We have CNBC on at the office during the day (I'm a financial Planner) to see what the talking heads are going nuts about. They had Mister Pickens on, who said he had a solution to use natural gas to power everyone's car. He did not detail that solution at all.
I call bullshit. This guy is up to something. While it may help the environment somewhat, I know he's got an angle he's working. Is he *really* giving the people what they want, or is he just another scumbag?
Yes, I'm cynical, but I would like/.'er input so that I'm not ignorant too.
For the record, I'd like to point out that my girlfriend's roommate is a vegan and eats lots of highly energy-dense foods.
She's really ballooned into a chubby little bunny over the last year, all she eats is granola, bread, and peanut butter. It's not just meat-eaters getting fat, it's everybody who is over-eating on the wrong foods.
She's also a lesbian, but I'm not sure if that works anywhere into this equation.
This topic seem sto get a lot of play here on Slashdot.
Basically, the limits of chemical propellants have been reached. The next step up could be "Nuclear Pulse" engines such as the one developed for Orion. They would allow MUCH larger payloads to be put into orbit, and my understanding is that the number of "bombs" needed do not correlate linearly to the mass of the payload as it increases, allowing for a very efficient, by today's standards, method of travel.
Yeah, but you're not taking into account the Lucas Factor.
As long as Spielberg reigned him in (ie kept him on a steady IV drip of valium the whole time) I think there's hope.
While not having to do with shipping containers, I deal with buckthorn (an invasive, no predators woody plant) choking out the trees and forest behidn our property. WHile it's fun to hack down trees, doing it year after year after year is difficult and sometimes frustrating.
A stepping stone to Mars? Perhaps, but this should signal more than that.
Given that we have a better chance to be productive by sending missions, manned or otherwise, to Venus (aerostatic drones or ships in the upper atmosphere) or Titan or Enceladus, is there any hope that for missions like that instead?
It seems that a mission to Mars is simply misguided. Yes, it would be a great achievement. Perhaps I am biased here, but after reading about the subject more, it seems fairly obvious that better long term gains could be made through other types of space missions beside a Mars mission. Mars is in the spotlight, but how hard would it be to shift America's short attention span and inform them that Venus is now the most promising frontier? I hope this madness (?) over a Mars mission will segue into more useful missions on the clock of what I hope is a more intelligently visionary administration. Call me biased, though.
I see that Rackable Systems has finally developed a product that acts in a major television show, produces hip hop albums, and saves the world by talking to a high tech dolphin in one fell swoop. Brilliant!
Here in Chicago they have a "2040 Plan" around urban zoning and transportation, designed to rival what was set up almost a hundred years ago. The old plan got us so great, unique public transit. Do you think we'll see the type of change you described in our lifetime?
I feel there may be more fallout from a media culture than simply lost cognition. I hypothesize that it also lowers our standards for expertise and nuanced professional knowledge as well.
Many actions have a steep acceleration in one's ability to perform/learn them at the beginning, or after an extended period of time away from them. I posit that saying we've "learned" something after only a tiny amount of time with it is a by-product of the same Videogame/TV/instant gratification culture we've grown accustomed to. On the other hand, have we come to expect more from ourselves in a shorter amount of time? Have we taught ourselves to master complex systems in short order? Or are we just lying to ourselves and others in a world where we could constantly be compared to others, and have unrealistic expectations?
In three weeks, you've learned to do something that takes devoted followers a lifetime to master? (meditation) You've learned an entire programming language too? My own experience with instruments has been that time off tends to be a huge benefit. Congratulations, though.
I understand you may mean that you have simply BEGUN to explore these avenues, so forgive me if I have misrepresented your words.
I didn't want to come in here and bash someone's accomplishments, just point out that the key to newfound productivity may lie more in consistency over time, typically learned with maturity. How long does this "reawakening" go for, truly? That's only something each of us can answer for ourselves.
Just some thoughts, I hope none are taken too personally but as helpful criticism instead.
P.S. I was without a TV for 6 months in 2003, and it is the best thing that ever happened to me.
Isn't a laissez-faire attitude what's gotten us into this OS mess in the first place?
I'm not sure that's a fair stance, as there are many shades of gray, but perhaps the pendulum has swung too far in favor of business. As a person in finance, I know I see it all the time. Any opinions from you IT people?
Bill Gates just made that job offer to all the Yahoo engineers. For free.
Reading between the lines, I read, "Hey! Microsoft NEEDS you! You're smart and you work at Yahoo! If you come on over, we need you SO badly that we'll offer you oodles of cash! But this offer won't last long, we might move on without you! If you're on the fence you better make up your mind fast!"
Cheap, free way to woo Yahoo engineers, bring Yahoo down to a price/strength MSFT can handle, and THEN profit. I'm sure Bill is thinking longer term, here, and using this as the carrot to drive Yahoo's donkey right into MSFT's waiting jaws.
Simulation may be one thing, but what about modeling the actual functioning? If I make, say, a computer model of snow flakes, that by no means indicates that it models the complexities of a snow storm.
And what happens if there's a scratch on the disc? That wouldn't hurt a reader's ability to read? I'm interested in knowing how they plan to do error correction here, but maybe I'm just out of the computer biz for too long. Any suggestions?
Alright, saying no one will invest may be an exaggeration, I will give you that. I want to keep this discussion productive, so please don't take offense at my arguments, merely understand that I make my living from educating and helping people and wish to clarify/dispel prejudices, ignorance, and general misunderstanding. However, please feel free to contradict and point out any missteps.
I have a number of issues with this article, I can address that in a minute.
I would first like to cite the article you mention: "In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%"
What level of wealth are we talking here? I want hard numbers that cut this pie into rational pieces. Does that 1% start at 1 million? 10 million? How about assets? Before we can have a reasonable financial discussion, I would prefer harder numbers from something that seems so (pardon the phrase) liberal/populist. My preference is rational numbers and skepticism even with those. Figures don't lie, but liars figure, and it sounds like we migth all be doing/seeing some figuring here.
"...just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%" If they have 84% of the wealth, does it make sense that the market is mostly made up of those people's money? It would stand to reason that they are the people moving the market from day to day, and the ones who would be affected/concerned most by a change in capital gains, and so would move the market should that change occur.
The other 16%? I'm sorry to say it, but your average joe knows next to nothing about finance for a reason: He isn't involved, typically. Whether he should be, or should not be, and other issues are not the point right now (are they?), but I would be very interested in discussing, perhaps elsewhere over email or in another forum, the problem faced by this lack of education, the fleecing of the lower-middle class by investment firms(annuity salesmen many times) and defined contribution providers, the disappearance of defined benefit(pension) plans and the ultimate effect on the blue collar worker.
You make an interesting point about progressive rates, however capital gains *are* progressive right now, in a way. If one is in the 15% or lower tax bracket, capital gains are 5% not 15%. Also, for those in low tax brackets, the government matches money on IRA contributions.
Now, let's just say that Capital gains *did* become progressive. It's not a bad idea on the surface, and I applaud the thought. However, the market is not necessarily what it seems. An individual invests, and many times they will put money into a mutual fund, by themselves or (often, and blindly) through work. That fund manager moves money around, not just the individual investor. Now, I realize that to have an indomitable point here, I would have to dredge up figures on percentages of how much money in the market is in stock and how much of that stock is in mutual funds, but they could skew those figures with closed-end funds, Separately Managed Accounts, and a whole host of other variables. Back to the point, though:
If you make cap gains progressive, and the big boys move money around in an attempt to make money for a fund (there-by making money for the average joe and themselves I'm sure), suddenly those gains of millions of dollars are taxed at a progressively high rate. That gets passed through to the average investor. So, who does it really tax? It still taxes the "little guys". If you want to talk about IRAs and tax deferred money, the fund companies who sponsor those plans would probably just raise their fees to cover things, hurting the little guy.
If we want to talk individual stocks, that is a WHOLE different ball of wax, and we get into diversification vs. return and what, mathematically,
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think those 2chan'ers want to get into a libel suit. I think they're just after his assets, if you know what I mean.
Hm. Sounds like my crazy, controlling ex-girlfriend.
We have CNBC on at the office during the day (I'm a financial Planner) to see what the talking heads are going nuts about. They had Mister Pickens on, who said he had a solution to use natural gas to power everyone's car. He did not detail that solution at all. I call bullshit. This guy is up to something. While it may help the environment somewhat, I know he's got an angle he's working. Is he *really* giving the people what they want, or is he just another scumbag? Yes, I'm cynical, but I would like /.'er input so that I'm not ignorant too.
For the record, I'd like to point out that my girlfriend's roommate is a vegan and eats lots of highly energy-dense foods. She's really ballooned into a chubby little bunny over the last year, all she eats is granola, bread, and peanut butter. It's not just meat-eaters getting fat, it's everybody who is over-eating on the wrong foods. She's also a lesbian, but I'm not sure if that works anywhere into this equation.
This topic seem sto get a lot of play here on Slashdot. Basically, the limits of chemical propellants have been reached. The next step up could be "Nuclear Pulse" engines such as the one developed for Orion. They would allow MUCH larger payloads to be put into orbit, and my understanding is that the number of "bombs" needed do not correlate linearly to the mass of the payload as it increases, allowing for a very efficient, by today's standards, method of travel.
Yeah, but you're not taking into account the Lucas Factor. As long as Spielberg reigned him in (ie kept him on a steady IV drip of valium the whole time) I think there's hope.
While not having to do with shipping containers, I deal with buckthorn (an invasive, no predators woody plant) choking out the trees and forest behidn our property. WHile it's fun to hack down trees, doing it year after year after year is difficult and sometimes frustrating.
If I might poke my 2 cents in. Please, try the 120 Minute. It may be expensive, but I think you'll find it worth your while.
Without CGI, I'll wager there'll be very little steam and not so much punk.
A stepping stone to Mars? Perhaps, but this should signal more than that. Given that we have a better chance to be productive by sending missions, manned or otherwise, to Venus (aerostatic drones or ships in the upper atmosphere) or Titan or Enceladus, is there any hope that for missions like that instead? It seems that a mission to Mars is simply misguided. Yes, it would be a great achievement. Perhaps I am biased here, but after reading about the subject more, it seems fairly obvious that better long term gains could be made through other types of space missions beside a Mars mission. Mars is in the spotlight, but how hard would it be to shift America's short attention span and inform them that Venus is now the most promising frontier? I hope this madness (?) over a Mars mission will segue into more useful missions on the clock of what I hope is a more intelligently visionary administration. Call me biased, though.
I see that Rackable Systems has finally developed a product that acts in a major television show, produces hip hop albums, and saves the world by talking to a high tech dolphin in one fell swoop. Brilliant!
Keep those manos at 10 and 2, Mister!
Seems like a sound assessment.
Any guesses about a time frame?
Here in Chicago they have a "2040 Plan" around urban zoning and transportation, designed to rival what was set up almost a hundred years ago. The old plan got us so great, unique public transit. Do you think we'll see the type of change you described in our lifetime?
Nicholas Kerensky? Was he buried with his Battlemech?
I feel there may be more fallout from a media culture than simply lost cognition. I hypothesize that it also lowers our standards for expertise and nuanced professional knowledge as well.
Many actions have a steep acceleration in one's ability to perform/learn them at the beginning, or after an extended period of time away from them. I posit that saying we've "learned" something after only a tiny amount of time with it is a by-product of the same Videogame/TV/instant gratification culture we've grown accustomed to.
On the other hand, have we come to expect more from ourselves in a shorter amount of time? Have we taught ourselves to master complex systems in short order? Or are we just lying to ourselves and others in a world where we could constantly be compared to others, and have unrealistic expectations?
In three weeks, you've learned to do something that takes devoted followers a lifetime to master? (meditation)
You've learned an entire programming language too?
My own experience with instruments has been that time off tends to be a huge benefit. Congratulations, though.
I understand you may mean that you have simply BEGUN to explore these avenues, so forgive me if I have misrepresented your words.
I didn't want to come in here and bash someone's accomplishments, just point out that the key to newfound productivity may lie more in consistency over time, typically learned with maturity. How long does this "reawakening" go for, truly? That's only something each of us can answer for ourselves.
Just some thoughts, I hope none are taken too personally but as helpful criticism instead.
P.S. I was without a TV for 6 months in 2003, and it is the best thing that ever happened to me.
Isn't a laissez-faire attitude what's gotten us into this OS mess in the first place?
I'm not sure that's a fair stance, as there are many shades of gray, but perhaps the pendulum has swung too far in favor of business. As a person in finance, I know I see it all the time. Any opinions from you IT people?
I unofficially mod this Funny.
Yes, even at the expense of getting hit with an "Off Topic" tag or multiple Idiot Sticks.
Thank you.
What happened? Richard M Nixon, that's what.
Bill Gates just made that job offer to all the Yahoo engineers. For free.
Reading between the lines, I read, "Hey! Microsoft NEEDS you! You're smart and you work at Yahoo! If you come on over, we need you SO badly that we'll offer you oodles of cash! But this offer won't last long, we might move on without you! If you're on the fence you better make up your mind fast!"
Cheap, free way to woo Yahoo engineers, bring Yahoo down to a price/strength MSFT can handle, and THEN profit. I'm sure Bill is thinking longer term, here, and using this as the carrot to drive Yahoo's donkey right into MSFT's waiting jaws.
Just my opinion though.
I guess the sun would sort of shine out of his ass, then, huh?
Simulation may be one thing, but what about modeling the actual functioning? If I make, say, a computer model of snow flakes, that by no means indicates that it models the complexities of a snow storm.
And what happens if there's a scratch on the disc? That wouldn't hurt a reader's ability to read?
I'm interested in knowing how they plan to do error correction here, but maybe I'm just out of the computer biz for too long. Any suggestions?
Alright, saying no one will invest may be an exaggeration, I will give you that. I want to keep this discussion productive, so please don't take offense at my arguments, merely understand that I make my living from educating and helping people and wish to clarify/dispel prejudices, ignorance, and general misunderstanding. However, please feel free to contradict and point out any missteps.
I have a number of issues with this article, I can address that in a minute.
I would first like to cite the article you mention:
"In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%"
What level of wealth are we talking here? I want hard numbers that cut this pie into rational pieces. Does that 1% start at 1 million? 10 million? How about assets? Before we can have a reasonable financial discussion, I would prefer harder numbers from something that seems so (pardon the phrase) liberal/populist. My preference is rational numbers and skepticism even with those. Figures don't lie, but liars figure, and it sounds like we migth all be doing/seeing some figuring here.
"...just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%"
If they have 84% of the wealth, does it make sense that the market is mostly made up of those people's money? It would stand to reason that they are the people moving the market from day to day, and the ones who would be affected/concerned most by a change in capital gains, and so would move the market should that change occur.
The other 16%? I'm sorry to say it, but your average joe knows next to nothing about finance for a reason: He isn't involved, typically. Whether he should be, or should not be, and other issues are not the point right now (are they?), but I would be very interested in discussing, perhaps elsewhere over email or in another forum, the problem faced by this lack of education, the fleecing of the lower-middle class by investment firms(annuity salesmen many times) and defined contribution providers, the disappearance of defined benefit(pension) plans and the ultimate effect on the blue collar worker.
You make an interesting point about progressive rates, however capital gains *are* progressive right now, in a way. If one is in the 15% or lower tax bracket, capital gains are 5% not 15%. Also, for those in low tax brackets, the government matches money on IRA contributions.
Now, let's just say that Capital gains *did* become progressive. It's not a bad idea on the surface, and I applaud the thought. However, the market is not necessarily what it seems. An individual invests, and many times they will put money into a mutual fund, by themselves or (often, and blindly) through work. That fund manager moves money around, not just the individual investor. Now, I realize that to have an indomitable point here, I would have to dredge up figures on percentages of how much money in the market is in stock and how much of that stock is in mutual funds, but they could skew those figures with closed-end funds, Separately Managed Accounts, and a whole host of other variables. Back to the point, though:
If you make cap gains progressive, and the big boys move money around in an attempt to make money for a fund (there-by making money for the average joe and themselves I'm sure), suddenly those gains of millions of dollars are taxed at a progressively high rate. That gets passed through to the average investor. So, who does it really tax? It still taxes the "little guys". If you want to talk about IRAs and tax deferred money, the fund companies who sponsor those plans would probably just raise their fees to cover things, hurting the little guy.
If we want to talk individual stocks, that is a WHOLE different ball of wax, and we get into diversification vs. return and what, mathematically,
No va? I guess it finally did.
I think the science was just a cover-up to find Duke Nukem Forever's original release date.