If you're investing based on fundamentals and looking at portfolio value after 2 years, you're absolutely right that you're doing it wrong. The question for such an investor should be not about the value but whether the income of those investments is what you thought it will be. If the income is still there, then they will continue to post returns for the forseeable future, hence Buffet's comment that "my preferred holding period is 'forever'."
Yeah, the market will do stupid things in the short term (here meaning periods less than about 10 years), and you can make money based on those movements. Those aren't based on fundamentals, though, so if you're in it for the long haul then a market downturn which isn't based on that data just means it's an opportunity to buy more.
Which no one can possibly know now, so they make bets with other people as to what it will be. Once the future comes, you can look back and see if your predictions were accurate.
It's worth noting that there are a lot of places that are buffets that do not advertise "All You Can Eat." Oddly enough, that's still pretty analogous to what's going on here with Verizon.
I just want to second this; I've been looking for a Skype replacement for about a year now, and the only thing I can find that will get me a softphone with a real number is Google Voice. While their web version works well, the lack of a client hurts. Even if I do find something that works, getting it to work with my phone sets (USB adapter) is going to be tough. Does anyone have any suggestions?
The University of Vienna has enough religious history that when they were looking for an ethicist, that's probably the first thing that came to mind. I'd of probably gone with a philosopher, myself.
I played the original Deus Ex again recently, and I can only hope that the new one doesn't end up being as creepy 10 years from now as the old one is now. I ended up mentally substituting DHS for UNATCO everywhere it came up, and the thing still made perfect sense.
That's kind of the point of the article - AIM was the first protocol (as others have pointed out: in the US) that had such widespread adoption that everyone had to have a handle on it in order to be connected, even if it wasn't your primary.
Seeing as my choices for internet access are Comcast and... well, I suppose I could get a cell plan with tethering, and put a repeater on my roof... opting out isn't always a great option either. You can see where reasonable people can have a debate on this.
When the only options are government control or big business, it's the citizens/consumers who lose.
If by "more and more things" you're referring to e.g. healthcare and internet access, the only other option would be to have them run by massive corporations. We can debate all day which would be worse... at least government officials can potentially be voted out.
You've successfully argued that you should always virtualize commercial software, but claiming that you would not virtualize other software is another matter. Some of your points, e.g. DR, apply equally to all kinds of software.
The commonly accepted Wisdom is that marketshare is not the most important factor. So, for example, if a more secure OS became more popular than a less secure OS, it would be more targeted, but still safer than the other. Like how XP went down but is still at.18%, and 7 went up but is only at.04%, for example.
(Does anyone else feel like those numbers are ludicrously low?)
Yeah, but now one of the "features that require web access" is STORAGE, unlike every other device. I have to assume that that's not entirely true, because if I have to have a web connection to type a document I wouldn't use it for that, making this device nothing more than a web browser.
If it were me, I would at least look into the possibility of simply filling the old hole. Leaving it empty would obviously be a bad idea, but I'll bet that if you just plugged it you'd still have enough strength.
Welcome to the world of futures speculation! What if, instead of your scenario, we instead work to decrease the demand for oil in the future, thereby dropping the price. In that case, we'd be better off using our oil now while it's expensive, and buy theirs once it's cheap. Or we could do some of both, and hedge our bets. How you want to allocate your resources depends entirely on how effective you think the renewable energy crowd is going to be in coming up with competing solutions, and since there's likely to be someone who disagrees with you, you can actually put up money to make that bet.
I think there's a critical mass of technology that is required before we can effectively create the demand, and that is what these companies are working on (launching satellites to pay the bills in the meantime). Working backwards here: I don't think that we're going to be able to do much in space manufacturing (etc) until we close the life support loop; sending supplies up constantly is just too expensive. Bigelow is working on that problem, but are currently constrained by launch costs. SpaceX, Virgin, Armadillo, et al are working on lowering those costs via various strategies. Once we get launch costs low enough, we'll be able to do more testing on life support, and once we have that we'll be able advance other technologies to sell back here on earth.
These companies are making a long bet, but it's not irrational.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're investing based on fundamentals and looking at portfolio value after 2 years, you're absolutely right that you're doing it wrong. The question for such an investor should be not about the value but whether the income of those investments is what you thought it will be. If the income is still there, then they will continue to post returns for the forseeable future, hence Buffet's comment that "my preferred holding period is 'forever'."
Yeah, the market will do stupid things in the short term (here meaning periods less than about 10 years), and you can make money based on those movements. Those aren't based on fundamentals, though, so if you're in it for the long haul then a market downturn which isn't based on that data just means it's an opportunity to buy more.
Which no one can possibly know now, so they make bets with other people as to what it will be. Once the future comes, you can look back and see if your predictions were accurate.
Frankly, I'm not sure that would be a bad thing. What's good for the goose, after all...
I don't see how you're disagreeing with the GP. You're saying they're both bad, he's saying one is worse than the other.
It's worth noting that there are a lot of places that are buffets that do not advertise "All You Can Eat." Oddly enough, that's still pretty analogous to what's going on here with Verizon.
I just want to second this; I've been looking for a Skype replacement for about a year now, and the only thing I can find that will get me a softphone with a real number is Google Voice. While their web version works well, the lack of a client hurts. Even if I do find something that works, getting it to work with my phone sets (USB adapter) is going to be tough. Does anyone have any suggestions?
The University of Vienna has enough religious history that when they were looking for an ethicist, that's probably the first thing that came to mind. I'd of probably gone with a philosopher, myself.
I played the original Deus Ex again recently, and I can only hope that the new one doesn't end up being as creepy 10 years from now as the old one is now. I ended up mentally substituting DHS for UNATCO everywhere it came up, and the thing still made perfect sense.
That's kind of the point of the article - AIM was the first protocol (as others have pointed out: in the US) that had such widespread adoption that everyone had to have a handle on it in order to be connected, even if it wasn't your primary.
Thereby bringing a whole new meaning to "root kit."
If you set up a Kickstarter campaign, I'm in.
Those went up on this flight, too, as part of prep work for a Mars mission from the Planetary Society.
Do they mention who I have to talk to to get my money back?
Seeing as my choices for internet access are Comcast and... well, I suppose I could get a cell plan with tethering, and put a repeater on my roof... opting out isn't always a great option either. You can see where reasonable people can have a debate on this.
When the only options are government control or big business, it's the citizens/consumers who lose.
If by "more and more things" you're referring to e.g. healthcare and internet access, the only other option would be to have them run by massive corporations. We can debate all day which would be worse... at least government officials can potentially be voted out.
You've successfully argued that you should always virtualize commercial software, but claiming that you would not virtualize other software is another matter. Some of your points, e.g. DR, apply equally to all kinds of software.
I'd say this is one of those cases where you don't want to push the dilemma on them too hard, because we know which horn they'd take.
The commonly accepted Wisdom is that marketshare is not the most important factor. So, for example, if a more secure OS became more popular than a less secure OS, it would be more targeted, but still safer than the other. Like how XP went down but is still at .18%, and 7 went up but is only at .04%, for example.
(Does anyone else feel like those numbers are ludicrously low?)
Wait, Red Hat is evil now, too? I know we rejected Novell, but I must have missed that memo.
Yeah, but now one of the "features that require web access" is STORAGE, unlike every other device. I have to assume that that's not entirely true, because if I have to have a web connection to type a document I wouldn't use it for that, making this device nothing more than a web browser.
Google has been negotiating with the music publishers and the negotiations were described as "fruitless." This can only mean that Apple said 'No.'
Just sayin'... PR folks are good at talking in code.
If it were me, I would at least look into the possibility of simply filling the old hole. Leaving it empty would obviously be a bad idea, but I'll bet that if you just plugged it you'd still have enough strength.
Since the GP was talking about "the second half of the 19th century," you might want to try that again with references to the correct time period.
Welcome to the world of futures speculation! What if, instead of your scenario, we instead work to decrease the demand for oil in the future, thereby dropping the price. In that case, we'd be better off using our oil now while it's expensive, and buy theirs once it's cheap. Or we could do some of both, and hedge our bets. How you want to allocate your resources depends entirely on how effective you think the renewable energy crowd is going to be in coming up with competing solutions, and since there's likely to be someone who disagrees with you, you can actually put up money to make that bet.
I think there's a critical mass of technology that is required before we can effectively create the demand, and that is what these companies are working on (launching satellites to pay the bills in the meantime). Working backwards here: I don't think that we're going to be able to do much in space manufacturing (etc) until we close the life support loop; sending supplies up constantly is just too expensive. Bigelow is working on that problem, but are currently constrained by launch costs. SpaceX, Virgin, Armadillo, et al are working on lowering those costs via various strategies. Once we get launch costs low enough, we'll be able to do more testing on life support, and once we have that we'll be able advance other technologies to sell back here on earth.
These companies are making a long bet, but it's not irrational.