"A rig explodes and sinks, a blowout preventer fails and Gulf of Mexico states wait weeks with containment booms and crossed fingers for the devastation to wash ashore. [more]
We knew about the employees of the SEC checking out material, that wasn't all financial, at work, but now employees of the U.S. Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service who oversee offshore oil drilling have been caught checking out x rated material on the job. A couple of them even supplamented the porn with a little meth. It sure makes you feel good about where our tax dollars are going. (Forbes) [more]
A picture is worth a thousand words and these are worth several thousand words, only some of which can appear on here without getting the post reported :). [more]
We have all heard of the conspiracy theories: New World Order, 911, etc., etc., etc. We have all heard the line: government is out to get you. We have all heard that government is just plain stupid, and can't do their jobs because they don't know how.
The latter can sometimes be the case (enter Dan Quayle), and I don't think that you can rule it out, especially with some 540 important people in congress and the executive branch. But I don't think that it is true overall, as I'll explain below. As for the former, I won't deny that it is theoretically possible, but the chances of everyone, or the majority of office holders being the sadistic type of people who would come murder you (or your rights) in your sleep I seriously doubt.
Rather I subscribe to another theory, one put forward by an AP Government test prep book I read a couple years back. It goes like this:
Congress does what is right, except when lobbying convinces them to do otherwise. Not that what is "right" in their mind is always what is best, everyone makes mistakes, and they certainly make as many as we do, but it is frequently beneficial to us.
My rationale (not the book’s) is below:
People run for office because they want the job, and the money that accompanies it. Since they must, generally, be able to head a campaign and speak well in public they are relatively intelligent individuals. Not geniuses, but likely they are at least average. Naturally some morons manage to sneak in, but this is not a common occurrence.
A motive for running is rarely, or never, to control the world. If it does occur it is an anomaly, not the rule. Usually people can pick up the seedy sort of people who are power hungry and vote them down. Power can corrupt, but when checks and balances are in place and there are so many others involved in the creation of law and policy it is rare that this power goes to anyone's head.
Most of us can be bought. If you were a Steeler fan (which I am) and someone came along and offered you $100 to root for the Giants for one game you would be hard pressed to find someone who will turn down that offer, unless it were the Super Bowl. However, in the absence of any money the Steeler fan will surely be rooting for the black 'n gold.
Congressmen are no different; a free addition to their house, a nice little check, and promises of campaign funds are pretty effective tools in persuading them to root (vote) for one position on a bill over the other. Occasionally, when they feel the legislation is important enough, they tell lobbyists to go take a hike, but this is not frequent.
That said, in the absence of lobbying, congressmen (and women) want to get re-elected, and as such attempt to help those within their jurisdiction, and nationally. [more]
When vet67towhatever dreamed up the idea of copying down everyone on RVA's blog and putting them in a list that he publicly denounced as "clowns" I doubt he had any idea exactly what the reaction would be. It was exceptionally positive--from the point of view of those tagged as clowns.
That said many of TMF's top members were on that list and I thought that we could turn it into a list of the finest CAPS members, of course not everyone is on here, and there are probably some people (myself included) that probably don't belong on the list quite yet but nevertheless we're on there. So, with the additions people made last week, here is the list:
DWI and Kam (whoever they are)
And one who didn’t make the cut:
Although he may qualify for something else: I have been interested in testing out just how secure our identities are online and I am very tempted to test it on him…
PS you can still add to this list but don’t add people who have quit (ie fb2, etc.)
This is meant as a guide for those who are HTML challenged. It is a quick and easy way to add pics, videos, and other stuff to spice up your blogs.
It is meant a side tool, meaning that I intend for people who want to insert these things to keep this guide open in another tab while writing their blogs.
So, without further ado, lets get started.
How to Insert a Picture
1) Right click the image and click view image
2) Copy the code below into your blog
3) Copy the URL (ie the internet address, like http://google.com) of the picture
4) Paste the URL of the picture in the code in place of the http://mafaltti.googlepages.com/20080310w11f1.gif
5) make sure that the quotes around the URL are still there, it won't work otherwise
<img src="http://mafaltti.googlepages.com/20080310w11f1.gif "width="600" height="400">
How to Insert a Video
1) Most videos will have a button near the screen that says either Share or Embed. (Youtube's says and is located just below the video on the right hand side of the page). Click that button.
2) A string of code should appear. For youtube it starts with object width= . Highlight the whole code and copy it into your blog. That's it. [more]
I was taking a break from studying for finals and AP tests (ugh) and noticed yet another "how do insert stuff into blogs" question. Since the CAPS team doesn't seem to want to answer these questions by putting a link or instructions in the actual blog writing page I figured I should try to solve the problem and provide people with a guide for how to insert stuff. I am also hoping to go beyond that and figure out how to put different sized text, underlining and a couple other features in here. [more]
Well when vet67towhatever dreamed up the idea of copying down everyone on RVA's blog and putting them in a list that he publicly denounced as "clowns" I doubt he had any idea exactly what the reaction would be. It was exceptionally positive--from the point of view of those tagged as clowns. [more]
The common defense: [more]
After several arduous days working on trading models, putting in formulas in as many different combinations as imaginable pulling a couple gems out of a massive amount of waste (more on these later), I came to some conclusions:
1. If you are only willing to invest in big (ie market cap over 500M) companies about the best model you can build generates a return of ~75% return a year.
2. If you want to deal with the dinky penny stocks of the world you can get between 150% and 400% annualized returns.
3. Most models performed horribly during the Great Recession—especially the dinky penny sock models. Even some of the best models I built only returned 10% or so over the past two years (granted the market lost 15%).
4. About the best model I could build returned 74% annualized over a 9-year period. The strongest model, one that outperformed consistently, even through the Great Recession returned 28% annualized over 9 years. The next best yours truly constructed returned 19.4% over the same period.
One of the questions I asked myself through all of this is: can anything I write rival Anticitrade’s work?
I have 3 models 1 which returned the aforementioned 74% (Mixed) and the 19.4% (Growth) and 28% (Value) models. Over a period during which Anticitrade returned 120% I returned:
Mixed – 90%
Growth – 118%
Value – 110%
So I would say, yes I can rival his growth—or a least get close. It is comparing Apples to Oranges a bit since my models usually turn out 3-10 specific stocks to buy, and tell you when to sell. His model tells you what returns are expected on different stocks and it doesn’t give any indication on when to take any action.
I won’t tell you the exact formulas, after all I have to keep this stuff proprietary but I will tell you what stocks they have recommended.
My Mixed model recommends:
Western Digital (WDC)
Corinthian Colleges (COCO)
Ingram Micro (IM)
Endo Pharma (ENDP)
Coventry Health (CVH)
Rio Tinto (RTP)
Cognizant Technology (CTSH)
Diamond Offshore (DO)
ITT Education (ESI)
Hanson Natural (HANS)
Research in Motion (RIMM)
True Religion (TRLG)
(I own the companies listed in italics)
(I also own Infosys, which was recommended by the model about a month ago and have not sold, despite the recommendation to do so) [more]