Glad there's someone else out there who can relate! I actually had a Superboard II, which was the Challenger 1P without a case, as you may recall. Years later, I bought a C4P for cheap at a hamfest. Also, I may have the most complete set of Ohio Scientific documentation still in existence. (It's nice to have something to brag about, even if nobody cares.)
I was surprised when I visited there many years ago that it's located on the famed Wilshire Blvd, near the prestigious Rodeo Drive. Contrary to conventional belief, my theory is that sabre-toothed tigers were attracted there not by prey that was already stuck in the tar, but by luxury handbags.
It's nice to hear that there still are folks who look only at growth and ignore valuation (which, when done properly, includes growth as a factor). Please accept my apologies in advance for picking your pocket.:-)
Although Amazon is a great business, it's a terrible stock. The reason is that its stock price is sky high. Compare Amazon's key statistics with those of Wal-Mart. Compare the "Valuation Measures" of the two, and you'll see two quite different stories.
Although the two businesses may seem quite different - notably by Wal-Mart being primarily a brick-and-mortar and Amazon being online - I believe there are more similarities than differences: both are retailers that operate on a massive scale, with highly efficient distribution, and sell to customers at the lowest possible price. And of course, Wal-Mart even sells online, with delivery to home or pickup at the nearest store.
Investors are taking on faith that Amazon's growth in revenue will eventually turn into growth in profits. The author of the linked article seems to believe it, and suggests that those of us who are skeptical just don't get it. However, he admits in the article:
Part of this problem comes from the limited visibility into the dynamics of its business finances. Why doesn't Amazon break out more detail in its financial reporting to help the external world understand all these intricacies? How many subscribers to Amazon Prime, how many Kindles have sold, what's the net income from different lines of business, how much of its asset base investment is for fulfillment centers versus technology infrastructure for AWS?
There may be solid business reasons why Amazon doesn't provide that, but from an investment point of view, a stock with a high valuation whose financials can't be fully understood is the very model of "speculation", as defined by Benjamin Graham, the dean of value investors. Those who invest in Amazon may eventually be rewarded, but the stock market has legions of less-speculative investment opportunities that offer a far better risk/reward ratio. There's no reason for any "intelligent investor" to be involved.
[Disclosure: I have no position in either Amazon or Wal-Mart]
I wonder how these things do under extreme weather conditions, such as ice and snow? Do they still do better than humans?
Years ago, I suddenly hit a patch of black ice and I instinctively steered the wrong way, which only made it worse. I ended up doing a 180 and going over a curb. There wasn't much damage to me or the car, but I was very lucky - a large industrial truck was only about 10 seconds away.
In principle, steering wrong on ice is the sort of mistake that a well-programmed computer wouldn't make. I assume they're trying to account for all situations, but I've never actually seen any coverage about that.
...or, if not actually illegal, it will at least be discouraged for the general population via increased insurance. Maybe you'll be able to drive manually for fun, on occasion, and that won't affect your premiums much.
I had an Epson a few years ago that cost about as much as two of its cartridges. It refused to print in black when one of the color cartridges ran out. There's simply no excuse for that. Although I liked Epson in the old dot-matrix days, that's when I decided never to buy anything Epson ever again.
After becoming disgusted with the price of inkjet cartridges, I bought a brother MFC-9320CW, which is a very capable multi-function color laser printer. The current cost is about $800 which seems moderate for all it can do. However, I found that I immediately had to buy $150 of replacement cartridges for it because it comes with "teaser" cartridges that don't only work for a ridiculously short time. And the replacement cartridges didn't last long either.
I wasn't happy about that, but I soon discovered that the cartridges have a "flag gear" on them that the printer uses to prevent you from using all the ink in the cartridge - it simply refuses to print. But you can reset the flag gear about three times before the cartridge is truly empty. (Search for "TN-210" on YouTube to see a video about resetting the flag gears - it only takes a couple of minutes once you get good at it.)
The teaser cartridges don't come with flag gears, but those can be bought separately for about $3 per cartridge. You can also buy a cartridge refill kit for about $30 that will refill two blacks and one each of the three colors. This is a bit of trouble (and mess), but it does work. (I never had any luck refilling inkjet cartridges.)
The printer is such a tank that I suspect that Brother loses money on the printer itself. So, if you like to beat the system and don't mind a little trouble (and mess), the method here would be: - buy the printer at the typical loss-leader price - buy flag gears for the teaser cartridges and learn how to install/reset them via YouTube - buy refill kits to refill the teaser cartridges and keep refilling them as shown on YouTube
Alternatively, you could by third-party used cartridges. Resetting the flag gear still would be an essential skill, though.
Kevin: Yes, why does there have to be evil? Supreme Being: I think it has something to do with free will.
Yet the questions in the article didn't seem to cover the subject of "evil". Can a phone with supposed free will do evil, or is it just infected with a bug or virus? Here's Jessica Rabbit's take:
I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way.
Like many cartoon characters, Jessica evidently is sentient, yet she lacks free will. Silly wabbit.
Like all forms of mechanical trading, it serves the useful purpose of distracting folks from Value Investing. Since Value Investing wouldn't work if all investors practiced it faithfully, all such distractions are a good thing for us Value Investors. I'm all in favor of it.
It's notable that none of the world's most successful investors use this trading technique or any other. See Warren Buffet's classic article The Superinvestors of Graham-and-Doddsville for details.
Although the general public has always known about the CIA, they used to be totally unaware of existence of the NSA. So, although it's not remarkable that the NSA's head is retiring, it is remarkable that the public knows - or cares - about it. The Puzzle Palace just ain't what it used to be.
I think it's best to go "all in" - or not go in at all. If you want to get an MBA or other business education, make a commitment to it. However, most technical managers I know have no real business education and they do just fine in The Big Corporation. So a business education is helpful but not necessary.
Likewise, if you want to start your own business, go all in. I've operated a part-time home software business for the last 15 years which has been modestly successful. However, since I do 100% of everything myself, it ultimately can't grow beyond a certain level without more commitment of time and energy than I can give to it. I don't regret the way it's worked out, but it has never allowed me to quit my day job - as I had originally hoped.
An "all in" approach to starting a business would be to quit your day job, then sink or swim. A business education might be helpful, but if you're good at learning new skills, you don't need to get a degree for that. There's plenty you can learn through self study - and also from the school of hard knocks. In my case, I had to learn lots of little skills of both a technical and business nature, including various software skills, web site design/administration, software publishing, marketing, and basic business skills in accounting, taxes, and legal. For example, whenever I do a contract, I write it myself and then pay a lawyer to check it over and spruce it up.
I honestly don't think there's any degree that covers all that. OTOH, if you're more serious about your business than I am, you'd probably pay people to do most of that stuff for you. In fact, the highly successful entrepreneurs of the world recognize that they can't do 100% of everything and are adept at finding people to do it for them. And they go all in.
All typos in the writeup aside, the TrueCrypt FAQ states:
In addition to reviewing the source code, independent researchers can compile the source code and compare the resulting executable files with the official ones. They may find some differences (for example, timestamps or embedded digital signatures) but they can analyze the differences and verify that they do not form malicious code.
If so, why would it cost $16,000 to do that? Heck, I bet somebody would do that, and also do "a full security audit" of the source code, for free.
When I used to use TrueCrypt years ago, I assumed someone had already done that. But I never found any proof, so I stopped using it. Will the $16,000 maybe be used to pay someone to do that formally and publish the results?
You got me - I haven't ever actually written anything in COBOL. But if the goal is to "develop unmaintainable software" (see article), I think it's worth it. Heck, all that extra typing of COBOL code might even discourage me from commenting my code [wink].
(BTW, it fascinates me how a joke can get down-modded here, while a comment that clearly misses the joke gets up-modded. OK, it wasn't all that great of a joke, but somebody had to throw in something about COBOL when the subject is "unmaintainable software". One can only assume that the moderators are missing the jokes just like the commenters. So, to help the humor impaired, I've put in an explicit "wink" above. Moderators: please don't take this comment seriously and down-mod it - it's just another not-so-great joke - get it? [wink].)
Slashdot Mirror
Glad there's someone else out there who can relate! I actually had a Superboard II, which was the Challenger 1P without a case, as you may recall. Years later, I bought a C4P for cheap at a hamfest. Also, I may have the most complete set of Ohio Scientific documentation still in existence. (It's nice to have something to brag about, even if nobody cares.)
Before you ask, none of my Ohio Scientifics are for sale.
I'd like to hear from more people with smart watches who are happy with them, to better understand the appeal.
Hey, I really like my new smart watch! Now, I don't have to take my phone out of my pocket to know what time it is.
and no time was there testing or a ramp up of opening up the site to a few people and then allowing more people access as they work out the bugs
See Gall's law.
If you found the article worthless, you pass. If you found the dancing letters in the video entertaining, you also pass.
I was surprised when I visited there many years ago that it's located on the famed Wilshire Blvd, near the prestigious Rodeo Drive. Contrary to conventional belief, my theory is that sabre-toothed tigers were attracted there not by prey that was already stuck in the tar, but by luxury handbags.
It's nice to hear that there still are folks who look only at growth and ignore valuation (which, when done properly, includes growth as a factor). Please accept my apologies in advance for picking your pocket. :-)
Although Amazon is a great business, it's a terrible stock. The reason is that its stock price is sky high. Compare Amazon's key statistics with those of Wal-Mart. Compare the "Valuation Measures" of the two, and you'll see two quite different stories.
Although the two businesses may seem quite different - notably by Wal-Mart being primarily a brick-and-mortar and Amazon being online - I believe there are more similarities than differences: both are retailers that operate on a massive scale, with highly efficient distribution, and sell to customers at the lowest possible price. And of course, Wal-Mart even sells online, with delivery to home or pickup at the nearest store.
Investors are taking on faith that Amazon's growth in revenue will eventually turn into growth in profits. The author of the linked article seems to believe it, and suggests that those of us who are skeptical just don't get it. However, he admits in the article:
Part of this problem comes from the limited visibility into the dynamics of its business finances. Why doesn't Amazon break out more detail in its financial reporting to help the external world understand all these intricacies? How many subscribers to Amazon Prime, how many Kindles have sold, what's the net income from different lines of business, how much of its asset base investment is for fulfillment centers versus technology infrastructure for AWS?
There may be solid business reasons why Amazon doesn't provide that, but from an investment point of view, a stock with a high valuation whose financials can't be fully understood is the very model of "speculation", as defined by Benjamin Graham, the dean of value investors. Those who invest in Amazon may eventually be rewarded, but the stock market has legions of less-speculative investment opportunities that offer a far better risk/reward ratio. There's no reason for any "intelligent investor" to be involved.
[Disclosure: I have no position in either Amazon or Wal-Mart]
I wonder how these things do under extreme weather conditions, such as ice and snow? Do they still do better than humans?
Years ago, I suddenly hit a patch of black ice and I instinctively steered the wrong way, which only made it worse. I ended up doing a 180 and going over a curb. There wasn't much damage to me or the car, but I was very lucky - a large industrial truck was only about 10 seconds away.
In principle, steering wrong on ice is the sort of mistake that a well-programmed computer wouldn't make. I assume they're trying to account for all situations, but I've never actually seen any coverage about that.
...or, if not actually illegal, it will at least be discouraged for the general population via increased insurance. Maybe you'll be able to drive manually for fun, on occasion, and that won't affect your premiums much.
I predict that one day it will be illegal to drive a car manually. I can't predict exactly when, but I bet some of you will live to see it.
Perhaps the Japanese feel the same way about our domination of baseball.
Just wondering...did any of you're submissions misuse the word "your"?
(sorry, couldn't resist)
I had an Epson a few years ago that cost about as much as two of its cartridges. It refused to print in black when one of the color cartridges ran out. There's simply no excuse for that. Although I liked Epson in the old dot-matrix days, that's when I decided never to buy anything Epson ever again.
After becoming disgusted with the price of inkjet cartridges, I bought a brother MFC-9320CW, which is a very capable multi-function color laser printer. The current cost is about $800 which seems moderate for all it can do. However, I found that I immediately had to buy $150 of replacement cartridges for it because it comes with "teaser" cartridges that don't only work for a ridiculously short time. And the replacement cartridges didn't last long either.
I wasn't happy about that, but I soon discovered that the cartridges have a "flag gear" on them that the printer uses to prevent you from using all the ink in the cartridge - it simply refuses to print. But you can reset the flag gear about three times before the cartridge is truly empty. (Search for "TN-210" on YouTube to see a video about resetting the flag gears - it only takes a couple of minutes once you get good at it.)
The teaser cartridges don't come with flag gears, but those can be bought separately for about $3 per cartridge. You can also buy a cartridge refill kit for about $30 that will refill two blacks and one each of the three colors. This is a bit of trouble (and mess), but it does work. (I never had any luck refilling inkjet cartridges.)
The printer is such a tank that I suspect that Brother loses money on the printer itself. So, if you like to beat the system and don't mind a little trouble (and mess), the method here would be:
- buy the printer at the typical loss-leader price
- buy flag gears for the teaser cartridges and learn how to install/reset them via YouTube
- buy refill kits to refill the teaser cartridges and keep refilling them as shown on YouTube
Alternatively, you could by third-party used cartridges. Resetting the flag gear still would be an essential skill, though.
From Time Bandits:
Kevin: Yes, why does there have to be evil?
Supreme Being: I think it has something to do with free will.
Yet the questions in the article didn't seem to cover the subject of "evil". Can a phone with supposed free will do evil, or is it just infected with a bug or virus? Here's Jessica Rabbit's take:
I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way.
Like many cartoon characters, Jessica evidently is sentient, yet she lacks free will. Silly wabbit.
Facebook's wealth demands unlimited slavery
Maybe that's why they tried to get into the phone business. Hey, it worked for Apple.
Like all forms of mechanical trading, it serves the useful purpose of distracting folks from Value Investing. Since Value Investing wouldn't work if all investors practiced it faithfully, all such distractions are a good thing for us Value Investors. I'm all in favor of it.
It's notable that none of the world's most successful investors use this trading technique or any other. See Warren Buffet's classic article The Superinvestors of Graham-and-Doddsville for details.
Next, you're gonna tell me you can't reproduce my cold fusion results. So, whose fault is that?...
Although the general public has always known about the CIA, they used to be totally unaware of existence of the NSA. So, although it's not remarkable that the NSA's head is retiring, it is remarkable that the public knows - or cares - about it. The Puzzle Palace just ain't what it used to be.
I think it's best to go "all in" - or not go in at all. If you want to get an MBA or other business education, make a commitment to it. However, most technical managers I know have no real business education and they do just fine in The Big Corporation. So a business education is helpful but not necessary.
Likewise, if you want to start your own business, go all in. I've operated a part-time home software business for the last 15 years which has been modestly successful. However, since I do 100% of everything myself, it ultimately can't grow beyond a certain level without more commitment of time and energy than I can give to it. I don't regret the way it's worked out, but it has never allowed me to quit my day job - as I had originally hoped.
An "all in" approach to starting a business would be to quit your day job, then sink or swim. A business education might be helpful, but if you're good at learning new skills, you don't need to get a degree for that. There's plenty you can learn through self study - and also from the school of hard knocks. In my case, I had to learn lots of little skills of both a technical and business nature, including various software skills, web site design/administration, software publishing, marketing, and basic business skills in accounting, taxes, and legal. For example, whenever I do a contract, I write it myself and then pay a lawyer to check it over and spruce it up.
I honestly don't think there's any degree that covers all that. OTOH, if you're more serious about your business than I am, you'd probably pay people to do most of that stuff for you. In fact, the highly successful entrepreneurs of the world recognize that they can't do 100% of everything and are adept at finding people to do it for them. And they go all in.
All typos in the writeup aside, the TrueCrypt FAQ states:
In addition to reviewing the source code, independent researchers can compile the source code and compare the resulting executable files with the official ones. They may find some differences (for example, timestamps or embedded digital signatures) but they can analyze the differences and verify that they do not form malicious code.
If so, why would it cost $16,000 to do that? Heck, I bet somebody would do that, and also do "a full security audit" of the source code, for free.
When I used to use TrueCrypt years ago, I assumed someone had already done that. But I never found any proof, so I stopped using it. Will the $16,000 maybe be used to pay someone to do that formally and publish the results?
You got me - I haven't ever actually written anything in COBOL. But if the goal is to "develop unmaintainable software" (see article), I think it's worth it. Heck, all that extra typing of COBOL code might even discourage me from commenting my code [wink].
(BTW, it fascinates me how a joke can get down-modded here, while a comment that clearly misses the joke gets up-modded. OK, it wasn't all that great of a joke, but somebody had to throw in something about COBOL when the subject is "unmaintainable software". One can only assume that the moderators are missing the jokes just like the commenters. So, to help the humor impaired, I've put in an explicit "wink" above. Moderators: please don't take this comment seriously and down-mod it - it's just another not-so-great joke - get it? [wink].)
Why use "the coolest mix of cutting-edge programming languages" when I can use just COBOL?
Linus always says Linux is perfect. Linus can be wrong.
Clearly, Nomad should sterilize him. (And BTW, Nomad prefers that you call it the "GNU/Linux System".)