Giving away some copies to create interest/hype is an ancient tactic. Sounds like this was a fairly clever astroturfing campaign. People have a bit of a herd mentality when it comes to deciding what is popular. If they perceive that something is in demand, they want to find out what the fuss is about. They will often declare it interesting or desirable more because others say it is rather than judging objectively on merit. (exhibit A: Paris Hilton) Arguably the most powerful advertising message there is is "everyone else is doing it". Sounds silly (because it is) but it works VERY well.
One way to think about it is that this instance of astroturfing was a way to create activation energy" necessary to get the "popularity reaction" going. If there is no word of mouth because no one has a copy of the book (or other media) it will probably just sit on shelves and never sell. This fellow was clever enough to create a little artificial demand that turned into the real thing. Just a well done example of a cleverly run public relations campaign. Done right it is very effective and much cheaper than advertising.
It's the user tax on closed formats and closed source, basically. Agreed though I would add lack of compatibility (or inability to plan compatibility) to the items being taxed. For a lot of companies "off the shelf" just doesn't quite get the job done and heaven forbid two pieces of software actually communicate. [/sarcasm] While I certainly wouldn't argue forward compatibility is easy (quite the opposite in fact) I see middleware as the cost of building or buying systems with insufficient flexibility up front. Companies get trapped by limitations in off the shelf software or sometimes by poorly designed custom software. Not always avoidable but middleware is frequently the cost. Unfortunately the IT world is so unpredictable it's really hard to plan even 5 years out sometimes.
well, it's a two-stroke, very simple, very cheap, very easy to service
It's a two cylinder, four stroke engine. I misread that the first time too. From TFA:
powered by a 30 HP Bosch 624 cc four stroke engine mounted out back and mated to a CVT. That makes the Nano the first time a 2-cylinder gasoline engine will be used in a car with a single balancer shaft.
It's there, it's number 4. And having written code on most of these, it wasn't too bad once you got used to it.
I noticed right after I posted. Maybe you were ok with working on the 1000 and if so my hat is off to you. Personally I couldn't take it, especially since I had access to real computers at the time. The machine was so slow and awkward I'd rather stand in line at the DMV than actually try to do anything productive on it. Most entertaining thing I ever did with it was play a game of Frogger and even that was not much fun on that particular machine.
Having owned one, I would have put the Timex Sinclair 1000 on the list somewhere. They mention a Timex (the 2068) but the Sinclair 1000 was so bad because it was nothing but a budget membrane keyboard about 1/3 the size of a normal keyboard. There was no reasonable way to actually type other than hunt-n-peck and even then the keys were really finicky. Even magazines at the time complained about how bad the keyboard was.
Wait there. To be fair you can export data from Outlook.
I'm not talking about import/export, I'm talking about synchronization. Import/export is only useful for a one time bulk transfer. Change anything after that and you have a mess on your hands. If you have more than a handful of contact information import/export is useless on an ongoing basis. There is no fundamental technological reason why address books cannot synchronize. No, the reasons are almost entirely based on attempts at platform lock in. Just like the Microsoft Office file formats keep people using Word and Excel, making it a pain in the ass to synchronize contact info in your address book from Outlook to Thunderbird (or any other two address book dependent apps) tends to keep people using that application. Hence Microsoft and Google have little incentive to actually share the data that would make updating my Palm Tungsten or Nokia phone or Thunderbird address books actually easy.
Calendar sharing admittedly has gotten better recently (largely thanks to.ics files) though it is hardly seamless. For instance I use Sunbird as well as Google Calendar and Plaxo online. They work ok together but there are a LOT of warts.
And to be fair, you really don't have a Google address book do you?
Of course but not by choice. I'd really like Google's contact list to synchronize with Thunderbird's address book (or outlook, or pine, or {insert favorite email app here} ) not to mention some of my hardware devices like my phone.
Good for you. What are you going to do when one of them changes? Oh that's right, you're screwed. You don't want duplicates? Want to have a third address book? You don't want to manually have to maintain two or more address books? Have fun with your CSV files and manual updates.
Of course you have been able to import and export since time immemorial. That's almost USELESS after the first time, not to mention a pain in the ass. I was talking about synchronization, not import/export. Import/export is only a solution for someone with a very small address book or WAY too much time on their hands.
you're kidding right? Microsoft would never have that.
True, but we don't really need Microsoft either. I just need a stack of hardware and software that actually cooperates. If Microsoft is not involved, so much the better.
I use Gmail and Google calendar. While I'm generally pleased with them, data "portability" tends to be pathetic. You cannot easily synchronize your contacts in Gmail with another address book (Thunderbird's for instance). Sure you can import them or export them manually but who the hell wants to do that more than once? Google's calendar is a little better but only a little. I can sort of update it from Sunbird or iCal (with some warts) but it's not seamless like it should be. Google's more open than some but I'd like to see them actually trying to be portable with the software they already have. Until then it's just a bunch of hot air.
Google isn't great with data portability but then no one else I'm aware of does it well either. If they did I'd switch in a heartbeat. Address books are a tower of babel of incompatibility. Unless you tie yourself to very specific closed platforms (Outlook typically), getting all your software and computers to share addresses is damn near impossible. Want to use Outlook? Good luck sharing your address book with Gmail or (hah) Thunderbird. Want to use a Palm device? Pick your address book and calendar carefully. Sure there are ways to get data from one to another but that's not portability.
I would not expect the slashdot editors to know this but FYI it is spelled Cuyahoga County not "Cayahoga" which is roughly correct phonetically but not correct otherwise. For those unfamiliar, Cuyahoga County is where the city of Cleveland is located.
We just bought a house about 8 months ago. I can confirm: Buying a house is by no means a "good choice" economically.
If your time horizon is 8 months, that is absolutely correct. For the first 5 years or so, it's at usually rough for most people. High interest, maybe you stretched financially to get the place, etc. If your time horizon is 20 years there is a much, much better chance that it will be a good decision.
Keep this in mind too. You own a very valuable asset now at someone else's expense. Don't underestimate the value of that. Possibly the most important concept in finance is "other peoples money". No one will loan you $200,000 to buy stocks if you just have $40,000 but you can get that loan to buy a house. Leverage is an amazing and if used carefully, incredibly powerful thing. The ability to borrow and otherwise raise (and repay) capital is what lets companies grow. It's no different from you. Might be a bit painful upfront but you now have an estate that is much larger than you otherwise could by renting and investing.
Sure, these factors make it so that the prices of houses fluctuate. It doesn't answer the question: why do you expect the value of houses to increase?
Because there is a finite amount of land and an increasing population. Supply is fixed. Demand is not. Houses should appreciate due to population growth if no other reason. And there are plenty of other reasons why a house would gain in value which I enumerated in great detail.
How do you know you're not underestimating the amount of land available...
You don't. Repeat after me. There is no such thing as a risk free investment.
So now you're changing your tune from "buy a house because they go go up, like stocks do" to "buy a house because houses aren't very risky, unlike stocks"? That's not what you were saying before!
I said houses are an investment. They are an investment with a different risk profile and characteristics but they are an investment. Might go up, might go down. Never said otherwise.
And finally: by your reasoning, why would anybody invest in a house over REITs or TIPS?
Because they want a place to live. Should have thought that was obvious.
Stop mindlessly repeating what you've heard, and think: why would a house appreciate?
Supply and demand, same as with any other asset. Population growth, desirability of location, land availability, demographics, age and condition of the home, and a host of other factors come into play to determine the value of real estate. Not to mention that you can make improvements to the home and the land to increase its value to potential buyers in excess of your investment. Note that I never claimed any old real estate in any random location was a good investment. Clearly that's not true. But there are plenty of reasons why a house, or any other real estate, can and often does appreciate in value. Real estate is one of the few assets we cannot create out of thin air. There is a finite amount of land available, and only some is in desirable locations. My company can create all the new widgets I want but I can't manufacture land.
When the interest on a loan to buy a home, even after it's been adjusted for taxes, is way more than what it costs to rent an equivalent unit
Entirely situation dependent. In the last city I lived in it was actually cheaper for me to buy than rent because I could get a 4.5% note on the place. Tax and inflation adjusted it was a better deal than any rental property we could get in that area with similar features. (As an aside remember that with a rental you lose money to inflation, on average 2-3%/year, which is offset (generally) with a home.) If I lived in Manhattan or Miami during the same time period, the situation would probably have been the reverse. Could I have made more money renting & investing? Maybe. But with quite a bit more risk which I did not need or want to take.
I.e., given the returns on stocks and bonds, renting is a no-brainer, in his case.
Maybe in his case but it's not a no-brainer for everyone. Whether to rent or buy depends entirely on your financial situation, your location, your risk tolerance, and your age. I'll give you an example. For someone like my mother who is nearly at retirement age and taking care of two 90 year old parents, renting in order to play the stock market would be completely inappropriate given the risks involved. She is not financially sophisticated and she certainly cannot afford the chance of losing big or even losing everything (which IS a chance you run however remote) with that investment strategy. For you renting might be exactly the right thing to do and it sounds like perhaps it is. But don't assume that your situation is appropriate for everyone or even most people.
By your reasoning why would anyone invest in bonds over stocks? After all stocks historically have a higher return. The answer is risk. Stocks are riskier and the returns less certain. Some people (like me and I presume you) can afford a lot of risk. Others (like my mother) cannot afford much risk at all. A home is a low yield but historically steady and generally safe investment if held for the long term. It is a sensible part of many many people's investment portfolio. You have to consider your risk profile. You're not wrong to rent and invest. I'm just saying it isn't the right choice for everyone.
Incidentally I do financial analytics for a living, often involving real estate. I can do without the implication that I'm "mindlessly repeating what I've heard" because it just ain't so.
If I had a "chance" at owning a house, I'd be paying 1200$ a month for a mortgage and taxes. How is that better? I'd rather have the extra 700$ a month to myself so I can invest it.
When owning is "better" it's better because you own an asset (the house) which can appreciate in value. A house is an investment, not much different from owning stock in a company or holding a government bond and a house is usually the biggest investment most people make. A house can, and historically usually does, appreciate in value over time by a few percent per year. At least in the US (not so sure about other countries) owning a house has benefits from a taxation standpoint. You can get a significant "return" on your investment through reduced taxes. Generally speaking, owning is better than renting in the long term (greater than 10 years) for most people.
In your case if there really is a $700 difference, renting is only better if you can get a better return on your investment through other investment vehicles (stocks, etc) than you would through the appreciation of the value of the house and any tax offsets. You might be absolutely right for your particular circumstances. Owning is not always better than renting just like renting is not always better than owning. Just depends on the particulars of the situation and the investment alternatives available to you.
You are making a few bad assumptions -- 1) that dimmable CFL bumbs are new (they're not) or 2) that they have higher material cost (they don't) or that there is a difference in production cost (there isn't)
I'm not assuming any of those things. To address your points: 1) Doesn't matter that the product is are new or not. Dimmable CF bulbs aren't being produced yet in sufficient volume to offset the fixed costs of production. The fact that they've been on the market in small volumes for some time is almost irrelevant. Which leads to: 2) You are confusing the variable cost of the end product (as you note nearly the same between standard CF & dimmable CF) with the total cost of the equipment and facilities + the materials & labor needed to produce that product. Prices are high because the manufacturers have had to install new lines and buy new equipment to ramp up production. Unless they intend to sell at a loss (stupid with a commodity product) the cost will be high at first and go down over time.
Are some resellers overcharging? Sure. Happens with lots of products, especially newer ones. It'll cost me lots more to buy an identical network cable at Radio Shack than Walmart for example. But hear me out. I'm simplifying a bit but dimmable CF bulbs are basically a commodity product meaning one bulb from one manufacturer can be easily substituted for a different bulb from a different manufacturer. There also is plenty of competition and numerous different manufacturers and distributors. The only ways that prices could be higher for dimmable CF bulbs across the board compared with standard CF bulbs under those circumstances is a distribution channel chokepoint (there are none I'm aware of and there are easily obtained and cheap substitute products in the form of incandescent bulbs) or collusion (which is very unlikely). Given that incandescents are an easy substitute for overpriced dimmable CF bulbs, there is a natural cap on what can be charged if the decision is purely an economic one. No, the most reasonable explanation for the high price of dimmable CF bulbs is simply economies of scale haven't kicked in yet.
Has he outlined a specific plan and legislation he will propose if he is elected?
This is really off topic but...
From what I can tell, no, Ron Paul has not articulated specific proposals. (Please correct me with references if I am mistaken) I saw him on TV and his basic "platform" is to abolish the IRS and pretty much every other department and function of the government possible. Lots of populist rhetoric but nothing that would have a snowballs chance in hell of actually getting passed through Congress. Nor did I hear any concrete proposals for how the remaining reduced government would be funded. In principle I don't have a problem with changing the size, scope or function of the government but if we are going to change it I want to hear a compelling argument as to why the new structure would be better. Ron Paul to my mind has not articulated any such argument to my satisfaction.
To relate this to the topic at hand, I'm reasonably sure Mr. Paul would be against legislation mandating energy efficiency standards, like the CAFE standards. But I'm also reasonably sure he doesn't have a good solution for the incentive problems of private enterprise which necessitate such legislation in the first place. As much as it pains me, sometimes the government really is the best way to accomplish important tasks. The trick is not using the government when we really don't need to.
there's not a good reason these are 5-6x more expensive than standard CFL.
Sure there is. Economies of scale. Dimmable CF bulbs haven't been in production long enough to amortize the fixed costs of production to a reasonable level. Give it time and the price will come down just like the non-dimming CF bulbs did.
Also there is the fact that dimmable CF bulbs have a few technology hurdles still to overcome compared with their non-dimming brethren. I figure those will be solved within the next year or so but that's just a guess.
Specifically, I'm talking about lights that dim... CF bulbs do not dim.
Actually there are dimmable CF bulbs. At present they don't work quite as well as incandescents for dimming applications but they do exist and work acceptably for many applications. They typically cannot dim all the way to no light, with most stopping at about 20%. Many are reported to buzz when dimmed as well though I've not experienced this myself yet. They also are quite expensive still. A 3W dimmable (equivalent to a 15W incandescent) from Home Depot costs $6.35 last I checked. I use some in my house and they work reasonably well if not quite as well as the non-dimming CF bulbs I use.
People here that go in to sports full time (say soccer or cycling) that I have any exposure to have never struck me as 'bright' outside of their field. Professional (non-recreational) sports and academia in Europe are two different worlds, as far as I know. Nobody *ever* got into a major university here because they were good at sports.
Ahhh. I didn't know you were from Europe. Yes, in Europe cycling is much more of a blue collar activity in Europe than it is here in the US. I can completely see why you would get the impression that athletes are often not of the highest intellectual caliber. We have the same phenomenon over here but usually in sports like boxing and a few others. In the US cycling is a sport popular among the relatively wealthy along with soccer. Most talented athletes on this side of the pond compete while in college and if they are really talented may go to the Olympics or pro afterwards depending on their sport. There are exceptions of course. Many top baseball players do not go to college, female gymnasts compete at top levels before they ever get to college, but most top athletes in the US compete in college at some point. Some, like runners or cyclists don't hit their physical peak until their late 20's or early 30's so they may get a degree and keep competing after school. But in the vast, vast, vast majority of cases athletes compete for the love of the sport, scholarships notwithstanding.
Athletic scholarships are given under the premise that diversity of experiences and talents makes the whole university stronger. A successful athletic team also can encourage alumni to donate more money than they might otherwise. (Don't laugh, it's true! A winning football team will increase alumni donations significantly) Scholarships are also given out for artistic talent (dance, music, etc..) as well as of course academic ability and financial need. Many universities do not offer athletic scholarships. The Ivy League and Patriot League prohibit athletic scholarships from being given. There are several divisions in college athletics as well and Division III schools do not offer athletic scholarships either. That said, the best athletic programs typically do offer scholarships. You can make good arguments for or against athletic scholarships but they aren't the main reason people compete in sports. It's just a nice perk for a few people who have a genuine talent worth developing.
These people to me appear to be very 'rounded' individuals, a healthy mind in a healthy body. I don't think they spent the majority of their time on their sports though, unless they were absolutely brilliant, and in that case I wonder what they could have done if they had totally given themselves to some science or other. Most people at the top of the scientific fields do not strike me as athletes in any way shape or form!
You would be surprised how many people are very good athletes and at the top of their profession. I'm speaking from personal experience here. It's a big misconception that most athletes spend most of their time on sports. It's certainly a big part of their lives but very, very, very few of them are "one trick ponies". For most of them it is a form of entertainment and relaxation above all else. It helps to focus their energies, which are usually prodigious, and to calm their mind. It also is a lot of fun. (usually anyway) Athletics makes them better at the other things they do, not worse. Most of them actually focus on something non-athletic related for their profession, since there are relatively few opportunities to actually make a living competing. The window to compete at a high level is relatively short and most athletes are acutely aware of this. Even athletes who think they are going to go pro or go to the Olympics don't put all their eggs in that basket unless they have to since it just takes one injury to wipe that dream out.
It requires a lot of disciple to compete and balance other parts of your life but the thing most non-athletes don't understand is that sports actually can make you better at your other pursuits. I almost always got my best grades during the seasons I competed, and that is extremely common. It forces a certain amount of disciple on you to have to balance the time commitments and people tend to think more clearly when they are actively exercising.
The point I originally made is that there are going to be fewer people who are both smart and good at athletics than there are people who are smart regardless of athletic ability. But people who are smart and athletic are more common than you might think. Good athletes just don't tend to talk about it because it is a very personal thing and there just isn't much to say when they are not competing or are retired.
I always wonder what they must feel like when inevitably they get booted out of the way by the next generation and they find out that their skillsets have limited marketability outside maybe advertising (and that's hardly a plus).
I don't mean this as an insult but I think you do not know too many athletes. Top tier athletes have skill sets as diverse as the rest of the population. Business, finance, sales, medicine, and engineering all have a large number of current and former athletes in their ranks. Athletes who are very smart are more common than many people assume. Look at people like Dot Richardson or Eric Heiden as examples (yes, orthopedic surgeons tend to be ex-jocks) of people who are extremely bright but also very gifted athletically. Sometimes the sports pushes the schedule for their other activities around some but eventually they retire from active competition and get on with their life. And I can tell you for a certainty that they are rarely worse off for having competed.
Don't pay too much attention to the folks who do things like drop out of college to go pro in those very few sports where going pro is an actual option. That's where you find the athletes who are doing so because they have no other options. (the "one trick ponies") In college football and basketball you find a too many folks who really do not belong in college. (If a person can't score higher than the minimums require by the NCAA on the SAT they really aren't college material anyway) But for s
Slashdot Mirror
Giving away some copies to create interest/hype is an ancient tactic. Sounds like this was a fairly clever astroturfing campaign. People have a bit of a herd mentality when it comes to deciding what is popular. If they perceive that something is in demand, they want to find out what the fuss is about. They will often declare it interesting or desirable more because others say it is rather than judging objectively on merit. (exhibit A: Paris Hilton) Arguably the most powerful advertising message there is is "everyone else is doing it". Sounds silly (because it is) but it works VERY well.
One way to think about it is that this instance of astroturfing was a way to create activation energy" necessary to get the "popularity reaction" going. If there is no word of mouth because no one has a copy of the book (or other media) it will probably just sit on shelves and never sell. This fellow was clever enough to create a little artificial demand that turned into the real thing. Just a well done example of a cleverly run public relations campaign. Done right it is very effective and much cheaper than advertising.
I can't wait until the sport compact crowd gets a hold of the Nano. Who's going to be first to slap a VTEC sticker on the back?
It's a two cylinder, four stroke engine. I misread that the first time too. From TFA: powered by a 30 HP Bosch 624 cc four stroke engine mounted out back and mated to a CVT. That makes the Nano the first time a 2-cylinder gasoline engine will be used in a car with a single balancer shaft.
I noticed right after I posted. Maybe you were ok with working on the 1000 and if so my hat is off to you. Personally I couldn't take it, especially since I had access to real computers at the time. The machine was so slow and awkward I'd rather stand in line at the DMV than actually try to do anything productive on it. Most entertaining thing I ever did with it was play a game of Frogger and even that was not much fun on that particular machine.
Hmmm. Somehow I overlooked the Sinclair 1000 being on the list. As I said before, it richly deserves to be there. Horrible, horrible machine.
Having owned one, I would have put the Timex Sinclair 1000 on the list somewhere. They mention a Timex (the 2068) but the Sinclair 1000 was so bad because it was nothing but a budget membrane keyboard about 1/3 the size of a normal keyboard. There was no reasonable way to actually type other than hunt-n-peck and even then the keys were really finicky. Even magazines at the time complained about how bad the keyboard was.
Do they mean fixed or fixed?
I'm not talking about import/export, I'm talking about synchronization. Import/export is only useful for a one time bulk transfer. Change anything after that and you have a mess on your hands. If you have more than a handful of contact information import/export is useless on an ongoing basis. There is no fundamental technological reason why address books cannot synchronize. No, the reasons are almost entirely based on attempts at platform lock in. Just like the Microsoft Office file formats keep people using Word and Excel, making it a pain in the ass to synchronize contact info in your address book from Outlook to Thunderbird (or any other two address book dependent apps) tends to keep people using that application. Hence Microsoft and Google have little incentive to actually share the data that would make updating my Palm Tungsten or Nokia phone or Thunderbird address books actually easy.
Calendar sharing admittedly has gotten better recently (largely thanks to
Of course but not by choice. I'd really like Google's contact list to synchronize with Thunderbird's address book (or outlook, or pine, or {insert favorite email app here} ) not to mention some of my hardware devices like my phone.
Good for you. What are you going to do when one of them changes? Oh that's right, you're screwed. You don't want duplicates? Want to have a third address book? You don't want to manually have to maintain two or more address books? Have fun with your CSV files and manual updates.
Of course you have been able to import and export since time immemorial. That's almost USELESS after the first time, not to mention a pain in the ass. I was talking about synchronization, not import/export. Import/export is only a solution for someone with a very small address book or WAY too much time on their hands.
True, but we don't really need Microsoft either. I just need a stack of hardware and software that actually cooperates. If Microsoft is not involved, so much the better.
I use Gmail and Google calendar. While I'm generally pleased with them, data "portability" tends to be pathetic. You cannot easily synchronize your contacts in Gmail with another address book (Thunderbird's for instance). Sure you can import them or export them manually but who the hell wants to do that more than once? Google's calendar is a little better but only a little. I can sort of update it from Sunbird or iCal (with some warts) but it's not seamless like it should be. Google's more open than some but I'd like to see them actually trying to be portable with the software they already have. Until then it's just a bunch of hot air.
Google isn't great with data portability but then no one else I'm aware of does it well either. If they did I'd switch in a heartbeat. Address books are a tower of babel of incompatibility. Unless you tie yourself to very specific closed platforms (Outlook typically), getting all your software and computers to share addresses is damn near impossible. Want to use Outlook? Good luck sharing your address book with Gmail or (hah) Thunderbird. Want to use a Palm device? Pick your address book and calendar carefully. Sure there are ways to get data from one to another but that's not portability.
I would not expect the slashdot editors to know this but FYI it is spelled Cuyahoga County not "Cayahoga" which is roughly correct phonetically but not correct otherwise. For those unfamiliar, Cuyahoga County is where the city of Cleveland is located.
If your time horizon is 8 months, that is absolutely correct. For the first 5 years or so, it's at usually rough for most people. High interest, maybe you stretched financially to get the place, etc. If your time horizon is 20 years there is a much, much better chance that it will be a good decision.
Keep this in mind too. You own a very valuable asset now at someone else's expense. Don't underestimate the value of that. Possibly the most important concept in finance is "other peoples money". No one will loan you $200,000 to buy stocks if you just have $40,000 but you can get that loan to buy a house. Leverage is an amazing and if used carefully, incredibly powerful thing. The ability to borrow and otherwise raise (and repay) capital is what lets companies grow. It's no different from you. Might be a bit painful upfront but you now have an estate that is much larger than you otherwise could by renting and investing.
Because there is a finite amount of land and an increasing population. Supply is fixed. Demand is not. Houses should appreciate due to population growth if no other reason. And there are plenty of other reasons why a house would gain in value which I enumerated in great detail.
You don't. Repeat after me. There is no such thing as a risk free investment.
I said houses are an investment. They are an investment with a different risk profile and characteristics but they are an investment. Might go up, might go down. Never said otherwise.
Because they want a place to live. Should have thought that was obvious.
Supply and demand, same as with any other asset. Population growth, desirability of location, land availability, demographics, age and condition of the home, and a host of other factors come into play to determine the value of real estate. Not to mention that you can make improvements to the home and the land to increase its value to potential buyers in excess of your investment. Note that I never claimed any old real estate in any random location was a good investment. Clearly that's not true. But there are plenty of reasons why a house, or any other real estate, can and often does appreciate in value. Real estate is one of the few assets we cannot create out of thin air. There is a finite amount of land available, and only some is in desirable locations. My company can create all the new widgets I want but I can't manufacture land.
Entirely situation dependent. In the last city I lived in it was actually cheaper for me to buy than rent because I could get a 4.5% note on the place. Tax and inflation adjusted it was a better deal than any rental property we could get in that area with similar features. (As an aside remember that with a rental you lose money to inflation, on average 2-3%/year, which is offset (generally) with a home.) If I lived in Manhattan or Miami during the same time period, the situation would probably have been the reverse. Could I have made more money renting & investing? Maybe. But with quite a bit more risk which I did not need or want to take.
Maybe in his case but it's not a no-brainer for everyone. Whether to rent or buy depends entirely on your financial situation, your location, your risk tolerance, and your age. I'll give you an example. For someone like my mother who is nearly at retirement age and taking care of two 90 year old parents, renting in order to play the stock market would be completely inappropriate given the risks involved. She is not financially sophisticated and she certainly cannot afford the chance of losing big or even losing everything (which IS a chance you run however remote) with that investment strategy. For you renting might be exactly the right thing to do and it sounds like perhaps it is. But don't assume that your situation is appropriate for everyone or even most people.
By your reasoning why would anyone invest in bonds over stocks? After all stocks historically have a higher return. The answer is risk. Stocks are riskier and the returns less certain. Some people (like me and I presume you) can afford a lot of risk. Others (like my mother) cannot afford much risk at all. A home is a low yield but historically steady and generally safe investment if held for the long term. It is a sensible part of many many people's investment portfolio. You have to consider your risk profile. You're not wrong to rent and invest. I'm just saying it isn't the right choice for everyone.
Incidentally I do financial analytics for a living, often involving real estate. I can do without the implication that I'm "mindlessly repeating what I've heard" because it just ain't so.
When owning is "better" it's better because you own an asset (the house) which can appreciate in value. A house is an investment, not much different from owning stock in a company or holding a government bond and a house is usually the biggest investment most people make. A house can, and historically usually does, appreciate in value over time by a few percent per year. At least in the US (not so sure about other countries) owning a house has benefits from a taxation standpoint. You can get a significant "return" on your investment through reduced taxes. Generally speaking, owning is better than renting in the long term (greater than 10 years) for most people.
In your case if there really is a $700 difference, renting is only better if you can get a better return on your investment through other investment vehicles (stocks, etc) than you would through the appreciation of the value of the house and any tax offsets. You might be absolutely right for your particular circumstances. Owning is not always better than renting just like renting is not always better than owning. Just depends on the particulars of the situation and the investment alternatives available to you.
I'm not assuming any of those things. To address your points: 1) Doesn't matter that the product is are new or not. Dimmable CF bulbs aren't being produced yet in sufficient volume to offset the fixed costs of production. The fact that they've been on the market in small volumes for some time is almost irrelevant. Which leads to: 2) You are confusing the variable cost of the end product (as you note nearly the same between standard CF & dimmable CF) with the total cost of the equipment and facilities + the materials & labor needed to produce that product. Prices are high because the manufacturers have had to install new lines and buy new equipment to ramp up production. Unless they intend to sell at a loss (stupid with a commodity product) the cost will be high at first and go down over time.
Are some resellers overcharging? Sure. Happens with lots of products, especially newer ones. It'll cost me lots more to buy an identical network cable at Radio Shack than Walmart for example. But hear me out. I'm simplifying a bit but dimmable CF bulbs are basically a commodity product meaning one bulb from one manufacturer can be easily substituted for a different bulb from a different manufacturer. There also is plenty of competition and numerous different manufacturers and distributors. The only ways that prices could be higher for dimmable CF bulbs across the board compared with standard CF bulbs under those circumstances is a distribution channel chokepoint (there are none I'm aware of and there are easily obtained and cheap substitute products in the form of incandescent bulbs) or collusion (which is very unlikely). Given that incandescents are an easy substitute for overpriced dimmable CF bulbs, there is a natural cap on what can be charged if the decision is purely an economic one. No, the most reasonable explanation for the high price of dimmable CF bulbs is simply economies of scale haven't kicked in yet.
This is really off topic but...
From what I can tell, no, Ron Paul has not articulated specific proposals. (Please correct me with references if I am mistaken) I saw him on TV and his basic "platform" is to abolish the IRS and pretty much every other department and function of the government possible. Lots of populist rhetoric but nothing that would have a snowballs chance in hell of actually getting passed through Congress. Nor did I hear any concrete proposals for how the remaining reduced government would be funded. In principle I don't have a problem with changing the size, scope or function of the government but if we are going to change it I want to hear a compelling argument as to why the new structure would be better. Ron Paul to my mind has not articulated any such argument to my satisfaction.
To relate this to the topic at hand, I'm reasonably sure Mr. Paul would be against legislation mandating energy efficiency standards, like the CAFE standards. But I'm also reasonably sure he doesn't have a good solution for the incentive problems of private enterprise which necessitate such legislation in the first place. As much as it pains me, sometimes the government really is the best way to accomplish important tasks. The trick is not using the government when we really don't need to.
Sure there is. Economies of scale. Dimmable CF bulbs haven't been in production long enough to amortize the fixed costs of production to a reasonable level. Give it time and the price will come down just like the non-dimming CF bulbs did.
Also there is the fact that dimmable CF bulbs have a few technology hurdles still to overcome compared with their non-dimming brethren. I figure those will be solved within the next year or so but that's just a guess.
Actually there are dimmable CF bulbs. At present they don't work quite as well as incandescents for dimming applications but they do exist and work acceptably for many applications. They typically cannot dim all the way to no light, with most stopping at about 20%. Many are reported to buzz when dimmed as well though I've not experienced this myself yet. They also are quite expensive still. A 3W dimmable (equivalent to a 15W incandescent) from Home Depot costs $6.35 last I checked. I use some in my house and they work reasonably well if not quite as well as the non-dimming CF bulbs I use.
Ahhh. I didn't know you were from Europe. Yes, in Europe cycling is much more of a blue collar activity in Europe than it is here in the US. I can completely see why you would get the impression that athletes are often not of the highest intellectual caliber. We have the same phenomenon over here but usually in sports like boxing and a few others. In the US cycling is a sport popular among the relatively wealthy along with soccer. Most talented athletes on this side of the pond compete while in college and if they are really talented may go to the Olympics or pro afterwards depending on their sport. There are exceptions of course. Many top baseball players do not go to college, female gymnasts compete at top levels before they ever get to college, but most top athletes in the US compete in college at some point. Some, like runners or cyclists don't hit their physical peak until their late 20's or early 30's so they may get a degree and keep competing after school. But in the vast, vast, vast majority of cases athletes compete for the love of the sport, scholarships notwithstanding.
Athletic scholarships are given under the premise that diversity of experiences and talents makes the whole university stronger. A successful athletic team also can encourage alumni to donate more money than they might otherwise. (Don't laugh, it's true! A winning football team will increase alumni donations significantly) Scholarships are also given out for artistic talent (dance, music, etc..) as well as of course academic ability and financial need. Many universities do not offer athletic scholarships. The Ivy League and Patriot League prohibit athletic scholarships from being given. There are several divisions in college athletics as well and Division III schools do not offer athletic scholarships either. That said, the best athletic programs typically do offer scholarships. You can make good arguments for or against athletic scholarships but they aren't the main reason people compete in sports. It's just a nice perk for a few people who have a genuine talent worth developing.
You would be surprised how many people are very good athletes and at the top of their profession. I'm speaking from personal experience here. It's a big misconception that most athletes spend most of their time on sports. It's certainly a big part of their lives but very, very, very few of them are "one trick ponies". For most of them it is a form of entertainment and relaxation above all else. It helps to focus their energies, which are usually prodigious, and to calm their mind. It also is a lot of fun. (usually anyway) Athletics makes them better at the other things they do, not worse. Most of them actually focus on something non-athletic related for their profession, since there are relatively few opportunities to actually make a living competing. The window to compete at a high level is relatively short and most athletes are acutely aware of this. Even athletes who think they are going to go pro or go to the Olympics don't put all their eggs in that basket unless they have to since it just takes one injury to wipe that dream out.
It requires a lot of disciple to compete and balance other parts of your life but the thing most non-athletes don't understand is that sports actually can make you better at your other pursuits. I almost always got my best grades during the seasons I competed, and that is extremely common. It forces a certain amount of disciple on you to have to balance the time commitments and people tend to think more clearly when they are actively exercising.
The point I originally made is that there are going to be fewer people who are both smart and good at athletics than there are people who are smart regardless of athletic ability. But people who are smart and athletic are more common than you might think. Good athletes just don't tend to talk about it because it is a very personal thing and there just isn't much to say when they are not competing or are retired.
I don't mean this as an insult but I think you do not know too many athletes. Top tier athletes have skill sets as diverse as the rest of the population. Business, finance, sales, medicine, and engineering all have a large number of current and former athletes in their ranks. Athletes who are very smart are more common than many people assume. Look at people like Dot Richardson or Eric Heiden as examples (yes, orthopedic surgeons tend to be ex-jocks) of people who are extremely bright but also very gifted athletically. Sometimes the sports pushes the schedule for their other activities around some but eventually they retire from active competition and get on with their life. And I can tell you for a certainty that they are rarely worse off for having competed.
Don't pay too much attention to the folks who do things like drop out of college to go pro in those very few sports where going pro is an actual option. That's where you find the athletes who are doing so because they have no other options. (the "one trick ponies") In college football and basketball you find a too many folks who really do not belong in college. (If a person can't score higher than the minimums require by the NCAA on the SAT they really aren't college material anyway) But for s
Nope. That's what WiFi is for!
WiFi, the savior of family network administrators everywhere.