Weblog

Wednesday, 29 April 2009

Friday, 09 January 2009

  • What the hell is a ponzi scheme anyway?

    So I read that some of the people in that $50 billion fraud have actually profited. They've looked at what they put in versus what they drew back out over the years in 'profits' and realised that actually, they've come out ahead. However, they still technically had money invested. These people actually have the gall to be calling lawyers and asking if they should file claims for their missing money.

    People, you will be damn lucky if someone doesn't decide to take those profits from you and redistribute them among those who have actually lost something. Yes, I'm sure you'll all cry foul, you had no idea etc etc...but it's stolen money. That's how the scheme works, you take the new investors money and use it to pay 'profits' to people who want to cash in their gains. You then skim a little something for yourself and ta da, it looks like you're an investment genius.

    Well ok, there's probably a little more to it than that, but I believe that that is the essence of it.

    Your profits are stolen money. If I bought a stolen car, and it was then tracked to me by the police, I'd have to give the car back to its owner, and tough luck to me for buying it in the first place, even though I had no idea it was stolen.

    I'm not actually advocating stripping people of all their wealth, as I'm sure in some cases they simply can't afford it. On the other hand, it's quite possible that if you can afford to invest $5 million in the first place, you can afford to give back the $1 million you fraudulently obtained from that investment, knowingly or otherwise.

Sunday, 28 December 2008

  • Did Jesse and Tommy have a baby? Guys, is your relationship closer than anyone thinks it is? I'm scared.


  • So. The Watchmen saga. I'm going to go ahead and assume that most of you who read this went to see The Dark Knight, and that therefore you also saw a trailer for Watchmen. One of the most celebrated comic book/graphic novels of all time has finally made it to the big screen, and from everything we've heard, has survived the transition. Lots of people are quite excited about this.

    Sadly for them, Fox does not share their enthusiasm. You see, while WB are actually the ones who have produced Watchmen, it seems their lawyers were a little lax on checking to make sure that they actually owned the rights to it. They don't. Fox do. Fox, unsurprisingly, wants a cut. WB, even less surprisingly, don't want to give them one.

    Here's the issue here. Fox bought the rights to Watchmen some 20+ years ago. They've sat on it ever since and done nothing with it. WB believed they had bought the rights a little while ago, and instantly got to work, but their lawyers were a little slack in checking what they were actually buying (or they were simply conned, although that seems slightly unlikely right now).

    I read one blog that seemed to suggest that Fox were totally in the wrong on this issue, while still being legally in the right. Fox were, the author said, simply being opportunistic. In an attempt to put this in real world terms, food metaphors were resorted to. WB were like a man trying to make a bacon sandwich. He goes out, gets the bacon, the bread etc and then comes home and starts to prepare his sandwich. Cooks the bacon up all nice and crispy, butters the bread, lays it all out and gets ready for a really nice breakfast and...that bastard Fox from next door comes and steals his sandwich, claiming that it's his bacon!

    Good metaphor, right? On the front of it, it does look a little bad for Mr Fox from next door! Only...well, it seems that Mr WB did in fact simply take the bacon from his neighbours fridge. After all, he was obviously not using it. He'd been in that fridge many times over the past few weeks, and the bacon was just there.

    Also, and this is getting away from bacon so I'll try and keep it short in case anyone loses interest, but it appears that Fox were not quite as opportunistic as it is being made out to be. They sent WB a C&D (Cease & Desist) letter sometime around april 2007, telling them to stop producing Watchmen because they owned the rights. WB ignored it.

    Let me tell you folks, I know several people in the prop making game who have received C&D's. I've received one myself (from Lucasfilm). You do NOT ignore them. You put on your very best humble irish gardner accent, and say "Yes sor, thank you sor, no sor, it won't happen again sor." and hurry off to where they won't spot you. I'm actually kinda glad to see that big corporations get slapped down just as hard as the little guys.

    Anyway, I'm sure no one read this far, or maybe you did just for the conclusion. Here it is. WB = in the wrong, Fox = in the right. No matter how you slice that bacon sandwich, it still belongs to Fox.

    Watchmen fans everywhere may now flame away.

Thursday, 18 December 2008

  • Some thoughts on OPEC

    I've been thinking about this for a while, and I've come to some conclusions. Those of you who are at all familiar with me may be thinking "Oh God, what now?", and I have to say, rightly so. See, for those of you who have been living on Mars for the last few months or, God forbid, driving some sort of electric vehicle OPEC is a union of countries that produce 40% of the worlds crude oil and therefore, 40% of our gasoline. Some months ago, they looked at the rising prices for a barrel of oil and thought "Yippee!" in a very Anakin Skywalker-ish sort of way. So, they set their budgets based on that trend continuing. Well, it didn't. And now they are scrambling around trying to boost the price of oil on the world market.

    Now, I understand that having to slash your nations budget may be awkward. Too bad. I found paying $4 for a gallon of gas awkward but you know what? Turned out I didn't have any choice in the matter if I wanted to drive my car.

    There is one simple answer to why OPEC is slashing production of oil, and it is what it always is when the words 'billions' and 'dollars' come together in a sentence. Greed. Five years ago oil prices were at around $30 a barrel. Then the Iraq war happened, everyone started to panic (and possibly a few shrewd traders manipulated things a little? I'm cynical, sue me) and oil skyrocketed. OPEC was happy, because even though they'd been making money at $30 a barrel, now they were making WAY more than that.

    So now we're left with a situation where OPEC don't want to go back to just making hundreds of millions of dollars, and they're cutting production to 'buoy up oil prices'. Umm, excuse me, but isn't that what we in the civilised world would call 'price fixing'? Can you imagine walmart, target and a bunch of others getting together to 'buoy up the price' of toys at Christmas? They'd be smacked down faster than a commie on July 4th.

    OPEC seem to think it's all perfectly above board. However, I have the solution. Shooting the leaders of OPEC in the face from long range. Since it should be completely illegal to 'buoy the price of oil' by world trade standards were it judged on any other name, clearly my solution simply needs a new name as well in order to become completely acceptable.

    Let's call it...Economic Reorganisation & Downsizing.