let's see.. it's accessible FROM the home page. There's a search box ON the web page. In fact, if you click the Search button (with nothing in the box), you go right to search.yahoo.com. And it's accessible with a well known URL (just because you didn't know it doesn't mean it's not well known) - shoot, *I* knew about it! And it's accessed from browser search from the toolbar (or whatever you call that, in the upper right of your browser, typically).
Sounds like a reasonable search engine to me. Just because they are not willing to throw away all their assets and creativity and COPY off of Google (and then face the wrath of shit they'd got for that move), doesn't mean they're not a search engine.
No, really not saying that at all. Not that I disagree with you, but that wasn't what I was saying.
I didn't suggest rebalancing monthly. I said review each month looking for stocks that are short term losers, particularly those that are just under one year old (since the deduction for short term losses is currently much greater than the deduction for long term losses). This is merely taking advantage of the tax laws.
Generally, though, I am a net buyer of stocks, as one probably should be (very generally speaking) during their working years. So my inflows into the market will vastly exceed my withdrawals, over a 50 year period - my working years. In this case, "rebalancing" can simply be done by aiming your NEW investments, not selling your current investments.
Therefore, this almost totally removes the drag that comes with stock turnover. So it's not the same as the commission death of the day trader. Generally, you have one "buy" during your working years, and one "sell" as you approach retirement, for a particular stock. And you get the benefit of the vote.
But different strategies suit different people.
A similar strategy would take advantage of the Direct Stock Purchase programs that many companies offer. While you cannot control the timing of your purchases down to the minute, these generally have very low commissions. And you can set up automatic purchases, so that you continue to invest in the same company. Pick a handful of good companies that you feel that you could own for fifty years, and put it on auto-pilot.
You are actually being generous when you say that speculation is a zero-sum game. Because of trading costs, there's a natural "load" built in. Sort of like going to a casino - the more bets you make, the greater the impact of the load. If you MUST bet at a casino, your best bet mathematically would be to place one bet with the best expected payout (within your risk tolerance), and you'll lose the least amount of money.
Commissions will eat up a day trader.
Other than that, your post is right on target. Buy a handful of well-researched stocks (I like to hold about 40 across various market segmets (caps), industries and geographies). You don't get the mutual fund load. The 0.2% gain may be offset by losses due to lack of day-to-day research, but I am quite OK with that.
I also like to review, on a monthly basis, any stocks that I've owned for 10-12 months. If I show a loss, and can find a suitable substitute for the stock (or if I've lost the passion for the stock), I'll sell it and take the short term loss, offsetting my income (instead of falling into the "greater than 12 months" capital gains offset. So your losses are worth more on day 364 than they are on day 367.
The upward bias of the stock market makes gambling fun! In a sense, you "are the house" in the transaction, unless you do it wrong!
I said the same thing, but for some reason, it didn't feel like "theirs".
Maybe it was the look on my face as they were connecting up LEDs with no resistors... But part of the learning process is burning out a few components.
Or... If an underage person was vehemently against the use of CCTV, they could flash the camera and then have the owners charged as kiddie-pornographers.
I vaguely remember a US case of an adult who was ticked off that kids were "parking" (and getting naked) near his driveway on the weekends. He took photos to the police to complain, and they charged him with kiddie-porn charges.
Make sure you buy your kid his or her OWN 150 in 1 kit.
My kids were reluctant to mess with mine. But as soon as I got them there own (and then, darn, somehow the xbox mysteriously broke that weekend), they started experimenting.
My mom was on the consumer test panel for Pringles before the product came out. So we got white ("generic") cans labeled "A" and "B" (or something like that) full of different Pringle mixes.
She served them at a party as part of the test (logging people's feedback), and EVERYONE was blown away by this new, unconventional chip! It was like nothing anyone had ever seen before. (these were the days of "space age" products like "Tang".)
Not that a cylinder can is particularly a good design. I think the chip itself is the genius part. We poured the chips into bowls, as well as a bagged chip (maybe Husman's, a local favorite), and the vast majority of the Pringles (er, Brand "A" and "B") were whole and the bowl was practically overflowing. The competitive brand, whose package was much bigger, were all crumbly and barely reached the top of the bowl.
P&G invented a new class of product which became a huge seller over the years. Genius.
As an aside, this was a much more pleasant test than some of the deodorant panels she volunteered for!
Actually, the data was encrypted using a complex algorithm called ASC2 or ASC II or something like that. I'm sure the data is safe. No one will be able to decode it. It's gibberish, written in just zeros and ones. If your Social Security Number contains even ONE digit in the range of 2-9, you should be fine.
Sorry for not revealing too many technical details. I'd hate to give a criminal too much to go on.
It has over 100 Billion dollars in assets. Keep in mind that depository accounts at a bank are considered the bank's _liabilities_. A bank's outbound loans are their assets.
So if you go in and attempt to withdraw your money on deposit, and they pay you with an asset (other than cash on hand), they'd have to somehow give you a note - an IOU, where someone owes the bank money. That doesn't work too well.
If you don't think bank runs exist today, you need to just look back 2 months ago, to the Bear Stearns failure.
Yeah, and they are contacting each other constantly. So? They are one group, we are another. They happen to be smaller. They choose isolation.
Since we don't choose isolation, and are open to them visiting us, it seems that WE are the ones that have not been contacted by them! Pretty simple.
Besides, your assumption is that we are one big group, when in fact, there are tens of thousands of groups that will NEVER be in contact with me, ever.
It's just our ego that makes us the center of the universe, and anyone we haven't contacted is "uncontacted". I'd say they are in REGULAR contact with everyone that they WANT to be in contact with. We just aren't among those that they want to be in contact with.
So why is it that we assume that THEY are the previously uncontacted ones? Aren't WE equally previously uncontacted, by them? They never called, they never wrote, they never flew over me with a helicopter.
Because it was in the specification to have a delete function. The delete function triggered a destructive deletion of records that were in our database and outside our database - outside of our control. It removed records from multiple locations and was to be used to both reduce the space used and to eliminate traces of the record.
In this case, delete meant delete. Not "hide". Not "remove, but I reserve the right to change my mind."
Slightly off topic, but your story reminds me of software I was involved with.
We created a delete function, and kept getting reports that the customer accidentally deleted records. (And we had no undelete function.) So we added a "Are you sure?" dialog.
The incidents of accidental deletion did not go down.
So we added text "This cannot be undone. Continue?" and still the incidents did not go down (People just randomly click OK.)
Finally we changed it to "Please key in 'irreversible' to continue with the deletion."
This solved the problem.
With every ATM deposit, one can key in a slight over-amount, when specifying the deposit. If you are depositing checks for $123.45, you could key in maybe $123.54 (transposing the last two digits).
Most always, the bank sees the foolishness in sending a letter (costing at least 42 cents) to correct a small error. So they apparently just write off the difference, and leave the ATM deposit as reported.
So I get richer, cents at a time.
Kids, don't try this at home.
This may just be the missing statement, right before "4. Profit"
This whole submission is based on the premise that "the US and other parts of the world are currently having some economic problems."
While I won't disagree that there are "some" economic problems, I think the amount and severity of economic problems are minimal. If you think the current economy is in bad shape, then you are listening to the political candidates too much.
I doubt that there has been a time in the history of mankind has the world been so prosperous. Sure, pockets of problems. Third World countries with poverty. Maybe your 401-K isn't as high as it was in October. But things are hardly bad.
I always do a double take to see Vegas referred to as Sin City, when the original is a suburb of Cincinnati, which makes much more sense, as a play on words.
HA! You have a situation where you want to use a word in its proper context, yet you are afraid to, for fear that you'll kick off a debate about the word's meaning. Now that's ironic!
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like a reasonable search engine to me. Just because they are not willing to throw away all their assets and creativity and COPY off of Google (and then face the wrath of shit they'd got for that move), doesn't mean they're not a search engine.
I didn't suggest rebalancing monthly. I said review each month looking for stocks that are short term losers, particularly those that are just under one year old (since the deduction for short term losses is currently much greater than the deduction for long term losses). This is merely taking advantage of the tax laws.
Generally, though, I am a net buyer of stocks, as one probably should be (very generally speaking) during their working years. So my inflows into the market will vastly exceed my withdrawals, over a 50 year period - my working years. In this case, "rebalancing" can simply be done by aiming your NEW investments, not selling your current investments.
Therefore, this almost totally removes the drag that comes with stock turnover. So it's not the same as the commission death of the day trader. Generally, you have one "buy" during your working years, and one "sell" as you approach retirement, for a particular stock. And you get the benefit of the vote.
But different strategies suit different people.
A similar strategy would take advantage of the Direct Stock Purchase programs that many companies offer. While you cannot control the timing of your purchases down to the minute, these generally have very low commissions. And you can set up automatic purchases, so that you continue to invest in the same company. Pick a handful of good companies that you feel that you could own for fifty years, and put it on auto-pilot.
Maybe we should introduce this bacteria to the Previously uncontacted Amazon Tribe.
oops. thanks for the correction!
Commissions will eat up a day trader.
Other than that, your post is right on target. Buy a handful of well-researched stocks (I like to hold about 40 across various market segmets (caps), industries and geographies). You don't get the mutual fund load. The 0.2% gain may be offset by losses due to lack of day-to-day research, but I am quite OK with that.
I also like to review, on a monthly basis, any stocks that I've owned for 10-12 months. If I show a loss, and can find a suitable substitute for the stock (or if I've lost the passion for the stock), I'll sell it and take the short term loss, offsetting my income (instead of falling into the "greater than 12 months" capital gains offset. So your losses are worth more on day 364 than they are on day 367.
The upward bias of the stock market makes gambling fun! In a sense, you "are the house" in the transaction, unless you do it wrong!
For Full command line emulation, you should be able to put the command into a query string: "http://www.goosh.com/?s slashdot"
Seriously cool stuff
Maybe it was the look on my face as they were connecting up LEDs with no resistors... But part of the learning process is burning out a few components.
I vaguely remember a US case of an adult who was ticked off that kids were "parking" (and getting naked) near his driveway on the weekends. He took photos to the police to complain, and they charged him with kiddie-porn charges.
My kids were reluctant to mess with mine. But as soon as I got them there own (and then, darn, somehow the xbox mysteriously broke that weekend), they started experimenting.
She served them at a party as part of the test (logging people's feedback), and EVERYONE was blown away by this new, unconventional chip! It was like nothing anyone had ever seen before. (these were the days of "space age" products like "Tang".)
Not that a cylinder can is particularly a good design. I think the chip itself is the genius part. We poured the chips into bowls, as well as a bagged chip (maybe Husman's, a local favorite), and the vast majority of the Pringles (er, Brand "A" and "B") were whole and the bowl was practically overflowing. The competitive brand, whose package was much bigger, were all crumbly and barely reached the top of the bowl.
P&G invented a new class of product which became a huge seller over the years. Genius.
As an aside, this was a much more pleasant test than some of the deodorant panels she volunteered for!
Sorry for not revealing too many technical details. I'd hate to give a criminal too much to go on.
So if you go in and attempt to withdraw your money on deposit, and they pay you with an asset (other than cash on hand), they'd have to somehow give you a note - an IOU, where someone owes the bank money. That doesn't work too well.
If you don't think bank runs exist today, you need to just look back 2 months ago, to the Bear Stearns failure.
:-) Just thought that wording was interesting!
Since we don't choose isolation, and are open to them visiting us, it seems that WE are the ones that have not been contacted by them! Pretty simple.
Besides, your assumption is that we are one big group, when in fact, there are tens of thousands of groups that will NEVER be in contact with me, ever. It's just our ego that makes us the center of the universe, and anyone we haven't contacted is "uncontacted". I'd say they are in REGULAR contact with everyone that they WANT to be in contact with. We just aren't among those that they want to be in contact with.
But don't let your feelings be hurt!
So why is it that we assume that THEY are the previously uncontacted ones? Aren't WE equally previously uncontacted, by them? They never called, they never wrote, they never flew over me with a helicopter.
Please disregard the misspelling of the dead guy's last name in the pryor posting.
In this case, delete meant delete. Not "hide". Not "remove, but I reserve the right to change my mind."
We were following the specification THAT WE WERE PAID FOR. So we are dumbass programmers for following the customer specification? Nice try.
We created a delete function, and kept getting reports that the customer accidentally deleted records. (And we had no undelete function.) So we added a "Are you sure?" dialog.
The incidents of accidental deletion did not go down.
So we added text "This cannot be undone. Continue?" and still the incidents did not go down (People just randomly click OK.)
Finally we changed it to "Please key in 'irreversible' to continue with the deletion." This solved the problem.
And did you use the same "scubamage" login name?
Most always, the bank sees the foolishness in sending a letter (costing at least 42 cents) to correct a small error. So they apparently just write off the difference, and leave the ATM deposit as reported.
So I get richer, cents at a time.
Kids, don't try this at home.
This may just be the missing statement, right before "4. Profit"
This whole submission is based on the premise that "the US and other parts of the world are currently having some economic problems."
While I won't disagree that there are "some" economic problems, I think the amount and severity of economic problems are minimal. If you think the current economy is in bad shape, then you are listening to the political candidates too much.
I doubt that there has been a time in the history of mankind has the world been so prosperous. Sure, pockets of problems. Third World countries with poverty. Maybe your 401-K isn't as high as it was in October. But things are hardly bad.
Next story, please.
I always do a double take to see Vegas referred to as Sin City, when the original is a suburb of Cincinnati, which makes much more sense, as a play on words.
HA! You have a situation where you want to use a word in its proper context, yet you are afraid to, for fear that you'll kick off a debate about the word's meaning. Now that's ironic!