A very short life.

Comments

Sign in or register to comment.

• Previous
• Next

• 1. At 08:46am on 15 Jul 2009, richardramsey wrote:

  This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

• 2. At 08:56am on 15 Jul 2009, Big Sister wrote:

  Wow! He died before he was born! In fact, he hasn't been born yet!
  
  And to have achieved so much in minus six weeks .....

  Complain about this comment

• 3. At 08:57am on 15 Jul 2009, Fearless Fred wrote:

  Damn! you beat me to it, Big Sis ;-)

  Complain about this comment

• 4. At 09:18am on 15 Jul 2009, DI_Wyman wrote:

  ISIHAC.......The Independant..the best of The Times, the worst of The Times!

  Complain about this comment

• 5. At 10:56am on 15 Jul 2009, annasee wrote:

  Ooops. But never mind the newspaper, what about Evan Davis telling the time this morning? (I may be approximating the conversation here, from memory)
  
  "It's half past six"
  
  (Gary Richardson)"No, it's half past eight"
  
  "Oh yes.I got confused because the big hand is on the little six"
  
  It's made my day. I always knew he was young at heart. Just didn't realise how young still...

  Complain about this comment

• 6. At 11:12am on 15 Jul 2009, Big Sister wrote:

  I think a more appropriate title for this thread might be 'A Life lived in Reverse'. Of course, it may be that the man was a Time Lord.

  Complain about this comment

• 7. At 1:06pm on 15 Jul 2009, mittfh wrote:

  I can't see anything wrong with the article - perhaps they've corrected the mistake...
  
  

  Tom Wilkes, graphic designer: born Long Beach, California 30 July 1939; married and divorced three times (one daughter from first marriage); died Pioneertown, California 28 June 2009.

  Complain about this comment

• 8. At 1:09pm on 15 Jul 2009, annasee wrote:

  Oh what a shame, mttfh, they have corected it. What spoilsports. It said originally "born--- 2009, died---- 2009"

  Complain about this comment

• 9. At 1:21pm on 15 Jul 2009, U14056677 wrote:

  Never mind. Yawn, yawn, scroll scroll, as they say.
  
  Hey, Steel Pulse, have you got 'War scalp, then!'?

  Complain about this comment

• 10. At 2:16pm on 15 Jul 2009, mittfh wrote:

  Mac (9): Now you know what we think every time we see a post by your latest alias... :)

  Complain about this comment

• 11. At 3:22pm on 15 Jul 2009, U14056677 wrote:

  Oh, baby, let the good times roll!
  
  http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^DJI#chart1:symbol=^dji;range=2y;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined
  
  It's just about to hit 8.500!
  
  BAB!

  Complain about this comment

• 12. At 3:44pm on 15 Jul 2009, U14056677 wrote:

  11
  
  Oh, dear, again. Sorry, it's cut and paste again. (Careful, autonomous visitors. Yahoo scales are logscale=on by default).
  
  
  
  
  Gaza: If only we'd known at the time.
  
  
  The Iranian aeroplane: Foreign bomb outrage not beyond the bounds of possibility?
  
  
  The bye-election.
  The bookies' odds understate the fraction of money riding on each candidate. That's how they make a profit. (The bookies, I mean, the winning candidate not till they are an MP)
  The amounts on candidates with the same odds are underestimated by the same amount.
  Nice each way bet though (Joke, :-0))

  Complain about this comment

• 13. At 3:51pm on 15 Jul 2009, Big Sister wrote:

  ThinkerRetired, don't you think you're just a little off topic?

  Complain about this comment

• 14. At 3:56pm on 15 Jul 2009, mittfh wrote:

  Mac (11): And the point of that was...?
  
  There was a steady decline from October 2007 to September 2008, followed by a sharp dip. It then resumed a steady decline until February this year, when there was another sharp dip, followed by an almost equal rise in March. Since then, it's risen slowly, with the largest value so far 8,799 in June.
  
  But short term graphs can look overly dramatic. Take a look at the complete graph from October 1st, 1928 and analyse that...
  Almost no growth until 1980, then a gradual rise until about 1995, followed by a spike until 1997. After that, things went a little haywire - including a similar dip in 2002.
  
  Unsurprisingly, the FTSE 100 follows a similar pattern.

  Complain about this comment

• 15. At 5:33pm on 15 Jul 2009, U14056677 wrote:

  It's the topic that's off, as in 'Sorry, the fish is off'
  
  So:
  
  
  http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^DJI#symbol=^DJI;range=my
  
  
  I hope that picks up parameters - if not, it's cut and paste!
  
  Big variation in macro assumptions, ups and downs in expectations, inform daily volatilities in times like these.
  
  Unemployment up here, was middling news, Intel's sales figures made hearts race. BAB and Mandelson sized yachts, it was all coming back!
  
  Good daily reporting helps us combat the idea that these markets are the right way:
  a. to generate spending power
  b. to allocate social investment.
  
  A little better daily analysis would have revealed, step by step, the vacuity of the dot com boom and of the day to day effect of Greenspan's interest rate cuts on the subprime market.
  
  We can't do much about yesterday's prices, no matter how mistaken they may seem, but we can combat their effects on tomorrows with good daily analysis.
  
  Nice description of the long run by the way. '95 to now looks very boomish to me, including the recent 'unpleasantnesses'. Is it something to do with this:
  
  http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=68
  
  I wonder? (Cut and paste again, sorry)
  Is it a boom founded on foreign debt and foreign production?
  
  So how right are the markets to react to the Intel numbers in the way they have?
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Corporation#Sale_of_XScale_processor_business
  
  

  Complain about this comment

• 16. At 5:33pm on 15 Jul 2009, U14056677 wrote:

  I agree with that.
  
  70 is nothing these days in the West.

  Complain about this comment

• 17. At 5:49pm on 15 Jul 2009, Frances O wrote:

  Well, I was going to scold Eddie for doing that irritating thing of just posting a link without giving any reason for me to be faffed to click on it (bad netiquette, I understand)
  
  ... until I saw that there had once been something click-on-ably amusing. Which an explanation would have spoilt.
  
  Instead, the Indie webmeister spoilt it for us.
  
  D'you think they read the Frog?

  Complain about this comment

• 18. At 1:17pm on 16 Jul 2009, U14056677 wrote:

  Ah, the thread that time forgot.
  
  Forever changes.

  Complain about this comment

• 19. At 2:52pm on 16 Jul 2009, mittfh wrote:

  At 2:42pm on 16 Jul 2009, ThinkerRetired wrote:
  
  Well, at least this has safely buried the 'A Very Short Life' thread with it's embarrasingly long life.
  
  -oOo-
  
  Wanna bet?! :)
  Gone from the main page, certainly, but definitely, positively not forgotten.

  Complain about this comment

• 20. At 4:05pm on 16 Jul 2009, mittfh wrote:

  Ho hum...
  
  You put your Shatner post in;
  Your Shatner post out;
  In, out, in, out,
  Shake it all about...
  
  
  It's odd - one minute the post about William Shatner being nominated for an Emmy award is there, the next its gone...
  

  Complain about this comment

• 21. At 4:49pm on 16 Jul 2009, U14056677 wrote:

  Yeah, I see the problem. Either Shatner again (When will They Ever Learn?) or this rather fruitless thread in the PM blog Showcase Three.
  
  'Too close to call' an Interactive Radio Award judge said, yester/today.
  

  Complain about this comment

• 22. At 5:37pm on 16 Jul 2009, Anne P. wrote:

  Not gone from my main page mittfh (19)

  Complain about this comment

• 23. At 06:12am on 17 Jul 2009, Fearless Fred wrote:

  Yep, still on my main page too....

  Complain about this comment

• Previous
• Next

View these comments in RSS