Yes, but at least there are problems with the "observation". The article doesn't even mention about any attempt at a blind test, least of all randomized double blind test. That is a serious flaw, worthy of tossing out the subjective results reported by human beings completely.
Only chemical analysis of samples is now remaining as a possibility of valid "observation". They can do the double blind tests now - but possibly not enough is left for the purpose.
Suggesting so flippantly... qualifying.... considerations is suggesting
There was a "fortune cookie" in/. a few days ago which said "It is now safe to switch off your computer". Everyone taking this "advice" must have been heavily affected. In what manner do you plan to take up their cause?
It has been "suggested" dozens of times in/. that/dev/null is the perfect backup location. People taking this "advice" are in trillions of times a higher need of your "protection" than the readers of raymorris (2726007).
The entirety of your original post... that just buying up a bunch of diverse stocks and sitting on them for years creates an income
Which my "original post" exactly? My first post on this thread was only about the "where" of generation of the wealth rather than its probability / advisability. I used the example of vegetable market for the purpose.
But you have incorrectly strongly "suggested" that my "original post" had mentioned/implied anything about "income" without any qualification. What do you plan to do with yourself now?
At what time point do you think stocks became completely bad idea as a part of "diversified portfolio of long-term investments" ?
550 words irrelevant to the question
550 words follow your quote of my question, but none of them tell exactly WHEN stock market became completely a bad idea for a "diversified portfolio of long-term investments" ?
Bullshit. Software is a trillion times more "interchangeable" than any industrial age goods. One copy of software that much more reliably interchangeable with another copy of the same software than one product of industrial goods from the same factory to another.
That's in a diversified portfolio of long-term investments, a fairly reliable income.
A "diversified portfolio of long-term investments" is nothing. It's not a reliable income, it's not a reliable strategy
But nobody said it is a strategy. Nobody even said the investments must all be in equity all the time. Windmills that you perceive to be giant warriors. Why must every statement on/. be a strategy? It can be a part of a strategy, or not a strategy at all.
The suggestion that you *should* be investing if you're not a skilled, well-versed, highly-competent investor implies that money is generated in the market.
In spite of recently becoming a well-versed student of horticulture, how can you still assume this? Desirable stuff need not be generated at the place where it is acquired. There is a lot of stealing in the vegetable market - gourds the dealer knows to possess worms within are sold at "high" prices. Yet vegetables remain PART of most good nutrition strategies.
You don't have to outright say a thing to *say* a thing. Smoking...
You don't have to outright *send* giant warriors to fight you. Just erecting windmills is enough for you to mistake them for giant warriors and start fighting them.
and historically has lead people to believe smoking would make them healthy, happy, relaxed,...... it sure sounds like money just pours out of the stock market as long as you're "diversified
There was a time in 18th century when it was the considered opinion of many influential members of society that tobacco is good for health. Later research proved them wrong.
At what time point do you think stocks became completely bad idea as a part of "diversified portfolio of long-term investments" ?
Or, in short: it's not a way to make sure you have a steady upward gain
Nobody said it is a way to make sure you have a steady upward gain. But that in itself is no reason to not participate in stock market - or if it is, you don't show how in your longish replies to my short posts.
All in all, the whole of this doesn't suggest diversification is a way to maximize profits
Nobody said "diversification is a way to maximize profits" either.
Similarly, earlier you said
Dogma, most often repeated to dazzle small fish into thinking the stock market is a place where money is generated, instead of stolen
Nobody said it is a place where money is generated, instead of stolen.
But like vegetables are not grown in vegetable market but yet it might make sense to buy them in vegetable market, just because money isn't generated in the stock market doesn't mean it is not a good idea to buy stocks in the stock market.
Other points have been discussed replies from others, I just want to chime in about "big" dogs. Most small dog species are mentally retarded - so if you're getting a dog for intelligent company, you don't get much choice than big dogs.
Some big dogs can be dumb, and some small dogs can be smart but big ones on an average are smarter by some margin.
Dogma, most often repeated to dazzle small fish into thinking the stock market is a place where money is generated, instead of stolen
No one said that. And "Small fish" might also think that a vegetable market is a place where vegetables are grown. They would be as wrong as "small fish" who think that "stock market is a place where money is generated".
The company backing the stock is what might generate the money - stock is just a part representation of it. In the process of conversion/division of companies into stocks, and the sale/exchange process of course has some stealing as well as inefficiencies.
it is the Unix way that is preventing it from going further
So you are saying any violation of the Unix philosophy will make it "go further"? Probably not, but if yes, I give up on you.
If no, are you saying linux kernel, or other "good" non-systemd things never violate the unix philosophy? If so, you are wrong. ZFS, and Btrfs violate the Unix philosophy quite spectacularly by merging filesystem, LVM, checksum etc. into one monolithic piece. Linus himself was against this initially (especially in the context of encryption), but he has come to terms with reality. Looked at very narrowly, emacs is a violation of the Unix philosophy because of being large, complex and multi-functional. But there are good reasons for those violations.
So smart violation of Unix philosophy is already underway. The remaining argument is about whether systemd stuff is violating Unix philosophy in a smart or a dumb way. Let us define smart to be something that improves the software rather than increase profits of a company while making lives of users/customers/administrators miserable.
I don't see an argument from you about how systemd kind of violation of Unix philosophy is a smart. If not, systemd's existence itself could be the "crime" here.
He had a mouthful to say to Poettering and rest of the systemd committers when they contributed code to the kernel. They were even banned from contributing to kernel, if I remember correctly.
Linus doesn't and shouldn't interfere with things out of his scope - systemd is emphatically outside of his scope. Kernel and git are definitely within his scope and he hasn't minced words to defend them.
Flinging poo at systemd is like yelling "get a horse!" when seeing a car, back in the 1900s. True at the moment, but in time proven to be shortsighted.
Do you have credible proof that it will be proven to be shortsighted? If not, you might want to say the following, much less exciting statement:
"Flinging poo at systemd might be like yelling "get a horse!" when seeing a car"
Or do you believe in proof by analogy? By this proof methodology, you could have proven in 1944 that there won't be any nuclear bomb explosion next year, because a nuclear bomb is like the proof of Fermat's last theorem - it hasn't been built yet and won't be by next year.
However I am happy to report that my large herds of Linux boxes are much happier
When I run *NIX, it is not for the happiness of the machines, but for the happiness of the users and owners. That is a critical difference between *NIX and non-*NIX.
But the thumbrule for criminal law is "beyond reasonable doubt". Once we "think" people "are going to commit a crime" "beyond reasonable doubt", then it might happen. Not yet.
Like-for-like, a comparable Dell comes in at around 60-80% of a new MBP
That is if you start with an MBP. If you start with Dell - cheapest 16 GB business Dell Laptop (i5558-8574SLV) sells for $859 on Newegg. NOW try to get MBP that matches it - cheapest MBP with 16 GB RAM is $1799 on Apple's website ($1889 on Newegg so ignoring that).
Dell ends up costing 47% of MBP, in other words, less than half.
Chose memory for two reasons - 1./. story is about memory. 2. Increasing tendency of Apple to solder memory.
For example, do you include clothing weight? If so, expect passengers to start stripping when they are on the borderline of a cheaper weight bracket. Like boxers do.
If they intend to carry along the stripped clothes, it counts as luggage and the charge should be almost[1] the same as if it were on their bodies.
If they don't intend to carry along the clothes, airport might charge them for waste disposal if it is a huge tonnage of clothing but otherwise not a problem.
As far as naked people making others uncomfortable, this problem pops up even without charging people for weight, so neither surprising nor insoluble nor unheard of in the service industries.
[1] Luggage can be slightly cheaper than live human bodies because it is easier to tie down and distribute. Luggage also doesn't shout when it is separated from its "friends and family" to adjust center of mass of the aircraft.
Charging for weight may not be discrimination. Most restaurants already charge extra for people who eat more. The others, the all-you-can-eat buffets, "discriminate" against anorexics by charging same for any amount of food eaten. Hell, hospitals charge ONLY the people who get sick - no hospital ever charged me for being healthy, but many of them charged me for being unhealthy.
It is even less likely to be considered discrimination if the price is fixed price + (weight in pounds)*(few cents).
Currently airlines are afraid to charge for weight because then wider people will start demanding their full quota of space. Charge for weight would justify their girth, at least in their own opinions. Separate charge for width is complicated to explain to users, and aircraft seating configuration is not easy to change for a single flight.
google isn't for you. don't use it. stop complaining that it doesn't meet your anachronistic principles
It is noteworthy that it is an article about the failure of Google+, not that of Kunedog. So it was arguably Google+ that had anachronistic (or otherwise irrelevant) principles.
CfC successfully raised the anchor of the price a used car should command. It takes time for an anchor to lose effect even if its cause is no longer in force.
After some major disasters, airline disaster begged the governments to regulate them so that users could trust them again. Otherwise in "free market" there is no way new airlines can be blocked from taking some risks with users' safety for saving a few bucks and thus scare users into avoiding ALL airlines.
Advertisers know there are bad apples in the lot, their own brethren. They don't do anything to protect the user. So they are distrusted. So Adblock.
If they want to get back into users' trust, it is their job to figure out how. But taking a leaf out of airlines' book would at least be considered an attempt to win back trust.
Before you dismiss these as dissimilar cases, think this. Use of a typical advertisement poses a lot less risk than an airline - chance of computer infection vs dying in a fireball. Discontinuation of the use of an advertisement is also a lot easier than that of an airline - installing adblock once vs travelling 5-10 times slower. The ratio of "ease of avoidance" vs "value" is not very different between airlines and advertisements.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice article you've written there, but it doesn't even address any of my questions. Do you read a post before replying?
I'll restate my questions out of context, you can go back to search the context if you want:
0 . "In what manner do you plan to take up their cause?"
1. "Which my "original post" exactly?"
2. "exactly WHEN stock market became completely a bad idea for a "diversified portfolio of long-term investments" ?"
And just FYI, I am asking these questions literally, not implying anything else by asking these questions.
Yes, but at least there are problems with the "observation". The article doesn't even mention about any attempt at a blind test, least of all randomized double blind test. That is a serious flaw, worthy of tossing out the subjective results reported by human beings completely.
Only chemical analysis of samples is now remaining as a possibility of valid "observation". They can do the double blind tests now - but possibly not enough is left for the purpose.
Suggesting so flippantly ... qualifying .... considerations is suggesting
There was a "fortune cookie" in /. a few days ago which said "It is now safe to switch off your computer". Everyone taking this "advice" must have been heavily affected. In what manner do you plan to take up their cause?
It has been "suggested" dozens of times in /. that /dev/null is the perfect backup location. People taking this "advice" are in trillions of times a higher need of your "protection" than the readers of raymorris (2726007).
The entirety of your original post ... that just buying up a bunch of diverse stocks and sitting on them for years creates an income
Which my "original post" exactly? My first post on this thread was only about the "where" of generation of the wealth rather than its probability / advisability. I used the example of vegetable market for the purpose.
But you have incorrectly strongly "suggested" that my "original post" had mentioned/implied anything about "income" without any qualification. What do you plan to do with yourself now?
At what time point do you think stocks became completely bad idea as a part of "diversified portfolio of long-term investments" ?
550 words irrelevant to the question
550 words follow your quote of my question, but none of them tell exactly WHEN stock market became completely a bad idea for a "diversified portfolio of long-term investments" ?
Bullshit. Software is a trillion times more "interchangeable" than any industrial age goods. One copy of software that much more reliably interchangeable with another copy of the same software than one product of industrial goods from the same factory to another.
That's in a diversified portfolio of long-term investments, a fairly reliable income.
A "diversified portfolio of long-term investments" is nothing. It's not a reliable income, it's not a reliable strategy
But nobody said it is a strategy. Nobody even said the investments must all be in equity all the time. Windmills that you perceive to be giant warriors. Why must every statement on /. be a strategy? It can be a part of a strategy, or not a strategy at all.
The suggestion that you *should* be investing if you're not a skilled, well-versed, highly-competent investor implies that money is generated in the market.
In spite of recently becoming a well-versed student of horticulture, how can you still assume this? Desirable stuff need not be generated at the place where it is acquired. There is a lot of stealing in the vegetable market - gourds the dealer knows to possess worms within are sold at "high" prices. Yet vegetables remain PART of most good nutrition strategies.
You don't have to outright say a thing to *say* a thing. Smoking ...
You don't have to outright *send* giant warriors to fight you. Just erecting windmills is enough for you to mistake them for giant warriors and start fighting them.
and historically has lead people to believe smoking would make them healthy, happy, relaxed, ...... it sure sounds like money just pours out of the stock market as long as you're "diversified
There was a time in 18th century when it was the considered opinion of many influential members of society that tobacco is good for health. Later research proved them wrong.
At what time point do you think stocks became completely bad idea as a part of "diversified portfolio of long-term investments" ?
You are fighting windmills.
Or, in short: it's not a way to make sure you have a steady upward gain
Nobody said it is a way to make sure you have a steady upward gain. But that in itself is no reason to not participate in stock market - or if it is, you don't show how in your longish replies to my short posts.
All in all, the whole of this doesn't suggest diversification is a way to maximize profits
Nobody said "diversification is a way to maximize profits" either.
Similarly, earlier you said
Dogma, most often repeated to dazzle small fish into thinking the stock market is a place where money is generated, instead of stolen
Nobody said it is a place where money is generated, instead of stolen.
But like vegetables are not grown in vegetable market but yet it might make sense to buy them in vegetable market, just because money isn't generated in the stock market doesn't mean it is not a good idea to buy stocks in the stock market.
Yet buying vegetables can be a good idea.
Yes. Vegetables bought and sold in vegetable market are not typically grown in the vegetable market.
Other points have been discussed replies from others, I just want to chime in about "big" dogs. Most small dog species are mentally retarded - so if you're getting a dog for intelligent company, you don't get much choice than big dogs.
Some big dogs can be dumb, and some small dogs can be smart but big ones on an average are smarter by some margin.
Dogma, most often repeated to dazzle small fish into thinking the stock market is a place where money is generated, instead of stolen
No one said that. And "Small fish" might also think that a vegetable market is a place where vegetables are grown. They would be as wrong as "small fish" who think that "stock market is a place where money is generated".
The company backing the stock is what might generate the money - stock is just a part representation of it. In the process of conversion/division of companies into stocks, and the sale/exchange process of course has some stealing as well as inefficiencies.
it is the Unix way that is preventing it from going further
So you are saying any violation of the Unix philosophy will make it "go further"? Probably not, but if yes, I give up on you.
If no, are you saying linux kernel, or other "good" non-systemd things never violate the unix philosophy? If so, you are wrong. ZFS, and Btrfs violate the Unix philosophy quite spectacularly by merging filesystem, LVM, checksum etc. into one monolithic piece. Linus himself was against this initially (especially in the context of encryption), but he has come to terms with reality. Looked at very narrowly, emacs is a violation of the Unix philosophy because of being large, complex and multi-functional. But there are good reasons for those violations.
So smart violation of Unix philosophy is already underway. The remaining argument is about whether systemd stuff is violating Unix philosophy in a smart or a dumb way. Let us define smart to be something that improves the software rather than increase profits of a company while making lives of users/customers/administrators miserable.
I don't see an argument from you about how systemd kind of violation of Unix philosophy is a smart. If not, systemd's existence itself could be the "crime" here.
He had a mouthful to say to Poettering and rest of the systemd committers when they contributed code to the kernel. They were even banned from contributing to kernel, if I remember correctly.
Linus doesn't and shouldn't interfere with things out of his scope - systemd is emphatically outside of his scope. Kernel and git are definitely within his scope and he hasn't minced words to defend them.
Flinging poo at systemd is like yelling "get a horse!" when seeing a car, back in the 1900s. True at the moment, but in time proven to be shortsighted.
Do you have credible proof that it will be proven to be shortsighted? If not, you might want to say the following, much less exciting statement:
"Flinging poo at systemd might be like yelling "get a horse!" when seeing a car"
Or do you believe in proof by analogy? By this proof methodology, you could have proven in 1944 that there won't be any nuclear bomb explosion next year, because a nuclear bomb is like the proof of Fermat's last theorem - it hasn't been built yet and won't be by next year.
However I am happy to report that my large herds of Linux boxes are much happier
When I run *NIX, it is not for the happiness of the machines, but for the happiness of the users and owners. That is a critical difference between *NIX and non-*NIX.
But the thumbrule for criminal law is "beyond reasonable doubt". Once we "think" people "are going to commit a crime" "beyond reasonable doubt", then it might happen. Not yet.
Like-for-like, a comparable Dell comes in at around 60-80% of a new MBP
That is if you start with an MBP. If you start with Dell - cheapest 16 GB business Dell Laptop (i5558-8574SLV) sells for $859 on Newegg. NOW try to get MBP that matches it - cheapest MBP with 16 GB RAM is $1799 on Apple's website ($1889 on Newegg so ignoring that).
Dell ends up costing 47% of MBP, in other words, less than half.
Chose memory for two reasons - /. story is about memory.
1.
2. Increasing tendency of Apple to solder memory.
For example, do you include clothing weight? If so, expect passengers to start stripping when they are on the borderline of a cheaper weight bracket. Like boxers do.
If they intend to carry along the stripped clothes, it counts as luggage and the charge should be almost[1] the same as if it were on their bodies.
If they don't intend to carry along the clothes, airport might charge them for waste disposal if it is a huge tonnage of clothing but otherwise not a problem.
As far as naked people making others uncomfortable, this problem pops up even without charging people for weight, so neither surprising nor insoluble nor unheard of in the service industries.
[1] Luggage can be slightly cheaper than live human bodies because it is easier to tie down and distribute. Luggage also doesn't shout when it is separated from its "friends and family" to adjust center of mass of the aircraft.
Charging for weight may not be discrimination. Most restaurants already charge extra for people who eat more. The others, the all-you-can-eat buffets, "discriminate" against anorexics by charging same for any amount of food eaten. Hell, hospitals charge ONLY the people who get sick - no hospital ever charged me for being healthy, but many of them charged me for being unhealthy.
It is even less likely to be considered discrimination if the price is fixed price + (weight in pounds)*(few cents).
Currently airlines are afraid to charge for weight because then wider people will start demanding their full quota of space. Charge for weight would justify their girth, at least in their own opinions. Separate charge for width is complicated to explain to users, and aircraft seating configuration is not easy to change for a single flight.
Is that a question?
google isn't for you. don't use it. stop complaining that it doesn't meet your anachronistic principles
It is noteworthy that it is an article about the failure of Google+, not that of Kunedog. So it was arguably Google+ that had anachronistic (or otherwise irrelevant) principles.
Oil the hinge of the needle of your scale.
CfC successfully raised the anchor of the price a used car should command. It takes time for an anchor to lose effect even if its cause is no longer in force.
After some major disasters, airline disaster begged the governments to regulate them so that users could trust them again. Otherwise in "free market" there is no way new airlines can be blocked from taking some risks with users' safety for saving a few bucks and thus scare users into avoiding ALL airlines.
Advertisers know there are bad apples in the lot, their own brethren. They don't do anything to protect the user. So they are distrusted. So Adblock.
If they want to get back into users' trust, it is their job to figure out how. But taking a leaf out of airlines' book would at least be considered an attempt to win back trust.
Before you dismiss these as dissimilar cases, think this.
Use of a typical advertisement poses a lot less risk than an airline - chance of computer infection vs dying in a fireball. Discontinuation of the use of an advertisement is also a lot easier than that of an airline - installing adblock once vs travelling 5-10 times slower. The ratio of "ease of avoidance" vs "value" is not very different between airlines and advertisements.
'nuff said
Then let the people who want to create angst and false drama create angst and false drama. Why the angst and false drama from you?
It is simple concept, really.