light, so I just gunned it through the intersection (Light was still red but traffic was light). He already had one leg in my car and went flying. I saw him rolling on the pavement in my rear view mirror. I never reported it to anyone, but I started locking my car doors when I drove.

I wouldn’t have guessed that it was that high. Looking around that site there were other causes of death that I thought would be lower too. https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leadingcauses.html Almost 45,000 suicides? People talk about the number of gun suicides being 20k or so, I just assumed that was most of them. I don’t think I’ve seen the total number reported or talked about. That is high. Also 161,374 unintentional injury, I wonder if that includes car accidents? Either way I would have guessed lower.

A Russian man finds a bottle with a genie in it. Genie says "I will grant you anything you desire, but whatever I give you your neighbor will get double." The man thinks for a second then says to the genie "Take out one of my eyes."

Litecoin Foundation acquires 9.9% of Germany's WEG Bank https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/07/10/1535672/0/en/TokenPay-and-Litecoin-Announce-an-Extensive-Crypto-Strategic-Partnership.html

Maybe they are not idiots and want their name showing up on th gofundme website. To what end? So everyone will think that they are idiots? It is preferable to be a famous idiot compared to be a smart nobody. Just look at the talking heads in the tube or the folks running for or being in office. Being famous would be hell, IMHO. The folks running for office are driven by power and money. And the talking heads in the tube are motivated by access (to the powerful) and money, using fame to further their careers. There is nothing to gain by an unknown poor person giving a few hundred bucks to a famous rich person.