You use the words "average investor" and "short term" together. Perhaps you (and many others) are unclear on this investing concept.
Better terms:
Interested in the short term = speculator
This would also include people who short stock (SCO comes to mind) and a heck of a lot of the information given out as "investment" advice.
Interested in the long term = investor
I find it hard to believe an investor would buy stock in google's IPO. IPO's tend to be bad investments (they lose value over time). A speculator, or one who hopes to make a quick buck, might.
It's good that the river is diluting the waste. Because there is not much we can do about the groundwater pollution entering the river (last I heard). Sure, you could pump it out but then you would have to treat the radioactive water in some manner...
As a hydrogeologist, the current and probably best solution appears to be no action. The alternative is worse. Just prevent any further leaks. Sometimes the solution to pollution IS dilution...
Pretty good summary of the problems in a nutshell.
We can make a SWAG (scientific wild a@@ guess) about rate of leakage and where it will go (it IS a guess, after all, 10k + years is a LONG time). We should assume the watershed will be contaminated-not much point making a 10k year model, just condemn the whole friggin' watershed and leave it at that, it's cheaper too (this was suggested by another hydrogeologist that I know)....
Can't do much about some poor schmuck drilling into the formation in 500 years. I would say too bad. It sucks, but that's life. Anything we do to warn off people will probably attract them....
Of course, maybe a volcano will decide it likes Yucca mountain, a massive earthquake will occur, etc. We can do a lot, but in the end it will leak. We don't know when. We can't stop it.
So it is ultimately a political issue. After all, if WE don't expect to be around then, with knowledge of this site, I think we have much more important things to worry about than some nasty radioactive waste we placed deep underground in a sparsely populated desert near a nuclear test site....
"Usually the car scores higher in the IQS(initial quality study), preforms better in long-trem depebility study as well."
I think the key word here is ususally. Granted, if it sucks in the beginning, it isn't going to get any better. But just because something is put together well to begin with doesn't mean it won't fall apart later... Many problems take time to develop. I think the German cars will be around longer than the Korean ones (for one, they cost more = more likely to be repaired, maintained, etc.) Granted, some of them might need a new electrical system....
Not that JDpower's ratings are very useful in my opinion. You create enough categories, it's hard not to win one of them.....
Well, considering the first cars they imported to the US were unmitigated POS, it would be reasonable to have looked down upon them. Their reputation suffered greatly. I'm sure their current cars are better. How much better however? Frankly, I am not too concerned about what happens to a car in the first 10 years or 100K miles. Any good car should hold up with low repair costs in that time frame. It is what happens after that which defines real quality....
One of the reasons for the long warranty is to combat their poor image (their cars may or may not be really good, but if no one buys them you can't make any money, so the warranty is just a cost of doing business...) However, having seen their first generation of cars, I will never buy one. Becasue if they sold what they knew was crap once (and they DID know it), there is no reason they wouldn't do it again.
I have even seen them dispense four pieces of paper instead of 4 $20 bills. Someone at the bank used paper spaces at the back of the tray on an ancient IBM ATM. Money ran out and the vacuum pickers started to grab the paper spacers (they were taped together but the tape was old...). Most were rejected, but not all....
Felt sorry for the guy (I was servicing the machine on a Sunday morning at the time) but there was nothing I could do (did tape the paper to the back of the machine and wrote the bank a note....). Not the brightest thing for the bank personnel to do, but they generally knew nothing about their machines...
God, those IBM machines were evil. Every time the power went out, we got to spend an hour baby-sitting them trying to get them to come back up (well, an hour if we were lucky). Flip these dials and switches, call the data center, repeat, repeat, repeat....
Interesting that your bank still uses $5 bills. I always hated servicing them-those bills almost always had a lot of wear and jammed more easily (of course more calls = more money). But $20 is commonly used for simplicity I think (also lasts longer at heavily used ATM's-replenishment by armored car costs money).
Total money withdrawn from an ATM generally depends upon limits set by your bank.
Of course, only so many bills will fit in the belts reliably without jamming, so there may be other hard coded limits.
Very easy for the US. Oh, you don't get the bills mixed up. You just load the bills into the wrong cassette. The cassette is hard coded (basically jumpers or other means) for a certain denomination. If the ATM sees a $10 cassette, it assumes $10 bills are in the cassette (the machine is "dumb"-it can't determine the denomination of the bills by itself). Some other (older) machines have trays, so you just mix the wrong denominations.... It may have changed over the years, it has been a while since I have serviced them....
Sure, you can get more channels or papers. So what. His (Turner's) point is that there is little difference between them. The same major networks that existed in the past own most of the "new" channels or papers. Second, they don't really compete, heck they often have the same news sources. Finally, if they aren't interested in a story, it isn't news-so how are people going to find out about it (not people like you or me, the general public-the public that decides things like policies through elections....)
Heck, you made his point when you stated "You want to talk about sameness of opinion and bland pablum, you really should go back and look at recent history. In broadcast, you got a half-hour of national news, a half-hour of local news, all presented at identical times with almost no variation among them."
What was your point again? Perhaps you should read the article....
"Who cares who owns what when you can always find someone willing to report the other side of the story?"
You've got to be kidding. I am not interested in "the other side of the story" which may be just as slanted. I am interested in an accurate story (realizing that all reporting is biased) so that I can make up MY mind. Two misleading stories about the same event isn't going to enable someone to make accurate decisions.
Secondly, while YOU may be able to find alternate news, most people may not. If the mainstream media doesn't compete for accuracy, most people will be misinformed. This is bad for those of us who are informed. Remember, you get the government/society not that YOU deserve but that MOST of the people deserve. The last thing I want is MORE uniformed/misinformed people.
The problem is "state rights" as currently practiced:
Government mandates something and states have the right to pay for it:)
Re:Changed the view of the US? - REAGAN spent???
on
Bobby Fischer Found
·
· Score: 1
Uh, huh. Time to feed a troll...
And the poor guy just had no choice but to sign the budget... Oh, and if you SIGN the budget, you do APPROVE it. In other words, Reagan (and Bush) APPROVED all of those budgets.
Oh, and lowering tax rates did not double tax revenues within a few years (unless of course your few years is different than mine..). Fiscal year revenue for the government in 1981 (current dollars) was about 599 million. In 1989, 991 million. You do the math.
In other words, you are wrong. But remember kids, never let the facts get in the way of your beliefs.
Look, people may be creative and willing to learn, some of the time. But this takes effort. The vast majority of people aren't very creative and don't learn much most of the time. If you don't believe this, take a look around, talk to people. See how creative they are or try to educate them. It is hard. We tend to cling to our beliefs/ways of doing things even in the face of new evidence.
"Balancing your check book using Excel is a simulation."
So, how many people do this manually? So, if they aren't willing to do it manually, how could a computer possible make it easier? It really can't. If you define using Excel to balance a checkbook arcane knowledge, I disagree. It implies a basic unwillingness to balance the checkbook (see above) coupled with an unwillingness to LEARN a BASIC computer skill. This is a simple operation (simulation in your view), that is typically done without computers, but could be done with them. So the previous poster's comment that most people hate to learn is wrong how?
All I can say is this, if creativity and learning were common, I wouldn't see job postings requiring basic computer skills from people with BS/MS degrees (Word/Excel) in technical fields. I wouldn't see postings indicating a willingness to learn new things is required. That should be expected of any position, especially one requiring a degree. The fact that those statements exist imply that highly educated people, who ought to be creative and have a desire to learn, don't. I assume if it is rare or unusual in highly educated people, it is probably rare or unusual in the rest of the population
So, how is watching a television show being creative? Creativity implies creating things. As bad as many TV shows are, I can accept that those who make them are being creative but when I am watching them, that is not creativity.
Also, as far as I am concerned, creativity requires a desire to learn. Children certainly have it, but it seems to be lost somewhere in childhood to a lot of people. Case in point, 5th graders ask more/better questions about geology than do students taking intro college level courses in geology (in my experience). The grade schoolers want to learn, the college students for the most part, aren't interested.
If college level students aren't interested in knowledge (which I believe is part of creativity) then I find it hard to believe the vast majority of the population is any different. Being creative is hard work, while doing it by the numbers (being passive) is much less so. I would say it is a safe assumption then that most people are not creative most of the time.
"Democracy... A system of government whereby the people get the rulers they deserve."
Problem is, as others have stated before me, that even if I am an informed voter (most probably aren't), inevitably I will get the rulers other people deserve too:)
"Want to fix the real problem? Use Approval voting or a ranked method like Condorcet."
Talk about a solution in search of a problem.
No, the real problem was poor ballots (and poor voter practices magnified by poor ballots), of which hanging chads were the symptom (as you noted). Proper ballots (maybe the type you mark on, then have optically scanned in your presence) would cure the hanging chad problem and voting for more than one candidate.
Of course, even punch ballots work properly IF you have strict rules about 1) what is a vote and 2) you don't create crappy ballots. Neither was true in Florida..
A third party candidate (or fourth or fifth) cannot "throw" the election. Unless they commit fraud. For better or worse, we generally have a winner take all system for electoral votes in a particular state (exceptions apply...). If you wanted real controversy, read about the elections that were decided by Congress (no candidate had the required electoral votes).
Only a fool would suggest we change our voting system (gee, I wonder what unintended consequences there will be...) over a problem that can be solved using the existing system.
"2) Apple's culture has never been to make something cheap at the expense of making it good. I think this shows greatly in their products."
Huh? So they never made anything that say oh developed cracks in the case for instance? Personally, their inexpensive laptops feel extremely flimsy (they may not be in reality of course) when I hold them. Sure, they look nice to many people.
Don't kid yourself, they will make something as cheap as possible-but attempt to make it stylish. Apple does not make their own products-they are made by the same manufacturers that make other PC parts. The components are not any higher end than mass market PC's.
"but I don't expect to see someone topless on a public bus or a 4th of july parade."
Why not? In Columbus, Ohio, it is legal to go topless. 4th of July parade is a public event (granted probably not in the parade itself-but you didn't say that). Wouldn't be surprised to see someone there topless... But topless and a very brief appearance of a nipple (that was difficult to see unless you watched the repeated clips of that particular moment....) isn't the same thing
Sure the nipple thing was probably done for shock value, but so are a lot of things on TV (shows, sports, news, etc.).
And why, pray tell, would the brief showing of a nipple be so out of character for a Superbowl half time show (or any football halftime show)? Cheerleaders at those events may have athletic talent but they are there for their sex appeal (read T and A) first and foremost.
You have unusual expectations (from my experience and point of view-and I have hardly lived a wild life). Maybe you should get out more and see what the world is really like....
I wasn't implying that you cheated on taxes, sorry if it came across that way.
Just making the statement that if you are going to aggressively claim things, you ought to be able to support your position. Because if you can't, it invites the IRS to go over your tax return with a fine tooth comb (and those past years returns too....) THAT can't be pleasant.
I mean why give the government money that you are entitled to keep just because you MIGHT get audited (a rare occurrence).
As long as it is a valid deduction, claim it. If you don't want to potentially spend the time an audit could possibly take, at least that I could see. But the first request will be for documentation (which you have, right?) only. If you are organized the audit should be quick-if it even gets that far. Or, pay a few bucks and have a professional do it.
Unless of course you ARE cheating on your taxes... Then, maybe you don't want to raise many red flags:)
Well, there was an interview with more information. You did have to dig a little further for it though.
I didn't get the impression that they were going to be selling individual TRACKS though. Less common CD's (uncommon artists and the older groups that can't sell records anymore-they mentioned the Eagles and Elton John in this category!?!).
As near as I can tell, you could listen to music, then buy the CD, just that it would be burned locally. Nothing special. The CD would probably have all the protection any standard CD would have... Free money for the industry, more money for Starbucks (maybe some profit from the sales, definitely profit from additional coffee sales...)
Why would it wreck the RIAA (which is the lobby group for the record industry, BTW)?
From reading the interview (yeah, I know, click on the links to get more info, what the heck is THAT all about?) it sounds like free money. All they (Starbucks) will be doing is selling CD's from artists that don't get a lot of top-40 play. To people who might not buy the stuff anyway. Basically it will be FREE targeted marketing (by Starbucks) for the industry (these will be industry bands).
Slashdot Mirror
You use the words "average investor" and "short term" together. Perhaps you (and many others) are unclear on this investing concept.
Better terms:
Interested in the short term = speculator
This would also include people who short stock (SCO comes to mind) and a heck of a lot of the information given out as "investment" advice.
Interested in the long term = investor
I find it hard to believe an investor would buy stock in google's IPO. IPO's tend to be bad investments (they lose value over time). A speculator, or one who hopes to make a quick buck, might.
Don't worry about eating fish. It appears an excellent job has been done destroying the fish stocks (especially salmon) :)
:)
Mainly due to the dams that enable irrigation and transportation
It's good that the river is diluting the waste. Because there is not much we can do about the groundwater pollution entering the river (last I heard). Sure, you could pump it out but then you would have to treat the radioactive water in some manner...
As a hydrogeologist, the current and probably best solution appears to be no action. The alternative is worse. Just prevent any further leaks. Sometimes the solution to pollution IS dilution...
I am also a hydrogeologist.
Pretty good summary of the problems in a nutshell.
We can make a SWAG (scientific wild a@@ guess) about rate of leakage and where it will go (it IS a guess, after all, 10k + years is a LONG time). We should assume the watershed will be contaminated-not much point making a 10k year model, just condemn the whole friggin' watershed and leave it at that, it's cheaper too (this was suggested by another hydrogeologist that I know)....
Can't do much about some poor schmuck drilling into the formation in 500 years. I would say too bad. It sucks, but that's life. Anything we do to warn off people will probably attract them....
Of course, maybe a volcano will decide it likes Yucca mountain, a massive earthquake will occur, etc. We can do a lot, but in the end it will leak. We don't know when. We can't stop it.
So it is ultimately a political issue. After all, if WE don't expect to be around then, with knowledge of this site, I think we have much more important things to worry about than some nasty radioactive waste we placed deep underground in a sparsely populated desert near a nuclear test site....
"Usually the car scores higher in the IQS(initial quality study), preforms better in long-trem depebility study as well."
I think the key word here is ususally. Granted, if it sucks in the beginning, it isn't going to get any better. But just because something is put together well to begin with doesn't mean it won't fall apart later... Many problems take time to develop. I think the German cars will be around longer than the Korean ones (for one, they cost more = more likely to be repaired, maintained, etc.) Granted, some of them might need a new electrical system....
Not that JDpower's ratings are very useful in my opinion. You create enough categories, it's hard not to win one of them.....
Well, considering the first cars they imported to the US were unmitigated POS, it would be reasonable to have looked down upon them. Their reputation suffered greatly. I'm sure their current cars are better. How much better however? Frankly, I am not too concerned about what happens to a car in the first 10 years or 100K miles. Any good car should hold up with low repair costs in that time frame. It is what happens after that which defines real quality....
One of the reasons for the long warranty is to combat their poor image (their cars may or may not be really good, but if no one buys them you can't make any money, so the warranty is just a cost of doing business...) However, having seen their first generation of cars, I will never buy one. Becasue if they sold what they knew was crap once (and they DID know it), there is no reason they wouldn't do it again.
Some comments.
:)
1. True. I would say "all". Responses are generally fast enough-learned from triggering many alarms while servicing them. I'll leave it at that.
2. Interesting. Never seen one like that. Of course my data is about nine years old now. Think I will just leave it at that....
3. True. Of course, you probably couldn't lift one by hand. They tend to be HEAVY. So most just attach it to the truck and drive off
They also tend to be attached to something solid (like the floor-with a cable).
I have even seen them dispense four pieces of paper instead of 4 $20 bills. Someone at the bank used paper spaces at the back of the tray on an ancient IBM ATM. Money ran out and the vacuum pickers started to grab the paper spacers (they were taped together but the tape was old...). Most were rejected, but not all....
Felt sorry for the guy (I was servicing the machine on a Sunday morning at the time) but there was nothing I could do (did tape the paper to the back of the machine and wrote the bank a note....). Not the brightest thing for the bank personnel to do, but they generally knew nothing about their machines...
God, those IBM machines were evil. Every time the power went out, we got to spend an hour baby-sitting them trying to get them to come back up (well, an hour if we were lucky). Flip these dials and switches, call the data center, repeat, repeat, repeat....
Interesting that your bank still uses $5 bills. I always hated servicing them-those bills almost always had a lot of wear and jammed more easily (of course more calls = more money). But $20 is commonly used for simplicity I think (also lasts longer at heavily used ATM's-replenishment by armored car costs money).
Total money withdrawn from an ATM generally depends upon limits set by your bank.
Of course, only so many bills will fit in the belts reliably without jamming, so there may be other hard coded limits.
Very easy for the US. Oh, you don't get the bills mixed up. You just load the bills into the wrong cassette. The cassette is hard coded (basically jumpers or other means) for a certain denomination. If the ATM sees a $10 cassette, it assumes $10 bills are in the cassette (the machine is "dumb"-it can't determine the denomination of the bills by itself). Some other (older) machines have trays, so you just mix the wrong denominations....
It may have changed over the years, it has been a while since I have serviced them....
Nitpick alert. That would be Bison. Buffalo ARE extinct.
Sure, you can get more channels or papers. So what. His (Turner's) point is that there is little difference between them. The same major networks that existed in the past own most of the "new" channels or papers. Second, they don't really compete, heck they often have the same news sources. Finally, if they aren't interested in a story, it isn't news-so how are people going to find out about it (not people like you or me, the general public-the public that decides things like policies through elections....)
Heck, you made his point when you stated "You want to talk about sameness of opinion and bland pablum, you really should go back and look at recent history. In broadcast, you got a half-hour of national news, a half-hour of local news, all presented at identical times with almost no variation among them."
What was your point again? Perhaps you should read the article....
"Who cares who owns what when you can always find someone willing to report the other side of the story?"
You've got to be kidding. I am not interested in "the other side of the story" which may be just as slanted. I am interested in an accurate story (realizing that all reporting is biased) so that I can make up MY mind. Two misleading stories about the same event isn't going to enable someone to make accurate decisions.
Secondly, while YOU may be able to find alternate news, most people may not. If the mainstream media doesn't compete for accuracy, most people will be misinformed. This is bad for those of us who are informed. Remember, you get the government/society not that YOU deserve but that MOST of the people deserve. The last thing I want is MORE uniformed/misinformed people.
The problem is "state rights" as currently practiced:
:)
Government mandates something and states have the right to pay for it
Uh, huh. Time to feed a troll...
And the poor guy just had no choice but to sign the budget... Oh, and if you SIGN the budget, you do APPROVE it. In other words, Reagan (and Bush) APPROVED all of those budgets.
Oh, and lowering tax rates did not double tax revenues within a few years (unless of course your few years is different than mine..). Fiscal year revenue for the government in 1981 (current dollars) was about 599 million. In 1989, 991 million. You do the math.
In other words, you are wrong. But remember kids, never let the facts get in the way of your beliefs.
Look, people may be creative and willing to learn, some of the time. But this takes effort. The vast majority of people aren't very creative and don't learn much most of the time. If you don't believe this, take a look around, talk to people. See how creative they are or try to educate them. It is hard. We tend to cling to our beliefs/ways of doing things even in the face of new evidence.
"Balancing your check book using Excel is a simulation."
So, how many people do this manually? So, if they aren't willing to do it manually, how could a computer possible make it easier? It really can't. If you define using Excel to balance a checkbook arcane knowledge, I disagree. It implies a basic unwillingness to balance the checkbook (see above) coupled with an unwillingness to LEARN a BASIC computer skill. This is a simple operation (simulation in your view), that is typically done without computers, but could be done with them. So the previous poster's comment that most people hate to learn is wrong how?
All I can say is this, if creativity and learning were common, I wouldn't see job postings requiring basic computer skills from people with BS/MS degrees (Word/Excel) in technical fields. I wouldn't see postings indicating a willingness to learn new things is required. That should be expected of any position, especially one requiring a degree. The fact that those statements exist imply that highly educated people, who ought to be creative and have a desire to learn, don't. I assume if it is rare or unusual in highly educated people, it is probably rare or unusual in the rest of the population
So, how is watching a television show being creative? Creativity implies creating things. As bad as many TV shows are, I can accept that those who make them are being creative but when I am watching them, that is not creativity.
Also, as far as I am concerned, creativity requires a desire to learn. Children certainly have it, but it seems to be lost somewhere in childhood to a lot of people. Case in point, 5th graders ask more/better questions about geology than do students taking intro college level courses in geology (in my experience). The grade schoolers want to learn, the college students for the most part, aren't interested.
If college level students aren't interested in knowledge (which I believe is part of creativity) then I find it hard to believe the vast majority of the population is any different. Being creative is hard work, while doing it by the numbers (being passive) is much less so. I would say it is a safe assumption then that most people are not creative most of the time.
"Democracy... A system of government whereby the people get the rulers they deserve."
:)
Problem is, as others have stated before me, that even if I am an informed voter (most probably aren't), inevitably I will get the rulers other people deserve too
"Want to fix the real problem? Use Approval voting or a ranked method like Condorcet."
Talk about a solution in search of a problem.
No, the real problem was poor ballots (and poor voter practices magnified by poor ballots), of which hanging chads were the symptom (as you noted). Proper ballots (maybe the type you mark on, then have optically scanned in your presence) would cure the hanging chad problem and voting for more than one candidate.
Of course, even punch ballots work properly IF you have strict rules about 1) what is a vote and 2) you don't create crappy ballots. Neither was true in Florida..
A third party candidate (or fourth or fifth) cannot "throw" the election. Unless they commit fraud. For better or worse, we generally have a winner take all system for electoral votes in a particular state (exceptions apply...). If you wanted real controversy, read about the elections that were decided by Congress (no candidate had the required electoral votes).
Only a fool would suggest we change our voting system (gee, I wonder what unintended consequences there will be...) over a problem that can be solved using the existing system.
"2) Apple's culture has never been to make something cheap at the expense of making it good. I think this shows greatly in their products."
Huh? So they never made anything that say oh developed cracks in the case for instance? Personally, their inexpensive laptops feel extremely flimsy (they may not be in reality of course) when I hold them. Sure, they look nice to many people.
Don't kid yourself, they will make something as cheap as possible-but attempt to make it stylish. Apple does not make their own products-they are made by the same manufacturers that make other PC parts. The components are not any higher end than mass market PC's.
"but I don't expect to see someone topless on a public bus or a 4th of july parade."
Why not? In Columbus, Ohio, it is legal to go topless. 4th of July parade is a public event (granted probably not in the parade itself-but you didn't say that). Wouldn't be surprised to see someone there topless... But topless and a very brief appearance of a nipple (that was difficult to see unless you watched the repeated clips of that particular moment....) isn't the same thing
Sure the nipple thing was probably done for shock value, but so are a lot of things on TV (shows, sports, news, etc.).
And why, pray tell, would the brief showing of a nipple be so out of character for a Superbowl half time show (or any football halftime show)? Cheerleaders at those events may have athletic talent but they are there for their sex appeal (read T and A) first and foremost.
You have unusual expectations (from my experience and point of view-and I have hardly lived a wild life). Maybe you should get out more and see what the world is really like....
Agreed.
I wasn't implying that you cheated on taxes, sorry if it came across that way.
Just making the statement that if you are going to aggressively claim things, you ought to be able to support your position. Because if you can't, it invites the IRS to go over your tax return with a fine tooth comb (and those past years returns too....) THAT can't be pleasant.
So what if you get audited?
:)
I mean why give the government money that you are entitled to keep just because you MIGHT get audited (a rare occurrence).
As long as it is a valid deduction, claim it. If you don't want to potentially spend the time an audit could possibly take, at least that I could see. But the first request will be for documentation (which you have, right?) only. If you are organized the audit should be quick-if it even gets that far. Or, pay a few bucks and have a professional do it.
Unless of course you ARE cheating on your taxes... Then, maybe you don't want to raise many red flags
Well, there was an interview with more information. You did have to dig a little further for it though.
I didn't get the impression that they were going to be selling individual TRACKS though. Less common CD's (uncommon artists and the older groups that can't sell records anymore-they mentioned the Eagles and Elton John in this category!?!).
As near as I can tell, you could listen to music, then buy the CD, just that it would be burned locally. Nothing special. The CD would probably have all the protection any standard CD would have... Free money for the industry, more money for Starbucks (maybe some profit from the sales, definitely profit from additional coffee sales...)
Why would it wreck the RIAA (which is the lobby group for the record industry, BTW)?
From reading the interview (yeah, I know, click on the links to get more info, what the heck is THAT all about?) it sounds like free money. All they (Starbucks) will be doing is selling CD's from artists that don't get a lot of top-40 play. To people who might not buy the stuff anyway. Basically it will be FREE targeted marketing (by Starbucks) for the industry (these will be industry bands).