Fencepost error. You invested eleven years in there. You invested in 2000, and in 2010, and all the years in the middle. That's 11 deposits of $10000, which is $110,000 invested.
You got a return of $1487, which is under 0.3% interest rate. (Technically, I don't know what day you started, so the investment could have been slightly longer than 10 years, or slightly short than 11, or somewhere in the middle, so the rate varies.)
Which is exactly what I said. Did you just not bother reading?
Inflation, meanwhile, was 3.8% over that period. The DOW: Doing ten times worse than inflation. Put all your money in it tomorrow!
I also covered that. You know "dividends" and "this is the worst case most pathologic strategy possible over your cherry picked bad timing period".
Just like you don't get to specify individual stocks, you don't get to specify individual bonds either. The retirement plan you think people should be using has to be automatic, not having people do research every month to figure out where to invest. A computer must be able to do it.
No but surely you can say "not all the same bonds" and not "new fancy complicated bonds". Treasuries, munis, and corporate bonds ratios dependant on how far away retirement is and current prices. Not whatever fancy new shit wall street thought up this week.
But in the actual world, where 90% of Americans live and work, they do not actually make enough to invest anywhere. They'll have some medical expense or some layoff or lose their house because the bank committed fraud when it sold them to them and then use their retirement principle to recover from that, or declare bankrupcy and lose it anyway, and never managed to recover any savings.
The money they currently pay into social security would be required to be invested, obviously enough.
But clearly you don't actually bother reading what other people write and have already made up your mind, so there's no point discussing futher (since I'd just be repeating what I've already written). Here's a hint: I'm not American, I'm from a country with both forced retirement savings in personal accounts and government pensions for those that need them. Amazingly enough the elderly aren't starving in the streets.
IANAL, and taking anything related to the legal system without huge amounts of salt on slashdot would be silly (heck technical computery stuff is often wrong).
But assuming they used that variant and didn't just include the source...
I would think not. They've made an agreement (made a contract/whatever you want to call it) with the copyright holders of any GPL code they used to do so. You've made an agreement with them to do so for anyone you redistribute to. But I don't think there's actually an agreement between you and them for that direction of transfer.
Not doing so would break their agreement with the original copyright holders, but you aren't party to that.
They are supposed to share some aspect, in my flower example that aspect is that the guy getting pissed has no standing at all. For all he knows the guy had permissions to pick the flower/use the code. For all he knows the owner/copyright holder doesn't care at all. The "crime" is irrelevant.
...went broke in 2008 when the stock market crashed and now you've got 6 million people attempting to retire on no money.
How did they go broke in 2008? I owned stocks in 2008, they are worth more today then they were then.
They could have invested in bonds instead. I'm sure the bond-rating agencies weren't just rubber-stamping A++ rating on shitty bonds backed by bad mortgages...no, wait, they were, weren't they?
Yes the bond-rating agencies were being fraud, still anyone who bothered to look could see that real estate was in a bubble and avoid those.
Even if you didn't avoid those, again they don't make up 100% of your holdings.
Yes people who are retiring int the short to medium term shouldn't have all their money in long term investment vehicles - that's not even common sense, that's just not being retarded.
Please list anything that someone investing in 'the productive capacity of the economy' could have started investing in 2000 and made money. (No, you don't get to retroactively pick specific companies, but you can pick something like the Dow...although that specially, obviously, is not a good idea.)
OK.
The DOW.
Let's say it's $10,000 a year (the number doesn't matter since you can just multiply anyway).
And you are a spectucalarly stupid investor who buys all $10,000 on one day and that day always happens to be the highest day for the DOW that year.
So how does your investment perform (total is how many DJIA "units" we own in total):
year: 2000, DJIA: 11722.98, total: 0.85 year 2001, DJIA: 11337.92, total: 1.74 year 2002, DJIA: 10635.25, total: 2.68 year 2003, DJIA: 10453.92, total: 3.63 year 2004, DJIA: 10854.54, total: 4.55 year 2005, DJIA: 10940.55, total: 5.47 year 2006, DJIA: 12510.57, total: 6.27 year 2007, DJIA: 14164.53, total: 6.97 year 2008, DJIA: 13058.20, total: 7.74 year 2009, DJIA: 10548.51, total: 8.69 year 2010, DJIA: 11585.38, total: 9.55
The DJIA closed at 11,674.76 last week, so our investment is worth $111,487.51. So basically unchanged (up $1,487.51 over what we invested), with the absolutly worst case investment plan (buy the yearly high).
But of course we've been earning dividends as well (though admitedly since the DJIA isn't very "I" anymore it's not really the place to be seeking dividends). Of course the DJIA is currently amazingly overvalued and propped up by the Fed yet again, hence low dividends and a pretty good chance of a big drop again.
It doesn't have to 'make money' every year, but it needs to somewhat predictably increase and never ever plummet, because people will be living off it. Come on, it's got to be somewhere around 4% to beat social security, and let's say it can't ever drop by more than 5% over a year. Please point to it.
That's just a stupid requirement. In the first half of my working life I don't give care if it goes down by 50% one day, as long as it comes back up. When I'm actually retiring I likely have it all in bonds anyway - essentially what SS is 100% government bonds. Being able to have more swings early on is verry useful.
And yes I could lose it all. Not having low income pensions/etc funded by general revenue (i.e. not a promise to people to magically invest their money and payouts to the rich because they paid in as well) would be a bad combination.
And the DOW is a pretty stupid place to put your money - though note that your "obviously, is not a good idea" place is actually up over that timeframe (hooray for inflation).
Oh, and you don't get to use government bonds. Using government bonds is just having the government pay for it in a slightly stranger way. Duh. Saying 'The government shouldn't be handling retirement, instead, people should loan the government money and live off the interest that the government provides' is utterly surreal, especial
Which is irrelevant since the country being referred to wasn't Somalia - unless you are claiming these merchant ships are actually docking in a port in Somalia?
So one post the private sector has no money. And the next post the private sector a bunch of money (but it's not distributed evenly - which is a good thing when the topic is investment).
Do you flip a coin to decide which mutually exclusive option to declare as fact before you write each sentence?
But he buys the urinal from somewhere, and hence they earn more money with which to pay their workers/etc. And of course they buy some gold which earns the gold miners some money with which to pay their miners, etc, etc.
See trickle down, even in your pathological case.
The real pathological case is:
2. CEO of megacorp gets a huge bonus and keeps it in cash in his bedroom to count each night.
Not with the other 140m workers out there doing the same thing. It doesn't scale. SS might not scale either, but investing in the productive capacity of the entire working population is going to return better than investing in a stock market flooded with easy money.
But you aren't doing that. You're investing in special treasuries (with non-standard payout rules). 140 m workers investing in the productive capacity of the economy instead of loaning money to the government could very well have much better performance. Of course you could choose to buy treasuries anyway...
Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs did that well with the news announcer commenting that it was an unusual weather pattern to hit major landmarks first and then the rest of the world.
It's advertising, obviously they are going to use the type of voice that their research (or just the anecdotes they happen to have heard) says is most effective for the demographics they are selling to.
So I'm the only person in the world who thought that the solution to oppresive governments under the US constitution would be:
1. Tell others about their action. 2. Vote against them. 3. Jury nullification of their laws. 4. Armed revolution.
It got to step 3 under prohibition after all, and that worked well enough.
Fine, I don't mind being ignorant of a foreign saying.
The "jury box" still makes no sense since if the you win the other side can and will (we are talking the government, right) just appeal (you aren't the government trying to convict someone of a crime) and now the decision is in the hands of the people the next step it to shoot.
It's a government customer. They want a *really* low volume usage pattern. Technically it should be trivial - if your technically inept then surely you have a prepaid service put the sims on that and set it to autopay $5 (or whatever) each month.
Roaming shouldn't matter. Or are you claiming I can take my $10 prepaid cell phone sim and just switch to roaming and rack up $10,000 in phone calls?
Of course I know very little of cell phone tech. I do know that I can buy SMS only plans and really cheap plans with very low limits - and I only want 1 phone not 600 (possibly growing to 2000 if all goes well).
No that's the rational for suspecting an inside job and hence investigating that angle.
You would think it would be a no-brainer to have the SIM cards on some sort of custom phone plan which only allows calls to a fixed set of numbers, though.
Soap: someone willing to gun down people is probably going to have gone on a rant at some point. Ballot: Who knows, seems reasonably likely though, since he seems to have some interest in politics. Jury: You don't get a choice in that one, you can't decide "I'll be on a jury today" and do so.
So I see no reason to believe he hasn't worked his way down the list.
There are no layers involved. It's a high level description of something that ignores lots of stuff and "oh shock horror" even gets some details wrong.
Did they ever tell you in school that electrons orbit the nucleus in shells? Oh shit! They lied! Clearly they made no sense at all!
The example is describing what the packets do when you request the file. And yes its exaggerating things and yes it's simplifying things. But that's how you describe things to people who don't know the technical details when those technical details don't really matter to understanding the overall issue.
Obviously you don't get 1GB of packets in the queue then again the queue isn't 1GB in size in the first place anyway - oh look I explicitely mentioned that too but you're clearly to stupid to read.
Getting stuck up on trivial technical details is what your bringing, lots of other people manage to understand how analogies and high level approximations work.
It's exactly what happens. A packet is a packet is a packet and there's one device sending stuff to your cable modem. If there's 200 packets waiting in the buffer then a new one gets put at the end and is only sent forward after those 200 are processed.
Obviously buffers aren't big enough to hold an hour's worth of packets (and servers don't send 1GB worth of packets before getting any acks) that's just to make the situation more obvious in an example.
There's no need to change the future. Using your scenario:
Just show them a porn photo when the ball lands on red, and a non-porn photo when it lands on black. Betting on black or red according to their state of arousal.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is exactly what I said. Did you just not bother reading?
I also covered that. You know "dividends" and "this is the worst case most pathologic strategy possible over your cherry picked bad timing period".
No but surely you can say "not all the same bonds" and not "new fancy complicated bonds". Treasuries, munis, and corporate bonds ratios dependant on how far away retirement is and current prices. Not whatever fancy new shit wall street thought up this week.
The money they currently pay into social security would be required to be invested, obviously enough.
But clearly you don't actually bother reading what other people write and have already made up your mind, so there's no point discussing futher (since I'd just be repeating what I've already written). Here's a hint: I'm not American, I'm from a country with both forced retirement savings in personal accounts and government pensions for those that need them. Amazingly enough the elderly aren't starving in the streets.
IANAL, and taking anything related to the legal system without huge amounts of salt on slashdot would be silly (heck technical computery stuff is often wrong).
But assuming they used that variant and didn't just include the source...
I would think not. They've made an agreement (made a contract/whatever you want to call it) with the copyright holders of any GPL code they used to do so. You've made an agreement with them to do so for anyone you redistribute to. But I don't think there's actually an agreement between you and them for that direction of transfer.
Not doing so would break their agreement with the original copyright holders, but you aren't party to that.
Analogies aren't supposed to be exactly the same.
They are supposed to share some aspect, in my flower example that aspect is that the guy getting pissed has no standing at all. For all he knows the guy had permissions to pick the flower/use the code. For all he knows the owner/copyright holder doesn't care at all. The "crime" is irrelevant.
No it's akin to someone taking a flower from your garden and your neighbor getting pissed and protesting.
Everyone else can do exactly nothing (well not use it and rant on the interwebs about it I guess).
That makes sense.
Though using the court system tends to cost a fair amount of money compared with the other 3 items - guns and bullets aren't free either of course...
How did they go broke in 2008? I owned stocks in 2008, they are worth more today then they were then.
Yes the bond-rating agencies were being fraud, still anyone who bothered to look could see that real estate was in a bubble and avoid those.
Even if you didn't avoid those, again they don't make up 100% of your holdings.
Yes people who are retiring int the short to medium term shouldn't have all their money in long term investment vehicles - that's not even common sense, that's just not being retarded.
OK.
The DOW.
Let's say it's $10,000 a year (the number doesn't matter since you can just multiply anyway).
And you are a spectucalarly stupid investor who buys all $10,000 on one day and that day always happens to be the highest day for the DOW that year.
So how does your investment perform (total is how many DJIA "units" we own in total):
year: 2000, DJIA: 11722.98, total: 0.85
year 2001, DJIA: 11337.92, total: 1.74
year 2002, DJIA: 10635.25, total: 2.68
year 2003, DJIA: 10453.92, total: 3.63
year 2004, DJIA: 10854.54, total: 4.55
year 2005, DJIA: 10940.55, total: 5.47
year 2006, DJIA: 12510.57, total: 6.27
year 2007, DJIA: 14164.53, total: 6.97
year 2008, DJIA: 13058.20, total: 7.74
year 2009, DJIA: 10548.51, total: 8.69
year 2010, DJIA: 11585.38, total: 9.55
The DJIA closed at 11,674.76 last week, so our investment is worth $111,487.51. So basically unchanged (up $1,487.51 over what we invested), with the absolutly worst case investment plan (buy the yearly high).
But of course we've been earning dividends as well (though admitedly since the DJIA isn't very "I" anymore it's not really the place to be seeking dividends). Of course the DJIA is currently amazingly overvalued and propped up by the Fed yet again, hence low dividends and a pretty good chance of a big drop again.
That's just a stupid requirement. In the first half of my working life I don't give care if it goes down by 50% one day, as long as it comes back up. When I'm actually retiring I likely have it all in bonds anyway - essentially what SS is 100% government bonds. Being able to have more swings early on is verry useful.
And yes I could lose it all. Not having low income pensions/etc funded by general revenue (i.e. not a promise to people to magically invest their money and payouts to the rich because they paid in as well) would be a bad combination.
And the DOW is a pretty stupid place to put your money - though note that your "obviously, is not a good idea" place is actually up over that timeframe (hooray for inflation).
Which is irrelevant since the country being referred to wasn't Somalia - unless you are claiming these merchant ships are actually docking in a port in Somalia?
So one post the private sector has no money. And the next post the private sector a bunch of money (but it's not distributed evenly - which is a good thing when the topic is investment).
Do you flip a coin to decide which mutually exclusive option to declare as fact before you write each sentence?
But he buys the urinal from somewhere, and hence they earn more money with which to pay their workers/etc. And of course they buy some gold which earns the gold miners some money with which to pay their miners, etc, etc.
See trickle down, even in your pathological case.
The real pathological case is:
2. CEO of megacorp gets a huge bonus and keeps it in cash in his bedroom to count each night.
But you aren't doing that. You're investing in special treasuries (with non-standard payout rules). 140 m workers investing in the productive capacity of the economy instead of loaning money to the government could very well have much better performance. Of course you could choose to buy treasuries anyway...
Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs did that well with the news announcer commenting that it was an unusual weather pattern to hit major landmarks first and then the rest of the world.
It's advertising, obviously they are going to use the type of voice that their research (or just the anecdotes they happen to have heard) says is most effective for the demographics they are selling to.
So I'm the only person in the world who thought that the solution to oppresive governments under the US constitution would be:
1. Tell others about their action.
2. Vote against them.
3. Jury nullification of their laws.
4. Armed revolution.
It got to step 3 under prohibition after all, and that worked well enough.
Fine, I don't mind being ignorant of a foreign saying.
The "jury box" still makes no sense since if the you win the other side can and will (we are talking the government, right) just appeal (you aren't the government trying to convict someone of a crime) and now the decision is in the hands of the people the next step it to shoot.
It's a government customer. They want a *really* low volume usage pattern. Technically it should be trivial - if your technically inept then surely you have a prepaid service put the sims on that and set it to autopay $5 (or whatever) each month.
Roaming shouldn't matter. Or are you claiming I can take my $10 prepaid cell phone sim and just switch to roaming and rack up $10,000 in phone calls?
Of course I know very little of cell phone tech. I do know that I can buy SMS only plans and really cheap plans with very low limits - and I only want 1 phone not 600 (possibly growing to 2000 if all goes well).
No that's the rational for suspecting an inside job and hence investigating that angle.
You would think it would be a no-brainer to have the SIM cards on some sort of custom phone plan which only allows calls to a fixed set of numbers, though.
The graphic designer is hard at work updating it. They used red for retiring so there's some debate about how to mark off the successes.
It'll be back on Monday.
Why wouldn't he have?
Soap: someone willing to gun down people is probably going to have gone on a rant at some point.
Ballot: Who knows, seems reasonably likely though, since he seems to have some interest in politics.
Jury: You don't get a choice in that one, you can't decide "I'll be on a jury today" and do so.
So I see no reason to believe he hasn't worked his way down the list.
There are no layers involved. It's a high level description of something that ignores lots of stuff and "oh shock horror" even gets some details wrong.
Did they ever tell you in school that electrons orbit the nucleus in shells? Oh shit! They lied! Clearly they made no sense at all!
The example is describing what the packets do when you request the file. And yes its exaggerating things and yes it's simplifying things. But that's how you describe things to people who don't know the technical details when those technical details don't really matter to understanding the overall issue.
Obviously you don't get 1GB of packets in the queue then again the queue isn't 1GB in size in the first place anyway - oh look I explicitely mentioned that too but you're clearly to stupid to read.
Getting stuck up on trivial technical details is what your bringing, lots of other people manage to understand how analogies and high level approximations work.
Sure if you don't read the questions.
because facebook is a private company and hence doesn't have to meet all the requirements of a public company.
This report makes the $50 billion look to high - that's a P/E of over 100 - which is really high even for tech stocks.
So exactly the opposite...
It's exactly what happens. A packet is a packet is a packet and there's one device sending stuff to your cable modem. If there's 200 packets waiting in the buffer then a new one gets put at the end and is only sent forward after those 200 are processed.
Obviously buffers aren't big enough to hold an hour's worth of packets (and servers don't send 1GB worth of packets before getting any acks) that's just to make the situation more obvious in an example.
There's no need to change the future. Using your scenario:
Just show them a porn photo when the ball lands on red, and a non-porn photo when it lands on black. Betting on black or red according to their state of arousal.
You might be surprised just what you can gamble on if you look hard enough...