I don't think you've considered all the weaknesses of the system you're suggesting...
Hillary Clinton won 300 counties while Trump won 5000.
Suppose right before the election Dr. Evil gerrymandered the whole country so there are only 3 counties - two in his house, and one for everyone else. Based on your reckoning he is the rightful president because he won the two counties in his house.
If you think that the election of a nation should be swayed by a handful of cities
I would argue the election would be swayed by vast numbers of individual voters whose votes are weighted equally regardless of race, religion, gender, (etc...), and where they live.
The weighting based on where you live can easily be leveraged into weighting based on income level, race, or religion. For example suppose we don't like the Mormons - well if you're from Utah your vote now counts 1/10 as much as everyone else's. This negatively influences of perceived fairness of the government which is directly related to its perceived legitimacy. A government perceived as illegitimate will be eventually be forced to govern by violence, which is in no one's best interest.
You seem to be OK with weighting different peoples votes differently. I'd be interested to hear at what point you consider the weights to be too extreme? My understanding is the current system results in maximum of about a 1:4 disparity between Californians versus Wyomingites (Wyomines?) (https://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k?t=1m43s). 1/10? 1/100?
How do you justify the particular weighting you've selected as optimal as oppose to any other?
Where's that speech Hillary gave to Goldman Sachs? Maybe she's contradicted herself for the millionth time yet again?
Look through all the posts in this discussion and I think you will find that no one is arguing that Hillary would make a good president. What I think you will find is lot of people arguing that Trump would make a dangerous one.
This is the book I base my strategy on. Its author is Benjamin Graham, the mentor of the better known Warren Buffett. If you think my implementation is wrong I'm interested in what you have to say (with references to the points made this or some other authoritative source, of course). At the moment from you have offered nothing to back up your claims and have no more credibility than any other random person on the internet. Claiming the strategy is irrational is simply silly given that I can look up the results of Graham's various direct proteges.
you can simply take the money out of that stock and diversify by selling shares
This strategy relies on the stock price constantly growing and assumes that the growth is dependent on the profits being kept, and that the growth can be maintained, and that the growth is by a greater dollar amount than the dividend otherwise would be. These are assumptions I am not willing to make and if any of them is false I'm better off receiving the dividend.
I have said it before and I'll say it again - In the US you don't have the luxury of voting for the person you want to be president, you have to vote against the person you don't want to be president. That leaves no room for third parties.
The fact that two outsiders made such big inroads on both sides of the aisle gives me hope that after Clinton wins this election that there will be enough popular support for replacing the voting system with something like run-off voting. Especially if Trump and Sanders would use their substantial platforms to start the conversation.
the capital gains from reinvestment only are taxed when the shares are sold.
Not paying dividends does not guarantee rational reinvestment much less subsequent growth:
"... by late 2001, Oracle Corp. had piled up $5 billion in cash. Cisco Systems had hoarded at least $7.5 billion. Microsoft had amassed a mountain of cash $38.2 billion high - and rising by an average of $2 million per hour. Just how rainy a day was Bill Gates expecting, anyway?... In short, most managers are wrong when they say that they can put your cash to better use than you can. Paying out a dividend does not guarantee great results, but it does improve the return of the typical stock by yanking at least some cash out the managers hands before they can squander it or squirrel it away."
- Jason Zweig "The Intelligent Investor, Revised Edition"
I only invest in shares that pay dividends. My strategy is to use my dividends to buy new shares in other companies. This increases my diversification, and since those companies pay dividends too, results in exponential, albeit slow, growth. I view tax as the price of this defensive posture, just like I view more transaction fees as the price of diversification.
The excuse for given for this is to guard against identity theft. Crooks stealing identities will max out their stolen credit cards by buying gift cards and then spending those as cash. The individual who owns the card calls the company, tells them of the fraud, and they remove it from the card, send out a new one, etc. But since the switch to the chip based cards, it is my understanding that the business selling the card is liable in the event of fraud.
So the people getting screwed are individuals carrying prepaid cards. The benefactors are businesses. Funny how often it's been working out that way recently, eh?
I'm with you on dividends and low P/E (though I prefer under 12). It is worth noting however that if you are given the share for free, then P = 0, therefore P/E = 0. And not one of those pseudo-0's that some charts show when E < 0.
Combine that with traffic that isn't going to worry about you and it can be quite scary riding a bicycle.
Actual conversation between my wife and I one night:
Her: "Geeze! Did you pass that bicycle close enough?" Me: "What bicycle???"
At least there's no excuse for these electric varieties to not have lights.
Making it electrical won't change things on a practical level in the least. Americans love their gas guzzlers
Americans don't give a crap about gas but we loathe wasting time and money. Make a cheap electric vehicle that can reach the speed limit in short order and Americans will jump on board. Tesla has roughly right idea, if they could just get the price of the vehicle lower than the price of a cheap ICE ($17,000) + its entire lifetime of gasoline cost ($3 gal * 125,000 miles / 25 mpg = $15,000). They're on the right track with the Model X. Given the pollution aspect government subsidies could be extremely helpful here, but politically that'll only happen when... 1. Detroit starts pushing for it and 2. conservative politicians stop "being skeptical" that pollution is even a thing and that the free market is sacred, never to be touched by unclean government hands.
[Netflix can't replace] the experience of the movie theater.
Oh yes, so many things I will miss about movie theaters... - Outrageous prices of concessions and tickets. - Going to the movie rather than it coming to me. - Inability to pause. - Scheduling parts of my day around when the movie I want to see is on. - Other people that never improve, and often detract from, the movie experience.
Mark my words: Movie theaters are the next lunch Netflix will eat after cable TV stations and providers.
Nothing is preventing you from using any browser and search engine you want. Typing something into Cortana doesn't get you anything you can't get by typing the same thing into any search engine.
Bundling Internet Explorer with Windows is what got them into trouble in 2001. Nothing stopped users from downloading some other browser but that argument didn't prevent Microsoft being found in violation of antitrust law.
I'm amazed at how blatantly they're ignoring history.
I don't disagree that what you say is what the rule currently is but taking a step back for a moment, language can be expressed in two forms: written and spoken. When speaking, there is no difference an upper and lower case letter. It's rare to hear anyone complain that the spoken form of some sentence is more ambiguous or otherwise problematic than the written equivalent. In this particular case, you'd say "the internet" or "an internet" to distinguish the two meanings. The letter case is unnecessary. This leads me to a question for any linguists out there:
Why we still use capital letters?
They seem like an unnecessary relic (another example: the difference between ',' and ';') that we should be working to simplify out of the written form of our language. The linguistic equivalent of (x + 0) or (x * 1).
In the past when I have posed this question people have replied with lists of rules surrounding the circumstances when they are applied. To head those people off - such a list is not a relevant answer, read the question again.
After further thought I think I have my answer, barring some more plausible answer from the community: They don't want an Apple tool so they can crack this guy's phone, he's just politically convenient leverage to get the tool made.
The FBI has the hardware. At the software level it should be game-over. So what is stopping them from copying the phone's memory, putting it in an emulator or another phone, and brute forcing the 5-digit PIN. Every time it self destructs, they load up another copy and continue until the correct PIN is found. What am I missing here?
now the strategy is to rush the shooter, guns blazing if the person holding the gun shooting people will not comply.
having more armed law abiding citizens who are competent and trained on their firearms will lead to having a shooter confronted with deadly force sooner,
A practical question for your brother - If he's approaching a scene where there is a gun battle between the hypothetical competent law-abiding citizen and the active shooter bad guy, how does he know which is which?
What I haven't seen noted yet - Skip SLI graphics cards. I went SLI on the gaming machine I built in 2005. What I found was that a top end graphics cards can play games at high settings for a while, and that the extra $450 would've been more effective if spent 50% of the way through the life of the PC (i.e. 2 years later) on another high end card of the next generation.
They're threatening to release SSN and related information that is being used as verification for credit applications, etc. The companies negligently using SSN as a verification mechanism is where we (the public) need to start suing in order to clean up this mess.
Far from it, but as you start to be less rigorous with your distinctions between the guilty and the innocent, pretty soon someone is going to find a reason to put you in front of the firing squad. And your pleas of innocence are indistinguishable from the millions that came before.
It is the moslems who are doing the fucking killings !!
I recognize that this is probably just a troll, but there is going to be some yahoo out there that actually believes this viewpoint. So here's a different viewpoint.
Speaking as an atheist, I am so far removed from all the religious groups that they are indistinguishably worshiping the same absurd stone-age fantasy. If we are going label and cast broad groups into the fire - including the vast majority who are productive members of our civilization - I propose we draw that line at "religious people". Some people argue there should be no Muslim places of worship X miles of ground zero because "we were attacked by Muslims". I argue we shouldn't squabble over minutia: "we were attacked by religious people" - shut down all the Churches and Synagogues while you're at it.
On the other hand, we could to be more specific and blame those individuals who are actually committing atrocities.
I have an interest in this discussion as an engineer on a product that uses encryption. Here's a small sample of my companies customer list:
- Federal Bureau of Investigation - US Department of Defense - US Department of State - US Department of Homeland Security - US Air Force - US Army - Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division - Northrop Grumman - Lockheed Martin - Raytheon
I am sure these organizations would love to hear why you need access to their data. I am sure the governments of China and Russia would never dream of hacking into your key repository, honest.
Disclaimer: opinions expressed here are mine and do not represent my employer.
Usually takes about 20 minutes, so if you can make $540 per hour doing something else, by all means do that and direct your personal assistant/concierge to lower your ISP bill - you're certainly not paying them $540 per hour. And if you do I would like to show you my resume...
A fair point. In my case the amount of time spent on the phone with them is smaller than the amount of time necessary to schedule and be home for installation of the competing product. Consequently I'd prefer to not switch if they make everything else equal.
Funny story involving close focusing and crossed eyes - So a couple years ago I watched about an hour or two worth of Family Guy from Netflix on my phone. I held the phone less than a foot away from my face while doing this, without any breaks. You know how they say don't cross your eyes for too long or they'll get stuck that way? Yeah... That actually happens. I had to walk around with one eye closed for the rest of the day (it didn't matter which one, I just couldn't do both or one would go all wonky). When I woke up the next morning I was fine again.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you've considered all the weaknesses of the system you're suggesting...
Hillary Clinton won 300 counties while Trump won 5000.
Suppose right before the election Dr. Evil gerrymandered the whole country so there are only 3 counties - two in his house, and one for everyone else. Based on your reckoning he is the rightful president because he won the two counties in his house.
If you think that the election of a nation should be swayed by a handful of cities
I would argue the election would be swayed by vast numbers of individual voters whose votes are weighted equally regardless of race, religion, gender, (etc...), and where they live.
The weighting based on where you live can easily be leveraged into weighting based on income level, race, or religion. For example suppose we don't like the Mormons - well if you're from Utah your vote now counts 1/10 as much as everyone else's. This negatively influences of perceived fairness of the government which is directly related to its perceived legitimacy. A government perceived as illegitimate will be eventually be forced to govern by violence, which is in no one's best interest.
You seem to be OK with weighting different peoples votes differently. I'd be interested to hear at what point you consider the weights to be too extreme? My understanding is the current system results in maximum of about a 1:4 disparity between Californians versus Wyomingites (Wyomines?) (https://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k?t=1m43s). 1/10? 1/100?
How do you justify the particular weighting you've selected as optimal as oppose to any other?
Where's that speech Hillary gave to Goldman Sachs? Maybe she's contradicted herself for the millionth time yet again?
Look through all the posts in this discussion and I think you will find that no one is arguing that Hillary would make a good president. What I think you will find is lot of people arguing that Trump would make a dangerous one.
No, it assumes that the growth related to not paying the dividend is, on average, equal to the dividend, which it is.
[Citation needed]
there are a lot of irrational investors, and you are evidently one of them.
See also: ad hominem.
This is the book I base my strategy on. Its author is Benjamin Graham, the mentor of the better known Warren Buffett. If you think my implementation is wrong I'm interested in what you have to say (with references to the points made this or some other authoritative source, of course). At the moment from you have offered nothing to back up your claims and have no more credibility than any other random person on the internet. Claiming the strategy is irrational is simply silly given that I can look up the results of Graham's various direct proteges.
you can simply take the money out of that stock and diversify by selling shares
This strategy relies on the stock price constantly growing and assumes that the growth is dependent on the profits being kept, and that the growth can be maintained, and that the growth is by a greater dollar amount than the dividend otherwise would be. These are assumptions I am not willing to make and if any of them is false I'm better off receiving the dividend.
I have said it before and I'll say it again - In the US you don't have the luxury of voting for the person you want to be president, you have to vote against the person you don't want to be president. That leaves no room for third parties.
The fact that two outsiders made such big inroads on both sides of the aisle gives me hope that after Clinton wins this election that there will be enough popular support for replacing the voting system with something like run-off voting. Especially if Trump and Sanders would use their substantial platforms to start the conversation.
the capital gains from reinvestment only are taxed when the shares are sold.
Not paying dividends does not guarantee rational reinvestment much less subsequent growth:
"... by late 2001, Oracle Corp. had piled up $5 billion in cash. Cisco Systems had hoarded at least $7.5 billion. Microsoft had amassed a mountain of cash $38.2 billion high - and rising by an average of $2 million per hour. Just how rainy a day was Bill Gates expecting, anyway? ... In short, most managers are wrong when they say that they can put your cash to better use than you can. Paying out a dividend does not guarantee great results, but it does improve the return of the typical stock by yanking at least some cash out the managers hands before they can squander it or squirrel it away."
- Jason Zweig "The Intelligent Investor, Revised Edition"
I only invest in shares that pay dividends. My strategy is to use my dividends to buy new shares in other companies. This increases my diversification, and since those companies pay dividends too, results in exponential, albeit slow, growth. I view tax as the price of this defensive posture, just like I view more transaction fees as the price of diversification.
It's even deeper than that.
The excuse for given for this is to guard against identity theft. Crooks stealing identities will max out their stolen credit cards by buying gift cards and then spending those as cash. The individual who owns the card calls the company, tells them of the fraud, and they remove it from the card, send out a new one, etc. But since the switch to the chip based cards, it is my understanding that the business selling the card is liable in the event of fraud.
So the people getting screwed are individuals carrying prepaid cards. The benefactors are businesses. Funny how often it's been working out that way recently, eh?
I'm with you on dividends and low P/E (though I prefer under 12). It is worth noting however that if you are given the share for free, then P = 0, therefore P/E = 0. And not one of those pseudo-0's that some charts show when E < 0.
Combine that with traffic that isn't going to worry about you and it can be quite scary riding a bicycle.
Actual conversation between my wife and I one night:
Her: "Geeze! Did you pass that bicycle close enough?"
Me: "What bicycle???"
At least there's no excuse for these electric varieties to not have lights.
Making it electrical won't change things on a practical level in the least. Americans love their gas guzzlers
Americans don't give a crap about gas but we loathe wasting time and money. Make a cheap electric vehicle that can reach the speed limit in short order and Americans will jump on board. Tesla has roughly right idea, if they could just get the price of the vehicle lower than the price of a cheap ICE ($17,000) + its entire lifetime of gasoline cost ($3 gal * 125,000 miles / 25 mpg = $15,000). They're on the right track with the Model X. Given the pollution aspect government subsidies could be extremely helpful here, but politically that'll only happen when ...
1. Detroit starts pushing for it and
2. conservative politicians stop "being skeptical" that pollution is even a thing and that the free market is sacred, never to be touched by unclean government hands.
[Netflix can't replace] the experience of the movie theater.
Oh yes, so many things I will miss about movie theaters...
- Outrageous prices of concessions and tickets.
- Going to the movie rather than it coming to me.
- Inability to pause.
- Scheduling parts of my day around when the movie I want to see is on.
- Other people that never improve, and often detract from, the movie experience.
Mark my words: Movie theaters are the next lunch Netflix will eat after cable TV stations and providers.
Nothing is preventing you from using any browser and search engine you want. Typing something into Cortana doesn't get you anything you can't get by typing the same thing into any search engine.
Bundling Internet Explorer with Windows is what got them into trouble in 2001. Nothing stopped users from downloading some other browser but that argument didn't prevent Microsoft being found in violation of antitrust law.
I'm amazed at how blatantly they're ignoring history.
I don't disagree that what you say is what the rule currently is but taking a step back for a moment, language can be expressed in two forms: written and spoken. When speaking, there is no difference an upper and lower case letter. It's rare to hear anyone complain that the spoken form of some sentence is more ambiguous or otherwise problematic than the written equivalent. In this particular case, you'd say "the internet" or "an internet" to distinguish the two meanings. The letter case is unnecessary. This leads me to a question for any linguists out there:
Why we still use capital letters?
They seem like an unnecessary relic (another example: the difference between ',' and ';') that we should be working to simplify out of the written form of our language. The linguistic equivalent of (x + 0) or (x * 1).
In the past when I have posed this question people have replied with lists of rules surrounding the circumstances when they are applied. To head those people off - such a list is not a relevant answer, read the question again.
That is a reasonable answer - Thanks!
Excuse the reply to my own comment...
After further thought I think I have my answer, barring some more plausible answer from the community: They don't want an Apple tool so they can crack this guy's phone, he's just politically convenient leverage to get the tool made.
The FBI has the hardware. At the software level it should be game-over. So what is stopping them from copying the phone's memory, putting it in an emulator or another phone, and brute forcing the 5-digit PIN. Every time it self destructs, they load up another copy and continue until the correct PIN is found. What am I missing here?
now the strategy is to rush the shooter, guns blazing if the person holding the gun shooting people will not comply.
having more armed law abiding citizens who are competent and trained on their firearms will lead to having a shooter confronted with deadly force sooner,
A practical question for your brother - If he's approaching a scene where there is a gun battle between the hypothetical competent law-abiding citizen and the active shooter bad guy, how does he know which is which?
As other posters have said - Build!
What I haven't seen noted yet - Skip SLI graphics cards. I went SLI on the gaming machine I built in 2005. What I found was that a top end graphics cards can play games at high settings for a while, and that the extra $450 would've been more effective if spent 50% of the way through the life of the PC (i.e. 2 years later) on another high end card of the next generation.
They're threatening to release SSN and related information that is being used as verification for credit applications, etc. The companies negligently using SSN as a verification mechanism is where we (the public) need to start suing in order to clean up this mess.
Far from it, but as you start to be less rigorous with your distinctions between the guilty and the innocent, pretty soon someone is going to find a reason to put you in front of the firing squad. And your pleas of innocence are indistinguishable from the millions that came before.
It is the moslems who are doing the fucking killings !!
I recognize that this is probably just a troll, but there is going to be some yahoo out there that actually believes this viewpoint. So here's a different viewpoint.
Speaking as an atheist, I am so far removed from all the religious groups that they are indistinguishably worshiping the same absurd stone-age fantasy. If we are going label and cast broad groups into the fire - including the vast majority who are productive members of our civilization - I propose we draw that line at "religious people". Some people argue there should be no Muslim places of worship X miles of ground zero because "we were attacked by Muslims". I argue we shouldn't squabble over minutia: "we were attacked by religious people" - shut down all the Churches and Synagogues while you're at it.
On the other hand, we could to be more specific and blame those individuals who are actually committing atrocities.
Dear Mr. Baker,
I have an interest in this discussion as an engineer on a product that uses encryption. Here's a small sample of my companies customer list:
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- US Department of Defense
- US Department of State
- US Department of Homeland Security
- US Air Force
- US Army
- Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division
- Northrop Grumman
- Lockheed Martin
- Raytheon
I am sure these organizations would love to hear why you need access to their data. I am sure the governments of China and Russia would never dream of hacking into your key repository, honest.
Disclaimer: opinions expressed here are mine and do not represent my employer.
need to be skilled at copying and pasting things from online repositories and tweaking them slightly
This person seems to be confusing the mechanic for the automotive engineer.
Usually takes about 20 minutes, so if you can make $540 per hour doing something else, by all means do that and direct your personal assistant/concierge to lower your ISP bill - you're certainly not paying them $540 per hour. And if you do I would like to show you my resume...
A fair point. In my case the amount of time spent on the phone with them is smaller than the amount of time necessary to schedule and be home for installation of the competing product. Consequently I'd prefer to not switch if they make everything else equal.
going a little cross-eyed for a moment
Funny story involving close focusing and crossed eyes - So a couple years ago I watched about an hour or two worth of Family Guy from Netflix on my phone. I held the phone less than a foot away from my face while doing this, without any breaks. You know how they say don't cross your eyes for too long or they'll get stuck that way? Yeah... That actually happens. I had to walk around with one eye closed for the rest of the day (it didn't matter which one, I just couldn't do both or one would go all wonky). When I woke up the next morning I was fine again.