Find me a financial advisor that would ever equate buying fucking lottery tickets as an "investment".
Actually, I just read a mathematical explanation of when you should do so. Certain rollover lotteries can become overvalued when no one wins. In that case, it can be a winning strategy to buy ALL of the possible combinations.
And I have a logical explanation to debunk that strategy altogether. If you can afford to buy ALL the possible combinations to a lottery, then you don't need to be playing the lottery. That strategy is nothing more than one devised by millionaires looking to show how they "beat" the system, one way (winning), or another (writing off the loss under some tax loophole).
I'm sorry that I didn't explain the math clearly enough, though I regarded it as a minor point. A normal lottery only pays out about half of the take, but certain rollover lotteries will not award the large prizes if no one has picked the winning number, and the prize money rolls over into the next cycle. If this happens several times, the lottery has become almost a sure thing if you can buy tickets for ALL of the possible winning numbers. There is some risk of having to split with other winners, but there are some mathematically skilled gamblers who have used this strategy to win lots of money.
If you are interested in the topic, you can approach it from a purely mathematical perspective, or you can also get there from the quant side of financial analysts.
Find me a financial advisor that would ever equate buying fucking lottery tickets as an "investment".
Actually, I just read a mathematical explanation of when you should do so. Certain rollover lotteries can become overvalued when no one wins. In that case, it can be a winning strategy to buy ALL of the possible combinations.
Unfortunately, I've been reading a lot of math books lately, so I'm not sure which one mentioned this... Probably Alex's Adventures in Numberland, also published as Here's Looking at Euclid. (Obvious Alex likes puns.)
If a bunch of women had legit Donald stories, don't you think they would have been dug up the DNC muck-rakers during the campaign? Why wait until he wins?
Not sure if that was supposed to be some sort of a joke, but most people are not eager to talk in public about their private sexual experiences. Also, I believe that most of them were eager to "play" with the Donald, either due to his fame or for monetary aspirations. It's the second group that should be scaring Trump now, because the monetary value of their stories is about to skyrocket.
Actually, your use of AC seems to prove my point, though you would have a different reason for protecting your privacy. It is rational cowardice to protect your identity these days. You could well be in a situation where being identified as a Trump supporter could hurt you.
Hint: It is NOT superior software. At least not any way that I can define it, but perhaps I'm just too twisted in thinking that different people think differently and therefore a single superior solution does not exist?
Answer: It's the financial models.
Flogging the dead horse, but I still believe Linux remains essentially irrelevant because the financial models are bad, but I'm too tired of the fight to even often alternatives at this point... Unless someone encourages me, eh?
My interpretation of Microsoft's success is that there is almost no there (= innovation) there. Even the innovations in their financial models were copied, but at least in the financial models they substantially improved them:
(1) Legal evasion of liability via the EULA. If Microsoft were liable for the harms caused by their software then the company would have gone bankrupt long ago.
(2) Selling upstream to the makers, not downstream to the actual end users.
Just picking on what I regard as the two biggies, though if Microsoft does reach the trillion-dollar market cap, it will largely depend on stealing Apple's business models (more effectively than the google can steal them).
Still bogus in terms of solving any real problem. There is no number that is large enough to "solve" that kind of greed. That's why big companies have to become so EVIL these years, but I predict that Trump will figure out how to make the bad situation worse.
No one seems to have asked the obvious question: Did this guy vote for Trump? Did he buy the promise "Vote for me and I'll solve ALL your problems"? Hey, the scam might work if Trump wants to try to play the same game with EVERY company that can be bribed with a bit of tax money.
Reminds me of a funny story about so-called Republican politics. I was working for AMD in 1988 and the owner was a good buddy of Poppy Bush. Lots of rumors flying around that the company was in trouble, but they kept telling us not to worry. After the election, it turned out the rumors were true and the layoffs were announced. The owner didn't want to make Bush look bad before the election.
Anyway, your AC comment about unions was insightful enough to get modded to visibility. Of course the real insight is that you were too afraid to put your name on it. These days everyone knows unions are totally communist, socialist, liberal, and they cause bad breath, too.
Inhuman companies are not assured of profits by becoming evil. However being a nice company has become a guarantee of failure. I'm still fishing for good examples beyond NetScape, Palm, Sun, and Nokia.
Of course my main disappointment is the lack of funny comments. Only one so modded so far, and it wasn't so much.
Most of your criticisms sound quite applicable to Dubya, but I'm still reserving judgment on the "real" Donald. At first I dismissed his lies as low level and low caliber, but now I'm not sure.
By low level and low caliber, I mean Level 0 lies of self-contradiction and Level 1 lies of counterfactual statements. Such lies are easily recognized and only work with suckers who want to be deceived. Maybe Trump only resorts to those lies for appropriate audiences and he is capable of higher level lies. I haven't detected many examples of Level 2 lies of partial truth, but I'm beginning to think he does use some Level 3 lies of framing. Maybe you can help me understand this "gas lighting" thing (that has been linked to Trump)? I thought it was a kind of framing, recasting the truth so strongly as to make the victim question his own sanity, but I'm less and less sure about anything that involves Trump.
If Trump is actually a skilled actor playing to his audiences, then America's situation may be even worse than it seems. Lots of people think Reagan was a good president, when in reality he was just acting the role, and he wasn't even an especially skilled actor. Unfortunately, I can't compare apples to oranges... Reagan did a few B-grade movies, but Trump was mostly involved in reality TV. (Though I think it should be called surreality TV.)
If that was a thank you of some sort, then your manners are lacking, but I'll say "You're welcome" anyway. I'm guessing you looked it up on Wikipedia, but if you want additional references, I can provide them.
However, mostly you seem to be providing additional evidence for my primary point, which is that computer-mediated social interactions are not very social. Can't thank you for that since, if true, then it's a sad reality. I rather like computers and my computerized tools and I'm glad to see them used for constructive purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
Z^5
Find me a financial advisor that would ever equate buying fucking lottery tickets as an "investment".
Actually, I just read a mathematical explanation of when you should do so. Certain rollover lotteries can become overvalued when no one wins. In that case, it can be a winning strategy to buy ALL of the possible combinations.
And I have a logical explanation to debunk that strategy altogether. If you can afford to buy ALL the possible combinations to a lottery, then you don't need to be playing the lottery. That strategy is nothing more than one devised by millionaires looking to show how they "beat" the system, one way (winning), or another (writing off the loss under some tax loophole).
I'm sorry that I didn't explain the math clearly enough, though I regarded it as a minor point. A normal lottery only pays out about half of the take, but certain rollover lotteries will not award the large prizes if no one has picked the winning number, and the prize money rolls over into the next cycle. If this happens several times, the lottery has become almost a sure thing if you can buy tickets for ALL of the possible winning numbers. There is some risk of having to split with other winners, but there are some mathematically skilled gamblers who have used this strategy to win lots of money.
If you are interested in the topic, you can approach it from a purely mathematical perspective, or you can also get there from the quant side of financial analysts.
Z^5
I hate typos. "to even often" should be "to even offer".
Find me a financial advisor that would ever equate buying fucking lottery tickets as an "investment".
Actually, I just read a mathematical explanation of when you should do so. Certain rollover lotteries can become overvalued when no one wins. In that case, it can be a winning strategy to buy ALL of the possible combinations.
Unfortunately, I've been reading a lot of math books lately, so I'm not sure which one mentioned this... Probably Alex's Adventures in Numberland , also published as Here's Looking at Euclid . (Obvious Alex likes puns.)
Only funny comment and it had to be moderated into visibility?
Not very funny, either, but what part of the joke justified or called for the AC status?
AC said:
If a bunch of women had legit Donald stories, don't you think they would have been dug up the DNC muck-rakers during the campaign? Why wait until he wins?
Not sure if that was supposed to be some sort of a joke, but most people are not eager to talk in public about their private sexual experiences. Also, I believe that most of them were eager to "play" with the Donald, either due to his fame or for monetary aspirations. It's the second group that should be scaring Trump now, because the monetary value of their stories is about to skyrocket.
Actually, your use of AC seems to prove my point, though you would have a different reason for protecting your privacy. It is rational cowardice to protect your identity these days. You could well be in a situation where being identified as a Trump supporter could hurt you.
Hint: It is NOT superior software. At least not any way that I can define it, but perhaps I'm just too twisted in thinking that different people think differently and therefore a single superior solution does not exist?
Answer: It's the financial models.
Flogging the dead horse, but I still believe Linux remains essentially irrelevant because the financial models are bad, but I'm too tired of the fight to even often alternatives at this point... Unless someone encourages me, eh?
My interpretation of Microsoft's success is that there is almost no there (= innovation) there. Even the innovations in their financial models were copied, but at least in the financial models they substantially improved them:
(1) Legal evasion of liability via the EULA. If Microsoft were liable for the harms caused by their software then the company would have gone bankrupt long ago.
(2) Selling upstream to the makers, not downstream to the actual end users.
Just picking on what I regard as the two biggies, though if Microsoft does reach the trillion-dollar market cap, it will largely depend on stealing Apple's business models (more effectively than the google can steal them).
Still bogus in terms of solving any real problem. There is no number that is large enough to "solve" that kind of greed. That's why big companies have to become so EVIL these years, but I predict that Trump will figure out how to make the bad situation worse.
Only funny comment and it had to be moderated into visibility?
Not very funny, either, but what part of the joke justified for called for the AC status?
Your point is or points are? Possibly something about the resolution of the Fermi Paradox being the extinction of homo sapiens (not so much)?
Z^16
Z^12
Z^15
Z^14
Z^4
Z^4
No one seems to have asked the obvious question: Did this guy vote for Trump? Did he buy the promise "Vote for me and I'll solve ALL your problems"? Hey, the scam might work if Trump wants to try to play the same game with EVERY company that can be bribed with a bit of tax money.
Reminds me of a funny story about so-called Republican politics. I was working for AMD in 1988 and the owner was a good buddy of Poppy Bush. Lots of rumors flying around that the company was in trouble, but they kept telling us not to worry. After the election, it turned out the rumors were true and the layoffs were announced. The owner didn't want to make Bush look bad before the election.
Anyway, your AC comment about unions was insightful enough to get modded to visibility. Of course the real insight is that you were too afraid to put your name on it. These days everyone knows unions are totally communist, socialist, liberal, and they cause bad breath, too.
Inhuman companies are not assured of profits by becoming evil. However being a nice company has become a guarantee of failure. I'm still fishing for good examples beyond NetScape, Palm, Sun, and Nokia.
Of course my main disappointment is the lack of funny comments. Only one so modded so far, and it wasn't so much.
Most of your criticisms sound quite applicable to Dubya, but I'm still reserving judgment on the "real" Donald. At first I dismissed his lies as low level and low caliber, but now I'm not sure.
By low level and low caliber, I mean Level 0 lies of self-contradiction and Level 1 lies of counterfactual statements. Such lies are easily recognized and only work with suckers who want to be deceived. Maybe Trump only resorts to those lies for appropriate audiences and he is capable of higher level lies. I haven't detected many examples of Level 2 lies of partial truth, but I'm beginning to think he does use some Level 3 lies of framing. Maybe you can help me understand this "gas lighting" thing (that has been linked to Trump)? I thought it was a kind of framing, recasting the truth so strongly as to make the victim question his own sanity, but I'm less and less sure about anything that involves Trump.
If Trump is actually a skilled actor playing to his audiences, then America's situation may be even worse than it seems. Lots of people think Reagan was a good president, when in reality he was just acting the role, and he wasn't even an especially skilled actor. Unfortunately, I can't compare apples to oranges... Reagan did a few B-grade movies, but Trump was mostly involved in reality TV. (Though I think it should be called surreality TV.)
Z^11
What part of "pointless and closed" were you unable to understand?
If that was a thank you of some sort, then your manners are lacking, but I'll say "You're welcome" anyway. I'm guessing you looked it up on Wikipedia, but if you want additional references, I can provide them.
However, mostly you seem to be providing additional evidence for my primary point, which is that computer-mediated social interactions are not very social. Can't thank you for that since, if true, then it's a sad reality. I rather like computers and my computerized tools and I'm glad to see them used for constructive purposes.
Z^13
Z^12
Z^3
Z^3