I don't know how much energy goes into making solar cell panel, but beyond that I don't see the issue with price (/efficiency, but output vs price matters much more than absolute efficiency of the panel.)
Read a blog post by someone who wrote about getting a 1000 watt panel for household use with the 65% subsidizing our government gave for them or something such. He argued it would cost around 20000 SEK, produce around 900 kwh / year (shitty country for solar really) and save 27000 sek worth of electricity over 20-25 years. (I may be wrong somewhere, read cournicopia for the correct post.)
So was it worth it? Long term it seems so. But more importantly it's "free energy" in the future when oil and coil may be less common. And only with subsidizing. But that was here in Sweden and he meant it would be five times better than wind power on that occasion.
Anyway, so what if it cost 3 times more if it generates more power than you used to create the pnel? We/I can deal with higher energy prices, it's harder to deal with lower energy consumption. Though that would be way easier and much more efficient.
Also I saw a TV documentary how you in the US only had those recycle-money-back things in 11 states, only 6 with PET. The best state with the highest money got 97% (they said over 90%, image said 93 or 97 I think) of the bottles recycled if I remember correctly. At average you recycled 20%, in the world at large the number was 50%, I have no idea what it's in Sweden but I assume we're in the top (naturally...) Why don't you get there? That explains the great pacific plastic dump though... Doubt anyone in your country think you should pay to fix that one up, much less know how it would be done. But keep on blaming China even if you're the top consumers of the products... (Of course a Swedes life generates more crap and energy consumption than the average African, to. But you (still..) are a rich country, why not take some responsibility? EU is far ahead.)
I don't know what banking practises you're talking about.
I'm Swedish, and we have just get 85% limit for the cheaper loans, but the banks just fill an additional 10% or so up with blanco loans instead...
Anyway the only debt I have is from studies. And it's just around 115000 sek.
If you have got similar rules wherever the fuck you come from then I wouldn't be the one complaining. I would be the only celebrating because people are retards and borrow way to much. Saw some graph the total debt on people where as high back in around 2000 as it was around 1933 when everything crashed back then. But now it's keept rising all the time since then to, so it's much higher now.
However there was a small dip now on private debt but only because people got their loans removed somehow.
I don't know what your banking fee is for.
The Swedish people have increased their loans by 8.8% the last year, and our real estate bubble haven't hit the fan yet. Now households had even decided that they believed in increased prices... Smart.
Repo rate is 0.5% and the sek is rising like shit above especially usd but also euro and nok and so on. Estimates for GDP growth is quite high (around 4% this and next year) so everything works smoothly but the central bank want people to fucking learn and borrow less but they don't since it's so cheap right now.
My issues with banks is that rates in general suck, banks more or less make money of nothing, and since people lend more I assume they can afford more (see houses) and hence everyone with savings get inflation of what they can buy. Also just as with politics you don't seem to have to take responsibility when you fuck up, bonus/high pay for trying.. Lots of fees for shitty products such as funds, obligation / bonds(?), trying to sell credit cards with various bonus features to get a share of all the shopkeepers margins and so on.
Lots of money for nothing (nothing is in that they aren't producing anything, sure they offer a service.)
Personally I would had wanted to stay of anything credit but if the credit card gives 1% bonus on all purchases and have no fees for me... But I think people should had paid their credit rates and risk themselves and not the shop keepers or everyone also who pay with cards linked to bank accounts.
Also do understand that fees suck. Interest on interest work just the same where to.
If you have a stock fund with say 1.3% fee per year which invest about as good as the index that may at first sound ok if you're doing say 1.11200 * 0.987 = 1.097544 per year anyway.
However, over 45 years those 1.3 will steal: 1 - (0.987^45) = 0.44502698 of your money...
I also found a credit card (which suck for the shopkeepers..) which gives 1% bonus on all purchases. Just saving those 1% bonus for say 3% interest at average will make a difference to.
No-one will guarantee you 11.2% interest I assume. I said stocks.
I think in the case of Warren Buffett he managed to get 20% but he's an exception =P
Normally I've read 7% for the Stockholm stock market so I don't know where 11.2% comes from. Maybe different time period (I think he said last 50 years) or one of them don't include dividends. Maybe 7% is from 1918, or just after the crash in the 30s, guess all of the crashes make a difference.
But if you where looking at a graph since 1918 the crash in 2007-2008 (unless we've got lots more to come and aren't finished...) would most likely not stick out by much.
Hard hit around 33, wonder if we'll get there again. Some american (?) in a video on youtube meant it would go down to 1000...
That do sound weird now (and also notice the scale is logarithmic) but look at the 30s, from what? 350? to 43 or so? 88% drop? =P
That's not the time to be invested but good luck avoiding it / be sure about it once it happens:)
Notice how it took 25 years to get there again.
I think I saw some graph on total debt vs GDP where it was much higher now than in the 30s to.. 30s levels where passed already at year 2000 or something such.
Anyway, 1950, around 200? Now? 11000. 5500% during those 60 years. 55^(1 / 60) = 1.06906976
So around 7%.
As said, don't know where 11.2 come from, but I guess the index in this case only show stock price, not including dividends. And US stocks normally give higher dividend than Swedish ones I read somewhere.
10000 when you where born = 10 000 * (1.07^65) = 812 728.612
At the age of 65 even without dividends. Add 3% of those.. 10 000 * (1.10^65) = 4 903 707.25
I also read something (don't quote me on it and I don't remember the date of the article) like if you had saved 100 sek on a bank account since 1918 you would have had 621 sek or something such. With stocks you would have had 6200 sek or something such. However if you would had been able to tell the best alternative of the two each month you would have had 242.000.000.000;)
How about buying stocks for the money? (In yours and the global economy I have no idea, on the other hand really what is the alternative?)
Co-related I read an article this night how if you had two brothers where both started working at 19 and: * The first one already from the beginning put away 1000 sek / month until he lost his dedication for it seven years later at the age of 26. * While instead the other one picks up the interest and starts saving at that age until he retires at age 65, 39 years later.
Then the first guy who's put away 84.000 sek got 8.2 million sek thanks to compound interest at (in average) 11.2% / year.
The second guy has put away 468.000 sek still he only got 7.3 million sek.
I don't claim responsibility for his math, I think his calculator on the site counts per year and not per month for instance.
Also here in Sweden you normally pay 30% taxes on profit or dividend unless you save in a endowment insurance / with-profits bond there you currently pay 27% of the repo rate / year (I think at least.)
On the other hand people telling you how to get rich would suggest that you buy and keep your stocks more or less forever so you will actually never end up paying any tax on the raised value of the stock but only on the dividends. Instead you keep them and reinvest the dividends into stocks the whole time until you've got enough stocks that you can live on dividends alone.
Still the point is that the sooner your start the better, time matters, a lot! So if it's that simple why don't everyone become rich? Probably because people don't save their money for those 45 years without touching them...
But just think of what would had happened if your parents had saved 100 $ / month for you until you left your home at 18. That's 21 600 $ saved at for you at the age of 18, his calculator would had told you that at 10% average interest over that time you would had got 60 191 $.
But regardless plenty of youth / kids would had started spending the money once they got them, and sure it would had made their lives somewhat easier by that time.
But if they instead had kept them until their retired at the age of 65 they would have had 5 308 687 $ some 47 years later at the same interest. By then at even 2% dividends yearly they would had got (at least) 106 174 $ / year in dividends.
Quite awesome for 21600 invested... And would definitely make life easier once you retired.
(Would suck to die away from it and suck if you think you lose much pleasure in life from saving and living on a tight budget for your whole life. But he mean everyone can save at least 10% of their salary and suggest that people start by putting away 1% of each salary to start with, because very few can claim that they can't live of 99% of their salary. And then they have got used to that they raise that to 2%, and later to 3%, and so on. And eventually they will notice that they do quite well even if they put away 20-30%.)
11.48 * 1.7 = 19.5 million for all the real estate needed at the same price per square meter or 2% of the total cost for the data center even if they had paid the same amount for everyone.
Exactly, and that's the true win. Would definitely hurt Apple =P
If only there was some way to kill all old versions to;D
Apple always does it the way you describe though. Since everyone developed for Mac and PC why would anyone get a mac? So by doing what you describe they solved that, but then they lose all other third-party software titles because Apple claim more or less the whole market in the area.
And that's just one of the areas where macs suck. Like iTunes? Fine. Don't like it? Oups. (Yeah, I know Songbord exist in this example, and yes, it suck.) Like Mail? so on so on.
start doing the same thing customers stop asking questions and just pay for it.
Ah, you mean like a bank?
So I should pay for the card which I can only have on an account giving me 0% interest and then put my money in a stock fund with 1.5% yearly fee for _NOT_ beating any reasonable stock index?
Great idea!
In Norway (I'm Swedish) you usually even have to _PAY_ for a bank account:D, weird things happen when everyone got too much money:D
Also here in Sweden all bank personal is called "personal advisers", not "personal sellers", because of course they want to give you the best product! Never mind it's what's best for them;)
Slashdot Mirror
What happened with the Windows choose-your-browser-screen? I assume that would have had an impact.
Even more so if your OS only said things like:
Internet -> Web
Internet -> E-mail
Internet -> Chat
And such, with no mentioning of what the application is called.
In my experience everything which crashes if Flash fucks up crashes. All the time.
I've not tried it again
I still don't see a compelling reason to switch
Yeah, and you if anyone should had known the reasons if there was any!
And even more important. How bloated will it get? Sure one can argue some of the built in functionality is bloat to but whatever.
Kinda like running Irssi, was basic as it was but with all the extensions .. :D
Doesn't change much. If you ban software patents then no-one gives a shit whatever it was obvious or not :D
Imho the world would had sucked if all ideas from the beginning of time was protected by some mechanism.
Want to use numbers? Write things? Associate images with real objects? Use a tooth brush? Drink juice? ...
About $15-$20 (US) per CD. Cheaper if you can find them used.
Ah, that's nothing!
(15+20)/2 * num. of CDs = 17.5 * 0 = ~ 0
Too good I'm not buying CDs then!
It's one of those shortened URLs that bypass the DRM of the original URL while containing the same content which is most likely illegal content.
Like http://tinyurl.com/09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
Slashdot stories is the only area where I dislike copies.
Purple is a fruit.
All I want to know is how much I have to pay Google to not be included? :D
Sure they will, to state examples.
Best area to burn money in, much better than stupid things such as film making.
Does anyone really believe that without the protection of patents there wouldn't be any new products or ideas?
I'd go even further:
Without copyright there wouldn't had been any Beatles and without piracy Elvis would still be alive!
I don't know how much energy goes into making solar cell panel, but beyond that I don't see the issue with price (/efficiency, but output vs price matters much more than absolute efficiency of the panel.)
Read a blog post by someone who wrote about getting a 1000 watt panel for household use with the 65% subsidizing our government gave for them or something such. He argued it would cost around 20000 SEK, produce around 900 kwh / year (shitty country for solar really) and save 27000 sek worth of electricity over 20-25 years. (I may be wrong somewhere, read cournicopia for the correct post.)
So was it worth it? Long term it seems so. But more importantly it's "free energy" in the future when oil and coil may be less common. And only with subsidizing. But that was here in Sweden and he meant it would be five times better than wind power on that occasion.
Anyway, so what if it cost 3 times more if it generates more power than you used to create the pnel? We/I can deal with higher energy prices, it's harder to deal with lower energy consumption. Though that would be way easier and much more efficient.
Also I saw a TV documentary how you in the US only had those recycle-money-back things in 11 states, only 6 with PET. The best state with the highest money got 97% (they said over 90%, image said 93 or 97 I think) of the bottles recycled if I remember correctly. At average you recycled 20%, in the world at large the number was 50%, I have no idea what it's in Sweden but I assume we're in the top (naturally...) ... Doubt anyone in your country think you should pay to fix that one up, much less know how it would be done. ... ..) are a rich country, why not take some responsibility? EU is far ahead.)
Why don't you get there? That explains the great pacific plastic dump though
But keep on blaming China even if you're the top consumers of the products
(Of course a Swedes life generates more crap and energy consumption than the average African, to. But you (still
I don't know what banking practises you're talking about.
I'm Swedish, and we have just get 85% limit for the cheaper loans, but the banks just fill an additional 10% or so up with blanco loans instead ...
Anyway the only debt I have is from studies. And it's just around 115000 sek.
If you have got similar rules wherever the fuck you come from then I wouldn't be the one complaining. I would be the only celebrating because people are retards and borrow way to much.
Saw some graph the total debt on people where as high back in around 2000 as it was around 1933 when everything crashed back then. But now it's keept rising all the time since then to, so it's much higher now.
However there was a small dip now on private debt but only because people got their loans removed somehow.
I don't know what your banking fee is for.
The Swedish people have increased their loans by 8.8% the last year, and our real estate bubble haven't hit the fan yet. Now households had even decided that they believed in increased prices ... Smart.
Repo rate is 0.5% and the sek is rising like shit above especially usd but also euro and nok and so on. Estimates for GDP growth is quite high (around 4% this and next year) so everything works smoothly but the central bank want people to fucking learn and borrow less but they don't since it's so cheap right now.
My issues with banks is that rates in general suck, banks more or less make money of nothing, and since people lend more I assume they can afford more (see houses) and hence everyone with savings get inflation of what they can buy. Also just as with politics you don't seem to have to take responsibility when you fuck up, bonus/high pay for trying.. Lots of fees for shitty products such as funds, obligation / bonds(?), trying to sell credit cards with various bonus features to get a share of all the shopkeepers margins and so on.
Lots of money for nothing (nothing is in that they aren't producing anything, sure they offer a service.)
Personally I would had wanted to stay of anything credit but if the credit card gives 1% bonus on all purchases and have no fees for me ... But I think people should had paid their credit rates and risk themselves and not the shop keepers or everyone also who pay with cards linked to bank accounts.
Obviously I know what both does, however one could argue about their methods.
Well at least somebody wins... (the lawyers)
Banks and lawyers. Two totally unnecessary services getting the most money from everything for nothing?! Great! :D
I'm quite confident I can. Also you can't expect to get the rate, or well, not totally, you will definitely get the fee.
Yes, the rate count on the money you have left, and so you _CAN_ count on it that way.
And it's not against the original investment. ..
You will just have to apologize
Say 1.3 fund fee + 1% taxes.
0.99 * 0.987 = 0.97713
Say 7% interest.
1.07
Say three years.
((1.07 * 0.99 * 0.987)^3) = 1.14290037
With no fees:
(1.07^3) = 1.225043
Fees effect:
((0.99 * 0.987)^3) = 0.932947149
1.225043 * 0.932947149 = 1.14290037
Now go fuck yourself and think before you speak. Stop wasting my time being wrong.
Americans still use units based on the area of farm land that a man with an ox can plow in one day.
lol, is that belgian blue or highland cattle?
What kind of soil and how much stone material are there in the soil? Are they assuming no rain for the last week?
I left the numbers for others to judge but cut them at 420$ and 19.5 million.
Sure it should had read 400$ and 20 million to be somewhat safe.
But with numbers like "1" (billion and acres) that can still be infinite close to 50% off so .. :D
Heck, by then even 20 million wouldn't be correct ... 10-30 million? Or what? Maybe round it of downwards to 0?
0 million for the land and 0 hundreds of $ per square meter.
There, 13.16, haven't slept yet..
Also do understand that fees suck. Interest on interest work just the same where to.
If you have a stock fund with say 1.3% fee per year which invest about as good as the index that may at first sound ok if you're doing say 1.11200 * 0.987 = 1.097544 per year anyway.
However, over 45 years those 1.3 will steal: ...
1 - (0.987^45) = 0.44502698 of your money
I also found a credit card (which suck for the shopkeepers..) which gives 1% bonus on all purchases. Just saving those 1% bonus for say 3% interest at average will make a difference to.
No reason not to ..
No-one will guarantee you 11.2% interest I assume. I said stocks.
I think in the case of Warren Buffett he managed to get 20% but he's an exception =P
Normally I've read 7% for the Stockholm stock market so I don't know where 11.2% comes from. Maybe different time period (I think he said last 50 years) or one of them don't include dividends. Maybe 7% is from 1918, or just after the crash in the 30s, guess all of the crashes make a difference.
But if you where looking at a graph since 1918 the crash in 2007-2008 (unless we've got lots more to come and aren't finished...) would most likely not stick out by much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DJIA_historical_graph_to_jan09_(log).svg
Hard hit around 33, wonder if we'll get there again. Some american (?) in a video on youtube meant it would go down to 1000 ...
That do sound weird now (and also notice the scale is logarithmic) but look at the 30s, from what? 350? to 43 or so? 88% drop? =P
That's not the time to be invested but good luck avoiding it / be sure about it once it happens :)
Notice how it took 25 years to get there again.
I think I saw some graph on total debt vs GDP where it was much higher now than in the 30s to .. 30s levels where passed already at year 2000 or something such.
Anyway, 1950, around 200? Now? 11000.
5500% during those 60 years.
55^(1 / 60) = 1.06906976
So around 7%.
As said, don't know where 11.2 come from, but I guess the index in this case only show stock price, not including dividends. And US stocks normally give higher dividend than Swedish ones I read somewhere.
10000 when you where born = 10 000 * (1.07^65) = 812 728.612
At the age of 65 even without dividends. Add 3% of those .. 10 000 * (1.10^65) = 4 903 707.25
I also read something (don't quote me on it and I don't remember the date of the article) like if you had saved 100 sek on a bank account since 1918 you would have had 621 sek or something such. With stocks you would have had 6200 sek or something such. However if you would had been able to tell the best alternative of the two each month you would have had 242.000.000.000 ;)
But good luck with that :)
How about buying stocks for the money? (In yours and the global economy I have no idea, on the other hand really what is the alternative?)
Co-related I read an article this night how if you had two brothers where both started working at 19 and:
* The first one already from the beginning put away 1000 sek / month until he lost his dedication for it seven years later at the age of 26.
* While instead the other one picks up the interest and starts saving at that age until he retires at age 65, 39 years later.
Then the first guy who's put away 84.000 sek got 8.2 million sek thanks to compound interest at (in average) 11.2% / year.
The second guy has put away 468.000 sek still he only got 7.3 million sek.
I don't claim responsibility for his math, I think his calculator on the site counts per year and not per month for instance.
Also here in Sweden you normally pay 30% taxes on profit or dividend unless you save in a endowment insurance / with-profits bond there you currently pay 27% of the repo rate / year (I think at least.)
On the other hand people telling you how to get rich would suggest that you buy and keep your stocks more or less forever so you will actually never end up paying any tax on the raised value of the stock but only on the dividends.
Instead you keep them and reinvest the dividends into stocks the whole time until you've got enough stocks that you can live on dividends alone.
Still the point is that the sooner your start the better, time matters, a lot! ...
So if it's that simple why don't everyone become rich? Probably because people don't save their money for those 45 years without touching them
But just think of what would had happened if your parents had saved 100 $ / month for you until you left your home at 18. That's 21 600 $ saved at for you at the age of 18, his calculator would had told you that at 10% average interest over that time you would had got 60 191 $.
But regardless plenty of youth / kids would had started spending the money once they got them, and sure it would had made their lives somewhat easier by that time.
But if they instead had kept them until their retired at the age of 65 they would have had 5 308 687 $ some 47 years later at the same interest. By then at even 2% dividends yearly they would had got (at least) 106 174 $ / year in dividends.
Quite awesome for 21600 invested... And would definitely make life easier once you retired.
(Would suck to die away from it and suck if you think you lose much pleasure in life from saving and living on a tight budget for your whole life. But he mean everyone can save at least 10% of their salary and suggest that people start by putting away 1% of each salary to start with, because very few can claim that they can't live of 99% of their salary. And then they have got used to that they raise that to 2%, and later to 3%, and so on. And eventually they will notice that they do quite well even if they put away 20-30%.)
Or for the normal part of the world:
1 acre = 4 046.85642 square meters
4 047^(1 / 2) = 63.6160357 meters
1 700 000 / 4047 = 420 $ / square meter
500 000 * (square feet) = 46 451.52 square meters
And yeah:
46 451.52 / 4 046.86 = 11.4784104
11.48 * 1.7 = 19.5 million for all the real estate needed at the same price per square meter or 2% of the total cost for the data center even if they had paid the same amount for everyone.
Exactly, and that's the true win. Would definitely hurt Apple =P
If only there was some way to kill all old versions to ;D
Apple always does it the way you describe though. Since everyone developed for Mac and PC why would anyone get a mac? So by doing what you describe they solved that, but then they lose all other third-party software titles because Apple claim more or less the whole market in the area.
And that's just one of the areas where macs suck. Like iTunes? Fine. Don't like it? Oups.
(Yeah, I know Songbord exist in this example, and yes, it suck.)
Like Mail? so on so on.
start doing the same thing
customers stop asking questions and just pay for it.
Ah, you mean like a bank?
So I should pay for the card which I can only have on an account giving me 0% interest and then put my money in a stock fund with 1.5% yearly fee for _NOT_ beating any reasonable stock index?
Great idea!
In Norway (I'm Swedish) you usually even have to _PAY_ for a bank account :D, weird things happen when everyone got too much money :D
Also here in Sweden all bank personal is called "personal advisers", not "personal sellers", because of course they want to give you the best product! Never mind it's what's best for them ;)