Send your wife to work. She's as responsible for paying for your kids' tuition as you is.
Also, you're thinking about future value wrong. You figure out how much you would need today, then put the money in something that gives at least the inflation back. Then you don't have to worry.
But honestly, if you really think this way about things, consider moving to one of the Scandinavian countries. Medical treatment here is free, you get a modest pension from the state, and tuition is free too, students even get a barely-enough-to-stay-alive allowance for up to 6 years (and if they choose something like Aalborg University, they aren't going to need more than 5 years to complete a Master's degree). If you get hit by a bus, we have a special handicap pension.
Of course, the tax level is higher, but if you're just slightly frugal you should definitely be able to stay afloat on 85k.
It is still not correct. What you describe corresponds to you observing someone coming out of the market with something they bought, then rushing in to buy something based on that.
Why do you need to rush? Because there's a bunch of people next to you all observing the same, and if you don't come in first, you end up last in the queue.
I don't think tax evasion is really a good argument. Arguably that is an artifact of the American tax system.
A better argument may be that sometimes it makes more sense for a company to reinvest in itself.
I do think dividends are great though, in that they have a tendency to cut through all the speculation crap. There's a greentech company I'd like to invest in, their income statements look fine, about 2-5% ROI, but since they're not paying out dividends and it looks like the market may end up valuing them less in the future (they are relatively new), I may actually lose money if I invest.
I've heard one dude argue that shorting improves price discovery. For instance, if there's a lot of shorting going on, it may be a sign of a bubble.
Regarding predictions, I do think a market that efficiently discovers the right price does facilitate productive industry in the sense that it will punish bad companies and reward good companies.
The main problem, as I see it, is if the speculation ends up being about what other people think rather than the value in the company itself. At that point it's harmful.
Option 2, however, does not add any more liability, it just dilutes the value of the stock.
Actually, it doesn't directly. The reason is that the money you put into the company by buying the stock also, well, goes into the company, so it is now worth more. In fact, until that money has been spent, its worth grows with exactly the amount you put into it.
For instance, imagine a shoe shop worth 1 million. Now they want to open a similar shop in another city, the market thinks this is a great idea and they sell stock for 1 million. That extra 1 million goes into their bank and their worth is now 2 million. The first set of investors still have 50% * 2 million = 1 million worth of value, and the new set also have 1 million.
Of course, it's more complicated when you start thinking about future value, but the value itself isn't really diluted. Khan's Academy has a lecture on this.:)
Because a lawyer wrote it, and if you don't give a lawyer clear orders regarding stuff like this, they'll forbid everything they can possibly think of. Not because they're evil, it's just part of the training (risk management). They've probably heard of a dozen cases where some company got in trouble because they didn't forbid something and then screwed up afterwards.
It's the same reason you can't have a beancounter in charge of innovation. It just doesn't work that way. But of course, they could write something in if they wanted to.
Regarding integrity, if the customer is really annoying, take a step back and think about whether you could somehow be the cause (e.g. you're not asking the right questions, or not listening enough), or whether they're truly annoying to work with. In the latter case, fulfil what you've promised and then get out as quickly as possible.
A customer can fire you, but you can also fire them. Don't forget that. Respect and trust from both sides is vital.
I disagree. In Denmark, if you have a Master of computer science, you're almost guaranteed a job unless you are a complete moron. Those companies outsourcing development now will bounce back and need your help in a couple of years.
But I do agree you need to study, you're not going to be able to compete on salary, and really, if you're out of high school, you are probably better off dabbling with your own projects and learning. Working for clients quickly turns into "how fast can you get this done?" which is not conducive for experimenting and learning.
Even today, after working in a few jobs as an employee and now being freelance for a while, the thing I miss the most is still the shared experience/peer review side of things.
I know this is not easy, but you could see if you could find something to share the company with. It also makes it a bit easier to manage work load because another person can step in, to some degree. I'm in a three-guy freelance startup, and you're right, sometimes you really need someone to talk to.
Gee, I guess you're one of those socially savvy people - start out by assuming the other party is a moron who is going to park his child in front the the computer and not do any of the other stuff you mention?
Most children do use their bodies a lot, so obesity in children is largely a factor of bad food/sugar drinks. If a child is getting fat, you're feeding them the wrong stuff.
I'm now sitting here on a sunday night, posting on Slashdot rather than doing something useful.
You mean, you are actually using your brain instead of watching tv on the couch like most people?
While children certainly need to use their bodies, I don't think a computer will necessarily prevent that. You just need to find other stuff they'll enjoy doing, like climbing trees or playing an instrument or playing with other kids or whatever.
Also, I strongly disagree on the age. The minute you need to start learning grown-up stuff like reading, a computer can be useful, with the right software/content. Things have changed during the past 30 years.
You should watch John Carmack's QuakeCon 2012 keynote. He talks about this at some length (especially the they're all crap perspective). Part of the problem seems to be that the main needed components haven't really been available from a mass market before now. That's changed with smart phones.
Point being: What has gnome offered in either the 2.x or 3.x releases that made it so much better than the original versions, and did any of those features make up for it's unusable bloat on legacy systems?
Ease of use for people who don't like messing too much?
It's good for you you like WindowMaker, but not everyone shares the vision of building software for the past rather than the future. To some people, graphical design matters. Just saying.:)
The issue is the use of GTK i the desktop environment. It shouldn't be.
This does not make much sense, GNOME is built upon GTK+, and has been from the beginning. If you don't like that, you need to find another desktop environment. GNOME and all the other GTK apps have been the main driver of GTK development for many, many years, not the GIMP.
I think what usagimaru tried to tell you was that you basically hosed your system yourself and then complained it was hosed. Well, surprise! You can compile and run whatever program you want, but you need to know what you're doing if you are messing with stuff down in the stack.
I watched a video not long ago from the Google people where they showed that the robotic car started driving out in a junction in spite of it not being entirely clear yet to signal to others that it was going to cross, just like a human would do.
But I'm not sure how much of this is preprogrammed and how much is dynamic. It did left me wondering if you knew it was a Google car, whether you could then just ignore the car's signal and continue as you would know that it wouldn't drive out anyway?
This all may be hypothetical, you may be able to do the same with humans. I sometimes do the signaling thing on my bicycle, but if someone looks like they're not going to stop, I will certainly halt so as not to be run over.:)
All in all a meh, in my opinion. If you really have a need for the high-end features, perhaps Microsoft is offering at a competitive price. But otherwise doesn't seem to offer much that you can't already get with a linux, bsd, or solaris distribution.
I don't think I'll ever set up a Windows server, but it strikes me that this is probably good news for all those that run Windows servers. From the bullet points, it seems like impressive improvements.
But, it isn't poverty exactly or school financial resources that predict student performance. It's culture.
I heard someone who was trying to change organizational culture and values talk about this. As he explained, you can't really change this kind of thing directly. For instance you can't tell people, "you should value education" - you can't force them directly to do that. It doesn't work well if you try.
What he argued was that you have to change the structures. In this case, I'd say it's that you need to find them a job so the they don't have time to hang out on the street, don't start drinking and fighting to prove that they're at least something in this world where everyone considers them loser scum. Then they'll change their culture themselves.
Yesterday I read about a project in Copenhagen where they found some small jobs, some of the slightly silly, like cleaning up the streets or something like that, but basically an excuse to have kids from poor areas who get out of primary school (around 14-16 years) show up, do some real hard work and get paid. According to this page, the difference in employment rates when they turn 19 is 65% for no small jobs vs. 92% for those who had.
Slashdot Mirror
Send your wife to work. She's as responsible for paying for your kids' tuition as you is.
Also, you're thinking about future value wrong. You figure out how much you would need today, then put the money in something that gives at least the inflation back. Then you don't have to worry.
But honestly, if you really think this way about things, consider moving to one of the Scandinavian countries. Medical treatment here is free, you get a modest pension from the state, and tuition is free too, students even get a barely-enough-to-stay-alive allowance for up to 6 years (and if they choose something like Aalborg University, they aren't going to need more than 5 years to complete a Master's degree). If you get hit by a bus, we have a special handicap pension.
Of course, the tax level is higher, but if you're just slightly frugal you should definitely be able to stay afloat on 85k.
It is still not correct. What you describe corresponds to you observing someone coming out of the market with something they bought, then rushing in to buy something based on that.
Why do you need to rush? Because there's a bunch of people next to you all observing the same, and if you don't come in first, you end up last in the queue.
I don't think tax evasion is really a good argument. Arguably that is an artifact of the American tax system.
A better argument may be that sometimes it makes more sense for a company to reinvest in itself.
I do think dividends are great though, in that they have a tendency to cut through all the speculation crap. There's a greentech company I'd like to invest in, their income statements look fine, about 2-5% ROI, but since they're not paying out dividends and it looks like the market may end up valuing them less in the future (they are relatively new), I may actually lose money if I invest.
I've heard one dude argue that shorting improves price discovery. For instance, if there's a lot of shorting going on, it may be a sign of a bubble.
Regarding predictions, I do think a market that efficiently discovers the right price does facilitate productive industry in the sense that it will punish bad companies and reward good companies.
The main problem, as I see it, is if the speculation ends up being about what other people think rather than the value in the company itself. At that point it's harmful.
Option 2, however, does not add any more liability, it just dilutes the value of the stock.
Actually, it doesn't directly. The reason is that the money you put into the company by buying the stock also, well, goes into the company, so it is now worth more. In fact, until that money has been spent, its worth grows with exactly the amount you put into it.
For instance, imagine a shoe shop worth 1 million. Now they want to open a similar shop in another city, the market thinks this is a great idea and they sell stock for 1 million. That extra 1 million goes into their bank and their worth is now 2 million. The first set of investors still have 50% * 2 million = 1 million worth of value, and the new set also have 1 million.
Of course, it's more complicated when you start thinking about future value, but the value itself isn't really diluted. Khan's Academy has a lecture on this. :)
Because a lawyer wrote it, and if you don't give a lawyer clear orders regarding stuff like this, they'll forbid everything they can possibly think of. Not because they're evil, it's just part of the training (risk management). They've probably heard of a dozen cases where some company got in trouble because they didn't forbid something and then screwed up afterwards.
It's the same reason you can't have a beancounter in charge of innovation. It just doesn't work that way. But of course, they could write something in if they wanted to.
Have you used it for a phone call yet?
Regarding integrity, if the customer is really annoying, take a step back and think about whether you could somehow be the cause (e.g. you're not asking the right questions, or not listening enough), or whether they're truly annoying to work with. In the latter case, fulfil what you've promised and then get out as quickly as possible.
A customer can fire you, but you can also fire them. Don't forget that. Respect and trust from both sides is vital.
I disagree. In Denmark, if you have a Master of computer science, you're almost guaranteed a job unless you are a complete moron. Those companies outsourcing development now will bounce back and need your help in a couple of years.
But I do agree you need to study, you're not going to be able to compete on salary, and really, if you're out of high school, you are probably better off dabbling with your own projects and learning. Working for clients quickly turns into "how fast can you get this done?" which is not conducive for experimenting and learning.
Don't forget sales and marketing, e.g. talking to customers who don't want to buy anything anyway.
Even today, after working in a few jobs as an employee and now being freelance for a while, the thing I miss the most is still the shared experience/peer review side of things.
I know this is not easy, but you could see if you could find something to share the company with. It also makes it a bit easier to manage work load because another person can step in, to some degree. I'm in a three-guy freelance startup, and you're right, sometimes you really need someone to talk to.
Gee, I guess you're one of those socially savvy people - start out by assuming the other party is a moron who is going to park his child in front the the computer and not do any of the other stuff you mention?
Most children do use their bodies a lot, so obesity in children is largely a factor of bad food/sugar drinks. If a child is getting fat, you're feeding them the wrong stuff.
I'm now sitting here on a sunday night, posting on Slashdot rather than doing something useful.
You mean, you are actually using your brain instead of watching tv on the couch like most people?
While children certainly need to use their bodies, I don't think a computer will necessarily prevent that. You just need to find other stuff they'll enjoy doing, like climbing trees or playing an instrument or playing with other kids or whatever.
Also, I strongly disagree on the age. The minute you need to start learning grown-up stuff like reading, a computer can be useful, with the right software/content. Things have changed during the past 30 years.
... where he goes into more detail of what Areyoukiddingme said.
It's 3.5 hours, but it's really fascinating. Here's a link.
You should watch John Carmack's QuakeCon 2012 keynote. He talks about this at some length (especially the they're all crap perspective). Part of the problem seems to be that the main needed components haven't really been available from a mass market before now. That's changed with smart phones.
Point being: What has gnome offered in either the 2.x or 3.x releases that made it so much better than the original versions, and did any of those features make up for it's unusable bloat on legacy systems?
Ease of use for people who don't like messing too much?
It's good for you you like WindowMaker, but not everyone shares the vision of building software for the past rather than the future. To some people, graphical design matters. Just saying. :)
The issue is the use of GTK i the desktop environment. It shouldn't be.
This does not make much sense, GNOME is built upon GTK+, and has been from the beginning. If you don't like that, you need to find another desktop environment. GNOME and all the other GTK apps have been the main driver of GTK development for many, many years, not the GIMP.
I think what usagimaru tried to tell you was that you basically hosed your system yourself and then complained it was hosed. Well, surprise! You can compile and run whatever program you want, but you need to know what you're doing if you are messing with stuff down in the stack.
Oops, that's not comparable to the previous one as this is per PPP. There's a per capita one where Luxembourg comes out top.
Later source (from here).
Norway, Sweden (both very close), Denmark, Luxembourg, Switzerland and Netherlands come out on top.
I watched a video not long ago from the Google people where they showed that the robotic car started driving out in a junction in spite of it not being entirely clear yet to signal to others that it was going to cross, just like a human would do.
But I'm not sure how much of this is preprogrammed and how much is dynamic. It did left me wondering if you knew it was a Google car, whether you could then just ignore the car's signal and continue as you would know that it wouldn't drive out anyway?
This all may be hypothetical, you may be able to do the same with humans. I sometimes do the signaling thing on my bicycle, but if someone looks like they're not going to stop, I will certainly halt so as not to be run over. :)
All in all a meh, in my opinion. If you really have a need for the high-end features, perhaps Microsoft is offering at a competitive price. But otherwise doesn't seem to offer much that you can't already get with a linux, bsd, or solaris distribution.
I don't think I'll ever set up a Windows server, but it strikes me that this is probably good news for all those that run Windows servers. From the bullet points, it seems like impressive improvements.
But, it isn't poverty exactly or school financial resources that predict student performance. It's culture.
I heard someone who was trying to change organizational culture and values talk about this. As he explained, you can't really change this kind of thing directly. For instance you can't tell people, "you should value education" - you can't force them directly to do that. It doesn't work well if you try.
What he argued was that you have to change the structures. In this case, I'd say it's that you need to find them a job so the they don't have time to hang out on the street, don't start drinking and fighting to prove that they're at least something in this world where everyone considers them loser scum. Then they'll change their culture themselves.
Yesterday I read about a project in Copenhagen where they found some small jobs, some of the slightly silly, like cleaning up the streets or something like that, but basically an excuse to have kids from poor areas who get out of primary school (around 14-16 years) show up, do some real hard work and get paid. According to this page, the difference in employment rates when they turn 19 is 65% for no small jobs vs. 92% for those who had.
The effect of student poverty is far greater than the effect of teachers' ability.
Maybe that's a good argument as any for raising taxes and redistributing wealth to some degree. It's better for society overall?
WOOOOSSHHH!
That was the sound of a computer-controlled vehicle driving past you. :)
When Wayland arrives. So it is said.