“The Dow plunged nearly 1,000 points before paring those losses, apparently triggered by a trader error. Sources told CNBC a trader entered a “b” for billion instead of an “m” for million in a trade possibly involving Procter & Gamble.”
I get a confirm delete for deleting a spam email. Is there no control in place to confirm someone entered a billion instead of a million?
>You argue like a skilled college debater. Impeccable logic on carefully calibrated assumptions
Right on. Debate for debate’s sake.
You still have not addressed the issue of energy used to cut and store those trees en masse.
If you’re JUST suggesting that gradual and controlled harvesting of mature trees and replacing them MIGHT be a carbon-minus scenario, I might agree. Anything else is wishful thinking.
“It’s just wrong to assume you can clear a forest and replant with no loss of topsoil.”
“Wrong. I’ve done it.”
Jackal, maybe you’ll pick this up tomorrow, but no loss of topsoil over the life of the replanted trees to the age of the forest you cur down? And you can guarantee that for the size of the forest you would need to have your proposed impact in your hypothetical?
“Biff, Mrs C will surprise you with “honey, guess how much I made trading today?””
Unfortunately not. She was picking up The Champs when I called and told her what was happening in the market and she had no clue. But she did say she’ll be looking to buy now.
Bogus not to post,the “What”was right.
The “What” is right your all jackasses especially{Expert Tithead} never posts anything realivent!
I bet Arkady knew I was kidding. I think she has a pretty good idea when I’m just seeing how people will respond.
“Debate for debate’s sake.”
Um, yeah. Duh. Did you think I was being serious?
“The Dow plunged nearly 1,000 points before paring those losses, apparently triggered by a trader error. Sources told CNBC a trader entered a “b” for billion instead of an “m” for million in a trade possibly involving Procter & Gamble.”
I get a confirm delete for deleting a spam email. Is there no control in place to confirm someone entered a billion instead of a million?
>You argue like a skilled college debater. Impeccable logic on carefully calibrated assumptions
Right on. Debate for debate’s sake.
You still have not addressed the issue of energy used to cut and store those trees en masse.
If you’re JUST suggesting that gradual and controlled harvesting of mature trees and replacing them MIGHT be a carbon-minus scenario, I might agree. Anything else is wishful thinking.
“It’s just wrong to assume you can clear a forest and replant with no loss of topsoil.”
“Wrong. I’ve done it.”
Jackal, maybe you’ll pick this up tomorrow, but no loss of topsoil over the life of the replanted trees to the age of the forest you cur down? And you can guarantee that for the size of the forest you would need to have your proposed impact in your hypothetical?
So… everyone… it was a “fat finger” trade on the ol’ computer machines that caused all of today’s hubbub on Wall Street. Nothin’ special.
The What is very easily excited.
“Biff, Mrs C will surprise you with “honey, guess how much I made trading today?””
Unfortunately not. She was picking up The Champs when I called and told her what was happening in the market and she had no clue. But she did say she’ll be looking to buy now.