Because some of those moderately healthy people will still suffer from disease or injury that will incur large healthcare costs. The whole point of insurance is that it spreads those costs around. While you may be lucky enough to not find that you have a congenital heart defect that costs $100,000 in surgery to correct, your premium helps pay for that one guy out of 100,000 that does. And it means that the public doesn't have to pay your healthcare costs if you do suffer from an illness that carries catastrophic healthcare costs.
Spot on. And I want to stress the congenital part there—a lot of congenital conditions go undetected until a person hits their late 20s or early 30s, just because they were otherwise healthy and asymptomatic. So just after they've been trained or educated and they're entering their prime work and childrearing years, a previously hidden health condition catches up with them and saddles them with unbearable financial burdens for the rest of their lives.
Anybody who thinks they are one of these proverbial "young healthy people who don't need insurance" doesn't really know it. And basically, they're choosing to opt out of the only sort of system that could protect them from that.
Anyone can own land, so there is absolutely no reason that trash collection should be a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination (beyond simple state-worship).
Well, collecting the trash is the easy part. Where the heck are the collectors going to dump it? That's the hard part. The libertarian answer, of course, is "poor people's backyards."
I visited the US earlier this year, and was surprised how few recycling bins there were.
How much recycling bins you see is very regional, so it's hard what to make of your report without knowing where you went. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area and when I visit my dad in Atlanta, his girlfriend's relatives make fun of me when I ask where is the recycling bin. "Oh, yeah, California..." they'll say, take the item from me, and throw it in the regular trash.
Wouldn't this lead to Americans consuming much less (goal), which would then lead to even worse worldwide economic turmoil? So are we drawing a line between economy vs. climate now?
You're confusing consuming less energy or other resources with consuming fewer goods and services. A CO2 tax can lead to an outcome where Americans consume the same amount of goods and services, but in a more energy- and resource-efficient manner. (Though yes, it can also lead to an outcome where technology and production doesn't catch up, and the economy suffers from it.)
Re:The next new airplane to get axed...
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
It's really pathetic that we are more concerned with playing political games with our allies than fielding the best equipment for our armed forces.
Except that in many cases arming our allies to be able to fight off their immediate threats is much better for us than putting ourselves in a great position to be able to fight in their stead. I mean, which would you rather have: (a) a South Korean air force powerful enough to gain air control against North Korea, or (b) the US Air Force and Navy be forced to scramble a lot of their assets to Japan and fly long-range sorties from there while the North Koreans push the Southern army down to Busan?
Of course, this is not hypothetical; one of the reasons South Korea did so badly against the North in the first few days of the 1950 war was that the North had an air force and the South didn't. If the US Navy hadn't intervened promptly to provide carrier-based air patrol over Korea, the North Koreans would have won quickly.
My understanding is that applications won't be able to see other users's files. Sounds like UNIX to me. And, gee, that's been around for only 40 years.
First of all, Unix did not invent file permissions. Not by a long shot.
Other than that, well, this is a permission scheme, but finer grained and smarter than Unix permissions. Unix permissions are user based; it's primarily "who owns this file, and which users' processes are allowed to do what with it," with a few extensions like suid that are about escalating an app's privileges. So for example, vanilla Unix permissions will allow any process to access any file owned by the process' user.
The OS X application sandboxes being discussed, in contrast, are about what files or resources an application is allowed to touch, even if the application's process is owned by the same user as the file. So the sandboxes can forbid an application from surreptitiously opening files even when they're owned by the same user running the application. I.e., if one of the applications you're running gets compromised by a buffer overflow that allows arbitrary code execution, the injected code is not allowed to read arbitrary files in your account.
This of course exists in OS X together with Unix-style user-based file permissions. So in short, OS X can forbid a process from opening a file on two kinds of grounds: either (a) the process' user doesn't have permission to access that file, or (b) the process' application doesn't have permission to access that file. And in the latter case, there's also a trick that the OS and libraries work together to identify which files the user has explicitly opened through the user interface, and dynamically grants permission for the process to open those files.
Nobody got raped. That is a piss-poor translation of what he is charged with.
Read the damn press on the case. Assange has been charged with rape. The claim that he was only charged with some absurd and untranslatable Sweden-only thing called something like "sex by surprise" is bullshit that his defense lawyers made up.
Oh, and a note: while you're reading the press on the case, be very careful to note which claims are coming from which party. A lot of the "facts" that people recite about this case (especially early on) come from Assange's legal team. Who, again, made a lot of shit up early on—at the same time when the Sweden prosecutors were being really quiet about it.
The bigger issue is that the case had already been thrown out, due to insufficient evidence.
This is a misleading statement. No court ever "threw out" Assange's case. What you mean is that one prosecutor didn't think it merited further investigation, and another one believed it did.
I don't find that link convincing. Keep in mind that this alleged rape victim has had access to the Swedish legal system for months and its knowledge while the examples given are of people who hadn't been so informed of their rights. If she's still saying it's not rape, then I'm inclined to believe her.
What matters is the concrete allegations as to who did what, the credibility of the allegations, and the law. If Assange used force to push a woman down into bed because she insisted that he use a condom and he wanted to go bareback against her consent, that's rape. If Assange started having sex with a woman while she was asleep because that way she couldn't stop him from going bareback, that's rape too. It doesn't matter what label these women apply to the incident; that's up for the law to decide.
If we applied your standard, we'd do terrible things, like let physically abusive husbands off the hook because their battered wives defend them and blame themselves for the violence. (Yes, battered wives do this. Stereotypically.)
I would like to know how someone who has sex with consenting adults can be considered a 'casual rapist'.
Stop making ignorant requests and read the actual allegations against Assange. For example, one allegation is that he used physical force (pushed the woman down into the bed) when one of the women insisted that he use a condom. Another allegation is that he initiated sex without a condom on one of the accusers while she was sleeping—when she had successfully insisted the previous night that he use a condom.
I've met rape victims, that's how. It's not something they brag about next day on Facebook. They also don't usually throw a party and invite their rapist over so they can present him to their friends.
Your experience is insufficiently broad, and suffers from a terrible selection bias. How much experience do you have, for example, with women who are raped by their own husbands and don't report it? How many women do you estimate will admit to you that they had unwanted sex with a man who used alcohol and a little bit of physical force to overcome her resistance?
You're citing an article that starts off by citing Assange's original lawyers' bullshit about "sex by surprise." This is something that Assange's defense team made up. Assange was never accused of such a thing in Sweden. Basically, early on in this case Assange's lawyers said a lot of falsehoods about the case, and people have swallowed it.
What if a credit card was used to buy antibiotics which kept a kid from dying horribly, and that kid grew up to contribute to developing an important invention? Is that investment debt or consumer debt?
Neither. That's "why the hell don't we have socialized healthcare."
Maybe not in common law, but California State Law is pretty clear on the matter. If you find lost property, which the iPhone prototype was, you are duty bound to turn it in so it can be reunited with it's owner.
You're misinterpreting this a bit. You don't have an obligation to return an item that you find; you can always leave it where you found it. You are obligated to return the lost item only if you take it.
Informally put, the law codifies the idea that returning lost property to its owner is a favor that you can do them. But as such, the only things you can do with lost property are those that you can justify as helping the owner reclaim their property. So, for example, if you take a guy's lost phone to return it to them, you can inspect and operate the phone to identify the owner—and even call the owner using their own phone to tell them that you found it—but you can't use it to go on a 900 number phone sex orgy at the owner's expense.
Another example: you're generally forbidden to sell lost property, but there's an exception that if the property is perishable, you may sell it and later give the proceeds to the owner. Again, the reasoning is that selling the items before they spoil is in the interest of the owner, so you're doing them a favor by selling it on their behalf.
AFIK, there is no expectation in statutory or common law that requires an establishment to retain abandoned items.
As I recall it, in California law indeed nobody is obligated to retain lost property or do anything to restore it to the owner—but the law does spell out obligations that you assume if you take the lost property. In every case you can always turn the item over to the police to rid yourself of any obligation. Also, the only way you're allowed to claim somebody else's lost property is to go through a process that involves turning it in to the police for them to hold for a specified time period before surrendering it to the finder.
There's even more detail than this in California law, for things such as lost perishable goods (you can sell them and give the proceeds to the owner) and recovery of the finder's reasonable costs (e.g., if you lose your horse and I find it, choose to house it and feed it for a week until you're reunited).
The market as a whole has gone up, long term, since there have been stock markets. Not just in the US and not just in the 20th century. Certainly not individual shares.
You're looking at it through the lens of survivorship bias. How do you think you'd have done if you'd invested in 1913 on the stock markets of Spain, Germany, Japan or Argentina?
Except the market isn't random. It goes up, long term.
No, not necessarily. You're extrapolating from the US stock market's performance in the 20th century. This is not a representative sample. Stocks may very well go down long term. Of course, if that happens, you will probably have bigger problems to worry about than "my stock index funds have been tanking for 20 years," so I suggest don't let this stop you from long term stock investing—which is meant to protect you from the risk of long-term inflation, not from long-term societal collapse.
I feel inclined to call the DJIA "retarded," but that's unfair to the people who invented it in 1896 and expanded it in the 1920s (from 12 to 30 stocks). Back in those days, it wasn't that terrible of an idea.
I think I should expand on this. Back in 1902, a stock broker in the NYSE could calculate the DJIA by pencil in the back of an envelope: add the current prices of those 12 stocks up in the board and divide by 12. When it expanded to 30 stocks in the 20s it became that much harder, but you still could pay a guy to do it by hand and put up the updated values periodically up in the board. The jump to capitalization-weighted indexes with 500+ stocks was only possible with computers.
Eh.. I don't really understand this.. if they were to split at noon tomorrow, $412 worth of apple stock would still buy roughly the same fraction of apple afterward as it did before, wouldn't it? Is the DJIA an unweighted average based solely on share price? How is that even remotely useful as a metric?
IIRC the DJIA only applies weighting to stocks that split after inclusion in the index, in order to keep the index price reflecting the actual changes in the companies.
I feel inclined to call the DJIA "retarded," but that's unfair to the people who invented it in 1896 and expanded it in the 1920s (from 12 to 30 stocks). Back in those days, it wasn't that terrible of an idea. But really, since the introduction of the S&P 500 in 1957, and total market indexes in the 1970s, there's really no point to it, and the fact that people keep reporting it is just retarded. The Wilshire is a more reasonable index—it just includes basically every US domestic stock.
If you had invested in the DOW in Apr 2009, you would have made money
Everybody can make money in hindsight.
Well, as somebody who bought a lot of stock between October 2008 and April 2009, I have to point out that there is a disciplined approach to doing this: (a) set up your finances so you don't have to sell during crises (live below your means; set aside an emergency cash fund; have good insurance); (b) have a well-defined asset allocation plan (e.g., 25% bonds, 75% stocks with 40% US and 35% international); (c) when one asset class falls drastically, sell off one of the others to bring the portfolio back to plan (this is called rebalancing).
That way, if stocks fall 40% and your portfolio ends up at about 35% bonds/65% stocks, you sell the extra 10% in bonds and buy stocks to restore the 25/75 target. More generally, this forces you to sell off investments that have risen to buy those that have fallen—a strategy that's made of pure win...
If you want a better investment strategy, use the S&P 500.
Actually, not this either, because the S&P was designed before index funds too, and isn't ideally suited to them. The S&P has a committee that unpredictably handpicks which stocks go into it, and when a new one enters the index, a lot of people buy them up because the S&P index funds are forced to buy it.
A better simple idea is just to buy an index fund that invests on the whole US stock market—e.g., Vanguard's Total Stock Marked Index funds. It's also more diversified—3,500+ stocks instead of just 500.
Market Cap seems just as arbitrary a figure as anything.
No, a market-cap weighed portfolio has the advantage that it doesn't need to be rebalanced when the prices of the stocks change.
What surprises me is that a fund like the DJI which prides itself on being a "stable" fund would elect to not include someone because the share price is "too high". It is a fund... it's not like investors get a 1:1 share purchase of any company within the DJI. If they are afraid of "what if it goes down", than only buy a smaller percentage of Apple and more in Company-XYZ to help to mitigate risk.
The Dow isn't a fund. It's an index—and it's over a hundred years old, which is the reason why it's so antiquated.
"50 year" is an adjectival phrase. It's an anniversary. The kind of anniversary: "50 year". AKA "50th anniversary".
If you're going to be pedantic, be correct.
...no, it's not an adjective phrase. If it was, you'd expect to be able to use it as a predicate. You can say both "a very large house" and "The house is very large." You can say "the 50-year anniversary" but not "*the anniversary is 50-year."
"50-year anniversary" is just a noun-noun compound, like "systems engineer" (where, likewise, you can't say "*That engineer is systems").
Imagine if New York hadn't been allowed to have paved roads until there was a plan in place to pave the entire Western frontier.
Well, we actually did build not just one, but two highway systems that were designed to connect the whole country from the beginning. So yeah, actually, a lot of freeways in New York were not funded until there was a plan in place to build counterparts throughout the country. (Fun facts: first state to sign a contract to build an Interstate highway: Missouri. First state to start actually building one: Kansas. First state to open a segment of one: Pennsylvania. First state to finish all of its route: Nebraska...)
Georges actually shook my house (like an earthquake) and it was a cat2 I don't want to know what a cat4/cat5 will do to us.
I remember back in 1995 or so when a hurricane warning was issued for Hurricane Luis (Cat 5). Governor Rosselló held a live press conference on TV, and you could tell from his face that he was scared shitless.
Slashdot Mirror
Because some of those moderately healthy people will still suffer from disease or injury that will incur large healthcare costs. The whole point of insurance is that it spreads those costs around. While you may be lucky enough to not find that you have a congenital heart defect that costs $100,000 in surgery to correct, your premium helps pay for that one guy out of 100,000 that does. And it means that the public doesn't have to pay your healthcare costs if you do suffer from an illness that carries catastrophic healthcare costs.
Spot on. And I want to stress the congenital part there—a lot of congenital conditions go undetected until a person hits their late 20s or early 30s, just because they were otherwise healthy and asymptomatic. So just after they've been trained or educated and they're entering their prime work and childrearing years, a previously hidden health condition catches up with them and saddles them with unbearable financial burdens for the rest of their lives.
Anybody who thinks they are one of these proverbial "young healthy people who don't need insurance" doesn't really know it. And basically, they're choosing to opt out of the only sort of system that could protect them from that.
Anyone can own land, so there is absolutely no reason that trash collection should be a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination (beyond simple state-worship).
Well, collecting the trash is the easy part. Where the heck are the collectors going to dump it? That's the hard part. The libertarian answer, of course, is "poor people's backyards."
I visited the US earlier this year, and was surprised how few recycling bins there were.
How much recycling bins you see is very regional, so it's hard what to make of your report without knowing where you went. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area and when I visit my dad in Atlanta, his girlfriend's relatives make fun of me when I ask where is the recycling bin. "Oh, yeah, California..." they'll say, take the item from me, and throw it in the regular trash.
Wouldn't this lead to Americans consuming much less (goal), which would then lead to even worse worldwide economic turmoil? So are we drawing a line between economy vs. climate now?
You're confusing consuming less energy or other resources with consuming fewer goods and services. A CO2 tax can lead to an outcome where Americans consume the same amount of goods and services, but in a more energy- and resource-efficient manner. (Though yes, it can also lead to an outcome where technology and production doesn't catch up, and the economy suffers from it.)
It's really pathetic that we are more concerned with playing political games with our allies than fielding the best equipment for our armed forces.
Except that in many cases arming our allies to be able to fight off their immediate threats is much better for us than putting ourselves in a great position to be able to fight in their stead. I mean, which would you rather have: (a) a South Korean air force powerful enough to gain air control against North Korea, or (b) the US Air Force and Navy be forced to scramble a lot of their assets to Japan and fly long-range sorties from there while the North Koreans push the Southern army down to Busan?
Of course, this is not hypothetical; one of the reasons South Korea did so badly against the North in the first few days of the 1950 war was that the North had an air force and the South didn't. If the US Navy hadn't intervened promptly to provide carrier-based air patrol over Korea, the North Koreans would have won quickly.
My understanding is that applications won't be able to see other users's files. Sounds like UNIX to me. And, gee, that's been around for only 40 years.
First of all, Unix did not invent file permissions. Not by a long shot.
Other than that, well, this is a permission scheme, but finer grained and smarter than Unix permissions. Unix permissions are user based; it's primarily "who owns this file, and which users' processes are allowed to do what with it," with a few extensions like suid that are about escalating an app's privileges. So for example, vanilla Unix permissions will allow any process to access any file owned by the process' user.
The OS X application sandboxes being discussed, in contrast, are about what files or resources an application is allowed to touch, even if the application's process is owned by the same user as the file. So the sandboxes can forbid an application from surreptitiously opening files even when they're owned by the same user running the application. I.e., if one of the applications you're running gets compromised by a buffer overflow that allows arbitrary code execution, the injected code is not allowed to read arbitrary files in your account.
This of course exists in OS X together with Unix-style user-based file permissions. So in short, OS X can forbid a process from opening a file on two kinds of grounds: either (a) the process' user doesn't have permission to access that file, or (b) the process' application doesn't have permission to access that file. And in the latter case, there's also a trick that the OS and libraries work together to identify which files the user has explicitly opened through the user interface, and dynamically grants permission for the process to open those files.
Nobody got raped. That is a piss-poor translation of what he is charged with.
Read the damn press on the case. Assange has been charged with rape. The claim that he was only charged with some absurd and untranslatable Sweden-only thing called something like "sex by surprise" is bullshit that his defense lawyers made up.
Oh, and a note: while you're reading the press on the case, be very careful to note which claims are coming from which party. A lot of the "facts" that people recite about this case (especially early on) come from Assange's legal team. Who, again, made a lot of shit up early on—at the same time when the Sweden prosecutors were being really quiet about it.
The bigger issue is that the case had already been thrown out, due to insufficient evidence.
This is a misleading statement. No court ever "threw out" Assange's case. What you mean is that one prosecutor didn't think it merited further investigation, and another one believed it did.
I don't find that link convincing. Keep in mind that this alleged rape victim has had access to the Swedish legal system for months and its knowledge while the examples given are of people who hadn't been so informed of their rights. If she's still saying it's not rape, then I'm inclined to believe her.
What matters is the concrete allegations as to who did what, the credibility of the allegations, and the law. If Assange used force to push a woman down into bed because she insisted that he use a condom and he wanted to go bareback against her consent, that's rape. If Assange started having sex with a woman while she was asleep because that way she couldn't stop him from going bareback, that's rape too. It doesn't matter what label these women apply to the incident; that's up for the law to decide.
If we applied your standard, we'd do terrible things, like let physically abusive husbands off the hook because their battered wives defend them and blame themselves for the violence. (Yes, battered wives do this. Stereotypically.)
I would like to know how someone who has sex with consenting adults can be considered a 'casual rapist'.
Stop making ignorant requests and read the actual allegations against Assange. For example, one allegation is that he used physical force (pushed the woman down into the bed) when one of the women insisted that he use a condom. Another allegation is that he initiated sex without a condom on one of the accusers while she was sleeping—when she had successfully insisted the previous night that he use a condom.
I've met rape victims, that's how. It's not something they brag about next day on Facebook. They also don't usually throw a party and invite their rapist over so they can present him to their friends.
Your experience is insufficiently broad, and suffers from a terrible selection bias. How much experience do you have, for example, with women who are raped by their own husbands and don't report it? How many women do you estimate will admit to you that they had unwanted sex with a man who used alcohol and a little bit of physical force to overcome her resistance?
You're citing an article that starts off by citing Assange's original lawyers' bullshit about "sex by surprise." This is something that Assange's defense team made up. Assange was never accused of such a thing in Sweden. Basically, early on in this case Assange's lawyers said a lot of falsehoods about the case, and people have swallowed it.
Second, the sad fact is that a large proportion rape victims don't refer to it as "rape."
What if a credit card was used to buy antibiotics which kept a kid from dying horribly, and that kid grew up to contribute to developing an important invention? Is that investment debt or consumer debt?
Neither. That's "why the hell don't we have socialized healthcare."
Maybe not in common law, but California State Law is pretty clear on the matter. If you find lost property, which the iPhone prototype was, you are duty bound to turn it in so it can be reunited with it's owner.
You're misinterpreting this a bit. You don't have an obligation to return an item that you find; you can always leave it where you found it. You are obligated to return the lost item only if you take it.
Informally put, the law codifies the idea that returning lost property to its owner is a favor that you can do them. But as such, the only things you can do with lost property are those that you can justify as helping the owner reclaim their property. So, for example, if you take a guy's lost phone to return it to them, you can inspect and operate the phone to identify the owner—and even call the owner using their own phone to tell them that you found it—but you can't use it to go on a 900 number phone sex orgy at the owner's expense.
Another example: you're generally forbidden to sell lost property, but there's an exception that if the property is perishable, you may sell it and later give the proceeds to the owner. Again, the reasoning is that selling the items before they spoil is in the interest of the owner, so you're doing them a favor by selling it on their behalf.
AFIK, there is no expectation in statutory or common law that requires an establishment to retain abandoned items.
As I recall it, in California law indeed nobody is obligated to retain lost property or do anything to restore it to the owner—but the law does spell out obligations that you assume if you take the lost property. In every case you can always turn the item over to the police to rid yourself of any obligation. Also, the only way you're allowed to claim somebody else's lost property is to go through a process that involves turning it in to the police for them to hold for a specified time period before surrendering it to the finder.
There's even more detail than this in California law, for things such as lost perishable goods (you can sell them and give the proceeds to the owner) and recovery of the finder's reasonable costs (e.g., if you lose your horse and I find it, choose to house it and feed it for a week until you're reunited).
The market as a whole has gone up, long term, since there have been stock markets. Not just in the US and not just in the 20th century. Certainly not individual shares.
You're looking at it through the lens of survivorship bias. How do you think you'd have done if you'd invested in 1913 on the stock markets of Spain, Germany, Japan or Argentina?
Except the market isn't random. It goes up, long term.
No, not necessarily. You're extrapolating from the US stock market's performance in the 20th century. This is not a representative sample. Stocks may very well go down long term. Of course, if that happens, you will probably have bigger problems to worry about than "my stock index funds have been tanking for 20 years," so I suggest don't let this stop you from long term stock investing—which is meant to protect you from the risk of long-term inflation, not from long-term societal collapse.
>
I feel inclined to call the DJIA "retarded," but that's unfair to the people who invented it in 1896 and expanded it in the 1920s (from 12 to 30 stocks). Back in those days, it wasn't that terrible of an idea.
I think I should expand on this. Back in 1902, a stock broker in the NYSE could calculate the DJIA by pencil in the back of an envelope: add the current prices of those 12 stocks up in the board and divide by 12. When it expanded to 30 stocks in the 20s it became that much harder, but you still could pay a guy to do it by hand and put up the updated values periodically up in the board. The jump to capitalization-weighted indexes with 500+ stocks was only possible with computers.
Eh.. I don't really understand this.. if they were to split at noon tomorrow, $412 worth of apple stock would still buy roughly the same fraction of apple afterward as it did before, wouldn't it? Is the DJIA an unweighted average based solely on share price? How is that even remotely useful as a metric?
IIRC the DJIA only applies weighting to stocks that split after inclusion in the index, in order to keep the index price reflecting the actual changes in the companies.
I feel inclined to call the DJIA "retarded," but that's unfair to the people who invented it in 1896 and expanded it in the 1920s (from 12 to 30 stocks). Back in those days, it wasn't that terrible of an idea. But really, since the introduction of the S&P 500 in 1957, and total market indexes in the 1970s, there's really no point to it, and the fact that people keep reporting it is just retarded. The Wilshire is a more reasonable index—it just includes basically every US domestic stock.
If you had invested in the DOW in Apr 2009, you would have made money
Everybody can make money in hindsight.
Well, as somebody who bought a lot of stock between October 2008 and April 2009, I have to point out that there is a disciplined approach to doing this: (a) set up your finances so you don't have to sell during crises (live below your means; set aside an emergency cash fund; have good insurance); (b) have a well-defined asset allocation plan (e.g., 25% bonds, 75% stocks with 40% US and 35% international); (c) when one asset class falls drastically, sell off one of the others to bring the portfolio back to plan (this is called rebalancing).
That way, if stocks fall 40% and your portfolio ends up at about 35% bonds/65% stocks, you sell the extra 10% in bonds and buy stocks to restore the 25/75 target. More generally, this forces you to sell off investments that have risen to buy those that have fallen—a strategy that's made of pure win...
If you want a better investment strategy, use the S&P 500.
Actually, not this either, because the S&P was designed before index funds too, and isn't ideally suited to them. The S&P has a committee that unpredictably handpicks which stocks go into it, and when a new one enters the index, a lot of people buy them up because the S&P index funds are forced to buy it.
A better simple idea is just to buy an index fund that invests on the whole US stock market—e.g., Vanguard's Total Stock Marked Index funds. It's also more diversified—3,500+ stocks instead of just 500.
Market Cap seems just as arbitrary a figure as anything.
No, a market-cap weighed portfolio has the advantage that it doesn't need to be rebalanced when the prices of the stocks change.
What surprises me is that a fund like the DJI which prides itself on being a "stable" fund would elect to not include someone because the share price is "too high". It is a fund... it's not like investors get a 1:1 share purchase of any company within the DJI. If they are afraid of "what if it goes down", than only buy a smaller percentage of Apple and more in Company-XYZ to help to mitigate risk.
The Dow isn't a fund. It's an index—and it's over a hundred years old, which is the reason why it's so antiquated.
"50 year" is an adjectival phrase. It's an anniversary. The kind of anniversary: "50 year". AKA "50th anniversary".
If you're going to be pedantic, be correct.
...no, it's not an adjective phrase. If it was, you'd expect to be able to use it as a predicate. You can say both "a very large house" and "The house is very large." You can say "the 50-year anniversary" but not "*the anniversary is 50-year."
"50-year anniversary" is just a noun-noun compound, like "systems engineer" (where, likewise, you can't say "*That engineer is systems").
Well, we actually did build not just one, but two highway systems that were designed to connect the whole country from the beginning. So yeah, actually, a lot of freeways in New York were not funded until there was a plan in place to build counterparts throughout the country. (Fun facts: first state to sign a contract to build an Interstate highway: Missouri. First state to start actually building one: Kansas. First state to open a segment of one: Pennsylvania. First state to finish all of its route: Nebraska...)
Georges actually shook my house (like an earthquake) and it was a cat2 I don't want to know what a cat4/cat5 will do to us.
I remember back in 1995 or so when a hurricane warning was issued for Hurricane Luis (Cat 5). Governor Rosselló held a live press conference on TV, and you could tell from his face that he was scared shitless.