zdo

SIUYA is a word twister!:rofl: SIUYA is a word twister:rofl: Dude, I said it sums up this Thread. I didn't say it sums up the "debate" ... ... such as ?

“Too honest?” :wheresthatfalldownrolloverlaughingsmiley: poignant thing is - this pretty much sums up whole this thread in about 1 minute [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWax4i1O18s&feature=player_embedded]Caught On Camera ~ Joe Biden Admits Gun Control Will Not Stop Mass Shootings Or Save Lives - YouTube[/ame]

Abe Says Fears Of Hyperinflation Are "Mostly" Unfounded As He Urges Companies To Hike Wages | Zero Hedge

Fwiw, I will be getting short USDJPY during this week and next (not heavily, but nonetheless, short… and btw, still holding EURJPY (and related) longs ... for now ) … it would be nice if I just knew why :rofl: :haha:Forum dedicated to fundamental outlook, intermarket analysis, and macro & micro analysis.

If you really care enough about this subject to dig further, here are some of my posts on this subject... and neighboring and adjacent posts by others in these threads are just as valuable as mine… … in no particular order… http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/beginners-forum/3335-right-coach-mentor-7.html#post114701 http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/beginners-forum/4106-finding-mentor-course-things-look-out-5.html#post42170 http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/psychology/11608-taking-blinders-off-trading-mind-19.html#post136737 http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/futures-trading-laboratory/3619-how-much-would-you-pay-learn-2.html#post32448 http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/beginners-forum/3335-right-coach-mentor.html#post29096 http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/futures-trading-laboratory/3619-how-much-would-you-pay-learn-2.html#post32435 hth

Reducing the “lethalness of criminals” is a quality aim that appeals to all of us (except maybe S&Mtrx ;) ) Vince50 Actually, that’s not really saying much – especially to this issue. Availability of anything is correlated to the quantity of its use. That can be generalized. But, in many of the to Disarms arguments ( and sometimes To Arms’ too ) we see 'availability' magically being spread to the qualities of use and then, with even more magic, on to a separate axis of ‘intentions’. Jumping axis then acting / arguing ‘as if’ we didn’t is faking it … let’s not let people get away with that on either side of this argument. Humans and individual variability in propensity to use force. Even if you did thousands of cabins with your scenarios, I hold that the important variable would not be the count and availability of lethal objects. The variable that would far overshadow supply of lethal objects would be the distribution / occurrence and variable severity of INDIVIDUALS who would readily resort to force that got dropped into these ‘cabins’. It is the counts/distributions of those who would go over the threshold in their propensity of using force to get what they want PLUS the count of those in the cabins who would resist the use of force over them that would be the extremely superior ‘predictor’ of “USE” of objects as weapons. This is just more of the accumulating pile of prepositions we’re subjected to in this thread – actually this whole forum - that simply don’t transfer to the real world. Misused statistics, alternated with inflammatory ‘reports’ of individual atrocious isolated events wheeled out in support, etc. etc. etc. don't get at the real issues and don’t describe or account for the ‘guitar cabins’ that happened to get members who would resort to violence. They also try to omit ‘via pretend scenarios’, how many guitars would get smashed over heads in perping and in self defense in the 'art supply cabins'. A few of us, at least, would hope that the available ‘art’ objects in those ‘cabins’ would be functionally ‘misused’ in self defense, lethally if necessary, to vanquish the ‘propensity to violent force’ individuals who got dropped into that ‘cabin’ … even if it did shatter MM's already "suddenly upset" dreams and hopes for significantly fewer ‘incident reports’ and lower “USE” statistics from the ‘art supplies cabins’. So, using examples of utopia like isolated ‘cabins in the woods’ world where weapons are not ‘needed’, are only illustrative if you could possibly control for the ‘propensity to violence’ individuals. MM and those who lik his posts. are focused only on trying to control for access to ‘ready lethality’ instead of focusing on the realities of ‘propensity to violent force’ individuals. But, in reality, if you could set up a huge, significant sample of such 'cabins', here’s what you would end up with: In both the ‘lethal objects’ cabins and the ‘artsy’ cabins, the ones with quantities of ‘propensity to violent force’ individuals will have more violent force episodes, and tragically, deaths AND the ones where those where the ‘propensity to violent force’ individuals win will continue to have more violence, and tragically, deaths AND the ones where the ‘propensity to violent force’ individuals are defeated/eliminated will revert to low violence and, thankfully, fewer tragic deaths. … really the only redeeming feature of these isolated ('prison'? / ) ‘cabin’ pretend world ‘examples’ is that they illustrate even less outside ‘intervention’ than is available in 20,000 + laws and in a 911 call with a 10 to 120 minute waiting period… Since they apparently feel helpless in controlling for the randomlike appearances of ‘propensity to violent force’ individuals that show up in (and in between) ‘cabins’ in the real world, MM and co. mistakenly thinks, and posts and posts and posts, that controlling for the lethality of objects will ‘do something, anything!’… while all along… By Far, the most effective way to reduce the “lethalness of criminals” is to increase the lethalness of their potential victims. Match criminals' threats as effectively / as closely as possible and their "USE" will go way down! It's not just you Vince. All of us have to be careful and not get sucked into the reactive brain games... especially when those games can be "USED", then denied with a simple " I never... " "The irony is, if you're willing to kill a perpetrator, you probably won't have to." Massad Ayoob

If I find time, I will find examples … For other readers, though… it appears you are most likely to harden and entrench your positions even more… Guns are lethal. Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.) Sure it would make ‘sense’ – if it would work in the real world. You’re thinking it is possible to decrease their "lethalness". I don’t. You seem to be saying we can significantly decrease supply in the dark, unregulated market by decreasing supply in the regulated market… enough to move the dangerous criminals and ‘murder statistics’ significantly ... ( and btw, worldwide ‘murder statistics’ has very ‘iffy’ correlations with ‘supply’ (or ‘demand’) of lethal weapons ) As the article above points out – sometimes “force” takes the “reasoning”options off the table. To be ready for that, it’s actually better – one more time, in the real world for EVERYONE who chooses it, to be ready to match force with force... even in the 'modern' , urban, 'civil' world, MM... "Save a life, teach a woman to shoot." I acknowledge and accept the risks that someone may steal my weapons and use them with force over others or even kill someone else. If you cannot accept that risk, then by all means, stay Disarmed. First, I don't "equate" gun ownership with freedom. One aspect of 'liberty' is an inherent right to defense of family and self. "... shall not be infringed" was part of an experiment in rule of law... that experiment is over... for now. For you, MM, you can choose not to bring parity into any imposed force defense of your family and self, if you like... But when you start playing silly games with my choices and others' choices, let's get this straight! - "Molon labe!" It can’t boil down to that – because in the real world there is no way we could set up the situation where killing one person could assure the freedom of millions. Even as sharp as you are MM, any 'practical' attempts you could devise in your head to accomplish such would also carry high probabilities of backfiring bigtime... a risk you don't seem to want to acknowledge. ( ...and what happens to 'traders' who and 'systems' that don't acknowledge risks ??? :helloooo: ) Please boil it down some more… or maybe just move over to one of the other beakers on the heat … but stay away from the one that possibly has pesticides in it Interesting you keep wacking away at something I said about pesticides when discussing risks… instead of discussing the underlying assumptions I recently brought up that each of us seems to be carrying into this... or discussing… (however - for silliness and for the readers' sake - since you have started using the term repeatedly, if you have time you might define what you mean by "boogie man". Does a 'boogie man' have any superhuman, satanic powers, etc, etc ? thx.) "Those that give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." gun nutzy redneck, Benjamin Franklin … a man who for the most part CHOSE to walk about unarmed… while simultaneously staying real , in the ‘laws’, and in plain ole common sense for those who CHOSE to be able to defend themselves against “force”

You just argued that Guns - Cause - Criminals. Maybe you actually believe that… I doubt it. But that same faulty 'logic' is embedded and utilized in about ¾ of your posts in this thread. I respect your intentions. But your premises and 'logics' need to be examined. ...makes all your 'symptom reduction' solutions suspect too. At this point, I'm not arguing with the outright gun prohibitionists as much as I am arguing with you. You're hoping for 'improvements' from the 'balanced middle' ...incremental 'improvements' in forcing "responsibility" and that will magically result in killers haviing radically reduced access to guns. Meanwhile - the 'reasonable middle' you have come to (love and) trust so deeply, is accelerating its dissipation - right before our very eyes ( if we dare look). ...Meanwhile, in the real world, fewer guns and legislated "responsibility" would not result in fewer crimes anywhere near the extent you are trying to convince us they would...

MightyMouse re: I know you have held that all along. I have held all along that more new laws realistically will not help with what you want to help… and certainly not in this day and age. I haven’t called you a ‘lunatic’ – yet . So far, I’ve just questioned your “low hanging” and your high hanging thinking… I am assuming HIGH and consistent implicit responsibility among the millions of human gun owners. I am assuming that we can legislate some consequences for those for whom natural consequences ‘are not enough’, but that that we really cannot legislate more responsibility. I am assuming more, new - incremental or extreme – laws would not ‘move’ responsibility in a way significant enough to offset the costs and risks to individual liberties, etc. In trading vernacular, I am assuming that more legal controls in ‘exchange traded’ derivatives / guns will not alter undersirable behaviors in non-regulated/dark market, off exchange derivatives / guns trading. You seem to be assuming LOW and unreliable implicit responsibility among millions of human gun owners. You seem to be assuming that natural consequences ‘are never enough’ and that we can legislate significantly shifts to more responsibility. You are assuming more, new - incremental or extreme – laws would ‘move’ responsibility in a way significant enough to offset the costs and risks to individual liberties, etc. In trading vernacular, it appears you are assuming that more control in ‘exchange traded’ derivatives / guns will alter undersirable behaviors in non-regulated/dark market, off exchange derivatives / guns trading. Good lord man you really are “lumping” - worse than I thought at first . While historically "Texas is a gun loving state.”, metro Texas is just about as ‘gun controlly’ as any metro's in other states like NY… the stereotypes are largely projection... lumping at work... Let's unlump it just a little - It is the individual ‘opaths’ who live in all places that are likely to pull a pistol "over a parking space" or a "breaking into line" or a ... be it TX, OR, NJ, OH, or … you're not 'statisticlly safer in nice NE... It is not the gun count. It is the ‘_opath’ count. I know and you have my empathies. But, we can also bet on, as William S. Burroughs, another dumb, reckless, shoot first redneck, commented and they before they take the guns way from the people who didn't do it, they have to somehow 'make' the people who didn't do it "responsible"... you are helping them with that part... may the good lord bless your heart and heal your head.

no the murder rate in chitown is not 'normal' these days... are you hinting that the murder rate would be much more 'normal' if even stricter gun restrictions, permit hoops to jump through, etc etc. than they currently have were imposed - in some weird hope it will turn their tide. ? Maybe in your case you prefer the gov’t just use modern 'samurai' with the best military grade assault weapons Sword hunt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia style - (but, of course, only [if only] to keep guns away from the law abiding people - because somehow keeping guns away from the law abiding people would keep killers from getting weapons. whoops...that ends up with killing to stop the killing. Is that ok with you too?) Either way you’re on a steep slope – your ‘solutions’ are risking even more trouble and loss and suffering and death… You’re making the same philosophical errors all alllopaths do ...obviously you haven’t done the hallucinogens yet …explains why you can't 'follow'

Changing your tune a little bit ? Or are you just (temporarily) scurrying to cover up that you and yours have been lumping all these “sound mind and body”’s into the new lunatic fringe in most of your posts? Piling on your new laws actually does have an impact on “me”. I would lose something. Yet such new laws really would be worthy of consideration if those laws did anything to stop any of the killings that got ya’ll so “suddenly upset” (or even any of the ones you still don’t give a sht about). But those new laws WOULDN’T have ANY impact! They are just as likely to influence events for the worse! Meanwhile, you and yours continue wishing, dreaming, hoping prohibition would suddenly turn some cultural corner for us…put a new big significant dent in those 11000 gun murders per year USD. Sam Cohen nailed your philosophy of gun control 'improvements “Teenagers are roaring through town at 90 MPH, where the speed limit is 25. Your solution is to lower the speed limit to 20." You don’t even understand your ‘problems’, yet ya’ll think your allopathic ‘solutions’ will work . I don’t. You are standing alone on this one. :haha: All the rest of us do want to have a gun drawn on us when arguing over a parking spot…[ sarc sarc ] ...And that didn't take long ... you're already back to Lumping again. Trying to associate "gun loving communities" with the individual "_opaths" that in the real world live in all the different 'kinds of communities' If you really had new laws to alleviate the ‘problem’ of “ ‘_opaths who go around ‘creating’ and ‘attracting’ fights with the some other ‘_opath who was also attracted to trouble… and if one or both happen to be carrying a gun”, laws that would immediately eliminate almost all of those 11000 murders per year, you’d ‘have the votes’ in the senate by now [snik]… but, Lord help us, you may even be less realistic than they are. The redneck Robert Heinlein said "An armed society is a polite society.". Check it. In the real regular world where all pro-gun people - law abiding, criminal, crazy, and…etc - are not so all LUMPed together like you grabbers would like, “an armed parking lot is a polite parking lot” … No that’s not just you. That is a sign that actually more than pride has gone awry. Still, your fear really goes no where – unless you do mistakenly believe those "someones" are a way high % of the gun murderers in this country... when in reality, those “someones” are just compensating - not killing classrooms of children, or you, or victimizing anyone else. Wouldn’t you know it? You’re really back to Lumping again… and meanwhile your arguments still carry that Tamlike tone of "Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound."

It’s endemic in this thread for the gun grabbers to lump - <the largest group, the millions of responsible gun owners, who seriously just have guns for self defense, <the small, but to them still too large, group of less responsible gun owners (who might buy and sell guns to and from anyone) <the weensty teensty bunch of bunker nutxs who hoard guns and occasionally feel threatened and go off, <all kinds of 'dealers' who protect their inventory and territory with weapons. <thieves who use violence to accomplish their ends. <addicts who resort to guns to support their addictions. <the criminally insane who ‘reach out and touch someone’ in classrooms with bullets <the ‘_opaths who go around ‘creating’ and ‘attracting’ fights with the some other ‘nut’ who was also attracted to trouble… and if one or both happen to be carrying a gun… <the tiny sample of normals who have latent underlying potential to go off and shoot…and do... More accurate compilations and descriptions could be compiled I’m sure… but point is – to our gun grabbers herein, ALL of the above is the new lunatic fringe! (...which must be associated and vilified...) MM, unfortunately you did not "learn how to properly group items in kindergarten." Their conjecture = If we do gooders could just get the guns out of the hands of the whole of them, all these horrible deaths would end. As needed, they’ll tone it down with “can’t prevent all murders of course, but many…” or ramp it back up with “if we could just prevent one of them it would be worth it” – but underlying virtually every to Disarm post in here is their one big single solution to what is really a multiple caused and layered ‘problem’. And underlying their every post and link is the implication that it’s really the first big group that is source and must be changed , eliminated … With the wrong problem, it is doubtful they have any chance at the right solution. They must sell the ‘lumped’ all together theory ala MM's “criminals will always have guns as long as there are dumb ass gun owning law abiding citizens.”, for their “it’s guns and violence” argument to hold any stability at all. I continue to resist this underlying ‘lumping’ , and the ‘single’ solution thinking herein... Really - “The problem with gun violence is not the gun part. It's the violence part.” "Violence may cause guns, but guns do not cause violence" ... yet they're attempting to force yet another allopathic 'solution'... Get real, doods. You’re going to legislate away your new (and growing! – yikes) ‘lunatic fringe’? All I can say is - good luck :rofl: “Gun laws should be federally mandated” v50… From the federal level? "Federal level" works better every time we try [snic] … we now have so many federal laws that they are now all (necessarily) selectively enforced (uh oh - via decisions rooted in politics and corruption). .. and you, vince50, break on ‘average’, 3 federal laws a day. You, vince50, are a criminal without even trying …You guys need to seriously question how you’re identifying you’re ‘problem’ and where you’re putting your confidence and trust for ‘solutions’…

Good morning suntrader That thinking is wack... For humanoids, the 'murder rate' goes up and down but overall has been about the same for 12,000 years now. Maybe your assuming we've made some evolutionary leap... which we now need to really 'manifest' ... new age utopia would be nice... but realistically it's a time not here yet. "...swimming in guns and gun nutz" is not the real problem. Egos are the real problem. Whoops - that was too hard to follow... :haha: First, “follow” is not recommended… but, if you insist, there is a how-to thread on how to ‘follow’ zdo posts. It involves hallucinogens… seriously .

try BarStatus... basically BarStatus(1) = 1 is a tick 'within' the bar ie not the open or close tick if [b][u]Barstatus(1) = 1[/u][/b] then begin [indent] if [i] code for other conditions [/i] then begin [/indent] [indent][indent]sendorders code[/indent] [/indent] [indent] end; /// if [i] code for other conditions [/i] [/indent] end; // if Barstatus(1) = 1

Ingot, I understand what you're getting at but... Actually not taking ‘a drink’ is more often a success than a failure. ...and btw, generic horse and generic water is really not a good example to use when you’re really talking about unique individual humans finding a self compatible trading edge. Horses have better smell than dogs do. Humans don't nearly have the equivalent 'olefactory' acuity for their 'testing' of edges so while it is an accomplishment to recognize an opportunity when it is proffered, it is a much greater accomplishment to discern if it is the right ‘edge’ / opportunity to commit to. The orientation of ‘trading any opportune edge as long as it makes me money’ comprises a significant percentage of the loosers that fall by the wayside…

re: "next tragedy?" Yes ... and my pain for her family is as deep as anyone's. "actually speaking out, against the gun nutz" meanwhile it's worth repeating for those who don't understand - it's not the "gun nutz" who are killing people... you're premises are just plain old 'off' - whether they have been generated from "suddenly upset", "sudden realizations" or life long biases. Violent intentions are not thwarted by inaccessibility of guns... just ask the families of all the women killed by sicko mates... just ask a serial killer... just get inside the head of someone in transient criminal insanity... 'gun righters' are FALSE TARGETS. you're with (or you're sentiments are being used by) those for whom gun control is about control and not about guns... It's not calloused to question - if she weren’t an honor student… if her band hadn’t gone to the inauguration… if she had been just a normal, dumb black girl… the media wouldn’t help you pound this at all... the media wouldn't pile on to help the quite vicious “we’re working behind the scenes on gun control.” Obama?s Under the Radar Gun Control Plan | where the Chicago way improves its false flag techniques – dam they’re good. Scary ain't it! And dam, you "suddenly upset" and “suddenly realizing” gun grabbers are getting good at crossing up the variables and premises / getting sucked in... Laws are the worst way to change culture – largely because they so rarely have their intended effects. More gun laws ‘in Chicago’ won’t change a dam thing. … they ultimately won’t save one child or adult’s life … may ultimately even end up costing more lives… "A society of sheep begets a government of wolves." -- Bertrand de Jouvenel Stop being sucked in by the ‘we got to do something – anything! - crowd’ . To that violent perp, the existing laws don’t matter one bit. What makes you think he would react to more, new laws differently? If you think gang members are going to stop killing peers who cheat and steal from them because more new laws are passed restricting guns – think again. and btw what if it turns out she wasn't quite so innocent? The 'official' Sandy, etc. stories told are not the real stories ... same here... low information knee jerkn... but pile on while you can... every time you can... maybe you'll convince someone new that this was really about guns... and they will help you inadvertently further destroy your own world. it's worth repeating "The problem with gun violence is not the gun part. It's the violence part.”

Ah … I was wondering how long it would take for you to finally get on board with using the poor, city black kids (who are not so close to home) who get shot. Hypocritical… as I posted some time back it didn’t matter until you ‘needed’ it...but… anyways you guys work it hard now… better late than ever… In this sad case - as with all the cases “The problem with gun violence is not the gun part. It's the violence part.” So I join in a new demand. “I DEMAND A LAW AGAINST PEOPLE WHO NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH GUNS BEFORE TO STOP ACTING LIKE THEY CARE NOW”. I cnn't ever match the hypocritical ridiculousness - but I can sure try. … had the teenage boy , who is maybe one of the gangsters, died instead of her, you and the press couldn’t and certainly wouldn’t work it so hard... had no (legel or illegal - doesn't matter) gun been available to the perp and he ran up and did a 3 second baseball bat head bashing murder before running off THIS EVENT WOULD NOT MATTER ONE BIT TO YOU GUN GRABBERS OR TO THE MEDIA! Also, as conspiracy theorists you guys suck… it was Jack Ruby who jumped a fence, ran up to them, and opened fire… connect the dots… she maybe saw or heard or did something at the inauguration that she shouldn’t have. Related story at Blog: Liberal Dilemma: When Gun Rights Meet Victim Groups

see getpositionquantity, etc. at https://community.tradestation.com/Discussions/Topic.aspx?Topic_ID=104475 unlike marketposition which is completely TS 'System testing' bound, these ways are completely non – “system” / unbound from TS back testing other 'position' management objects are in tsdata.trading.______ dictionary. btw platform development for these .order objects is currently still 'fluid' - and that's putting it nicely. ie bug fixes in newer TS builds can mess up recently developed code... ie upgrade carefully... :crap: hth

errata! Smmatrix, man, lord have mercy… I hope you are just ‘pushing buttons’ … if not please take a serious look at what you’re saying. In contrast - …at our house in town, an intruder would need to get past the dogs and be truly threatening me or my family before I pull the trigger... … out at the farm, an ‘ intruder’ could feel free to walk about, even with his or her guns… outdoors he would, in essence, even get the first shot … (but 'intruding' indoors out in the country - he'd better clearly be unarmed... and most potential intruders already 'know' this, btw) I also believe similar positions are much more representative of the pro gun people than are the ‘shoot first’ attitudes

Patuca, 'they' lied / misconstrued / mis - attrib'd often enough to make it 'true' ... and in this case it only took one round of not keeping up with each page in this crazy thread and one round of misquoting for me to get sucked up in this awful mis - attrib. Please accept my apologies.

They serially run promo's. Also, across the years, most of the people I suggested to just call TS and ask for a demo got one. fwiw, the opening account size is not an issue and with a modicum of turns per month the whole platform (but not the exchange data feeds) is 'free' Just my take follows…ie programming professionals could tell you more accurately: Old EL was a ‘proprietary’ facsimile of Pascal with their ‘easy’ / trading keywords added. New OO EL, still has different keywords than C#, etc.... and still uses different code ‘blocking’ syntax and other formatting conventions, etc . etc. ...and it does not yet fully implement true OO capabilities… (real 'reuse' / inheritance,etc stuff ) But, if you set aside those differences, the structure of OOEL code looks a lot like C# programming – particularly in the way Methods are used, etc. I got started in OOEL by studying ‘ basic’ C# books. etc. btw no OOEL is necessary to accomplish what the OP is after...

MM, I joked yesterday about being glad you didn’t have a gun. Personally, even if you keep spouting your positions, I would sleep better at night if you had a gun ‘under your pillow’ to protect yourself and your family … just in case. If the unthinkable happens you are currently limited to the power of a chihuahua, symbolically, when you could with a modicum of ‘responsibility’ avail to yourself the power of a mastiff. ... increased options ... risks / "learns his lesson" (nice mainstream press scripting)...more responsibilities... rewards or decreased options ... equivalent or incredibly worse risks ... abdication of responsibilities ... slim chance of 'rewards' Right now in your present state (of risks), you are, in effect, choosing a perp’s safety over that of yourself and family. From your posts I am gathering that if you survived such an event, but members of your family didn’t , you ostensibly would eternally blame yourself more than you would the perp.(:haha: no issues in there !) Keep burping the concerned little old lady crap up here on TL if you need – but, friend to friend - for god’s sake, man up and get your family a gun (with seven(teen) bullets in it.)

MM here we go again… “endangering the world” We all take risks in having ‘protective’ things around that can be misused (even criminally) and are actually as or even more dangerous than improperly secured weapons. Fire extinguishers can be used by one kid to accidentally kill another kid as readily as a gun. We use bug spray and herbicides when every squirt can trigger cancer in selves and kids.. We use cleaning chemicals. Accumulated exposure = liver, hormonal, and brain damage to selves and families. We use knives 18 inches from the jugular, much closer to the ulnars, etc. - they are typically stored just one chair climb from the small children, etc. We have guns lying around that could be stolen and misused (or magically go off). We drive, when ANYONE IN ANY CAPACITY, (not just the drunks or car thief) could be the one who ‘crosses over the double line’ into your face. We go to the doctor… which ‘accidentally’ injures and kills multiples and multiples more people than do guns Negligence with any of these objects or substances is Negligence. They all ‘endanger the world’. We don’t need any more special or specialized laws to handle any of these risks and liabilities… unless that is, to you, 'gun control' really is more about control than it is guns.

Patuca, man, lord have mercy… I hope you are just ‘pushing buttons’ … if not please take a serious look at what you’re saying. In contrast - …at our house in town, an intruder would need to get past the dogs and be truly threatening me or my family before I pull the trigger... … out at the farm, an ‘ intruder’ could feel free to walk about, even with his or her guns… outdoors he would, in essence, even get the first shot … (but 'intruding' indoors out in the country - he'd better clearly be unarmed... and most potential intruders already 'know' this, btw) I also believe similar positions are much more representative of the pro gun people than are the ‘shoot first’ attitudes

In 'plain' English: That "sweet spot" is really not very sweet. It is hard (that’s an understatement) to find a “variable” (actually a set of variables) that will consistently “mediate” ie It is hard to stay close to that "sweet spot" … and worst of all Even close to it produces sub average results I chose to forego the large sample side (your second dot) and commit to the very granular side (your first dot). Some constructs and ‘beliefs’ underlying my gestalt: I had to resist the concept that there is “inconsequential noise” . I ‘know’/’believe’ there is “inconsequential noise” - but in my r&d, I had to act / proceed as if it didn’t exist. In the end, changes in the noise turned out to be pivotal information. I personally left ‘signal generating’ machine learning to others and specialized in ‘categorization’ algorithms … which had to be further specialized to weighting simultaneous categories instead of narrowing it to one category from a set of discrete categories. A lot of the info to be gathered from price streams for me turned out to be measuring micro swing scaling … what could be seen (in very loose terms) as fractional dimensions. I say very loose because the term fractional dimensions gets at capturing the concept, but it is not about using the ‘real’ fractional dimensions that Sevcik, et al calculate. A lot of my progress came from just lucking into code for several excellent ‘music typing’ machine learning programs that helped me conceptualize the combinations of variations of cadence, ‘timbre’, tone, etc. for transfer over to granular price and volume data. In the intraday time frames I work with, the half life of a ‘regime’ of these simultaneous categories is very short. A lot of plain old testing went into projecting the probabilities of what array would appear next. Then, detecting and loosely categorizing the noise, in effect, gives me ballpark weighting to slide the sizing around of a portfolio of (some pretty dumb, simple) systems. Sliding the weighting around more accurately makes me money by saving me money… especially in early detection of beginning and ends of congestions. …there is some obscure work out there about formalizing the “sweet spot”. If I get some time will see if I have anything in the archives… but can’t even think of what terms to start searching on at this point… Suggestion: Find your own way. It may be focusing in your first ‘dot’ above. It may be in the second dot. Or it may be in finding that “sweet spot” between the dots. In my experience – the one that inspires you most will at least engender the most perseverance and creativity. Hopefully, that one also fits with your aptitudes and talents...