Searching \ for '[OT]: How many ways' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: techref.massmind.org/techref/index.htm?key=how+many+ways
Search entire site for: 'How many ways'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]: How many ways'
2006\04\06@162845 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
Olin wrote regarding 'Re: [PIC]: How many ways' on Thu, Apr 06 at 13:55:
> That's why our state lottery is sometimes referred to as a tax on people
> that are bad at math, or a "stupidity tax".

This reminds me.  I was in a convenience store recently, and there was
a woman (who, incidentally, didn't look like she really had a lot of
money to spare, and who probably hasn't put together that she could
also "win" more money by saving the lottery ticket money to pay for
courses at the local community college, thus gaining skills which would
help her to get a better paying job) standing at the counter
scratching off the big scratch-off tickets - the $5 ones.  She'd win a
few dollars, and then use the money to buy another ticket.  From
looking at her pile, it looked like she started with about $20 or so,
or had "won" a free ticket/money a couple of times.  I thought "if
you've won, why are you continuing to play until the money's gone?"
Apparently, people who buy lottery tickets actually have more fun
losing than winning.  Scratching that latex off of the cardboard must
be the real fun for most people.  Must be the difficulty in using an
old coin to get it all off - the challenge might be the attraction...

I've bought two $1 scratch-off tickets in my life (on the same day,
not long after I turned 18 and could legally do novel things like
foolishly gambling my money away).  The first one, I won a free
ticket, which subsequently lost.  On the second one, I won $5.  Happy
that I'd beaten the lottery, I bought a soda for my sister, a Hostess
"500% of the US RDA for saturated fat in one serving" fruit pie for
myself, and have never played the lottery since, preferring to list
old junk on eBay as my new way to gamble.  The odds are much better
for me to make more than I put in, there. :)

I still can't believe that people have bought most of my old clothes,
some of which had significant holes which were clearly shown in the
photos and the description.  I got $80 out of a used pair of work
boots which hurt my feet for 2 years and sell new for around $100.
People will buy *anything* on eBay.

--Danny, who makes plenty of bad decisions, just to be fair to the
woman above

2006\04\07@111313 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Danny,

On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 15:28:43 -0500, Danny Sauer wrote:
>...
> I've bought two $1 scratch-off tickets in my life (on the same day,
> not long after I turned 18 and could legally do novel things like
> foolishly gambling my money away).  The first one, I won a free
> ticket, which subsequently lost.  On the second one, I won $5.  Happy
> that I'd beaten the lottery, I bought a soda for my sister, a Hostess
> "500% of the US RDA for saturated fat in one serving" fruit pie for
> myself, and have never played the lottery since, preferring to list
> old junk on eBay as my new way to gamble.  The odds are much better
> for me to make more than I put in, there. :)

That's the way to do it!  :-)  Since they pay out a known percentage of the take, if you re-gamble the
winnings you are *bound* to lose, unless you decide when you've won enough and stop.  The one time I gambled
in Vegas (I was there for Comdex) I got $30 of tokens, and put them into a slot machine.  Whatever I won I put
into a different pocket, and left it there.  When my $30 was gone I stopped, and I had $285 to spend!  I
stayed at the Luxor for the last night (I'd been in a crummy run-down motel) and bought some presents for
friends, and still came away with more change than my original $30.  I'm not sure if winning in Las Vegas is
against Neveda state laws, but don't tell them, eh?  :-)

Interesting contrast: in Nevada the laws support the casinos (card-counting is illegal, which I find faintly
amazing) whereas in Britain gambling debts aren't recoverable by law, so gambling on credit is pretty-much
nonexistant.

Oh, and I've never bought a scratch-card in my life - I just can't see the point!

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\04\07@133621 by William Killian

flavicon
face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: spam_OUTpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTspammit.edu [.....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam@spam@mit.edu] On
Behalf
{Quote hidden}

Happy
> > that I'd beaten the lottery, I bought a soda for my sister, a
Hostess
> > "500% of the US RDA for saturated fat in one serving" fruit pie for
> > myself, and have never played the lottery since, preferring to list
> > old junk on eBay as my new way to gamble.  The odds are much better
> > for me to make more than I put in, there. :)
>
> That's the way to do it!  :-)  Since they pay out a known percentage
of
> the take, if you re-gamble the
> winnings you are *bound* to lose, unless you decide when you've won
enough
> and stop.  The one time I gambled
> in Vegas (I was there for Comdex) I got $30 of tokens, and put them
into a
> slot machine.  Whatever I won I put
> into a different pocket, and left it there.  When my $30 was gone I
> stopped, and I had $285 to spend!  I
> stayed at the Luxor for the last night (I'd been in a crummy run-down
> motel) and bought some presents for
> friends, and still came away with more change than my original $30.
I'm
> not sure if winning in Las Vegas is
> against Neveda state laws, but don't tell them, eh?  :-)

This is my business - class 2 and 3 slots and soon card shufflers and
shoes.  I'll leave the list by this name soon.  Might rejoin under a new
name back in Vegas.

Coin and token machines in Vegas are pretty much gone.  My variant of
that is to put in a $20 or two.  If that is gone I quit.  If I hit for
$10 to $10 above that amount I cash out (get a coupon) and put in a new
$20.  I'm definitely ahead on slots and video poker.  My wife is
definitely behind.  So to "win" we use the player comp system and get
'stuff' to make up for the expenditures on entertainment.

> Interesting contrast: in Nevada the laws support the casinos (card-
> counting is illegal, which I find faintly
> amazing) whereas in Britain gambling debts aren't recoverable by law,
so
> gambling on credit is pretty-much
> nonexistant.

Card counting has been ruled legal by the Nevada Supreme Court.  At
least if you do it in your head.  I do think mechanical devices to aid
in counting are forbidden.

Casinos are free to choose who is and isn't allowed to gamble so they
choose to eject card counters (whether that is 'right' or not is
debatable).

Gambling on credit cards is not permitted in Nevada though casinos can
extend a marker to a limited set of patrons.


> Oh, and I've never bought a scratch-card in my life - I just can't see
the
> point!

I very seldom go for scratch off cards.

But yeah, knowing when to quit whether ahead or behind is crucial.  Like
the fold 'em or hold 'em of poker.




-------------------------------------  Notice of Confidentiality ----------------------------------------------------------
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
postmasterspamKILLspamvgt.net. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or
copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified
that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information
is strictly prohibited.

2006\04\07@135709 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Apr 7, 2006, at 8:13 AM, Howard Winter wrote:

> I just can't see the point!
>
I fear that for many people, they think that gambling at long odds
is their only chance at "the good life."  It's all very well to
talk about spending money on education instead of lottery tickets,
but you can buy a lot of lottery tickets with the money it would
take to buy one $70 textbook, and "everybody knows" that to really
success you have to go  to Harvard (or equiv) AND have the right
connections to start with...

And of course lottery tickets are cheap compared to many other
"bad habits."  I am continually amazed that smoking seems to be
so popular among the poor and disadvantaged, when it's so expensive!

BillW

2006\04\07@150222 by David VanHorn

picon face
>
> And of course lottery tickets are cheap compared to many other
> "bad habits."  I am continually amazed that smoking seems to be
> so popular among the poor and disadvantaged, when it's so expensive!


I see that a lot here, even chewing tobacco.
The prevalent attitude is the same, "ain't no government gonna tell me what
I can and can't do".
Same logic appears to apply to seat belt usage, and it's even legal here to
get a truck plate for your car (pay a bit more) and then you are exempt from
the seat belt requirement.

The amount of "attitude" seems inversely proportional to income and
ecucation.

--
> Feel the power of the dark side!  Atmel AVR

2006\04\07@163052 by William Killian

flavicon
face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam.....mit.edu [EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmit.edu] On
Behalf
{Quote hidden}

here
> to
> get a truck plate for your car (pay a bit more) and then you are
exempt
> from
> the seat belt requirement.
>
> The amount of "attitude" seems inversely proportional to income and
> ecucation.

Well I disagree only on that last point.

Feelings of privilege are about the same.  The wealthy just have ways to
make the rules change only for them.

Hunting without a license from a car while drinking and manage to shoot
someone?  Sure if you have certain powers and wealth.  Heck you can even
have the victim apologize to you.  That is chutzpah!



-------------------------------------  Notice of Confidentiality ----------------------------------------------------------
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
postmasterspamspam_OUTvgt.net. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or
copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified
that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information
is strictly prohibited.

2006\04\07@193014 by Rolf

face picon face
I have a different take on the lottery. In Ontario (where I live), we
have the trillium foundation, which disburses the "profits" from the
lottery. The model airplane club I am in got $25,000 to improve the club
with the condition we got together with the local boy-scouts and made
the club facilities available to them (with supervision). It is a
win-win situation because the club needs membership, and the scouts
provide good PR. I figure I have personally gaind about $1000 worth from
that, so I buy lottery tickets whenever the jackpot is large enough to
hit the media. I spend $5 or $10, and enjoy the entertainment. I don't
feel silly because I just figure someone is going to benefit from the
money like the club did.

Moderation....

Rolf

Danny Sauer wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2006\04\07@200855 by Robertino Benis

picon face

And why would somebody else pay for _your_ club? Who cares!

I completelly agree with Danny in all aspects, and have no intention to  
pay "stupidity tax" as he calls it. State takes enough money anyway.

r.



On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:30:13 -0700, Rolf <@spam@learrKILLspamspamrogers.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

2006\04\07@210130 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Rolf wrote:

>I have a different take on the lottery. In Ontario (where I live), we
>have the trillium foundation, which disburses the "profits" from the
>lottery. The model airplane club I am in got $25,000 to improve the club
>with the condition we got together with the local boy-scouts and made
>the club facilities available to them (with supervision). It is a
>win-win situation because the club needs membership, and the scouts
>provide good PR. I figure I have personally gaind about $1000 worth from
>that, so I buy lottery tickets whenever the jackpot is large enough to
>hit the media. I spend $5 or $10, and enjoy the entertainment. I don't
>feel silly because I just figure someone is going to benefit from the
>money like the club did.
>
>Moderation....
>
>  
>
I agree, Rolf. I can easily take my wife and I to a nice restaurant with
drinks, and blow
$200 in 4 hours. When we go to Las Vegas, $200 sometimes lasts for DAYS.
and I assure
you, we eat well. On our last outing, we were flown by Harrah's jet to
Nevada for 3 days. We
gambled, ate and flew RT from Tucson to Laughlin, and our costs were
less than $250/day,
because the entire stay including 3 nights and the airfare was ZERO.
Match that to a trip to
Disney/Epcott center: the ENTRANCE FEES alone cost over $1000, and
airfare and hotels
are NOT included.

We are also pretty lucky. I won $25,000 on one outing. My wife
frequently brings back $800-$900,
I bring back $700 many times. She is a shrewd Blackjack player, and I
throw dice very well. We have
been playing 3-4 times a year for over 10 years. We are still "ahead". I
once took a junket to Freeport,
Bahamas with a family friend. We stayed an extra day, being lucky... I
brought home $4000 more than
I took, my buddy took home $17,400 more than he brought.  I bought a
Rolex with my winnings, he bought
another rental home in FL with his.

Last year I made more money shooting craps and playing Poker than I made
programming PICs.

So, who's the sucker?

--Bob

{Quote hidden}

--
Note: To protect our network,
attachments must be sent to
KILLspamattachKILLspamspamengineer.cotse.net .
1-520-850-1673 USA/Canada
http://beam.to/azengineer

2006\04\07@225014 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
Bob wrote regarding 'Re: [OT]: How many ways' on Fri, Apr 07 at 20:03:
> Last year I made more money shooting craps and playing Poker than I made
> programming PICs.
>
> So, who's the sucker?

The one who reads this and thinks it'll work for him, too - choosing
to gamble for profit rather than for fun.

Or was that rhetorical? :)

--Danny, wondering how one gets "good" at rolling dice...

2006\04\07@233539 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Danny Sauer wrote:

>Bob wrote regarding 'Re: [OT]: How many ways' on Fri, Apr 07 at 20:03:
>  
>
>>Last year I made more money shooting craps and playing Poker than I made
>>programming PICs.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>The one who reads this and thinks it'll work for him, too - choosing
>to gamble for profit rather than for fun.
>
>  
>
Yes, of course, in the long run, the forces of mathematical certainty
will prevail, and
the people who created Las vegas will eventually  get their pound of
flesh. Somewhere,
in some way.

The reason some people win and others lose has to do with variations and
cyclical
events. Its not magic, its an absolute certainty. Some people will tend
to win more often,
than most, just like some people will tend to lose more often than most.

Here is a certainty about slot gambling: if you stand in front of the
correct slot machine
at just the correct time, you will win millions. The problem is that in
order to LOCATE
that machine, you have probably pulled a lot of slot machines that did
NOT pay off..
When you gamble, use your head. If you make a number of bets without
winning, quit.
The table/slot machine/roulette table will ALWAYS improve at a later
day, it always
does. Don't just throw away your money.  There are a number of ways to
know when
it is not the right time to gamble; sometimes it is a creepy-crawly
feeling, sometimes
a hunch. If the table doesn't "feel right", walk away- it'll feel right
at another time. Or
for some people, it NEVER feels right.

Gaming is a form of entertainment, no more, no less. So... Good luck!

--Bob




>Or was that rhetorical? :)
>
>--Danny, wondering how one gets "good" at rolling dice...
>  
>


--
Note: To protect our network,
attachments must be sent to
RemoveMEattachTakeThisOuTspamengineer.cotse.net .
1-520-850-1673 USA/Canada
http://beam.to/azengineer

2006\04\08@111653 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Bill,

On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 10:57:08 -0700, William "Chops" Westfield wrote:
>...
> And of course lottery tickets are cheap compared to many other
> "bad habits."  I am continually amazed that smoking seems to be
> so popular among the poor and disadvantaged, when it's so expensive!

I've heard people in this situation describe it as "my only pleasure"!  Personally I'm very glad that there
was never a time when it seemed a good idea to me.

Cheers,




Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\04\08@112651 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Bob,

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 18:01:32 -0700, Bob Axtell wrote:
>...
> Disney/Epcott center: the ENTRANCE FEES alone cost over $1000, and
> airfare and hotels are NOT included

Hang on!  I've just come back from there, and a 5-day pass for the theme parks is $200 ($63 for a single day).  
How many people are you taking with you?  :-)

You can pay $300 a night for a hotel room in the best areas, but you can also get $100 rooms.

What you can't get is some way to get around without ending each day with sore feet, and exhausted :-)

An aside:  My favourite park is Epcot, with Animal Kingdom next (the new Everest rollercoaster ride is
excellent!), and I didn't like the Disney/MGM studios much - it's no match for the Universal Studios in
California.  Even further aside: I got to see an Armadillo for the first time, in the bushes of the hotel
complex!

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\04\08@115804 by Carey Fisher

face picon face
Actually, the lottery is worse more than is obvious at first blush.  
Consider this:

In our state (USA-Georgia), the lottery proceeds go to college
scholarships for
students with B or higher grade averages regardless of income/wealth.
More lower income/wealth people tend to buy lottery tickets.
More upper income/wealth people tend to go to college.

So, lower income/wealth people tend to be paying for upper
income/wealth people to go to college.

But wait, I'm not done...

With more people being able to afford to go to college because
of the lottery, the cost of college has gone way up for everyone
(the immutable law of supply and demand).  And since part of the
colleges costs is borne by the taxpayer, our taxes are going up.

So the lottery is really a "lose-lose" proposition for "poor" people and
taxpayers!!

This is one example of the "Law of Unintended Consequences".

2006\04\08@141704 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
The most important talent in gambling:

"know when to hold 'em,
know when to fold 'em,
know when to walk away,
and know when to run."
 -- Album "The Gambler"


>Gaming is a form of entertainment, no more, no less. So... Good luck!
>
>  
>
Or was that rhetorical? :)

>>--Danny, wondering how one gets "good" at rolling dice...
>>
>>    
>>
Practice, practice, practice. Just like learning how to program PICs well.
A routine that takes me 150 code words will take others here 75 to
accomplish the same thing. No different with Craps.

--Bob



--
Note: To protect our network,
attachments must be sent to
spamBeGoneattachspamBeGonespamengineer.cotse.net .
1-520-850-1673 USA/Canada
http://beam.to/azengineer

2006\04\08@193558 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Carey Fisher wrote:

> With more people being able to afford to go to college because of the
> lottery, the cost of college has gone way up for everyone (the immutable
> law of supply and demand).  

I think you may be confusing cost and price here. (The difference between
the two is the profit.) The "immutable law" (is there such a thing? but
that's a different issue) says that the /price/ will go up if the demand
increases, not the cost. And often the cost goes /down/ with increased
production (which may or may not apply to colleges).

> And since part of the colleges costs is borne by the taxpayer, our taxes
> are going up.

Given the above, it's not clear to me whether you were talking about price
or cost here.

I also think that a reasonable free market is a precondition for this
"law". If you're talking about community colleges (as you seem to be doing,
at least in this sentence), is this still given?

Gerhard

2006\04\08@194117 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Bob Axtell wrote:
> The most important talent in gambling:
>
> "know when to hold 'em,
> know when to fold 'em,
> know when to walk away,
> and know when to run."
>   -- Album "The Gambler"

That and: "Only gamble with that which you can afford to lose."

Nate

2006\04\08@202513 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
Bob wrote regarding 'Re: [OT]: How many ways' on Sat, Apr 08 at 19:20:
> >>--Danny, wondering how one gets "good" at rolling dice...
> >>
> Practice, practice, practice. Just like learning how to program PICs well.
> A routine that takes me 150 code words will take others here 75 to
> accomplish the same thing. No different with Craps.

So, you take twice as long, or do it twice as many times as absolutely
neccesary?  Cool, that's easy enough to replicate.

--Danny, off to quit his job in favor of playing craps ;)

2006\04\08@212054 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Nate Duehr wrote:

>Bob Axtell wrote:
>  
>
>>The most important talent in gambling:
>>
>>"know when to hold 'em,
>>know when to fold 'em,
>>know when to walk away,
>>and know when to run."
>>  -- Album "The Gambler"
>>    
>>
>
>That and: "Only gamble with that which you can afford to lose."
>
>Nate
>  
>
I agree.

"Don't gamble with the rent money".

--Bob

--
Note: To protect our network,
attachments must be sent to
TakeThisOuTattachEraseMEspamspam_OUTengineer.cotse.net .
1-520-850-1673 USA/Canada
http://beam.to/azengineer

2006\04\08@212406 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Danny Sauer wrote:

>Bob wrote regarding 'Re: [OT]: How many ways' on Sat, Apr 08 at 19:20:
>  
>
>>>>--Danny, wondering how one gets "good" at rolling dice...
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>Practice, practice, practice. Just like learning how to program PICs well.
>>A routine that takes me 150 code words will take others here 75 to
>>accomplish the same thing. No different with Craps.
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
I was trying to say that there are people who ARE pro gamblers. They got
that way with
practice. But the practice could have been video games, no cash. The
local guys tell me
that all the new big money gamblers  (Annie Duke, etc) learned on the WWW.

>So, you take twice as long, or do it twice as many times as absolutely
>neccesary?  Cool, that's easy enough to replicate.
>
>--Danny, off to quit his job in favor of playing craps ;)
>  
>
See ya in Vegas, Danny! <G>

--
Note: To protect our network,
attachments must be sent to
RemoveMEattachspamTakeThisOuTengineer.cotse.net .
1-520-850-1673 USA/Canada
http://beam.to/azengineer

2006\04\08@222702 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
Those are important things, but I think something at least as important
is to learn how to cheat so that you can identify those who are trying
those techniques on you.

{Quote hidden}

> --

2006\04\08@230044 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Nate,

On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 17:41:12 -0600, Nate Duehr wrote:

{Quote hidden}

That's where compulsive gamblers go wrong - my father was one, and the list of things he lost is long, and
starts with the house we had, his business partnership, his family (for a few months)...  when he died he left
my brother, sister and I nothing but debts (actually you can't pass on debts, but otherwise that would have
been the case).  The biggest problem is that he wouldn't admit he had a problem, so would not seek help for
it.


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\04\09@000455 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Bob Axtell wrote:

> I was trying to say that there are people who ARE pro gamblers. They got
> that way with
> practice. But the practice could have been video games, no cash. The
> local guys tell me
> that all the new big money gamblers  (Annie Duke, etc) learned on the WWW.

Annie Duke (and her brother Howard Lederer), learned on the old-school
poker circuit long before poker (especially Texas Hold-Em)  became
popular again.

Ultimately they're all businesspeople -- a typical "pro" poker player
right now makes their real living from endorsements and other business
opportunities (like Howard's "Poker Fantasy Camp" he runs).  Many also
are affiliated with poker websites and get paid to be the resident pro's
there.

Nate

2006\04\09@034447 by Carey Fisher

face picon face

Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> Carey Fisher wrote:
>
>  
>> With more people being able to afford to go to college because of the
>> lottery, the cost of college has gone way up for everyone (the immutable
>> law of supply and demand).  
>>    
>
> I think you may be confusing cost and price here. (The difference between
> the two is the profit.) The "immutable law" (is there such a thing? but
> that's a different issue) says that the /price/ will go up if the demand
> increases, not the cost. And often the cost goes /down/ with increased
> production (which may or may not apply to colleges).
I'm not confusing anything.  Here, I'm speaking of the cost to the
student which is the price the college charges.
And the cost to the student is going up because there are more dollars
chasing a (relatively) fixed
supply of college (facilities, professors, etc).  The supply is going
up, thus increased cost to the taxpayer,
but relatively slowly compared to the rate of increase of demand.
>> And since part of the colleges costs is borne by the taxpayer, our taxes
>> are going up.
>>    
>
> Given the above, it's not clear to me whether you were talking about price
> or cost here.
>
>  
With the increase in college enrollment, the colleges are hiring more
faculty and building new facilities.
So the cost to the taxpayer is going up also. (Here I'm speaking of the
cost to the taxpayer, which in a way,
is the price the government charges for its services.)

> I also think that a reasonable free market is a precondition for this
> "law". If you're talking about community colleges (as you seem to be doing,
> at least in this sentence), is this still given?
>  
No, I'm talking about any public college in the state - a public college
is one that is governed by a Board
("The Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia", members are
appointed by the Governor of Georgia)
that is part of the state government and receives a large portion of its
operating funds from taxes paid to the state by taxpayers.  The
state has 35 public colleges and universities comprising 4 research
universities, 2 regional universities, 13 state universities,
4 state colleges, and 12 two-year colleges, 1/4 million students, 10,000
faculty.

It's true that the state Board sets tuition but they are not blind to
the increased demand.  It seems they are following
the law of S&D in raising "prices" in response to more dollars being
available.

> Gerhard
>
>  

2006\04\09@084137 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Carey,

On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 03:44:49 -0400, Carey Fisher wrote:
>...
> It's true that the state Board sets tuition but they are not blind to
> the increased demand.  It seems they are following
> the law of S&D in raising "prices" in response to more dollars being
> available.

So where does this extra money go?  Surely they aren't out to make a profit - who would get it?  I would guess
that they use it to build better facilities etc.  Whether this is a Good Thing is open to debate, but the
extra money doesn't disappear, surely?

(I have no idea how it works in the UK, not having had anything to do with education for the past 30+ years)

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\04\09@101103 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Carey Fisher wrote:

> I'm not confusing anything.  

Maybe not, but you are not clearly separating between cost and price, and
who pays for what exactly.

> Here, I'm speaking of the cost to the student which is the price the
> college charges. And the cost to the student is going up because there
> are more dollars chasing a (relatively) fixed supply of college
> (facilities, professors, etc).  

Ok. In terms of the product "college education", that would then be the
price of that. (The product cost is what it costs to produce and sell it,
that is college building, staff etc. The price is what it costs to the
consumer. We just need to get to a common terminology.)

> The supply is going up, thus increased cost to the taxpayer,

Now why is that? If the price of college education goes up, the colleges
(if I understand you correctly, you're talking about public colleges funded
by the taxpayer) have more revenue. In a normal market situation, this
would generally lead to increased profit.

> With the increase in college enrollment, the colleges are hiring more
> faculty and building new facilities. So the cost to the taxpayer is
> going up also. (Here I'm speaking of the cost to the taxpayer, which in
> a way, is the price the government charges for its services.)

Is your "taxpayer" the student paying for college education, or is it the
general public paying for college funding through general taxes?

Gerhard

2006\04\09@113712 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
Carey wrote regarding 'Re: [OT]: How many ways' on Sat, Apr 08 at 23:02:
> In our state (USA-Georgia), the lottery proceeds go to college
> scholarships for
> students with B or higher grade averages regardless of income/wealth.

Where were these scholorships when I was in school?  I attended
universities in Ilinois and Ohio, and I'll be darned if I could find
any scholorships that didn't take "wealth" into consideration.  Now
I'm paying for my wife to get a master's degree in Illinois, and
because I make decent money - on paper - there's no assistance
available.  I'd hate to see what happens once I start making gobs of
money with my new career in craps. :)

I think it's good that there are scholorships that reward good
academic performance regardless of paper-based wealth (my parents
were farmers, for example, which means there's a lot in paper "assets"
due to the cost of the equipment, but that's not exactly something
that's liquid or available to release just to pay my way through
school).

Maybe I'll have to consider moving to GA if we end up with kids who'll
need an education.  Sounds like they're better about not
discriminating, choosing to reward academic performance (which is what
school's all about) instead of rewarding whatever string of events
happened to result in low income.  It'd be nice to see the poor and
"wealthy" able to compete on a level playing field for once.

Does GA have some scholorships that aren't based on race, too?  Sounds
ike some kind of utopia for academic equality so far...

Oh, and I promise not to continue discussing this particular topic.
Just pointing out an alternative view for the sake of completeness. :)

--Danny

2006\04\09@115506 by dr. Imre Bartfai

flavicon
face

Hi,

maybe I do not share your concept for linearity. The expected loss / gain
is simply a signed multiplication of the loss / gain by odds, and then sum
them up. As people seem to understand it, there is an interesting
phenomena: to hit a jackpot on a lotto, the probability is fixed. However,
as jackpot increases, so do the amount of tickets sold on that particular
week. People seem to "feel" the increase of expected gain contrary to the
loss which is in turn fixed.

We have here in Hungary also a 5/90 lottery. Here is a probability of full
5 hits approx. 1 to 44E6. On a normal week, approximately 2.5 Mio tickets
are sold, and the jackpot is approx. 50 Million HUF (local money). The
amount of tickets is too small to guarantee a full hit every week so the
jackpot increases. I have seen 5 Billion (!), which is 100 times of a
straight week. You could imagine not only the cumulation contributes the
amount. Even a lot of people begin to play from abroad.

Regards,
Imre

On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> --

2006\04\09@170616 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
dr. Imre Bartfai wrote:

> maybe I do not share your concept for linearity.

Maybe not... but maybe you just didn't understand me, or don't agree with
my concept of gain and loss -- which may not be yours, but you have not
much authority to judge how /I/ weigh gain and loss.


> The expected loss / gain is simply a signed multiplication of the loss /
> gain by odds, and then sum them up.

That may be the case for you, but it's not for me. Gain and loss are not
objective criteria, they are subjective. Everybody has a different gain and
loss scale. For some, a flower on a plant that rarely blooms may just be as
much gain as they can make from selling it, for others that same event may
be invaluable. For some, gaining $1M may just mean another half year of
work, and for others it's a life changing event. For some, the worth of $1
is simply the difference between having $465 in the pocket or $464: almost
nothing. And for others it's the difference between having enough to eat
today or not. Just a few examples how the scales are quite different for
different people.

Besides, the value (as opposed to the measure) of gain and loss is
definitely not linear for most. It has usually a somewhat linear range in
the middle of the range of numbers one typically deals with in everyday
life, but usually there are non-linear perceptions at the lower and upper
ends. For most, the typical lottery prices are outside the linear range.

There is very little in nature and even less in human perception that is
linear over a wide range. And I suspect there's nothing that's linear
without restriction. So for everything you claim it is linear, you need to
be aware of the limits of the linear range -- because pretty much always
there are limits. (That goes for resistance just as it goes for lottery
prices :)

All IMO, of course...

Gerhard

2006\04\10@085321 by Carey Fisher

face picon face


Danny Sauer wrote:
> Carey wrote regarding 'Re: [OT]: How many ways' on Sat, Apr 08 at 23:02:
>  
>> In our state (USA-Georgia), the lottery proceeds go to college
>> scholarships for
>> students with B or higher grade averages regardless of income/wealth.
>>    
>
>
> Does GA have some scholorships that aren't based on race, too?  Sounds
> ike some kind of utopia for academic equality so far...
>
>  
Huh?????? Who said anything about race?


> Oh, and I promise not to continue discussing this particular topic.
> Just pointing out an alternative view for the sake of completeness. :)
>
> --Danny
>  

2006\04\10@085622 by Carey Fisher

face picon face


Danny Sauer wrote:
> Carey wrote regarding 'Re: [OT]: How many ways' on Sat, Apr 08 at 23:02:
>  
>> In our state (USA-Georgia), the lottery proceeds go to college
>> scholarships for
>> students with B or higher grade averages regardless of income/wealth.
>>    
>
>
> Maybe I'll have to consider moving to GA if we end up with kids who'll
> need an education.  Sounds like they're better about not
> discriminating, choosing to reward academic performance (which is what
> school's all about) instead of rewarding whatever string of events
> happened to result in low income.  It'd be nice to see the poor and
> "wealthy" able to compete on a level playing field for once.
>
>  
It's more like "Take from the poor (with their active participation) and
give to the wealthy."

> --Danny
>  

2006\04\10@102933 by William Killian

flavicon
face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspammit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesEraseMEspamEraseMEmit.edu] On
Behalf
{Quote hidden}

(for a
> few months)...  when he died he left
> my brother, sister and I nothing but debts (actually you can't pass on
> debts, but otherwise that would have
> been the case).  The biggest problem is that he wouldn't admit he had
a
> problem, so would not seek help for
> it.

Explains the bitterness you've been expressing.

But casino gaming is certainly not riskier than being an entrepreneur so
business is not less of a 'gamble' than craps.
The Stock Market is no less rigged against the small investor in favor
of the large than the slots are set to set to pay more to the house than
to the player.


-------------------------------------  Notice of Confidentiality ----------------------------------------------------------
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
RemoveMEpostmasterspam_OUTspamKILLspamvgt.net. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or
copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified
that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information
is strictly prohibited.

2006\04\10@113311 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Bill,

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 10:30:50 -0400, William Killian wrote:

> Explains the bitterness you've been expressing.

I hadn't realised I had been - sorry folks, I'll let this be my last on this topic.

> But casino gaming is certainly not riskier than being an entrepreneur so
> business is not less of a 'gamble' than craps.
> The Stock Market is no less rigged against the small investor in favor
> of the large than the slots are set to set to pay more to the house than
> to the player.

The Stock Market *is* gambling (see "Trading Places" for the quote that goes something like: "You're just a
pair of bookies").  But whereas an entrepreneur is aware that he is risking whatever, and does it as a career
(and there aren't many of them) gambling is done as a passtime by very many people, some of whom don't realise
that they have a compulsion which can wreck lives just as much as any other addiction.  In the UK there are
betting shops in every high street, so it's easy to just nip in and put a few quid on a horse or dog (Casino
gambling is very much more rare here), and for some people it's a part of their everyday lives.  An
interesting insight was when my father was describing the situation when the dog he'd bet on came second by a
nose - he said he'd "Lost £1000 by four inches".  He never had the £1000, but he saw it that it was taken away
from him by not winning it.

Enough from me, I think!  :-)

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\04\10@141230 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
Carey wrote regarding 'Re: [OT]: How many ways' on Mon, Apr 10 at 10:47:
> > Does GA have some scholorships that aren't based on race, too?  Sounds
> > ike some kind of utopia for academic equality so far...
> >  
> Huh?????? Who said anything about race?

Thanks to affermative-action programs and similar, the admissions and
scholorship awarding process often involve race being one point of
criteria.  So, the tongue-in-cheek comment above was made based on
that relationship.  Perhaps it was intended to illustrate the folly of
selecting recipients based on any non-academic qualifications, such as
income, race, or anything else.  Or perhaps it was just a joke slid in
there at the end of an off-topic message, which inadvertently hit
someone's hot button.

The world may never know.

--Danny

2006\04\10@150604 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> that relationship.  Perhaps it was intended to illustrate the folly of
> selecting recipients based on any non-academic qualifications, such as
> income, race, or anything else.  Or perhaps it was just a joke slid in
> there at the end of an off-topic message, which inadvertently hit
> someone's hot button.

The problem with *only* considering academic qualifications is that many
low-income-area schools have low scores. This can be for a variety of
reasons, but some potentially very good students would not be able to
get into college without income qualifications.

I'm not saying that all scholarships should include race, income, and
other non-academic factors, just some should.

I had a scholarship for college (actually a couple, one of which was
academic) that paid for much of my costs. I figure that the added income
that my degree gave me has paid the government back at least two-fold.
--
D. Jay Newman           ! Author of:
RemoveMEjayTakeThisOuTspamspamsprucegrove.com     ! _Linux Robotics: Building Smarter Robots_
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! (Now I can get back to building robots.)

2006\04\10@154546 by William Killian

flavicon
face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspamspamspamBeGonemit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesKILLspamspammit.edu] On
Behalf
> Of Danny Sauer
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 2:12 PM
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [OT]: How many ways
>
> Carey wrote regarding 'Re: [OT]: How many ways' on Mon, Apr 10 at
10:47:
> > > Does GA have some scholorships that aren't based on race, too?
Sounds
{Quote hidden}

Politics masquerading as humor...

"The folly"?  That spells out clearly a political point of view with
denigration of disagreement as foolish.



-------------------------------------  Notice of Confidentiality ----------------------------------------------------------
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
postmasterSTOPspamspamspam_OUTvgt.net. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or
copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified
that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information
is strictly prohibited.

2006\04\10@154743 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Danny Sauer wrote:

> Perhaps it was intended to illustrate the folly of selecting recipients
> based on any non-academic qualifications, such as income, race, or
> anything else.  

What would be the reasons for basing scholarships (mainly) on academic
qualifications? I think most agree that professional success is not closely
related to academic success, and it's possibly not unreasonable to tie
scholarships to probabilities of professional success... at least from a
ROI POV. (Which leaves fairness aspects completely out, like the one Jay
mentioned.)

Gerhard

2006\04\10@155905 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Apr 10, 2006, at 7:30 AM, William Killian wrote:

> But casino gaming is certainly not riskier than being an
> entrepreneur so business is not less of a 'gamble' than craps.

Yes, it is.

> The Stock Market is no less rigged against the small investor
> in favor of the large than the slots are set to set to pay more
> to the house than to the player.
>
Yes, it is (LESS rigged)

These are exactly the sort of wrong assumptions/justifications that
the "problem gambler" makes to justify their gambling, and they
reflect exactly the same inability to QUANTIFY risk.  (I understand
that the human race is generally quite poor at quantifying risk, and
that that's generally a good thing...)

BillW

2006\04\10@161429 by William Killian

flavicon
face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: spamBeGonepiclist-bouncesSTOPspamspamEraseMEmit.edu [KILLspampiclist-bouncesspamBeGonespammit.edu] On
Behalf
{Quote hidden}

More people go bankrupt as a result of starting businesses than from
gambling in casinos.

{Quote hidden}

You can pretend all you want, but there have been many cases where it
has been shown that legally or illegally stock brokers favor large
investors over small investors when filling orders.

A broker with orders to sell a stock as it is falling or buy a stock as
it is rising will fill the orders of larger investors first knowing it
will hurt more if the large client leaves angry than the small clients.

I have absolutely no problem quantifying risk.  Perhaps others need to
understand that preferences and biases do exist where 'the big guy' gets
advantages over 'the little guy' no matter how much we want to believe
the opposite.  Unrestricted free market capitalism considers this a good
thing for what its worth.

I certainly have no belief that an inability to quantify risk is a good
thing.  That makes no sense to me at all.  It is a terrible thing that
people do not understand risks and understand how to quantify them so
they can be compared.  It allows horrific things to happen and politics
to be used to manipulate the populous.




-------------------------------------  Notice of Confidentiality ----------------------------------------------------------
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
EraseMEpostmasterspamEraseMEvgt.net. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or
copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified
that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information
is strictly prohibited.

2006\04\10@165018 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Apr 10, 2006, at 1:15 PM, William Killian wrote:

I think I should refrain from debating business/stockmarket...


However:

> I certainly have no belief that an inability to quantify risk
> is a good thing.  That makes no sense to me at all.

Consider, for instance, childbirth.

BillW

2006\04\10@165615 by Peter

picon face


If you want to know what your real tuition fees are in your country,
check the tuition fees which apply to foreigners wanting to study there.

Peter

2006\04\10@171703 by William Killian

flavicon
face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: @spam@piclist-bounces@spam@spamspam_OUTmit.edu [spamBeGonepiclist-bouncesspamKILLspammit.edu] On
Behalf
> Of William "Chops" Westfield
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 4:50 PM
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [OT]: How many ways
>
>
> On Apr 10, 2006, at 1:15 PM, William Killian wrote:
>
> I think I should refrain from debating business/stockmarket...

What's the debate?  The known risks are well understood - not knowing or
ignoring them lead to bad decisions based on not knowing what is at
stake.  Someone people can afford the risks of starting a business or
playing the market (yes the normal term implies the known gambling
aspects) while others can or should not.

> However:
>
> > I certainly have no belief that an inability to quantify risk
> > is a good thing.  That makes no sense to me at all.
>
> Consider, for instance, childbirth.
>
> BillW

Yes there risks involved that should indeed be known.

In general it is not a great risk.  But specific people have specific
issues that should be understood.  Gestational diabetes for example
leads to larger babies and increased risk of having to fall back to
caesarian section.  So the parents to be should be well aware of the
quantifiable risks as things progress and should not just ignore the
risks because not being ready for them can put the mother and child at
risk.


-------------------------------------  Notice of Confidentiality ----------------------------------------------------------
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
.....postmasterspam_OUTspamvgt.net. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or
copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified
that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information
is strictly prohibited.

2006\04\10@171917 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
{Quote hidden}

Not in my opinion. Very strongly.

Funding college tuition from lottery profit is "take from the stupid and
give to the smart."

And I do not judge the stupid for being stupid; quite often, they have had
no choice in the matter.

Nor am I saying that everyone who plays the lottery is stupid. That is a
different argument.

And I am not happy about having to say this. I wish it were not the truth
(as I see it).

But: If you fail to make it fun for the stupid to loose their money, then
they will retain it and spend it in ways that influence the market stupidly.
Sadly, it is bad for everyone in the long run to NOT separate the fool from
his money.

After all, it is also a sad fact that "who has money, runs the show." If the
stupid have money, they decide what products will be made, and by whom. The
opiate of the masses should be chosen well, and they will not.

I don't like it, but it seems that there is no choice.

On another level, I despise the removal of personal responsibility that I
see so often in this country and at the same time, the interference of
others in the wishes and desires of each "free" man and woman.

If I want to gamble, drink, shoot up drugs, smoke, eat worms and even die,
who are you to tell me I can't? As long as I do not harm others, it ain't no
bodies business if I do.

Now, given that there are people who will gamble, drink, etc... it is the
right, nay, the responsibility of others, especially our leaders, to service
those vices in a way that does some good for the students if it is the
choice of the consumers to do bad to themselves.

Of course, the best possible thing is to provide education at a lower
tuition cost in the hope of turning some of the stupid into the smart. And
that is exactly what the lottery funding of the educational system does.

In a perfect world, from behind rose colored glasses, everyone would get an
education, free of charge, that mandates a solid understanding of
statistics, probabilities and critical thinking. This is also, sadly, not
the reality of the situation. Some people are simply... Well, let us just go
on and say it: too stupid to learn. And even if they were, our school system
does not really attempt it.

Most religions tell the faithful not to gamble, (drink, smoke, etc...) but
that may be as much cutting out the competition as helping the flock keep
their wool. And the church may do some good with its cut of the stupid tax,
but how many Jimmy Stuarts and Sistine Chapels do we really need?

No, the funding of education from the lottery is the best answer I can see
in a sad world.




Sorry if this approaches politics... If anyone complains, I'll send myself a
stern letter and... Whatever...

---
James.


2006\04\10@173127 by William Killian

flavicon
face
Not sure I agree completely but I have one very important question:
   Who is Jimmy Stuart and why do we not any more of him?

My tongue was very firmly in cheek...


> {Original Message removed}

2006\04\10@175124 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Apr 10, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

> I think most agree that professional success is not closely
> related to academic success, and it's possibly not unreasonable
> to tie scholarships to probabilities of professional success.

Ah, well in the united states, the purpose of the university system
is to turn out university professors, not "professional successes."

Read some of our trade journal whining about the lack of Engineering
PhD applicants, for instance.  No one quite says "there's a decline
in PhDs because an PhD is neither necessary or sufficient to do
"research" anywhere but a university", but a couple people come close.

BillW

2006\04\10@180235 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
Gerhard wrote regarding 'Re: [OT]: How many ways' on Mon, Apr 10 at
14:50:
> Danny Sauer wrote:
> > Perhaps it was intended to illustrate the folly of selecting
> > recipients based on any non-academic qualifications, such as
> > income, race, or anything else.  
>
> What would be the reasons for basing scholarships (mainly) on
> academic qualifications?

I should note, I suppose, that the other one was the correct answer.
If someone donates some money for a scholorship, they should be able
to put whatever restrictions on it they want.  Race, grandparent
served in a war, wealth, hair color, whatever.  I think that's pretty
much how it works now...

Then again, *I* would rather see money donated to a school evenly
distributed to all the students in the form of reduced tuition,
instead of lumped together to give an advantage to one student.  All
of that scholorship/grant/endowment/whatever money would probably help
some in decreasing the general "stupid" level.  I don't think poor
people should be rewarded for being poor, *or* that rich people should
be punished for being rich.  I guess that makes me unpatriotic or
something.

--Danny

2006\04\10@180852 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
William ChopsWestfield wrote:

> Ah, well in the united states, the purpose of the university system
> is to turn out university professors, not "professional successes."

To some degree, that's probably like that in most places. I'd guess that
this is more valid for Germany than for the US, for example.

At least in Germany, the ones on a university career usually are employed
by the university (as research and/or teaching assistants) while they are
pursuing the higher degrees necessary for their career. In that sense, they
don't need general scholarships: they, in a way, get sponsored by the
university, while working for it.

In Germany, there are no tuition fees on public universities, so the
situation is a bit different in that respect, but couldn't/shouldn't/don't
even the private universities in the USA do something similar?

Gerhard

2006\04\10@183450 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> I should note, I suppose, that the other one was the correct answer.
> If someone donates some money for a scholorship, they should be able
> to put whatever restrictions on it they want.  Race, grandparent
> served in a war, wealth, hair color, whatever.  I think that's pretty
> much how it works now...

Ayup. I got a small scholarship because of my SATs and my father being
employed by the railroad. Such is life. Somebody a long time ago put
up money for the children of railroad employees. Some of the other expenses
of college were paid by the government because my father (well, my first
father) died while on active duty in the Air Force. He killed himself
in his office when I was 4 years old. This, by definition, made me a
"war orphan" (I don't make the rules).

I benefited mainly by reasons of chance. My family wasn't poor, though
we weren't rich.

> Then again, *I* would rather see money donated to a school evenly
> distributed to all the students in the form of reduced tuition,
> instead of lumped together to give an advantage to one student.  All

It's a nice thought.
There are several problems with this.

1. The schools would come to treat this as part of their normal budget
  and it would be forgotten. I've seen too much of university budgeting
       to believe that this would really help.

2. People with less money need more help to afford college than rich
  people. This is an idea that *sounds* fair but isn't (sort of like
       a flat income tax). It serves to further separate the poor and the
       rich.

> of that scholorship/grant/endowment/whatever money would probably help
> some in decreasing the general "stupid" level.  I don't think poor
> people should be rewarded for being poor, *or* that rich people should
> be punished for being rich.  I guess that makes me unpatriotic or
> something.

Considering income level as part of the equation when granting scholarships
is *not* rewarding the poor or punishing the rich. By definition in the US
the rich have many fewer opportunities.

I do feel that many of these regulations and equations hurt the middle class.
There have been times where various laws and regulations hit me harder
than they would have if I earned less. The government isn't perfect. Sorry.

Though I have noticed that anytime the "middle class" gets a tax break I
earn too much to get it, but whenever the "middle class" gets a tax increase
I suddenly am included. :)

Though I think a much better example of earnings discrimination against
the lower middle class is the US medical system. Currently I am the caregiver
for my dying wife. Because I had to quit my job to do this I only have
insurance through her workplace (Penn State). We have enough to live
on with savings, my meager pension (try to cash out at 47 and you'll see
what I mean), and her disability. However, if she dies I lose half our
income *and* I have to get private medical insurance. I have too much in
assets for Medicaid and too little to get decent insurance.

Oh well. I think that life is good, but I've never thought of it as fair.
--
D. Jay Newman           ! Author of:
TakeThisOuTjay.....spamTakeThisOuTsprucegrove.com     ! _Linux Robotics: Building Smarter Robots_
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! (Now I can get back to building robots.)

2006\04\10@184804 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> > I certainly have no belief that an inability to quantify risk
> > is a good thing.  That makes no sense to me at all.
>
> Consider, for instance, childbirth.

I sometimes wish that my parents had thought of genetics before they
had children. On the other hand, I wouldn't be here to think about this
if they had...
--
D. Jay Newman           ! Author of:
TakeThisOuTjayKILLspamspamspamsprucegrove.com     ! _Linux Robotics: Building Smarter Robots_
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! (Now I can get back to building robots.)

2006\04\10@190156 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Apr 10, 2006, at 3:08 PM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

>> the purpose of the university system is to turn out university
>> professors
>
> I'd guess that this is more valid for Germany than for the US,
> for example.

Doesn't Germany (and a lot of Europe) have a higher education
system OTHER than "universities" to cover those professions for
which you need to know more, but aren't aimed at professorship?
There is, for all practical purposes, no such thing in the US.
(There USED to be "Vocational school" for people too dumb to go
to college, to prepare for technical jobs like mechanic, plumber,
Cobol coder, etc.  "Skilled" jobs not requiring advance math or
philosophy class.  But they're essentially gone.)

BillW

2006\04\10@192143 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> (There USED to be "Vocational school" for people too dumb to go
> to college, to prepare for technical jobs like mechanic, plumber,
> Cobol coder, etc.  "Skilled" jobs not requiring advance math or
> philosophy class.  But they're essentially gone.)

There still are these places. However, due to the stigma placed on them,
they aren't as visible as normal colleges.

And many of these jobs require at least as much intelligence to do as
programming. Quite frankly it is pushing my limits to go from being
a programmer/writer to a machinist/caregiver/programmer/writer. I wish
that I *had* taken a few more shop classes in high school or college.

> BillW
--
D. Jay Newman           ! Author of:
.....jayspamRemoveMEsprucegrove.com     ! _Linux Robotics: Building Smarter Robots_
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! (Now I can get back to building robots.)

2006\04\10@200914 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Apr 10, 2006, at 4:21 PM, D. Jay Newman wrote:

>> (There USED to be "Vocational school" for people too dumb to go
>> to college...
>
> There still are these places. However, due to the stigma placed
> on them, they aren't as visible as normal colleges.

Well, yes.  Even in my day the "too dumb" was part of the perception.
If your interests were in the mechanical and you had brains, you
were expected to go to college and get the ME degree or whatever
before you placed yourself in the work force...

And today the limitations in the workplace without a "College Degree"
are significant.  Somehow, if you want to be a middle manager in
some random business, a bachelor's degree in art history is supposed
to be more useful than machinist's training.
>
> And many of these jobs require at least as much intelligence
> to do as programming.

Maybe.  Machining and programming skills both seem to be pretty
orthogonal to "intelligence" as used in "intelligent people go
to college."

> I wish that I *had* taken a few more shop classes in high
> school or college.
>
And likewise, and today you can get out of high school without
EVER having taken anything resembling either Shop or "home Ec",
because all HS has to do is prepare you for college.  "life skills"
are rather out of style.  And then we wonder why people don't have
them.

BillW

2006\04\10@201934 by David VanHorn

picon face
This thread seems to have a life of it's own.

I did complete the simple enigma in the AVR.  It will run in pretty much any
AVR.
First part loads the rotor settings and sprays a text message into ram.
Next part encrypts into ram below the plaintext
Next part resets the rotors
Finally, I decrypt into ram below the encrypted text.

Making bigger rotors would be nice, but not really necessary.
Each rotor costs you a byte per position, and AVR tables store 2 bytes/word
so without the reverse lookup table, it's a kbyte per four rotors if you
implemented a full byte-sized rotor.

I didn't do anything about serial or other interface, it's just a nice
little code module that runs with no hardware at all.


--
Feel the power of the dark side!  Atmel AVR

2006\04\10@220817 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
David VanHorn wrote:

> This thread seems to have a life of it's own.

You had to name it "How many ways", hadn't you?

Gerhard

2006\04\10@221003 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
William ChopsWestfield wrote:

>>> the purpose of the university system is to turn out university
>>> professors
>>
>> I'd guess that this is more valid for Germany than for the US, for
>> example.
>
> Doesn't Germany (and a lot of Europe) have a higher education system
> OTHER than "universities" to cover those professions for which you need
> to know more, but aren't aimed at professorship?

Oh, yes, there is. And it does have some good aspects. But it's a bloody
mess. I'll try to pin down the /very/ basic idea of the confusion :)

(It varies a bit from state to state, and there may be some details
slightly wrong, but the basic idea is what I'm describing.)

10 years of schooling are required, no matter whether you get any kind of
diploma.
The first 4 years are the same for everybody.
After that, if you want to go to university when you're 19+, you switch to
the "Gymnasium". That's where you get prepared to enter university, which
includes two foreign languages (entry requirement for university). The
Gymnasium comes in several flavors: humanistic (Latin, Greek etc), science
(English and French or Spanish, and more focus on math and science) etc.;
all not very "practical".
The rest remains in what's called "Volksschule". After 6th grade, there's
another branch, to the "Realschule". (Students come from both branches:
Volksschule, and Gymnasium -- the ones who realize that the increased
requirements there don't match their skills.) This is a 4-year course, with
a more practical orientation. It also comes in a few flavors, like
technology, social sciences, arts; more practically oriented than the
Gymnasium.
Who doesn't go to the Realschule, finishes the ten years in the
Volksschule.

Now starts the funny part.

There's the "dual system" of professional education. Basically, you start a
job in an accredited company (many are), get very low pay, but the company
is required to let you do a certain variety of tasks, not just cleaning the
floor. And you spend around 20% of your work time in a school (public, like
pretty much all others). This school is usually around 1/3 general courses
like German and Math, 1/3 courses that are generic for a whole area like
technical drawing for all professions related to mechanics, and 1/3 of
courses that are more specific for a certain profession. That's probably
what you were talking about, and that's part of what gave (and possibly
gives) German workers their reputation for their skills.

Many of the ones who went to Realschule and most of the ones who went to
Volksschule do that.

Coming from the Realschule, there's a two year course "Fachoberschule" that
leads to a degree that permits entry in a "Fachhochschule", which is a sort
of a more practical oriented university. Less requirements in general
education (for example, only one foreign language, which usually is
English), and less focus on the theory behind the things. In EE, a typical
student coming from a Fachhochschule might not know about matrix calculus
and how to mathematically simulate a circuit (node rules etc), but he will
be able to distinguish an amplifier circuit from an oscillator circuit. For
a student coming from a university, it might just be the contrary :)

Anyway, if you came from a Volksschule, there's another branch that allows
you then to attend Fachoberschule, and you're back on track in direction of
the Fachhochschule.

If you didn't conclude Gymnasium and went to Fachhochschule, you basically
can not attend university. But there are some ever changing rules like
switching after two years of Fachhochschule to the first year of
university. In any case, academically, Fachhochschule is considered a dead
end.

Whoever went to the Gymnasium, is in principle allowed to enter university.
For the others (who attended Realschule), there are again some special
courses that can give them an equivalent degree in a few years. And there
you are, in university... usually lots of theory, more oriented towards
training future university research assistants and teaching assistants than
future, say, EEs. University structure is not meant for professional
education, and never was. It was created for people who want to dig deep in
one single matter, which is pretty contrary to what you need from a good
professional education.

Not sure I lost you... but I lost a few by now, probably :)  And many in
Germany are kind of lost in this system. The good thing about it is that
there are a number of levels with a decent education. The bad thing is that
they are often in parallel, weaving a web much too complex, with decision
points that are plain ridiculous. (If you don't decide correctly at the age
of 10 whether or not you want to go to university, this can be a pain to
remedy later on.)

IMO a better system would be one branch instead of the many, where people
can step out and later step back in with ease. And a professional
environment where working part time (say 70% or 80%) and studying part time
(the remainder) is accepted and possibly even encouraged. That would allow
young people to get the hands dirty early, make some money, become
independent, and still not close any doors to getting a higher degree later
on -- not with student loans or parents who have to gather a lifetime of
savings for that education. With the added bonus that more of the "higher"
educated people actually did get their hands dirty earlier... :)

Gerhard

2006\04\10@221510 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
William ChopsWestfield wrote:

>> But casino gaming is certainly not riskier than being an entrepreneur so
>> business is not less of a 'gamble' than craps.
>
> Yes, it is.

Hm... You got me curious and I tried to find solid data. But that doesn't
seem to be easy. One set of comparisons would be to compare the numbers of
business bankruptcies per total number of businesses with the numbers of
personal bankruptcies due to gambling per total number of gamblers in a
given year. But I had trouble find clear data about personal bankruptcies
that are due to gambling, and about total number of gamblers.

So -- how would you substantiate that?

Here for example is some data to get started...
http://www.abiworld.org/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm?ContentID=18753


Intuitively, I'd say the casino gambling is relatively tightly regulated,
the long-time odds of machines are mostly determined by law or otherwise
known, the rules and probabilities of card games etc are well-known.
Whereas being an entrepreneur... you basically have no certainties at all,
not even reliable odds. Which seems to indicate that being entrepreneur is
riskier.


>> The Stock Market is no less rigged against the small investor in favor
>> of the large than the slots are set to set to pay more to the house
>> than to the player.
>>
> Yes, it is (LESS rigged)
>
> These are exactly the sort of wrong assumptions/justifications that
> the "problem gambler" makes to justify their gambling

Or yours are the ones that the "problem investor" makes to justify their
stock market gambling... Hasn't there been a wave of despair some years ago
in the USA where many people lost pretty much all their (in some cases
retirement) savings in the stock market?

Again, I'm not sure how to get solid data either way...

Gerhard

2006\04\10@234244 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Apr 10, 2006, at 7:08 PM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

>>> But casino gaming is certainly not riskier than being an
>>> entrepreneur so business is not less of a 'gamble' than craps.
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>
> You got me curious and I tried to find solid data. But that
> doesn't seem to be easy. One set of comparisons would be to
> compare the numbers of business bankruptcies...

The main issue is that risky "businesses" usually means risking a
lot less than risking your rent money gambling.  Sure, you can sink
your personal fortune into a pet rock business, but MOST "business
risk" means taking a lower salary and benefits for a year or two
while working for a business you hope takes off.  You still make
enough to live on; the RISK is that you'll have wasted some time
that could have been better spent.  The gambling analogy might be
gambling the money you would have spent on other "entertainment"
anyway.  I don't think the business bankruptcy statistics tell
you much; such bankruptcies are in effect protection mechanisms
for the individuals involved.  On top of that, there's not much
stigma attached to having worked in a failed business; I know LOTS
of people who have a string of failed startups on their resume...

I suppose that part of the problem is the "unregulated gambling"
one might fall into if you're compulsive enough.


>>> The Stock Market is no less rigged against the small investor
>
>> Yes, it is (LESS rigged)
>
> Hasn't there been a wave of despair some years ago in the USA
> where many people lost pretty much all their (in some cases
> retirement) savings in the stock market?
>
I meant primarily that the stock market isn't "rigged" to favor
anyone, not that it wasn't at all risky,  Statistically, stocks go up
(and down, but mostly up) for everyone equally.  If you're
counting on the sort of advantages given by brokers to large
traders (I don't deny such things exist), you're not investing
appropriately, you're following some weird scheme.  Whereas in
gambling, the odds ALWAYS favor the house, and any "rigging" that
may exist is on top of that.  I don't have a lot of sympathy for
people (including myself) who lost significant fortunes by having
their portfolio overloaded with Internet stocks when the bubble
burst.  Everyone's advice is against that sort of thing; it'd
be the same as a gambler doing nothing but betting their age at
the roulette table.

BillW

2006\04\11@003912 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
William wrote regarding 'RE: [OT]: How many ways' on Mon, Apr 10 at 20:50:
> Politics masquerading as humor...
>
> "The folly"?  That spells out clearly a political point of view with
> denigration of disagreement as foolish.

Or, perhaps it's an archaic term used to further indicate that the
reader might not want to take the rest of the comment too seriously.
Whichever interpretation you prefer, I suppose.  Your way sounds way
more exciting, I'll give you that.  Politics, masquerades, and
denigration of fools - that sounds like quite an adventure you had!

BTW, the 8-line, 123 column "notice of confidentiality" is really
getting old.  http://www.google.com/search?q=free+email might help.
Or http://www.indeed.com/.  Maybe both, just in case...

--Danny

2006\04\11@151530 by VULCAN20

picon face


William Chops Westfield wrote:

{Quote hidden}

I dislike the statement  "too dumb to go to college", and feel it is an
insult to a lot of hard working people.
My spelling and grammar is not as good as most of you.
But I would challenge anyone of you to have been able to keep up with me
and my fellow Non college degree co-workers who make your life
comfortable. We with pride and satisfaction do the jobs necessary to
make your life comfortable,  that you as a college graduate would not
lower yourself to do for a living.

Before any of you flame me for my comments, please do this:
Think about everything you touch or see for the next day, think of how
it was made, how it got to you and would it be there if therewith out
the non college degree workers .

There are a lot of people who love building houses, planting and
harvesting food, meat cutters, dairy workers, truck drivers to deliver
things and the list goes on and on.

I could go on for ever, but all of you that went to college should be
smart enough to know all of this all ready.

So please stop referring to us as "to dumb to".

><>BillW

2006\04\11@154303 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
VULCAN20 wrote:

{Quote hidden}

A bit rough... I agree.  You'll get no flames from me.

>There are a lot of people who love building houses, planting and
>harvesting food, meat cutters, dairy workers, truck drivers to deliver
>things and the list goes on and on.
>  
>
How about Bill Gates? G. Asbell, who  designed the instruction set for
the original
8008? HL Hunt?  Or that black guy who, in the 30s, developed
microsurgery (there
was a movie "What the Lord Hath Made")? Not one of these guys darkened
the door
of academia,( although Bill might have taken a course or two lately, to
learn how to
speak India's language).

The list is indeed endless. Hedy Lamar, a female MOVIE STAR in the 30s
with no
technical or academic training, was secretly issued a patent  for a
superior control
system for torpedos during world war II, only one of many similar
patents. My uncle,
who held 5 patents on oilfield "Christmas Trees" and who, after being
told by two
mechanical engineering academics that it "couldn't be done" proceded to
design
ice plants around the world with equipment that could load 20 tons of
ice into
a shrimp board in 30 minutes by "blowing" the ice from the plant using
compressed
air. When he died, his relatives were receiving royalties from 14
different sources.  

>I could go on for ever, but all of you that went to college should be
>smart enough to know all of this all ready.
>
>So please stop referring to us as "too dumb to".
>  
>
Mr Bill W, you are in good company.

--Bob

> ><>BillW
>  
>


--
Note: To protect our network,
attachments must be sent to
RemoveMEattachspamspamBeGoneengineer.cotse.net .
1-520-850-1673 USA/Canada
http://beam.to/azengineer

2006\04\11@155153 by olin piclist

face picon face
VULCAN20 wrote:
> I dislike the statement  "too dumb to go to college", and feel it is
> an insult to a lot of hard working people.
> My spelling and grammar is not as good as most of you.
> But I would challenge anyone of you to have been able to keep up with
> me and my fellow Non college degree co-workers who make your life
> comfortable. We with pride and satisfaction do the jobs necessary to
> make your life comfortable,  that you as a college graduate would not
> lower yourself to do for a living.
>
> Before any of you flame me for my comments, please do this:
> Think about everything you touch or see for the next day, think of how
> it was made, how it got to you and would it be there if therewith out
> the non college degree workers .
>
> There are a lot of people who love building houses, planting and
> harvesting food, meat cutters, dairy workers, truck drivers to deliver
> things and the list goes on and on.

But none of this says anything about how dumb, or not, they might be.  Your
arugments are orthogonal to your statement, and thereby illogical.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products

2006\04\11@160022 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
> I dislike the statement  "too dumb to go to college", and
> feel it is an insult to a lot of hard working people.
> My spelling and grammar is not as good as most of you.
> But I would challenge anyone of you to have been able to keep
> up with me and my fellow Non college degree co-workers who
> make your life comfortable. We with pride and satisfaction do
> the jobs necessary to make your life comfortable,  that you
> as a college graduate would not lower yourself to do for a living.
>
> Before any of you flame me for my comments, please do this:
> Think about everything you touch or see for the next day,
> think of how it was made, how it got to you and would it be
> there if therewith out the non college degree workers .
>
> There are a lot of people who love building houses, planting
> and harvesting food, meat cutters, dairy workers, truck
> drivers to deliver things and the list goes on and on.

I totally agree that there is a need and a joy in simple, hard work. I'm
happy to see someone who doesn't have a college education sticking up for
their self on the list. I don't have a degree either.

But the meaning isn't just that some people do not have the mental ability
to go to college, it is also that some people do not make the right choices
in life. I SHOULD have gone to college. I would be making a lot more money
if I had. In my case, it was a combination of things including laziness,
lack of ambition (which isn't the same thing), and lack of support from my
family. Not to mention the high cost of tuition and other standard obstacles
to a good education.

I got the education I have from the internet. This list, other web sites,
and lots of just plain old being too dumb to know it couldn't be done.

But you would agree, would you not, that an education would be better? No
matter the intelligence of the person? And that making it easier to get
would be a good thing over all?

> I could go on for ever, but all of you that went to college
> should be smart enough to know all of this all ready.

And the dumb people are hopefully willing to let the smart people run the
country and make the important decisions that require intelligence? One of
the hardest things I do is convince myself that those more informed that I
are doing a good job deciding the direction the USA should take. I find it
almost impossible to keep my nose out of things that I'm not qualified to
manage.

> So please stop referring to us as "to dumb to".

I personally am very proud of being "to dumb to" know it couldn't be done.
I've accomplished a lot in my life that way. I take the "road less traveled
by..." and, yes, it does make all the difference. I'm happy to be called
dumb, but I'll try to keep from assuming that others are.

---
James.


2006\04\11@175338 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> William Chops Westfield wrote:
>
> >On Apr 10, 2006, at 4:21 PM, D. Jay Newman wrote:
> >
> >>>(There USED to be "Vocational school" for people too dumb to go
> >>>to college...
> >>>      
> >>There still are these places. However, due to the stigma placed
> >>on them, they aren't as visible as normal colleges.
> >
> >Well, yes.  Even in my day the "too dumb" was part of the perception.
> >If your interests were in the mechanical and you had brains, you
> >were expected to go to college and get the ME degree or whatever
> >before you placed yourself in the work force...
> >
> I dislike the statement  "too dumb to go to college", and feel it is an
> insult to a lot of hard working people.

Actually both William and I seem to be agreeing with you. The original
poster, whose name was lost in cyberspace, made the "too dumb" statement.

> My spelling and grammar is not as good as most of you.

You've never seen *my* notes before I've made a bunch of corrections. :)

> But I would challenge anyone of you to have been able to keep up with me
> and my fellow Non college degree co-workers who make your life
> comfortable. We with pride and satisfaction do the jobs necessary to
> make your life comfortable,  that you as a college graduate would not
> lower yourself to do for a living.

Just from my life:

1. I spent 8 years as an undergrad (between my working and various
  scholarships) eventually getting a degree in German. Pretty much
       all of my organized classes were a waste of time. On the whole,
       I benefited most from language classes and math. I kept changing
       majors and only graduated as a German major because I had the right
       credits when I choose to graduate.

2. I got a job programming for University of Delaware full time. This
  "required" a degree, but I got the job because I worked for them as
       a student so they knew my skill levels.

3. When I had to move to State College because my bride had a job here,
  I resigned and got a job for Penn State doing pretty much the same
       thing as #2 (programming to help faculty teach) due to one manager
       at U of D talking to a manager at Penn State.

4. Late 2004 I quit Penn State to become a full-time caregiver for my
  wife, part-time writer, roboticist, and machinist. And if you'll
       ask any editor, there is nothing lower than a writer. :)

Note: my time at the university taught me bridge, improved my square
dancing, and gave me an opportunity to learn languages. Nothing in my
degrees qualified me to program. That I pretty much picked up on my own.

> Before any of you flame me for my comments, please do this:
> Think about everything you touch or see for the next day, think of how
> it was made, how it got to you and would it be there if therewith out
> the non college degree workers .

I don't know. My mail-person has a college degree from Penn State. The
owner of a local machine shop doesn't. And I think the machinist has a
more challenging job.

> There are a lot of people who love building houses, planting and
> harvesting food, meat cutters, dairy workers, truck drivers to deliver
> things and the list goes on and on.

The love of doing something and intelligence has nothing to do with
each other.

> I could go on for ever, but all of you that went to college should be
> smart enough to know all of this all ready.
>
> So please stop referring to us as "to dumb to".

College and intelligence have very litte to do with each other. I've worked
directly with many full faculty members who were dumb as posts. I've
worked with others who were fabulous in their field, but helpless out of
it. And there were a few who were actually intelligent in many fields.

The major advantage of a college degree, as I see it, is that it helps
you get that first "professional" job. The difference in pay between
jobs that require a degree and those that don't is often large without
much reason.
--
D. Jay Newman           ! Author of:
spamBeGonejay@spam@spamspam_OUTsprucegrove.com     ! _Linux Robotics: Building Smarter Robots_
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! (Now I can get back to building robots.)

2006\04\11@180503 by William Killian

flavicon
face
> >> The Stock Market is no less rigged against the small investor in
favor
> >> of the large than the slots are set to set to pay more to the house
> >> than to the player.
> >>
> > Yes, it is (LESS rigged)
> >
> > These are exactly the sort of wrong assumptions/justifications that
> > the "problem gambler" makes to justify their gambling
>
> Or yours are the ones that the "problem investor" makes to justify
their
> stock market gambling... Hasn't there been a wave of despair some
years
> ago
> in the USA where many people lost pretty much all their (in some cases
> retirement) savings in the stock market?
>
> Again, I'm not sure how to get solid data either way...
>
> Gerhard

Purely anecdotal:

Over the few years I'm up in casinos by some $300. In the market I'm
down some $100,000 or so.



-------------------------------------  Notice of Confidentiality ----------------------------------------------------------
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
TakeThisOuTpostmasterspamspamvgt.net. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or
copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified
that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information
is strictly prohibited.

2006\04\11@181954 by William Killian

flavicon
face




> -----Original Message-----

> From: piclist-bouncesEraseMEspammit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesEraseMEspamspam_OUTmit.edu] On
Behalf

{Quote hidden}

A friend/co-worker from Vegas lost everything but his house due to a
business venture where Hooters was going to do a TV channel but left him
holding the bag when they dropped the idea.



His whole life lived in Las Vegas and no serious issues due to gambling
until it was a business venture.



Anecdotally its easy to find cherry picked examples either way.



{Quote hidden}

No you are incorrect.  You can claim as many caveats and distractions as
you want and blame the victims but the stock market is not fair to small
investors.  This is not at all about 'weird schemes'.  This is not about
investing appropriately.



This is about casinos having fair house odds while brokers and
investment fund managers are far more likely to cheat their clients.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3606191/site/newsweek/



On Wall Street, there are big, well-connected fish. And then there are
regular, little investors, who are the fish food. Exhibit A? The case of
fund manager Gary Pilgrim, perhaps the most startling example of alleged
abuse of investors to come out of the mutual-fund scandal. It's a tale
of how insiders can grow fat from their stake in a fund even as regular
investors are being stripped to the bone.





-------------------------------------  Notice of Confidentiality ----------------------------------------------------------
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
@spam@postmasterRemoveMEspamEraseMEvgt.net. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or
copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified
that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information
is strictly prohibited.

2006\04\11@183721 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
William Killian wrote:

{Quote hidden}

My portfolio is similar. I'm WAY up on the casinos.

--Bob

{Quote hidden}

--
Note: To protect our network,
attachments must be sent to
@spam@attachspam_OUTspam.....engineer.cotse.net .
1-520-850-1673 USA/Canada
http://beam.to/azengineer

2006\04\11@190539 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> >Purely anecdotal:
> >
> >Over the few years I'm up in casinos by some $300. In the market I'm
> >down some $100,000 or so.
> >
> My portfolio is similar. I'm WAY up on the casinos.
>
> --Bob

You guys need some better funds. In spite of taking about 6% per year out,
we've been making money.
--
D. Jay Newman           ! Author of:
spamBeGonejayEraseMEspamsprucegrove.com     ! _Linux Robotics: Building Smarter Robots_
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! (Now I can get back to building robots.)

2006\04\11@191906 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
James Newtons Massmind wrote:

{Quote hidden}

I got an BSEE degree in Power Engineering, i.e. nuclear power. But while
in class I was
alarmed, in that otherwise bright people would actually generate
electricity with such
dangerous materials. So I parted company with power engineering and so never
practiced  in that field. One thing that a degree instills is some
discipline. But it was 4
rough years. I'm glad I did it, but the Texas paid most of the fees.

Would I do it now, knowing what I know? No.  

I'd become a dentist.


--Bob

{Quote hidden}

--
Note: To protect our network,
attachments must be sent to
attachspamBeGonespamengineer.cotse.net .
1-520-850-1673 USA/Canada
http://beam.to/azengineer

2006\04\12@054635 by Tony Smith

picon face
> >>> The Stock Market is no less rigged against the small investor
> >
> >> Yes, it is (LESS rigged)
> >
> > Hasn't there been a wave of despair some years ago in the USA where
> > many people lost pretty much all their (in some cases
> > retirement) savings in the stock market?
> >
> I meant primarily that the stock market isn't "rigged" to
> favor anyone, not that it wasn't at all risky,
> Statistically, stocks go up
> (and down, but mostly up) for everyone equally.  If you're
> counting on the sort of advantages given by brokers to large
> traders (I don't deny such things exist), you're not
> investing appropriately, you're following some weird scheme.


The stock market is just gambling for people who don't like horses,
greyhounds or flashing lights.  Someone did a study of fund managers
recently, in the long run it all averaged out, there were no clear
'winners', ie funds where skill rather than luck showed up.  They get
lucky, advertise that as skill, that attracts more investors, which slows
down the fall back to where they started.

It's a bit easier to rig the stock market than a casino.  That's everyone
from the idiot "hot stock buy now" spammers, inside traders, and deBeers
stockpiling diamonds.  Who was it stockpiling silver in the 70's?  Holt?
Hull?  And the price of silver has been going up... quick, buy mining
stocks!  The world can't be out of suckers yet  :)

My favorite was a stock market game run by a former employer.  Basically
you played the stock market with pretend money, best overall gets some
real money.  When we took it over, the rules needed to be changed.  Rather
than allow trading on all companies listed on the market, it was
restricted to the top 100 or so.

Why?  Well, the dealers figured out how to rig the game.

They'd pick a penny stock, and buy 1,000 shares in the game.  (Trades in
the game always went thru, unlike real life).  Then they put out a buy in
the real world, saying they wanted 1 share for $1.  Straight back to the
game, and immediately sell their 1,000 shares for $1 each (courtesy of a
live data feed).  $10 converted to $1,000 in 15 seconds.  Then they
cancelled the buy, if they were unlucky they'd get their order filled, so
they out of pocket $1 + brokerage in real money.

Lather, rinse, repeat!

Tony


2006\04\12@164143 by William Killian

flavicon
face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RemoveMEpiclist-bounces@spam@spamspamBeGonemit.edu [.....piclist-bounces@spam@spamEraseMEmit.edu] On
Behalf
> Of Bob Axtell
> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 6:37 PM
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [OT]: How many ways
>
> William Killian wrote:
>
> >Purely anecdotal:
> >
> >Over the few years I'm up in casinos by some $300. In the market I'm
> >down some $100,000 or so.
> >
> >
> >
> My portfolio is similar. I'm WAY up on the casinos.
>
> --Bob

I trust casino operations more than other corporations.  They are
regulated so that the government is protecting me from the otherwise
greedy corporations.

I was going say more but it was going way too political.  Or at least
seen that way.




-------------------------------------  Notice of Confidentiality ----------------------------------------------------------
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
.....postmasterRemoveMEspamvgt.net. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or
copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified
that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information
is strictly prohibited.

2006\04\12@175220 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
William Killian wrote:

>
>I trust casino operations more than other corporations.  They are
>regulated so that the government is protecting me from the otherwise
>greedy corporations.
>
>I was going say more but it was going way too political.  Or at least
>seen that way.
>
>  
>
hehe.

You ARE aware, that when casinos gamble, they DO gamble, right?
Caesar's Palace has several BAD years right after they originally opened,
and as a result of gaming losses, changed hands several times.

I have NDAs so I have to be careful, but I'd done some work in a
gambling  town, and became good friends with the owner (I'll shade
the story slightly to cover the identity). He told me about the first
month that he'd opened several small casinos some years ago.
His machines were pretty typical, except that he set up a "Progressive
Jackpot" that pooled the pot through several of his casinos. But of
course, he owned all of them.

Well, he'd just gotten financing together for all the slot machines and
capital to fill them and pay employees etc. He was in hock "up to his eyes"
with his beautiful house mortgaged as far as it would go.  The actuaries
said that nobody would hit the progressive jackpot for  "at least a year"
so he shouldn't worry about it.

So with a lot of fanfare, the play began, He was doing well almost
immediately.
Things were still tight, but he was managing to cope. Suddenly, less than
30 days after opening, in the middle of the night, an elderly lady hit the
progressive jackpot for $250,000! His casino manager called him saying
"we can cover it, but tomorrow we can't operate". The boss told the
casino manager to provide her with a free room, and ply her with
anything she wanted, but to not pay the check until he got it covered. He
then woke up bank officials all over the state trying to get a loan for
$250K .
By 5AM he had committments sent by fax, and he gave her a cashier's check
that next morning when the banks opened up... It was the worst day of his
life. If he had NOT paid, he would have lost his gaming license. The next
progressive did not hit for almost 6 years after that.

THAT is gambling.

--Bob





--
Note: To protect our network,
attachments must be sent to
.....attachSTOPspamspam@spam@engineer.cotse.net .
1-520-850-1673 USA/Canada
http://beam.to/azengineer

2006\04\17@103555 by William Killian

flavicon
face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bouncesEraseMEspam@spam@mit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesspamspamBeGonemit.edu] On
Behalf
{Quote hidden}

Well yeah I am aware that it is gambling for them too.

The numbers are right and over the long haul the house will win.  That
is not true over day to day wins.

The big progressives and even the regular big jackpots CAN all occur and
make some machines losers for a while.  People can get lucky at tables.

It happens.

[...]
> Things were still tight, but he was managing to cope. Suddenly, less
than
> 30 days after opening, in the middle of the night, an elderly lady hit
the
> progressive jackpot for $250,000! His casino manager called him saying
> "we can cover it, but tomorrow we can't operate". The boss told the
> casino manager to provide her with a free room, and ply her with
> anything she wanted, but to not pay the check until he got it covered.
He
> then woke up bank officials all over the state trying to get a loan
for
> $250K .
> By 5AM he had committments sent by fax, and he gave her a cashier's
check
> that next morning when the banks opened up... It was the worst day of
his
> life. If he had NOT paid, he would have lost his gaming license. The
next
> progressive did not hit for almost 6 years after that.

That gaming license is key.  At least in Vegas now it's somewhat hard to
get one.  The regulators have the owners held tightly by the licensing.

I had to go through a background check to get the gaming card (basically
a work permit) just to work as an engineer in the industry.

If other industries were as well regulated we as citizens would be safer
from cheats.  Deregulation doesn't save people money; it costs them.


-------------------------------------  Notice of Confidentiality ----------------------------------------------------------
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
spamBeGonepostmasterKILLspamspam@spam@vgt.net. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or
copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified
that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information
is strictly prohibited.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...