It's actually pretty simple to "learn" a language if you understand the basic grammar patterns of a language. That's actually how the military tests people for their language school. The test creates a language a few rules at a time and then asks questions based on those rules. It's an interesting thing to learn a completely fictitious language in 2 hours, but I enjoyed it.
Why do people seem to keep assuming a "one size fits all" solution when these subjects come up? If we individually moderate our consumption (yes I understand that's not very likely to happen) and we incorporate several forms of renewable technology we will reduce our dependence on non-renewables drastically. Each house in the US could be retrofitted with a reasonable solar array for something like $50k. That won't solve all the owner's power needs, but it will put a large dent in them.
Combine that with geothermal heat pumps that drive a radiant heating system (preferably built into the floors for maximum efficiency) and some wind power (a few small wind generators won't do too much damage to the local environment but can help a little bit) and some heat recovery methods built into the plumbing of the house and most people will reduce power consumption by as much as a third or even half since most of our energy usage actually comes from heating a house or water for our personal comfort.
Solar doesn't have to be the "silver bullet" that so many opponents use as a reason not to fund it. It just has to be part of the solution.
Yeah sometimes it's frustrating for other people at the table, that's for sure. Last time I split two 10s and ended up pulling out a 19 and a 20 to beat the dealer's 18 but the guy next to meet busted. He blamed me, but he would have busted anyway. A lot of casinos won't actually let you split a pair of 10s, but some do. It's not really a nice thing to do, but I knew the odds were actually in my favor at that point so I went for it. Other times I have done exactly as you suggested I might, but that's usually when I'm not paying attention and I'm busy talking or thinking about something else. I get yelled at by players occasionally, but that's the biggest reason I stay at low stakes tables, because there generally isn't a lot of money on the line and the players are usually more forgiving of "stupid" moves or people who are there just to kill time.
No I completely believe in the probability, I just don't care. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose. I expect to lose, so either way I'm enjoying my time. I did have a dealer get mad at me for playing "badly" one time because she kept telling me not to hit when I'd ask for a card. She'd say "you're going to lose your money" and I'd respond with "no, my money's in my pocket, this is the casinos money." She didn't really think that was funny, though the other players enjoyed it.
The dangers they faced were no more than a person walking across the street. The days of casinos "roughing you up" for winning too much are dead and gone unless you're cheating. Then they'll rough you up and charge you.
I change tables fairly regularly if a new dealer comes in I don't like. Granted, I'm not winning lots of money, but I won't stay at a table with a dealer who's a jackass or just has no personality.
First of all, they're not particularly elite card players and the method they were using has been around for some 40 years now. It's also very easy to use, for even idiots because you only have to keep track of one number counting by +1 or -1 as you see cards. There are some slightly more complex methods they also used, but primarily that's the one they worked with because it's the hardest to screw up.
They just added the bonus of different roles for players, which made it harder to consistently track them.
I just heard a radio interview with one of the MIT guys last week. I read the book the method came from when I was about 12 (in the early 80s) based on my dad's recommendation because I liked games where counting cards is very helpful. I never took it to heart because I prefer to play for fun and expect I'll lose than worrying about whether or not I'm losing.
Over my last few trips to Vegas, I've only lost once, and that was $10 after tip. I generally start with $100 at $5 tables and play for at least 4 hours and generally have a couple drinks per hour. Overall I'm only up about $200 for all my trips because I don't generally play "by the rules" but rather "by my gut". I've spent at least 20 hours at the tables, enjoyed some 30-50 drinks or so, and enjoyed the company of some very interesting people.
I'd say that's far less than the cost of equivalent entertainment at the movies which would have cost me something like $350 (for me and someone else) just in ticket costs. Factor in that I'm actually ahead $200 and I got a couple hundred dollars worth of drinks, and I'd say it must be the movies I'm doing wrong because half of them weren't worth theater ticket prices.
Interesting, and very likely accurate, but there are plenty of places in the world that don't have the GEs and P&Gs already and have plenty of room to grow and make healthy profits, by gross numbers and by percentages. There are plenty of emerging markets that have yet to be conquered by the behemoths and will likely produce plenty of new behemoths. That's why I amended my statement to be "conservatively balanced" which implies you use the lower profit, more stable companies to offset the more unstable, higher margin investments, which you can reasonably expect, long term, to reap an 8-10% margin from overall. Sure most of your stocks won't continue to make high percentages like that, but there will be those volatile ones that do, and balancing those making 25-30% with those making 3-4% averages very quickly to something more reasonable to predict.
It can still be considered a donation, even if the sponsor gets a mention somewhere. Public radio does it all the time. I think the difference actually comes in "thanking" the sponsor in the form of something that mentions "generous donations" and similar language.
While all of that is great, it doesn't change anything about what the GP said. The comment was that "quality" submissions would be reduced because people want compensation for their time and effort when that effort is directly generating dollars.
Agenda or no agenda, it's clear when you read poorly written and researched information on wikipedia, and it's clear when it's well written and researched.
The GP was just saying that advertisements will drive down the number of well written and researched submissions unless part of that revenue is distributed to the submitters.
You're probably right about my numbers being slightly aggressive for a "truly conservative" investment. Maybe I should have said a "conservatively balanced" investment. However, the market has historically produced approximately 8% for long term investments over the last 60 years or so, and I have seen no forecasts that predict that is likely to change any time soon.
Yes, the numbers you mention about the DOW seem ridiculous, but I remember when the DOW broke 2000 (in 87, not that long ago) and people thought that was remarkable. The same thing happened at 5,000 and 10,000. There's no reason to think that growth is going to stagnate for any remarkably long period of time. A couple years, sure but not much longer than that if history is any indicator. Is that kind of growth self-evident, no, but there's also no evidence to suggest it will stop either. I choose to invest on the side of optimism, others will choose differently.
Either way, my comment still stands, if you can't "do what you want" with even a measly 6% interest income on multiple millions, you're really unwise with your money considering you're still talking 6 figure incomes just from the interest earned on your multi-million dollar principle.
No you don't. If you're earning more than inflation every year, and you're not using any of the principle you're never going to have any problem keeping up with the pace of inflation.
Who says you have to? Plenty of people make six figure salaries and work fantastic jobs and have all the balance you have. The only thing you have to do is not accept the alternative (shitty work life in favor of money) and you'll get there eventually, if you want to. Most people don't because they accept that they can't, but it's simply not true. Well, for many people it is true, but it's not pre-ordained or anything.
I have several friends making well into the 6 figures doing fairly routine program management jobs. I make good money in that realm, though I'm far from obscenely paid, and I work 40 hour weeks and have all the time I want for myself. I work as a systems integrator. Granted, we live in a "rich" area of the country and I work in the defense industry right now, but many of my friends do not and they are making more than I am.
I'm in my mid 30s and have a lot of experience relevant to my current position, but more importantly I won't settle for a shitty work life. I have many coworkers making less than me and breaking their backs for it, working 70-80 hour work-weeks, but that's what they've chosen for themselves. If you allow yourself to be treated that way then you will, but if you don't then you'll be in command of setting your own terms, whatever it is you want.
You're doing a shitty job of investing if you're only making $20k on $1M. Seriously, that's only 2%. A low end money market investment will earn you at least 3.5% on that kind of money and most will guarantee 4.5 and actually earn around 6. If you actually invest the money in real investments you're looking at something more like 8-10% for conservative investment, which earns you around 80-100k (per million) before taxes, so let's say 70-85K per year after taxes, if you actually pay at 15%. (My wife and I made 100k+ this year and our actual tax percentage is around 11%.)
If you can't survive and "do whatever you want" on 300K+ a year (for "several million") in interest income you're seriously being wasteful with your money. Or you're trying to buy shit that costs millions of dollars, which is generally being wasteful with your money, but agreeably doesn't fall into the category "whatever you want to do".
Of course you encounter ads when you watch things on DVD, they're just called "product placements" instead. The most obvious of these I can think of are all the apple computers you see in every tv show or movie produced. Apple computer has been doing this for a long time, so that most of the movies you see with any kind of computer show Apples while we all know they simply don't have that much market share.
Another famous one was the "Back to the Future" Pepsi ads built into the movie. They're everywhere, but they've become more subtle over the years so it's not as intrusive, which is fine by me. It's the false connection of popularity and sex appeal in products (especially the ones that are completely unrelated to sex or popularity) that annoy me and that's generally less disgusting in product placement situations.
I would hope dating falls outside of the purview of work for most of us. Unless slashdot is not populatd by prostitutes (the literal kind, not the figurative kind).
Especially when the duty free shop is outside the security screening, as they are in some airports. In Amsterdam a woman on my flight was pissed because she'd just bought about $500 worth of duty free liquor and skin care products only to have the confiscated at the gate, when they went through security.
I did the same thing, but it was about 1000 regular "black cat" firecrackers and I put it in my checked luggage. Still illegal as hell, but I wasn't even thinking about it at the time.
Public URLs do, in fact, imply consent because they are published (by the domain registry people) when they are created, whether you want them to be or not. Just because you put information on there you don't want public doesn't mean I'm stealing it if I view that information.
I'll grant that this is a gray area and I don't happen to think it's "morally right" to view the service, but that's not the same thing as stealing. I've had cable internet, specifically just internet, and also received television service. I informed the provider that I received tv though I wasn't paying for it and nothing was ever done to remedy the situation. After one notification, I no longer felt any need to justify my use of the television service I didn't order, but wasn't paying for either. Was I stealing?
Obviously the company in the article doesn't want people using the service, but to say those who are using it are stealing is not legally accurate, even if the moral ground is less clear.
That said, the site manager that listed the URL is under no obligation I know of (it is a public URL after all that is listed on multiple locations) to remove the link but he'd probably be wise to do so, if for no other reason than to limit time he'll have to spend in court, "guilty" or not.
I never said I think it's a rational thing to "defend against your fears" or whatever you want to call it, just that there are real reasons to protect military information. Of course it's ridiculous to think that anything like my scenario is even remotely likely, but it is the military's job to be prepared for the worst and most unlikely events. Sad, but true.
Again, driving directions and advice on getting a visitor pass are not the same thing as detailed information on building and infrastructure locations that can be studied and analyzed from afar.
I'm not disagreeing that it's a bit tinfoil-hattish to protect the information, but there's no reason to provide it either. It serves no purpose for people who don't belong there in the first place and people who do belong there can get the information from the correct source.
Actually all home blueprints are a matter of public record. They're required to be, and many states do have them available online, though not all. You're required by nearly every state to have blueprints for any [authorized] editions and structural changes for your home, so they have to provide them (most home owners don't get the originals) to you, at a nominal fee, usually.
I'll say it again though, someone driving by your house isn't the same as them being able to "scope" you out from the internet. It certainly isn't likely that a true burglar (not just someone passing by and smashing a window for a quick buck) is going to do their research on google because it simply won't give them enough information about your habits, but why is this information necessary? Where does it help to do this for housing areas? Shopping centers, public places, and businesses I can understand the justification but there's no valid reason to put homes on google street view.
Open to citizen John Q Public when he's actually there is one thing and available to anyone with an internet connection is entirely different.
I don't disagree that there was likely no "national security" reason to take the images down, but think of the long term strategic possibilities or even personal safety concerns. The Presidio of Monterey, for example is an open base. It's where the Defense Language Institute is and all services send their soldiers/airmen/marines/seamen there to learn languages that typically are then used in Intelligence collection of one form or another. Aside from the personal safety of the individual servicemen and women, think of the long term strategic advantage gained by targeting a particular area there. One school perhaps, that covers a particular asian or middle eastern language. You can hamper intelligence collection significantly by one well placed attack.
Sure, it's highly unlikely that someone would do such a thing, but it's certainly a viable target even though it isn't considered such by most folks. Many "open" bases are similar in that they support an infrastructure that is key to the military but not an obvious target.
I don't disagree that our government has lost its sense of decency with respect to oversight and we should try to take some of that back, but denying world-wide access to potential military targets shouldn't be part of that, in my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
It's actually pretty simple to "learn" a language if you understand the basic grammar patterns of a language. That's actually how the military tests people for their language school. The test creates a language a few rules at a time and then asks questions based on those rules. It's an interesting thing to learn a completely fictitious language in 2 hours, but I enjoyed it.
Why do people seem to keep assuming a "one size fits all" solution when these subjects come up? If we individually moderate our consumption (yes I understand that's not very likely to happen) and we incorporate several forms of renewable technology we will reduce our dependence on non-renewables drastically. Each house in the US could be retrofitted with a reasonable solar array for something like $50k. That won't solve all the owner's power needs, but it will put a large dent in them.
Combine that with geothermal heat pumps that drive a radiant heating system (preferably built into the floors for maximum efficiency) and some wind power (a few small wind generators won't do too much damage to the local environment but can help a little bit) and some heat recovery methods built into the plumbing of the house and most people will reduce power consumption by as much as a third or even half since most of our energy usage actually comes from heating a house or water for our personal comfort.
Solar doesn't have to be the "silver bullet" that so many opponents use as a reason not to fund it. It just has to be part of the solution.
Yeah sometimes it's frustrating for other people at the table, that's for sure. Last time I split two 10s and ended up pulling out a 19 and a 20 to beat the dealer's 18 but the guy next to meet busted. He blamed me, but he would have busted anyway. A lot of casinos won't actually let you split a pair of 10s, but some do. It's not really a nice thing to do, but I knew the odds were actually in my favor at that point so I went for it. Other times I have done exactly as you suggested I might, but that's usually when I'm not paying attention and I'm busy talking or thinking about something else. I get yelled at by players occasionally, but that's the biggest reason I stay at low stakes tables, because there generally isn't a lot of money on the line and the players are usually more forgiving of "stupid" moves or people who are there just to kill time.
No I completely believe in the probability, I just don't care. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose. I expect to lose, so either way I'm enjoying my time. I did have a dealer get mad at me for playing "badly" one time because she kept telling me not to hit when I'd ask for a card. She'd say "you're going to lose your money" and I'd respond with "no, my money's in my pocket, this is the casinos money." She didn't really think that was funny, though the other players enjoyed it.
The dangers they faced were no more than a person walking across the street. The days of casinos "roughing you up" for winning too much are dead and gone unless you're cheating. Then they'll rough you up and charge you.
I change tables fairly regularly if a new dealer comes in I don't like. Granted, I'm not winning lots of money, but I won't stay at a table with a dealer who's a jackass or just has no personality.
First of all, they're not particularly elite card players and the method they were using has been around for some 40 years now. It's also very easy to use, for even idiots because you only have to keep track of one number counting by +1 or -1 as you see cards. There are some slightly more complex methods they also used, but primarily that's the one they worked with because it's the hardest to screw up.
They just added the bonus of different roles for players, which made it harder to consistently track them.
I just heard a radio interview with one of the MIT guys last week. I read the book the method came from when I was about 12 (in the early 80s) based on my dad's recommendation because I liked games where counting cards is very helpful. I never took it to heart because I prefer to play for fun and expect I'll lose than worrying about whether or not I'm losing.
Over my last few trips to Vegas, I've only lost once, and that was $10 after tip. I generally start with $100 at $5 tables and play for at least 4 hours and generally have a couple drinks per hour. Overall I'm only up about $200 for all my trips because I don't generally play "by the rules" but rather "by my gut". I've spent at least 20 hours at the tables, enjoyed some 30-50 drinks or so, and enjoyed the company of some very interesting people.
I'd say that's far less than the cost of equivalent entertainment at the movies which would have cost me something like $350 (for me and someone else) just in ticket costs. Factor in that I'm actually ahead $200 and I got a couple hundred dollars worth of drinks, and I'd say it must be the movies I'm doing wrong because half of them weren't worth theater ticket prices.
Interesting, and very likely accurate, but there are plenty of places in the world that don't have the GEs and P&Gs already and have plenty of room to grow and make healthy profits, by gross numbers and by percentages. There are plenty of emerging markets that have yet to be conquered by the behemoths and will likely produce plenty of new behemoths. That's why I amended my statement to be "conservatively balanced" which implies you use the lower profit, more stable companies to offset the more unstable, higher margin investments, which you can reasonably expect, long term, to reap an 8-10% margin from overall. Sure most of your stocks won't continue to make high percentages like that, but there will be those volatile ones that do, and balancing those making 25-30% with those making 3-4% averages very quickly to something more reasonable to predict.
It can still be considered a donation, even if the sponsor gets a mention somewhere. Public radio does it all the time. I think the difference actually comes in "thanking" the sponsor in the form of something that mentions "generous donations" and similar language.
While all of that is great, it doesn't change anything about what the GP said. The comment was that "quality" submissions would be reduced because people want compensation for their time and effort when that effort is directly generating dollars.
Agenda or no agenda, it's clear when you read poorly written and researched information on wikipedia, and it's clear when it's well written and researched.
The GP was just saying that advertisements will drive down the number of well written and researched submissions unless part of that revenue is distributed to the submitters.
You're probably right about my numbers being slightly aggressive for a "truly conservative" investment. Maybe I should have said a "conservatively balanced" investment. However, the market has historically produced approximately 8% for long term investments over the last 60 years or so, and I have seen no forecasts that predict that is likely to change any time soon.
Yes, the numbers you mention about the DOW seem ridiculous, but I remember when the DOW broke 2000 (in 87, not that long ago) and people thought that was remarkable. The same thing happened at 5,000 and 10,000. There's no reason to think that growth is going to stagnate for any remarkably long period of time. A couple years, sure but not much longer than that if history is any indicator. Is that kind of growth self-evident, no, but there's also no evidence to suggest it will stop either. I choose to invest on the side of optimism, others will choose differently.
Either way, my comment still stands, if you can't "do what you want" with even a measly 6% interest income on multiple millions, you're really unwise with your money considering you're still talking 6 figure incomes just from the interest earned on your multi-million dollar principle.
No you don't. If you're earning more than inflation every year, and you're not using any of the principle you're never going to have any problem keeping up with the pace of inflation.
Who says you have to? Plenty of people make six figure salaries and work fantastic jobs and have all the balance you have. The only thing you have to do is not accept the alternative (shitty work life in favor of money) and you'll get there eventually, if you want to. Most people don't because they accept that they can't, but it's simply not true. Well, for many people it is true, but it's not pre-ordained or anything.
I have several friends making well into the 6 figures doing fairly routine program management jobs. I make good money in that realm, though I'm far from obscenely paid, and I work 40 hour weeks and have all the time I want for myself. I work as a systems integrator. Granted, we live in a "rich" area of the country and I work in the defense industry right now, but many of my friends do not and they are making more than I am.
I'm in my mid 30s and have a lot of experience relevant to my current position, but more importantly I won't settle for a shitty work life. I have many coworkers making less than me and breaking their backs for it, working 70-80 hour work-weeks, but that's what they've chosen for themselves. If you allow yourself to be treated that way then you will, but if you don't then you'll be in command of setting your own terms, whatever it is you want.
You're doing a shitty job of investing if you're only making $20k on $1M. Seriously, that's only 2%. A low end money market investment will earn you at least 3.5% on that kind of money and most will guarantee 4.5 and actually earn around 6. If you actually invest the money in real investments you're looking at something more like 8-10% for conservative investment, which earns you around 80-100k (per million) before taxes, so let's say 70-85K per year after taxes, if you actually pay at 15%. (My wife and I made 100k+ this year and our actual tax percentage is around 11%.)
If you can't survive and "do whatever you want" on 300K+ a year (for "several million") in interest income you're seriously being wasteful with your money. Or you're trying to buy shit that costs millions of dollars, which is generally being wasteful with your money, but agreeably doesn't fall into the category "whatever you want to do".
Of course you encounter ads when you watch things on DVD, they're just called "product placements" instead. The most obvious of these I can think of are all the apple computers you see in every tv show or movie produced. Apple computer has been doing this for a long time, so that most of the movies you see with any kind of computer show Apples while we all know they simply don't have that much market share.
Another famous one was the "Back to the Future" Pepsi ads built into the movie. They're everywhere, but they've become more subtle over the years so it's not as intrusive, which is fine by me. It's the false connection of popularity and sex appeal in products (especially the ones that are completely unrelated to sex or popularity) that annoy me and that's generally less disgusting in product placement situations.
They're not all bigots, just none of them like you. It's not their fault, really.
Of course you failed to understand the horoscope meant a romp in the potato sack!
I would hope dating falls outside of the purview of work for most of us. Unless slashdot is not populatd by prostitutes (the literal kind, not the figurative kind).
Especially when the duty free shop is outside the security screening, as they are in some airports. In Amsterdam a woman on my flight was pissed because she'd just bought about $500 worth of duty free liquor and skin care products only to have the confiscated at the gate, when they went through security.
I did the same thing, but it was about 1000 regular "black cat" firecrackers and I put it in my checked luggage. Still illegal as hell, but I wasn't even thinking about it at the time.
Public URLs do, in fact, imply consent because they are published (by the domain registry people) when they are created, whether you want them to be or not. Just because you put information on there you don't want public doesn't mean I'm stealing it if I view that information.
I'll grant that this is a gray area and I don't happen to think it's "morally right" to view the service, but that's not the same thing as stealing. I've had cable internet, specifically just internet, and also received television service. I informed the provider that I received tv though I wasn't paying for it and nothing was ever done to remedy the situation. After one notification, I no longer felt any need to justify my use of the television service I didn't order, but wasn't paying for either. Was I stealing?
Obviously the company in the article doesn't want people using the service, but to say those who are using it are stealing is not legally accurate, even if the moral ground is less clear.
That said, the site manager that listed the URL is under no obligation I know of (it is a public URL after all that is listed on multiple locations) to remove the link but he'd probably be wise to do so, if for no other reason than to limit time he'll have to spend in court, "guilty" or not.
I never said I think it's a rational thing to "defend against your fears" or whatever you want to call it, just that there are real reasons to protect military information. Of course it's ridiculous to think that anything like my scenario is even remotely likely, but it is the military's job to be prepared for the worst and most unlikely events. Sad, but true.
Again, driving directions and advice on getting a visitor pass are not the same thing as detailed information on building and infrastructure locations that can be studied and analyzed from afar.
I'm not disagreeing that it's a bit tinfoil-hattish to protect the information, but there's no reason to provide it either. It serves no purpose for people who don't belong there in the first place and people who do belong there can get the information from the correct source.
Actually all home blueprints are a matter of public record. They're required to be, and many states do have them available online, though not all. You're required by nearly every state to have blueprints for any [authorized] editions and structural changes for your home, so they have to provide them (most home owners don't get the originals) to you, at a nominal fee, usually.
I'll say it again though, someone driving by your house isn't the same as them being able to "scope" you out from the internet. It certainly isn't likely that a true burglar (not just someone passing by and smashing a window for a quick buck) is going to do their research on google because it simply won't give them enough information about your habits, but why is this information necessary? Where does it help to do this for housing areas? Shopping centers, public places, and businesses I can understand the justification but there's no valid reason to put homes on google street view.
Open to citizen John Q Public when he's actually there is one thing and available to anyone with an internet connection is entirely different.
I don't disagree that there was likely no "national security" reason to take the images down, but think of the long term strategic possibilities or even personal safety concerns. The Presidio of Monterey, for example is an open base. It's where the Defense Language Institute is and all services send their soldiers/airmen/marines/seamen there to learn languages that typically are then used in Intelligence collection of one form or another. Aside from the personal safety of the individual servicemen and women, think of the long term strategic advantage gained by targeting a particular area there. One school perhaps, that covers a particular asian or middle eastern language. You can hamper intelligence collection significantly by one well placed attack.
Sure, it's highly unlikely that someone would do such a thing, but it's certainly a viable target even though it isn't considered such by most folks. Many "open" bases are similar in that they support an infrastructure that is key to the military but not an obvious target.
I don't disagree that our government has lost its sense of decency with respect to oversight and we should try to take some of that back, but denying world-wide access to potential military targets shouldn't be part of that, in my opinion.