DJ

Ive come up with a simple, but somewhat successful strategy, tell me what you think.

For 3 weeks, I wake up at 6am (west coast) listen to CNBC to find out where the news is. I pull up those tickers and prepare to trade with my $25,000. From the news and past trades, I get 8 stocks on my screen. I noticed that these stocks I pick will either drop or increase in the first 15 to 30 minutes. When I see one shooting up, I quickly trade it, BUT, I only stay in for a really short time. Once I get to $100 a prepare to get out of the position, sometimes I will stay in a bit longer, depending on what the price is doing. Then I turn my computer off.

Ive actually averaged $188 a day, including today. Its not big money, but its consistent.. so far. Also, last year for 3 months I Paper Traded this strategy for 3 months, thats why I decided to do it for real ( I started on the third.

Anyways, am I missing something? Im planning on adding another $75,000 cash in order to increase my gains. What do you guys think?

Why is there a confusion with the Cap Gains tax rate for the OWS movement?

Ive never seen anybody explain this the correct way, if an activist reads this, Id like to hear their opinion.

Ex:

In 1990 I invest $1,000 into stock ABC. Today I cash out and have $1,200. Did I make $200? Not really, depending on inflation, I may have 1. broke even 2. lost money 3. made some profit (not $200, but closer to $100).

So, that is why for all but 2 years in the last 100 (Google it if you need proof), Cap Gains have been about half the normal top tax bracket.

Having said that, there has been talk of adding an inflation table to the tax code, but its too time consuming and it wouldnt add any revenue.

How do OWS activists respond to this?

With the disaster in Italy, I have heard concerns of a possible environmental disaster. It made me wonder what harm the sunken ships in The Gulf of Mexico during WW2 caused?

According to the website below, 56 ships were sunk, most during a few months in 1942. Id imagine many were merchant ships, some probably filled with oil.

Any opinions on this?

http://www.pastfoundation.org/DeepWrecks/

Obviously the emails do not disprove the science, but do they hurt the credibility of it? We know, an investigation into the science wont change anything, but do we now have the right to open up serious debate more?

If the IRS qualifies me as a pattern day trader, I would get taxed 35% as short term capital gains? Assume my business costs are minimal, will I basically pay 35%?

If Im not considered a pattern day trader, do I get any write offs?

By the way, Im not trading yet (or ever). I just have questions.

From what I understand, if all the above ground gold was given a value of $1900 an ounce, it would equal roughly 9.2 trillion. Also, the gold America has in reserves, using $1900 an ounce, is about $500 Billion. Is that more or less correct? If not, what are the correct estimates?

Assuming my numbers are close, how could $500 Billion be used in a gold standard economy?

This is not a debate question, I just want to know./

I just want opinions to see how people feel.

If your answer is yes, what do you consider rich? $250k? $450k? $1M?

How much would you increase the taxes? 5%? 10% or up to 70% or 90%?

I watch the Whale Wars on TV, and it made me wonder how they get away with whaling. Is there a ban on whaling? If there is, is it not binding for Japan because they didnt sign it? Since the Japanese have been eating whale meat for thousands of years, how could the rest of the world tell them they cant do that anymore?

I know Ill get a lot of emotional responces, but I am not familiar with the laws at all, so good responces would be appreciated.

One more thing, how do they get away with throwing projectiles on to the whaling boat, but not get arrested for piracy? It seems as though this would be some type of a terrorist act? Prop fowlers? Projectiles?

I am not a scientist, so hopefully what I ask is understandable.

From what I understand, 2 space craft, traveling away from Earth, while one is in front of the other, near the speed of light would age less then us here on the planet. This is because nothing could travel quicker then the speed of light, so if the traveler in the rear were to turn on his headlights, to them the light would still get to the traveler in the front at light speed... But, if we were to observe the travelers here on Earth through a telescope we would see the travelers at a near stand still, BUT, see the headlight travel at the speed of light.

If Im right so far, here is my question:

Who is to say whos traveling faster? What if they traveled reverse in our orbit, wouldn'they be traveling slower then Earth? If they were traveling slower, wouldn'te age less then them since the travelers are going slower? Whats to say who's traveling faster then the other?

OK, so I know theres an explanation for this, maybe somebody could send me some Wiki links. This has been bugging the heck out of me for a while. I watch the Science Channel and the episodes open more questions for me then answers.

First of all, I know absolutely nothing about physics... or, in fact science.... I just watch the Science Channel.

From what I understand, with physics, everything can be predicted. If I computer could calculate every particle in the Universe and we had a complete 100% understanding of physics, we could tell exactly what would happen from the start of the universe all the way to the end... is this correct?

If thats is correct, could life be predicted too? Or NO because we humans can make decisions that arent part of a caluclation?

If you dont understand what I wrote, and you cant answer it, it makes sense in my head... believe me haha.

First of all I have no idea at all about science, so this all may sound ignorant.

I love to watch shows on Astronomy and Physics. I recently saw a Michio Kaku show that questioned the Big Bang Theory... how could you create something out of "absolutely nothing"?

That got me thinking, what was before the Big BAng? Energy? How did the energy get there? Something had to be there before the Big Bang, but how did that "thing" get there

I found an interesting list of all the disasters caused by AGW. This isnt a joke list either.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Please dont laugh, the link lists links to actual stories news organizations wrote about.

Here is half of the As:

Afghan poppies destroyed, African holocaust, aged deaths, poppies more potent, Africa devastated, Africa in conflict, African aid threatened, aggressive weeds, Air France crash, air pockets, air pressure changes, airport farewells virtual, airport malaria, Agulhas current, Alaskan towns slowly destroyed, Al Qaeda and Taliban Being Helped, allergy increase, allergy season longer, alligators in the Thames, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), anaphylactic reactions to bee stings, ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, animals shrink

According to Wikipedia, they say the WMP may have been a myth, and or regional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warm_period

Im so confused again. Are hard facts like the fact that Vikings were able to grow farms in areas of Greenland that are under feet of permafrost today not important? Did, somehow the warming only push in Northern Latitudes in Greenland?

"Global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that, taken globally, the Earth may have been slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early and mid-20th century".

Could that be true? Could ice core samples not be 100% accurate?

From what I understand, its agreed that the Earths oceans have increased by about a half inch over the last 100 years. I think that's accepted by people on both sides of the debate.

If that is the case, why has that half inch been so noticeable in the Maldives, but not at all noticeable in other parts of the world?

Could the problem in the Maldives be related to plate tectonics or some other natural occurring event?

Just curious and thought someone could shed some light on this for me.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/11...

In this article they mention that we all die because its to cold to grow crops for everyone... RIGHT? Well, I heard we will all die if it gets hotter then today because there wont be enough crops for everyone... HUH?

Common sense says you need more heat to grow more crops...

Whats the real answer? Or, did we magically find the exact right temperature to grow crops at the exact time the internet gained prominence in the mid 1990s? Wow, what a coincidence....

I hear AGW will cause more rain, BUT, it will also cause drought. I hear AGW will cause more heat, but, dont be surprised if we have some freak cold temperature streaks. Ya, the High Pressure over Asia last year that caused the killer heat waves was AGW. The alleged increased level of hurricanes is an outcome of AGW.

Ive looked through records from the past on Google and I found out these occurrences are normal.

Do we panic more now because we get information quicker and more biased because of the internet?

On Yahoos main page, I found an article that read:

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) – Thawing permafrost is triggering mudslides onto a key road traveled by busloads of sightseers. Tall bushes newly sprouted on the tundra are blocking panoramic views. And glaciers are receding from convenient viewing areas, while their rapid summer melt poses new flood risks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_alaska_climate

"Tall bushes newly sprouted on the tundra".... Ok, so if its getting warm enough for bushes to sprout, isnt that a good thing?

Last night I watched one of the new Alaska shows on Cable, and according to them they have to kill everything during the few warm month they have then freeze it because they have no vegetation to live off of, ever.

If vegetation is now growing in areas that were under feet of permafrost, isnt that similar to the medivial warm period when Vikings were able to plant food, even though today you need a drill to get through the ice in the same areas?

Before everybody thinks I'm a schmuck, hear me out. I have talked to farmers who explained to me that if they don't use pesticides and chemicals they only grow a fraction of what they currently do. So, that got me thinking.... if all food was grown 100% organically, wouldn't the land needed to grow the same amount as we need destroy many times more?

I hear so much about Big Oil like Exxon funding and steering the deniers side of the argument for their own personal profit.. I got to thinking... who funds and steers the AGW side THEIR own personal profit?

Heres a few I found:

- The Heinz Endowments

- The Rockefeller Foundation

- The Turner Foundation

- The Energy Foundation

Any others? I think we can leave states and federal govts out.

Roughly 40 to 60% of the USA population won't go green because they think AGW is fake. What better way to convince everyone to go green then to prove, in open debates by scientists on both sides, that's its real?

If AGW really is happeneing, they need to convince us its happeneing.. and not by hollywood celebs telling is were bad because we won't buy Pruis'.