Questrade Edge Problems elucidated:

There are numerous problems.  I am working on a youtube to post so you guys can see for yourself.
   First of all the program crashes a minimum of 4 times a day due to runtime errors: ie: R6016 not enough space for a thread", and many that crash without leaving me information beyond indicating they were C++ errors. 

Default settings need to be reset every time you restart the program.  Very poor studies section.  Bolingers were poor, check out Trade Navigator.  No RSI, Occilators are minimal, MacD, and most important studies are just not there. 

The program needs short cut keys.  An alt-c to close a window is crucial.  Volume defaults are nice, but we should be able to set the defaults we want, ie fast-moving averages, bolinger bands, MacD and they should tuck away nicely like your volume pane does.

Security should have defaults.  On my home computer I want to be able to elect an auto sign-on.  Why not have the option.  Default at public computer settings, but then let us change them as we like.  Reset to factory defaults should be universal and on the bar.

Link colour choices should survive restarts.

Account summary/order/positions etc. screens should show positive (greens) and negative (reds) by default.

Need a vertical scroll and/or a grab chart feature for charting.   How do you extrapolate a channel, set targets or exit strategies outside of the rigid parameters of the immediate chart?

Symbols needed in charting.

 Escape should undo, or revert a chart backwards one step.

Pricelines, either double click to set them or press and hold to set, now I have to triple click or click and drag to get them to appear.

Why not have a hot-key default for basic charting needs (especially support and resistance lines {pricelines})?

Peas about Pipelines.

Political, Posing, Posturing People Proposing Pseudo-science Platitudes, Place their People in Peril.  Promoting Penile, Putative Positions, they Prattle Preposterously against Pragmatic Petroleum Pipelines, Preferring instead Presuppositions that *iss in Pathetic Places Pretending Presuppositions are Preferred to Preposterous imProbability.

Political, Posing, Posturing People Proposing Pseudo-science Platitudes, Pretending Presuppositions are Preferred to Preposterous imProbability.  Promoting Penile, Putative Positions, they Prattle Preposterously against Pragmatic Petroleum Pipelines, Preferring instead Presuppositions that Pander to Pathetic Philosophy:  Put all that Petroleum on Rail or Truck instead.  Then we can Pretend to be Positive People Profound in our Putrid Polemic.

Northern Gateway discussion.

 Inevitability. If you drive, it is inevitable you will crash. If you fly, it is inevitable you will crash. If you walk across the street enough, inevitably you will eventually be hit. That is the deception in using that word. If you know statistics, the risks can be ranked: Walking across the road--Most risk. Driving less risk. Flying--negligible risk. So by using such terms, to the extent the gullible buy into it, so then real discussion of risk is near impossible. Right now, the highway from Prince Rupert to Alberta spills far more oil than a modern pipeline. There is no probability in that calculation apart from 100%. Finally, a rail line follows the Fraser river bed, sometimes no more than a stone's throw away. The people hysterical on the pipeline issue have no clue how much disastrously worse the risk of a derailment could deal to the ecosystem. I find this so tedious, people want to be seen right more than they want the truth.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Proposed+pipeline+have+effect+prices/6178034/story.html#ixzz1mtdgDGtn

Galileo from a different view

It seems normal to lay willful ignorance at the feet of the Catholic church. I begin by saying I am not Catholic, so any defense is not because of any leanings to.
Here are facts to consider, in case some are innocently ignorant: After the destruction of the Roman Empire, the only entity with enough organization to retain knowledge, was the church. In the early middle ages, monasteries contained and collected what was ever known about philosophy and science. The monastic orders can at least be credited for writing down what was meticulously. Universities rose from these foundations. They were sponsored by the church. Within the framework of the middle ages, DaVinci and Copernicus and… Galileo. There was nevertheless a growing segmentation. Philosophy, and Theology became increasingly distinct. Within Philosophy there were further groups forming, that gave birth to most of the major branches of science. What apparenltly “modern” scholarship has profoundly failed to do, is recognise that this happened and the implications that it did. Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler were a form of natural sciences focused on the heavens. This scientific interest extended back millenia, –For the purpose of astrology. In the early middle ages, astrologer/astronomers were consulted before launching a war… Massive volumes of the study of the movements of stars were written, and massive costs were paid to scholars to preserve this “knowledge”.
This group was directly threatened by the simplicity of a helio-centric universe. Debates raged through Universities in Europe. The simplicity the accuracy and the beauty of the helio-centric of Galileo withstood a broad assault by the most prestige astrologers and philosophers of the day. Universities arose to repudiate Galileo. The problem was, they consistently lost debates.  Realizing their very survival that depended on the old star system's income was threatened, they appealed to the pope. Who, you have to admit was not trained in science. The church was compelled to make judgement not because the entity itself was threatened, at least at first, but because of the political agenda of “the sciences”. Frankly, the theologians were duped into backing the wrong horse. There was more prestige and money to be gained by siding with the wealthy astrologers after all…

So now there are two choices to make.

One sort of ignorance is glad for new information, the others…

Neocon?

Neocon? Really are we still throwing that around? That is a word that means nothing,but sounds like the writer thinks he is important by the use of his "sophisticated" language. Sophisticated? Really? Neocon is just a 90's swear word. Means nothing today.

Privacy and Child Pornography.

Dear Mr. Toews.  I can appreciate you are a man of principles.   In many respects I am probably more socially conservative than  you are; I say that as a matter of fact and not to boast.  I see a parallel between this legislation and the previous long gun legislation: It provided a cover for illegal search and seizure.  If there were long guns in the house, the house could be "inspected" at any time without notice.  I believe you share with me the profound concerns about state intrusion, not only in what may happen as intended in the legislation: Nailing Child Pornographers asap, but what other things could be found out on fishing expeditions.  Already much of what should have been private has been made public.  The conservatives once opposed SIN cards, the Liberals promised the Sin Card would only related to an orderly way for government to organize social security and taxes.  The conservatives raised alarm--that was smothered under the decades long slide toward liberalism.  Mr. Toews, my concern is that we may be making the same mistake.  Please allow the bill to be amended so it cannot be abused by some later government to do what it was not intended to: Stop Child Pornography.

Poor poor climate change scientists...

It seems to me that instead of having difficulty, anyone who is pro climate change is riding the tidal wave.

It is utter hypocrisy to appeal to science when the IPCC has lost its foundational data. So you tell each other you do science, but have destroyed it and will make a mockery of it in the end.

Here is an example of how it works.  India has many climate scientists, this is what they report, and how they were found out absolutely lying about the scientific "facts".

A diplomatic cable published last month by the WikiLeaks website reveals that most of the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects in India should not have been certified because they did not reduce emissions beyond those that would have been achieved without foreign investment. Indian officials have apparently known about the problem for at least two years. The revelations imply that millions of tonnes of reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions are mere phantoms, she says, and potentially cast doubt over the principle of carbon trading, Nature News, 27 September 2011

In order for sin to be atoned for, God who has no sin needed to turn away from the sacrifice, so that the total abandonment (that is the real hell) by God would be afflicted on Jesus: "He who knew no sin, was made sin for us." The idea of God's righteous judgement has been marginalized in western society. But that doesn't change its existence. God in heaven and God on the cross, is an incredible paradox. It reminds me of "if god is omnipotent can he make a rock he cannot lift?" Atheists feel smug and some Christians don't know how to respond. But the right answer is yes--yet the instant he did so, he could move it. This is the paradox of God and Salvation. The only one who could bear the wrath of God against sin, was God. And in bearing it, he prayed: "forgive them for they know not what they do."

On Pandas and Pipelines

Railways, built over the last centuries and a half were carefully built along side rivers in BC.  In many cases major tributaries flow a few metres from the rail bed.

A simple risk calculation will show, the danger of a derailment's impact on the ecosystems are far far higher than a pipeline (which statistically loses 2.2 litres per thousand miles; 22bbl of oil per billion bbl).  If anyone would quiet down, do the math, and think rationally, the numbers show this has insignificant risk compared to current modes of transportation that have been moving for the past 100 years.

If Canada were to ship its oil by rail to Kitimat, (and we could be already shipping hydrocarbons by rail to the North West Coast,) the risks would be astronomical by comparison.  Worse, if a pipeline were compared with the far more toxic chemicals that are presently shipped to and from Kitimat and Prince Rupert.  The devastation to fish stocks in event of derailment would make a pipeline spill so insignificant, that if you are talking real risk, a pipeline spill-danger approaches zero at infinity.  Saying that an oil spill is inevitable is like saying it is inevitable you will win the lottery.  Someone does every time after all...

Inviting death and scathing rebuke...

Risking death, I have a different view.  Philosophically it begins with the idea that with a push of a button man can destroy the world.  We are the only creature with that power of dominance.  We are also the only creature that comprehends global environmental issues; we are self aware, therefore we have some understandings of our impacts on nature.  We also carry a guilt complex--with varying degrees validity.  We are aware that we have conquested the world, and have taken on such horrid power that we in fact can destroy it.  Therefore, we cannot escape our stewardship of the world.  Stewardship demands active management:  Because to be purely passive, let be and let be, will mean we will mindlessly go on to reduce this gaia into a cinder.  That is what the human animal will do.  However, despite protestations to the opposite, man is more than an animal; our self-awareness is unique if only because of its comprehensiveness--even given that perhaps some animals share self-awareness with us. 

We are aware that we are self aware.  Why does this matter?  Responsibility.  Either we have upset the balance of nature, or we are part of it.  If we fail to appreciate the concept of stewardship, then as a mindless beast we shall destroy all life around us.  An old indian chief sat by my fire and told of times when as young braves they would hunt all winter and not cross a moose track.  A wolf explosion that happened in their grandfather's time had created a vast area of extinction.  It took a hundred years for peripheral animal life to fill in the void.  The moose was actually extinct from central BC until the white man opened it up.  Tribes there have no indigenous word for them.  So one needs consider extinctions.  The fact is, we would rather not have them.  The agonizing agony is, that instead of being active stewards, we think we are being environmentally friendly by abdicating our necessary place in the world.

Harper's human rights criticisms.

It probably isn't true that these are anti-Harper in every other interest as well as the issue of human rights. No, I am sure prior to this trip, Harper was their hero. Of course it was awfully silent from that corner in 2006, when human rights trumped Canada's financial chances in China. For that there was plenty of criticism--but surely not from the lips of these self-same critics. No, I am sure had he behaved similarly, there would be the silence from this camp,-who might have one or two transform into critics who dash him because he sacrificed the economy once again.

On China's Canadian Investments.

Perhaps I am a naive optimist. I think it is the same Harper that negotiates with China now. It find it puzzling that only a few years ago, Harper was crucified for bringing up human rights to the detriment of our trade with the largest country in the world. I feel sorry for him; he can never win. 

However, I can see a long term strategy. Perhaps when there are enough dollars of investment here, we can give those assets a good squeeze under our commitment to human rights--After all, human rights are a significant part of Canada's national interests. No? All governments rise and fall. One day there will be a government that connects the dots. Whether it is this one remains to be seen.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Canada+doesn+know+protect+interests/6102877/story.html#ixzz1lWyJJRg3