To some degree yes, however, Ben Graham - author of "The Intelligent Investor" and teacher to Warren Buffett (And 40 other VERY successful investors) disagrees in his book.
He outlines specifically the difference between "Speculation" and "Investing". There is a fine, but subtle difference. The book is good enough that Buffett himself wrote the forword and the appendix. You may want to check it out.
Google is very cool, and their mission is basically to become the next library of Alexandria, which I think is awesome. However, how on earth do they plan to make any MONEY?
(For those of you who are considering buying some of this new issue, I strongly suggest you read 2 books: "The Intelligent Investor" By Ben Graham and "The Future for Investors: Why the Tried and True Triumph Over the Bold and New." by Jeremy J. Siegel.)
Google is very cool - but it is really just grep on steroids. I can't see how shares in this company at this point will benifit the shareholder.
So the doctor begins adjusting the power of the beam and turns on the laser just as a lag spike hits. The computer continually increaes the laser power... then the delayed UDP message to "fire" the laser arrives...
The doctor stares bewildered at his monitor as the word HEADSHOT! is returned...
Commom falacy. I'm amazed I've never seen this one listed in those lists of incorrect reasoning/urban legends, as I see it parroted pretty much daily by people who don't seem to understand math.
Well, perhaps you should read the book look at the statistics and judge from there. For "common fallacy" the authors of the book certanly seem to have a good deal of support for their position.
You are very wrong. Companies that target the poor make big bucks. Wal-Mart is an excellent example. There's even a saying to go along with it: "If you want to be rich, sell to the poor. If you want to be poor, sell to the rich."
This is a good point, but it is slightly off base. Note, I am not saying that your point is not valid, only that it plays out a little differently than the saying.
This Excellent Book goes into great detail as to who the rich actually are, and what they actually wear, and what they really buy. I would actually be surprised to find a rich person shopping at high end stores after having read that book. In fact, I would guess you would more likely find them at Wal-Mart doing their shopping. High income earners such as Doctors, Laywers and Accountants generally shop at the "luxury" shops and buy the Ferrari's and Handmade Gucci's. The rich got to be rich by shopping at places like Wal-Mart.
Now, as to your point, you are entirely correct on the selling... Selling to the masses rather. The economics of scale will benifit you. If you can sell millions of products that retail for $2.50 you are going to make more money than selling a few items that retail for $10,000. Provided you can survive Wal-Marts "supplier squeezing techniqes" you can make a good deal of money selling volumes to them.
I realized that this may not be entirely accurate. I meant to say that SCOX was about 15 when I became aware of the fiasco and the fact that SCO was full of crap.
Yeah, I am referring specifically to the period where people on slashdot began screaming "SHORT SCOX!!!"
If you could have shorted the stock around this time, you would have bought shorted stock that was increasing in value due to specualtion. This was after the drop from $15/share.
SCOX actually went UP due to speculation. If a stock rises when you short it, you lose. That, and you could not have shorted it if you had wanted to anyways.
Short SCOX today! . . . . . The following message is for the humor impaired or woefully ignorant: (The above is a joke, those of you who have been following along in the SCO fiasco know all the details, like why you cannot short SCOX, and what would have happened when people on slashdot first started suggesting this.)
Uh... I don't see the problem. Renting is always cheaper than a mortgage, as long as I have been aware, or else why would anyone rent? Especially when mortgages don't need downpayments anymore.
Actually, in general, buying a house is less expensive than renting. That is how a (good) landlord makes money - the tennant pays the mortgage plus some above that. Some landlords do not do this, and they hope that the value of the house will appreciate in the future so that they can sell for a profit. This is (IMO)a bad practice because you lose money each month on your investment. Whereas, if your tennant pays above the mortgage (the usual practice) you make a profit on your investment. Again, not all landlords do this. I am one of the ones who is. I do know a number who do not, and when the bubble bursts they will not be able to hold on to their properties because their montly losses on their properties will be greater than what they can sustain with their employment.
I'm feeling the heebie-jeebies about the housing market right now. Seems pretty similar: lots of institutional investment, lots of trendy discussion, lots of people moving around a lot... we'll see, but I'm not too hopeful about real estate right now.
You are dead on here. There are many warning signs, like, for example 1 real estate agent per household available for sale in California.
That, and in many areas you can now rent for less than the cost of a mortgage. (If you don't see that as a problem, and you are investing in real-estate, then there *IS* a big problem...)
It will crash hard, harder in some areas more than others. (See Warren Buffet's comments on the sale of his house in California.) Not all areas will fall drastically, but it will hit hard. Those who keep saying that "people need a place to live" (true) don't recognize what will happen when interest rates rise.
When the crash comes, THAT is when you should buy.
Yes, we can be touchy. I know I was especially touchy (before I read Dale Carnagies "How to Win Friends and Influence People" a great book for all us slashgeeks...)
However, I once worked at place "X" where we hosted a large number of machines. Management decided that since no major hosting companies seemed to host IRC servers, that we should do so, after all if no one else did this, then we could be getting into an untapped market...
(Those of you who are also sysadmins can see where this is going...)
I sent memos, I talked directly with management not to do this, they moved forward. I actually began pleading with management to reconsider the risks... (I outlined the specific risks, costs etc.)
Everything went fine for some time... until we had about 30 dedicated IRC servers online. Thats when the DDOS hit. The DDOS took out our OC3 line.
I of course was called in at 4am. Management then explained to me that I should "configure the firewall to stop the DDOS". I explained to them that this was not possible. Then our provider called to inform us that the DDOS had out BOTH of their OC3 lines supplying the surrounding area for about 15 km. Our provider was billing us for the bandwith. Management demanded that our provider block the DDOS at their main Cisco router, our provider said that they could, but would still have to charge us for bandwith. Management demanded that I provide a method of not being charged for this... (WTF?)
Finally, I was able to convince management to remove the IRC hosting, and after about 3-4 days the DDOS slowly went away... (We still suffered massive bandwith costs, and loss of service to our regular clients.)
In the end, this whole incident was "my fault" even though I had memos showing that I strongly disagreed with the IRC hosting idea, and that the DDOS was exactly what would happen.
So, if you wonder why we are touchy... Well, stuff like that makes us touchy.
I now work for a different employer, and it is a much nicer place to work, with much better people IMO. I am far less touchy than I was.;)
No questions asked either. I ordered one of these CD's when I worked as a tech, and it was great to have for fixing machines.
However, I will bet that you can still find images of the update CD around - mind you it won't have ALL the patches anymore. Also, if the copy of windows is pirated and has a well known serial number, it will refuse to install (which only makes sense).
I just saw your sig: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
Which I have seen before, and in the strange coffee deprived state that my mind is in I read: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you eat them. -- Godzilla
Well, you initially get the sodium from NaCl, However, once you have used the sodium to create hydrogen, you are left with NaOH (Sodium Hydroxide) this "waste" material could then be used for electrolysis to get the sodium back.
So, you would be shifting the energy over to big sodium hydroxide plants that re-created the sodium for you.
What it breaks down into, is, does transporting the sodium take more energy than transporting hydrogen alone? (On this point I must concede that it would appear that the sodium is more expensive to transfer as it has a higher atomic weight, and when added to water releases a single hydrogen atom in exchange, however, I do not know how well hydrogren gas "packs".)
This "anti sex" culture in Government will change... Here is why.
The current generation in the United States has access to the internet. Now, you can find whatever you want on the internet, this should be obvious. Indeed, you can often find sexually explicit material on the internet when you are not looking for it.
So, now we have both sexes viewing sexually explicit material when they choose to do so via the internet. (I can remeber being excited in the early 80s managing to locate a copy of penthouse, which myself and my friends would stare at in amazement...)
However, the current generation that is in government was not raised by these standards - they are far more conservative when it comes to sex. Therefore, they choose to ban it to 'protect the kids' or whatever.
However, as this generation ages, having had more exposure to sex and nudity, and being far more tolerante of it, so will the current policies surrounding it.
So, yes, the US government is very reactionary to sex, but this will change - it MUST change because the current younger generation just won't tolerate it when they age.
WTF? I find myself agreeing with Dvorak... and what is more (from TFA):
The only defenders of BitTorrent I saw regarding this issue were buried here and there on Slashdot. They sure were not in the newsrooms--or the blogs for that matter. All the stories I saw were disgraceful.
Hell hath frozen over... Agreeing with Dvorak... Dvorak lauding Slashdot...
Now the problem in replying to this article is that if I troll in my reply am I trolling or being insightful? Or, if I try to be insightful about trolls, am I trolling?
Damn you Taco! How does one reply to a post about slashdot trolling properly?
In soviet russ......err.. no... goatse.. no.....PROFIT!!!! err...
As a touchstone to the main topic, I note that a strike-back technique here would be to spam their own gateway with infected messages which appear to originate from their own account, to demonstrate the point. Unfortunately, that would be wrong.
The problem is that the majority of the attacks are from skript kiddie "pWn3d" servers. Sure, they launch their inital attacks from their home machines, but from there they get more and more zombies (for DDoS) or SSH hosts for tunneling.
I have had some servers get hit, and start attacking others. Now, if you were the target, and then started attacking one of my servers in retaliation, how does that help me?
From this vantage point, I have not only had one of my servers attacked by a skript kiddie, but now, I am being attacked again by another victim. It probably acceptable for you to take over my system and remove the attacking sofware/exploit and/or notify me. However, if you turn around and DDoS my network because one of my machines was insecure, I now have a worse problem on my hands, and a much larger bandwith bill.
I generally send out emails to companies or universites that have a trojaned machine that regularly attacks one of my machines (that is, shows up in the logs on a consistent basis) otherwise, they are generally dropped into iptables...
For those machines that I do alert the admins about my email generally consists of:
Your machine XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX has been attacking my machine with the following . Here are detailed logfiles of the attack...... Your system has likely been hit with . I discovered this with and here is that report.
I suggest your course of action is.
I don't do this "service" often, generally about once or twice a month with an agressive attacker, or when I am testing out new toys. It likely helps the people who own the attacking machines. I know this because when I started out with Linux in 1998 as an admin, I remember getting very similar emails about my servers. It made me a better admin.
Slashdot Mirror
All stock is speculation.
To some degree yes, however, Ben Graham - author of "The Intelligent Investor" and teacher to Warren Buffett (And 40 other VERY successful investors) disagrees in his book.
He outlines specifically the difference between "Speculation" and "Investing". There is a fine, but subtle difference. The book is good enough that Buffett himself wrote the forword and the appendix. You may want to check it out.
I think that Google is a great company, but I cannot see how their insane stock price is justified. It is all just speculation.
/ url%5D I mean, check out their P/E ratio!
[url]http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=GOOG&t=1y%5B
Google is very cool, and their mission is basically to become the next library of Alexandria, which I think is awesome. However, how on earth do they plan to make any MONEY?
(For those of you who are considering buying some of this new issue, I strongly suggest you read 2 books: "The Intelligent Investor" By Ben Graham and "The Future for Investors: Why the Tried and True Triumph Over the Bold and New." by Jeremy J. Siegel.)
Google is very cool - but it is really just grep on steroids. I can't see how shares in this company at this point will benifit the shareholder.
So the doctor begins adjusting the power of the beam and turns on the laser just as a lag spike hits. The computer continually increaes the laser power... then the delayed UDP message to "fire" the laser arrives...
The doctor stares bewildered at his monitor as the word HEADSHOT! is returned...
(Then a remote nurse claims he has an aimbot...)
Yeah, neat.
But does it run Linu...
Oh. Nevermind.
Commom falacy. I'm amazed I've never seen this one listed in those lists of incorrect reasoning/urban legends, as I see it parroted pretty much daily by people who don't seem to understand math.
Well, perhaps you should read the book look at the statistics and judge from there. For "common fallacy" the authors of the book certanly seem to have a good deal of support for their position.
You are very wrong. Companies that target the poor make big bucks. Wal-Mart is an excellent example. There's even a saying to go along with it: "If you want to be rich, sell to the poor. If you want to be poor, sell to the rich."
This is a good point, but it is slightly off base. Note, I am not saying that your point is not valid, only that it plays out a little differently than the saying.
This Excellent Book goes into great detail as to who the rich actually are, and what they actually wear, and what they really buy. I would actually be surprised to find a rich person shopping at high end stores after having read that book. In fact, I would guess you would more likely find them at Wal-Mart doing their shopping. High income earners such as Doctors, Laywers and Accountants generally shop at the "luxury" shops and buy the Ferrari's and Handmade Gucci's. The rich got to be rich by shopping at places like Wal-Mart.
Now, as to your point, you are entirely correct on the selling... Selling to the masses rather. The economics of scale will benifit you. If you can sell millions of products that retail for $2.50 you are going to make more money than selling a few items that retail for $10,000. Provided you can survive Wal-Marts "supplier squeezing techniqes" you can make a good deal of money selling volumes to them.
I realized that this may not be entirely accurate. I meant to say that SCOX was about 15 when I became aware of the fiasco and the fact that SCO was full of crap.
Yeah, I am referring specifically to the period where people on slashdot began screaming "SHORT SCOX!!!"
If you could have shorted the stock around this time, you would have bought shorted stock that was increasing in value due to specualtion. This was after the drop from $15/share.
At the time that the SCOX fiasco started slashbots were suggesting you short SCOX... However, check out the graph:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=my
SCOX actually went UP due to speculation. If a stock rises when you short it, you lose. That, and you could not have shorted it if you had wanted to anyways.
Short SCOX today!
.
.
.
.
.
The following message is for the humor impaired or woefully ignorant:
(The above is a joke, those of you who have been following along in the SCO fiasco know all the details, like why you cannot short SCOX, and what would have happened when people on slashdot first started suggesting this.)
Tracking vehicles with RFID may not so bad - after all vehicles have licence plates...
RFID tracking PEOPLE on the other hand is worrysome.
Uh... I don't see the problem. Renting is always cheaper than a mortgage, as long as I have been aware, or else why would anyone rent? Especially when mortgages don't need downpayments anymore.
Actually, in general, buying a house is less expensive than renting. That is how a (good) landlord makes money - the tennant pays the mortgage plus some above that. Some landlords do not do this, and they hope that the value of the house will appreciate in the future so that they can sell for a profit. This is (IMO)a bad practice because you lose money each month on your investment. Whereas, if your tennant pays above the mortgage (the usual practice) you make a profit on your investment. Again, not all landlords do this. I am one of the ones who is. I do know a number who do not, and when the bubble bursts they will not be able to hold on to their properties because their montly losses on their properties will be greater than what they can sustain with their employment.
And that's exactly the reason why the crash will not be as hard as dot-com: clever people like you will rush in to raise falling prices back again.
Clever people bought stocks after the dot com bust too though.
I'm feeling the heebie-jeebies about the housing market right now. Seems pretty similar: lots of institutional investment, lots of trendy discussion, lots of people moving around a lot... we'll see, but I'm not too hopeful about real estate right now.
You are dead on here. There are many warning signs, like, for example 1 real estate agent per household available for sale in California.
That, and in many areas you can now rent for less than the cost of a mortgage. (If you don't see that as a problem, and you are investing in real-estate, then there *IS* a big problem...)
It will crash hard, harder in some areas more than others. (See Warren Buffet's comments on the sale of his house in California.) Not all areas will fall drastically, but it will hit hard. Those who keep saying that "people need a place to live" (true) don't recognize what will happen when interest rates rise.
When the crash comes, THAT is when you should buy.
Yes, we can be touchy. I know I was especially touchy (before I read Dale Carnagies "How to Win Friends and Influence People" a great book for all us slashgeeks...)
;)
However, I once worked at place "X" where we hosted a large number of machines. Management decided that since no major hosting companies seemed to host IRC servers, that we should do so, after all if no one else did this, then we could be getting into an untapped market...
(Those of you who are also sysadmins can see where this is going...)
I sent memos, I talked directly with management not to do this, they moved forward. I actually began pleading with management to reconsider the risks... (I outlined the specific risks, costs etc.)
Everything went fine for some time... until we had about 30 dedicated IRC servers online. Thats when the DDOS hit. The DDOS took out our OC3 line.
I of course was called in at 4am. Management then explained to me that I should "configure the firewall to stop the DDOS". I explained to them that this was not possible. Then our provider called to inform us that the DDOS had out BOTH of their OC3 lines supplying the surrounding area for about 15 km. Our provider was billing us for the bandwith. Management demanded that our provider block the DDOS at their main Cisco router, our provider said that they could, but would still have to charge us for bandwith. Management demanded that I provide a method of not being charged for this... (WTF?)
Finally, I was able to convince management to remove the IRC hosting, and after about 3-4 days the DDOS slowly went away... (We still suffered massive bandwith costs, and loss of service to our regular clients.)
In the end, this whole incident was "my fault" even though I had memos showing that I strongly disagreed with the IRC hosting idea, and that the DDOS was exactly what would happen.
So, if you wonder why we are touchy... Well, stuff like that makes us touchy.
I now work for a different employer, and it is a much nicer place to work, with much better people IMO. I am far less touchy than I was.
Yeah, Microsoft USED TO offer a update CD:
c d/order.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/
No questions asked either. I ordered one of these CD's when I worked as a tech, and it was great to have for fixing machines.
However, I will bet that you can still find images of the update CD around - mind you it won't have ALL the patches anymore. Also, if the copy of windows is pirated and has a well known serial number, it will refuse to install (which only makes sense).
You should see if you can track down a image of one of these CD's, or, perhaps Slipstream a copy once you have the patches. Pain in the ass? Yes.
I just saw your sig: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
Which I have seen before, and in the strange coffee deprived state that my mind is in I read: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you eat them. -- Godzilla
Well, you initially get the sodium from NaCl, However, once you have used the sodium to create hydrogen, you are left with NaOH (Sodium Hydroxide) this "waste" material could then be used for electrolysis to get the sodium back.
So, you would be shifting the energy over to big sodium hydroxide plants that re-created the sodium for you.
What it breaks down into, is, does transporting the sodium take more energy than transporting hydrogen alone? (On this point I must concede that it would appear that the sodium is more expensive to transfer as it has a higher atomic weight, and when added to water releases a single hydrogen atom in exchange, however, I do not know how well hydrogren gas "packs".)
You may want to read this for your screen first:
d .php?s=&threadid=224307
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthrea
Less expensive than buying the screen paint, and from the sounds of it, both more effective and a nicer looking finished solution on your wall.
This "anti sex" culture in Government will change... Here is why.
The current generation in the United States has access to the internet. Now, you can find whatever you want on the internet, this should be obvious. Indeed, you can often find sexually explicit material on the internet when you are not looking for it.
So, now we have both sexes viewing sexually explicit material when they choose to do so via the internet. (I can remeber being excited in the early 80s managing to locate a copy of penthouse, which myself and my friends would stare at in amazement...)
However, the current generation that is in government was not raised by these standards - they are far more conservative when it comes to sex. Therefore, they choose to ban it to 'protect the kids' or whatever.
However, as this generation ages, having had more exposure to sex and nudity, and being far more tolerante of it, so will the current policies surrounding it.
So, yes, the US government is very reactionary to sex, but this will change - it MUST change because the current younger generation just won't tolerate it when they age.
Ye see a FLASK. Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
-- If you give him a trinket, he will help you... *ducks*
It is very difficult to overemphasize quite how evil this ruling is.
No no. It is easy to overemphasize how evil this is:
This ruling will result in the destruction of the sun and the solar system as we know it.
Thanks. I will be here all week.
WTF? I find myself agreeing with Dvorak... and what is more (from TFA):
The only defenders of BitTorrent I saw regarding this issue were buried here and there on Slashdot. They sure were not in the newsrooms--or the blogs for that matter. All the stories I saw were disgraceful.
Hell hath frozen over... Agreeing with Dvorak... Dvorak lauding Slashdot...
Now the problem in replying to this article is that if I troll in my reply am I trolling or being insightful? Or, if I try to be insightful about trolls, am I trolling?
...err.. no... ...PROFIT!!!! err...
Damn you Taco! How does one reply to a post about slashdot trolling properly?
In soviet russ...
goatse.. no..
***USER BRAIN OVERLOAD. CORE DUMPED***
As a touchstone to the main topic, I note that a strike-back technique here would be to spam their own gateway with infected messages which appear to originate from their own account, to demonstrate the point. Unfortunately, that would be wrong.
;)
Yes... but it would be *FUN*!
The problem is that the majority of the attacks are from skript kiddie "pWn3d" servers. Sure, they launch their inital attacks from their home machines, but from there they get more and more zombies (for DDoS) or SSH hosts for tunneling.
.
I have had some servers get hit, and start attacking others. Now, if you were the target, and then started attacking one of my servers in retaliation, how does that help me?
From this vantage point, I have not only had one of my servers attacked by a skript kiddie, but now, I am being attacked again by another victim. It probably acceptable for you to take over my system and remove the attacking sofware/exploit and/or notify me. However, if you turn around and DDoS my network because one of my machines was insecure, I now have a worse problem on my hands, and a much larger bandwith bill.
I generally send out emails to companies or universites that have a trojaned machine that regularly attacks one of my machines (that is, shows up in the logs on a consistent basis) otherwise, they are generally dropped into iptables...
For those machines that I do alert the admins about my email generally consists of:
Your machine XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX has been attacking my machine with the following . Here are detailed logfiles of the attack......
Your system has likely been hit with . I discovered this with and here is that report.
I suggest your course of action is
I don't do this "service" often, generally about once or twice a month with an agressive attacker, or when I am testing out new toys. It likely helps the people who own the attacking machines. I know this because when I started out with Linux in 1998 as an admin, I remember getting very similar emails about my servers. It made me a better admin.