Search results

When you do this you're betting that put is overpriced. Whether that's true historically for NOK I have no idea, but generally, according to the CBOE anyway, this is true for the S&P. See this: http://www.cboe.com/micro/put/default.aspx Even if you never do this (and I haven't) there's good...

And thanks Baron. I know exactly what you're talking about, as do we all, I'm sure, about staying up 24/7 on a project that constitutes your life mission. Sucks when you have to pull back, but it happens to all of us. Good luck in the future on improving the site.

This is actually true.

I happen to like the old-style smilies. Two things from the new format that were good: 1 - Alerts 2 - The following/follower thing. That was real interesting; apparently I have some stalkers, as opposed to folks who like me; I could tell instantly who was one and who was the other. Which...

Yeah my only real complaint re this place is the stone-age posting. If you don't remember the correct code you have to either click on the ET Code link over by the smilies or google it to get it right. Of course this means I actually know most of the useful stuff now, but I really didn't need to...

That long statistical footnote is beyond their comprehension. Trust me on this.

The Super Bowl begs to differ.

Like I said, you have no interest in the stats, because you have no interest in actual facts. I notice you haven't even tried to come up with an explanation of how faked data can show something no one is looking for but should logically be there if it's correct. Bye now.

What do you mean by tie? The two are greenhouse gasses. That's the tie. As one was banned a while back, you should have seen, since the time of the banning, 1 - An increase in the correlation between rising temps and CO2, and 2 - A decrease in the rate at which temps are increasing...

I know you're not serious. I mean, sheesh. What a load. All that shows is that the base used for calculating the anomaly may (big may 'cause I have no reason to trust that site) have changed. That's all. I did all those calculations above myself, and all I did was think logically about what...

I also dig the bs about std dev's and all that. As if you had a real interest in the stats. Here's a real real simple test you can run at home, since ALL of the data is free and publicly available. CFC's were banned in 1990. Now, if CFC's are greenhouse gasses on their own, and CO2 is also a...

One more time, so you don't get away with this: you and jem posted that it cooled between 2000 and 2010. You were wrong. Period.

I don't know what atticus would say, but Jan 2 is set to roll off the 21 day realized vol calc on the S&P tomorrow, and if nothing happens it will drop by half. Just to stay where it is, 10.3 or so, would take a drop to the low 1460's, and as you can see by that number it's already well below...

Oh please. The guy from the mail-order/online university that no one ever heard of said he predicted there would be a cooling from 2000 to 2010. There wasn't.

2000 0.40 0.50 2001 0.52 0.50 2002 0.60 0.53 2003 0.59 0.58 2004 0.52 0.59 2005 0.65 0.59 2006 0.59 0.57 2007 0.62 0.59 2008 0.49 0.59 2009 0.59 0.58 2010 0.66 0.57...

You left out that CFCs didn't cause no freakin holes in the atmosphere either. That one bought us a bit of time on the CO2 thing too. Not that you'd ever know it by these numbnuts.

Ride it hard until it screams. :p They don't call it a blowoff top fer nuthin ya know...

And miss all these laughs? Party pooper.

Maybe he drove up to the bar with these bad boys: http://www.thelostogle.com/2012/04/11/oglebating-truck-nuts-yes-or-no/

Judging by his post just underneath yours, dumber than a bag of hammers. And lazy too.