AMD's 45nm technology compared against Intel's
in [Chips]
|
From: Robert Myers on 16 Dec 2008 12:38 On Dec 16, 9:47 am, Robert Redelmeier <red...(a)ev1.net.invalid> wrote: > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rbmyers...(a)gmail.com> wrote in part: > > > On Dec 15, 5:48 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski > >> Robert Myers wrote: > >> > BUY! > >> Go away to alt.stock.advocacy, troll > > > I remember you. You're the financial genius from the Warsaw pact. > > Good time to move the US. The US needs more people with unjustified > > self-confidence. It's done such good things for the world economy. > > Speaking of unjustified self-confidence ... go look in a mirror. > You do not have any idea of how insulting you often are, > and thereby prove yourself a troll. That's unusually sloppy for you, Robert. Politeness, consideration for others, or even an accurate self-image in interpersonal terms have nothing to do with being right or wrong. I have no unjustified self-confidence around people like you or the other guy who works for people who are experts in risk management, "expertise" of the kind that has nearly brought the world financial order to its knees. It's been interesting to watch the reactions of those burned in Madoff's Ponzi scheme. They all come down to, "He didn't seem like the sort," or "He knew all the right people." Unfortunately for their personal wealth, interpersonal cues have nothing to do with being right or wrong. There is right, wrong, and don't know, the last of which is grotesquely underutizlized. A fraud who is nice is still a fraud. Robert.
From: Del Cecchi` on 16 Dec 2008 23:37 Robert Myers wrote: > On Dec 16, 9:47 am, Robert Redelmeier <red...(a)ev1.net.invalid> wrote: > >>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rbmyers...(a)gmail.com> wrote in part: >> >> >>>On Dec 15, 5:48 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski >>> >>>>Robert Myers wrote: >>>> >>>>>BUY! >>>> >>>>Go away to alt.stock.advocacy, troll >> >>>I remember you. You're the financial genius from the Warsaw pact. >>>Good time to move the US. The US needs more people with unjustified >>>self-confidence. It's done such good things for the world economy. >> >>Speaking of unjustified self-confidence ... go look in a mirror. >>You do not have any idea of how insulting you often are, >>and thereby prove yourself a troll. > > > That's unusually sloppy for you, Robert. Politeness, consideration > for others, or even an accurate self-image in interpersonal terms have > nothing to do with being right or wrong. > > I have no unjustified self-confidence around people like you or the > other guy who works for people who are experts in risk management, > "expertise" of the kind that has nearly brought the world financial > order to its knees. > > It's been interesting to watch the reactions of those burned in > Madoff's Ponzi scheme. They all come down to, "He didn't seem like > the sort," or "He knew all the right people." > > Unfortunately for their personal wealth, interpersonal cues have > nothing to do with being right or wrong. There is right, wrong, and > don't know, the last of which is grotesquely underutizlized. A fraud > who is nice is still a fraud. > > Robert. > > The Madoff affair has been quite interesting to watch. One aspect is the evolution... did it start out legitimate and evolve over time to a fraud, or was it a fraud from the beginning? I have read plausible speculation that it was the former. And how he didn't get caught? Another article speculated that many thought he was crooked and "front running" his market making operation. So the Wall Street types wanted to get in on it. And the "brightest guys in the room" almost wrecked the financial system before this, with LTCM. del
From: Robert Myers on 17 Dec 2008 00:32 On Dec 16, 11:37 pm, Del Cecchi` <dcecchinos...(a)att.net> wrote: > > The Madoff affair has been quite interesting to watch. One aspect is > the evolution... did it start out legitimate and evolve over time to a > fraud, or was it a fraud from the beginning? I have read plausible > speculation that it was the former. > > And how he didn't get caught? Another article speculated that many > thought he was crooked and "front running" his market making operation. > So the Wall Street types wanted to get in on it. > > And the "brightest guys in the room" almost wrecked the financial system > before this, with LTCM. > I'm sure that many frauds start out with someone thinking that they are taking a temporary measure that they will later be able to cover. Lawyers holding funds in trust think of the funds as a line of credit, for example. I think that, ultimately, the calculations are little more than a prop. The margins are so thin that just the tiniest bit of, say, front-running or an unexposed conflict of interest (wanting to get in on the scam without admitting to knowing about it) can change everything. Robert.
From: Robert Redelmeier on 17 Dec 2008 13:53 In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rbmyersusa(a)gmail.com> wrote in part: > I think that, ultimately, the calculations are little more > than a prop. The margins are so thin that just the tiniest > bit of, say, front-running or an unexposed conflict of > interest (wanting to get in on the scam without admitting > to knowing about it) can change everything. Yes ... to the advantage of the scam. Margins means levearage works small advantages into large profits. The problem is like in mountaineering on the backside -- how can you climb down? -- Robert R
From: Robert Redelmeier on 17 Dec 2008 13:54
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rbmyersusa(a)gmail.com> wrote in part: > On Dec 16, 9:47�am, Robert Redelmeier <red...(a)ev1.net.invalid> wrote: >> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rbmyers...(a)gmail.com> wrote in part: >> > I remember you. �You're the financial genius from the Warsaw pact. >> > Good time to move the US. �The US needs more people with unjustified >> > self-confidence. �It's done such good things for the world economy. >> >> Speaking of unjustified self-confidence ... go look in a mirror. >> You do not have any idea of how insulting you often are, >> and thereby prove yourself a troll. > > That's unusually sloppy for you, Robert. Politeness, > consideration for others, or even an accurate self-image in > interpersonal terms have nothing to do with being right or wrong. You are confusing politics for science. Apart from IQ, nothing you said about Sebastian has any scientific proveability or relevance. Your statement was political, and must be judged as such. > I have no unjustified self-confidence around people like you > or the other guy who works for people who are experts in risk Why do you equate us? I pointed you to Nassim Taleb's "Black Swans" back in May. You are ignoring data. > Unfortunately for their personal wealth, interpersonal > cues have nothing to do with being right or wrong. Then why do you invoke them against Sebastian? -- Robert R |