Well, what's different about this is it's not even accomplishing any particular goal. Is it keeping out "naughty" sites? Er, some yes, and some no. Is it keeping out newspaper sites? Er, some yes, some no. Is it keeping out bandwidth hogs? Er, kinda in the sense that it makes internet use a nightmare. But it prohibits an itty bitty mp3 clip of of the wumpasaurus's mating call for my zoology class (hypothetical, people!) just as much as a 14 Mb mp3 at PIRATEYOURMP3SHERE.COM. Plus, it seems to clip out vital parts of websites that *are* acceptable. Kinda like what happens when you do javascript block + ad-related url-block, except that you can't turn it off by changing settings on your software!
What??? Bonds are paying you 0.25%/month? That's ~3%/ year. Dude, money markets pay more than that. Vanguard's is 5.1%/year right now (probably 5.3% for the amounts you're talking about), which comes to 0.41%/month (~40% higher payments than you described) with no principle loss. And bond yields are actually lower than they have been historically. The total bond market returns 8.5% over the long term, and it's now ~5.5%.
You're way overestimating the amount you need to have.
Perhaps you've heard somebody mention that 'past performance does not guarantee future results' or something along those lines, a time or two.
Of course I have. But for a record that long (which extends back to pretty much every equity index since the 17th century), which does not depend on any one manager, it gives you a better idea where the bell curve lies.
Good luck getting a 7% real rate of return in that environment. What's the average annual real rate of return for the past 5 years, champ? Free clue for you: it's negative
False. The Fidelity Spartan US Equity Index Fund (Symbol: FUSEX), which tracks and gives you the return of the broad performance of the US stock market, shows 5-year returns of 6.86%/year. That's well ahead of inflation.
Of course, you should be more concerned about the long-term rate of return... but that's a lot higher, so... yeah, you'll beat 7%.
The long term return on stocks, _including_ dividends, is roughly 7%. If he's going to follow your model, genius, that means he'd need about $600k in a Roth account....
Here's the better news. I've neglected the role of inflation in my calcuations.
Wow, many errors. First of all, that 7% might be right if you're subtracting out inflation. Nominal return on stocks has been 11% since 1927. Second of all, when you're talking about retirement income, you wouldn't draw it from stock dividends. You would sell the stocks and buy bonds (preferably a bond fund). Bonds, of course, might on average pay 7% (not *now*, of course, unless you use a high-yield fund). But your money would appreciate faster than 7% when you save through stocks. Save over THIRTY YEARS and you can easily make the $600k.
Thanks! I'll keep my charity separate from my market purchases, but feel free to fritter away your own money as you see fit, while the rest of us point and laugh.
But hey, when the economy totally collapses because we didn't subsidize poor business models, I'll let you watch me cry.
I don't understand how it's any better to routinely overpay for undervalue -- making a business decision ultimately a charity decision -- out of a misguided sense of patriotism (nationalism?).
Should businesses just throw in the towel and become charities for people who need jobs? Sounds like a great long-term plan, eh?
As I understand it, Spamhaus just has a list that people use in making their own blocking decisions. (Though that "own blocking decision" is of course "Is it on Spamhaus? Then block it.") They don't actually block anyone. So they could comply with the ruling by removing the "approved" spammer and then saying to all current and future customers, "We had to remove this guy from our list, but you should probably block him anyway." Then it's just a bunch of email users "on their own" deciding to block the spammer. The complies with the court order, while still defeating the spammer's goal.
Oh yeah, because, let me tell you, advertisers are VERY careful about pitching commercials to the right audience. Like, you never see an ad for feminine products during guy-oriented shows.
I don't even know how reliable Nielsen's ratings are to begin with. How statistically valid are they? I don't know any family that's kept a log book, and certainly, they're not too meticulous about it when they do. Is there a bias in how the group is selected?
I think this demonstrates how important "many eyeballs" are in problem solving. Intelligent people "who have been attacking the problem for 15 years" can still fail to see an "obvious" solution. I shudder at how many scientific fields probably have obvious solutions that aren't being found because only a small cadre of people have been exposed to the problem. I also shudder at people who artificially set up barriers to understanding their own fields, in order to protect their own egos. The attitude of "journal articles need to be cryptic or they must not be important" needs to go.
Seriously, that kind of reminds me of an Archie Bunker routine. Someone told him about how many homicides involve guns*, and he replied with "Would it make ya feel any better, if they was pushed outta windows?"
So to this story, you could almost reply, "Would it make ya feel any betta, if they was just surfin Slashdot?"
*Please, please, don't make a pro/anti-gun flamewar branch off of this, I beg you.
I've never understood that. Even accepting that he's going to goof off on his computer, and that he wants to goof off that way, what would compel him to do it there? Can he really not wait till he gets home for that kind of thing? And to answer the obvious objection -- yes, employees typically goof off, but not at sites that could get them prosecuted. Can't he distract himself at/. or something until quittin' time?
In a sense, all startups have a touch of "let's build this and hope we can make money off of it."
Yes, but the difference between typical startups and your ideas is that in typical startups they first have an understanding of how it would make them money -- which for post-1999 VC's is nice to know.
True, you can make money that way. But those are all along the lines of "write the code, maybe an opportunity will come up later that will earn us a profit", which isn't the kind of thing a VC would fund, at least, not after 1999.
What are the best ways to actually earn a profit, when you're giving away the source code? Are entrepreneurs in this area limited to "support, support, support", or are there other ways?
1) No, on a purely financial basis, it probably isn't worth it. (Saves the posts of people doing a detailed analysis.)
2) Yes, it has the non-financial benefit of being earth-friendly, which isn't necessarily captured in a financial analysis. (Saves people from lecturing others that money isn't everything.)
3) Yes, it would probably save you money if the appropriate goods were taxed to reflect their environmental costs. What the appropriate externality compensation would be depends on your ideology, so if you wanted people to use less fuel anyway, you probably think these costs are HUGE.
4) Yes, we know that alone, windmills won't solve all energy problems. No one thinks that.
5) Yes, some birds are killed from these. No one cares, since tall buildings kill a lot more.
Something I've always wondered: How come people on Slashdot are normally of the mindset: I would never use a Micro$oft product ever unless I had to, my entire home setup is based around Linux even where that reduces convenience, if you help Micro$oft, you are a terrorist, Bill Gates is a cyborg , but then, no one bats an eyelid when someone castually mentions their Xbox -- a completely unnecessary Microsoft purchase?
It's alright though, if one year there aren't many hurricanes, we can just delete it from the evidence when proving that ExxonMobil is causing natural disasters.
I know your post is a joke, but I thought I'd point out the problem with the quotation you listed: "Each American" does *not* produce 2.3 kg of trash. 2.3 kg is the result of dividing daily trash output by people. If you look at any household, they most certainly do *not* use that much trash on average. What's bringing up the figure is heavy industrial processes. It's fun to blame individual Americans and all, but most of that trash is due to the decisions of a relatively small number of people, so even if households cut their trash back by ~50%, it wouldn't make much of a difference.
Just wanted to let everyone know what policies are pointless.
Well... that, and the fact that games back then were *extremely* limited on graphics, so they had to focus all their efforts on making it fun rather than pretty.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, what's different about this is it's not even accomplishing any particular goal. Is it keeping out "naughty" sites? Er, some yes, and some no. Is it keeping out newspaper sites? Er, some yes, some no. Is it keeping out bandwidth hogs? Er, kinda in the sense that it makes internet use a nightmare. But it prohibits an itty bitty mp3 clip of of the wumpasaurus's mating call for my zoology class (hypothetical, people!) just as much as a 14 Mb mp3 at PIRATEYOURMP3SHERE.COM. Plus, it seems to clip out vital parts of websites that *are* acceptable. Kinda like what happens when you do javascript block + ad-related url-block, except that you can't turn it off by changing settings on your software!
So, it's more imcompetence than malice.
I think it was caused by increased industrial emissions by the planet's richest countries.
What??? Bonds are paying you 0.25%/month? That's ~3%/ year. Dude, money markets pay more than that. Vanguard's is 5.1%/year right now (probably 5.3% for the amounts you're talking about), which comes to 0.41%/month (~40% higher payments than you described) with no principle loss. And bond yields are actually lower than they have been historically. The total bond market returns 8.5% over the long term, and it's now ~5.5%.
You're way overestimating the amount you need to have.
Perhaps you've heard somebody mention that 'past performance does not guarantee future results' or something along those lines, a time or two.
... but that's a lot higher, so ... yeah, you'll beat 7%.
Of course I have. But for a record that long (which extends back to pretty much every equity index since the 17th century), which does not depend on any one manager, it gives you a better idea where the bell curve lies.
Good luck getting a 7% real rate of return in that environment. What's the average annual real rate of return for the past 5 years, champ? Free clue for you: it's negative
False. The Fidelity Spartan US Equity Index Fund (Symbol: FUSEX), which tracks and gives you the return of the broad performance of the US stock market, shows 5-year returns of 6.86%/year. That's well ahead of inflation.
Of course, you should be more concerned about the long-term rate of return
The long term return on stocks, _including_ dividends, is roughly 7%. If he's going to follow your model, genius, that means he'd need about $600k in a Roth account. ...
Here's the better news. I've neglected the role of inflation in my calcuations.
Wow, many errors. First of all, that 7% might be right if you're subtracting out inflation. Nominal return on stocks has been 11% since 1927. Second of all, when you're talking about retirement income, you wouldn't draw it from stock dividends. You would sell the stocks and buy bonds (preferably a bond fund). Bonds, of course, might on average pay 7% (not *now*, of course, unless you use a high-yield fund). But your money would appreciate faster than 7% when you save through stocks. Save over THIRTY YEARS and you can easily make the $600k.
I think I have a better prediction success rate than you do. Remember these?
"If America loses textile manufacturing, we're doomed!"
"If America loses cotton growing, we're doomed!"
"If America lowers tarrifs, we're doomed!"
"If America loses car manufacturing, we're doomed!"
"If America loses microchip fabrication, we're doomed!"
and finally,
"If America loses computer R&D, we're doomed!"
This time it'll happen, right?
Thanks! I'll keep my charity separate from my market purchases, but feel free to fritter away your own money as you see fit, while the rest of us point and laugh.
But hey, when the economy totally collapses because we didn't subsidize poor business models, I'll let you watch me cry.
So, businesses can outcompete foreign competition by paying too much.
Why don't you make the first move? Choose the most needy company/person when making your purchasing decisions.
I don't understand how it's any better to routinely overpay for undervalue -- making a business decision ultimately a charity decision -- out of a misguided sense of patriotism (nationalism?).
Should businesses just throw in the towel and become charities for people who need jobs? Sounds like a great long-term plan, eh?
As I understand it, Spamhaus just has a list that people use in making their own blocking decisions. (Though that "own blocking decision" is of course "Is it on Spamhaus? Then block it.") They don't actually block anyone. So they could comply with the ruling by removing the "approved" spammer and then saying to all current and future customers, "We had to remove this guy from our list, but you should probably block him anyway." Then it's just a bunch of email users "on their own" deciding to block the spammer. The complies with the court order, while still defeating the spammer's goal.
Or is my understanding about a mile off?
Oh yeah, because, let me tell you, advertisers are VERY careful about pitching commercials to the right audience. Like, you never see an ad for feminine products during guy-oriented shows.
I don't even know how reliable Nielsen's ratings are to begin with. How statistically valid are they? I don't know any family that's kept a log book, and certainly, they're not too meticulous about it when they do. Is there a bias in how the group is selected?
I think this demonstrates how important "many eyeballs" are in problem solving. Intelligent people "who have been attacking the problem for 15 years" can still fail to see an "obvious" solution. I shudder at how many scientific fields probably have obvious solutions that aren't being found because only a small cadre of people have been exposed to the problem. I also shudder at people who artificially set up barriers to understanding their own fields, in order to protect their own egos. The attitude of "journal articles need to be cryptic or they must not be important" needs to go.
The government doesn't subsidize conventional fuels.
Seriously, that kind of reminds me of an Archie Bunker routine. Someone told him about how many homicides involve guns*, and he replied with "Would it make ya feel any better, if they was pushed outta windows?"
So to this story, you could almost reply, "Would it make ya feel any betta, if they was just surfin Slashdot?"
*Please, please, don't make a pro/anti-gun flamewar branch off of this, I beg you.
I've never understood that. Even accepting that he's going to goof off on his computer, and that he wants to goof off that way, what would compel him to do it there? Can he really not wait till he gets home for that kind of thing? And to answer the obvious objection -- yes, employees typically goof off, but not at sites that could get them prosecuted. Can't he distract himself at /. or something until quittin' time?
You should have quit while you were ahead, dude.
Wait, he's going to keep making stuff? Aw, crap.
In a sense, all startups have a touch of "let's build this and hope we can make money off of it."
Yes, but the difference between typical startups and your ideas is that in typical startups they first have an understanding of how it would make them money -- which for post-1999 VC's is nice to know.
True, you can make money that way. But those are all along the lines of "write the code, maybe an opportunity will come up later that will earn us a profit", which isn't the kind of thing a VC would fund, at least, not after 1999.
What are the best ways to actually earn a profit, when you're giving away the source code? Are entrepreneurs in this area limited to "support, support, support", or are there other ways?
1) No, on a purely financial basis, it probably isn't worth it. (Saves the posts of people doing a detailed analysis.)
2) Yes, it has the non-financial benefit of being earth-friendly, which isn't necessarily captured in a financial analysis. (Saves people from lecturing others that money isn't everything.)
3) Yes, it would probably save you money if the appropriate goods were taxed to reflect their environmental costs. What the appropriate externality compensation would be depends on your ideology, so if you wanted people to use less fuel anyway, you probably think these costs are HUGE.
4) Yes, we know that alone, windmills won't solve all energy problems. No one thinks that.
5) Yes, some birds are killed from these. No one cares, since tall buildings kill a lot more.
Does that about cover it?
The Bill Gates-cyborg picture is due to a vocal minority?
Something I've always wondered: How come people on Slashdot are normally of the mindset: I would never use a Micro$oft product ever unless I had to, my entire home setup is based around Linux even where that reduces convenience, if you help Micro$oft, you are a terrorist, Bill Gates is a cyborg , but then, no one bats an eyelid when someone castually mentions their Xbox -- a completely unnecessary Microsoft purchase?
Think about it.
It's alright though, if one year there aren't many hurricanes, we can just delete it from the evidence when proving that ExxonMobil is causing natural disasters.
I know your post is a joke, but I thought I'd point out the problem with the quotation you listed: "Each American" does *not* produce 2.3 kg of trash. 2.3 kg is the result of dividing daily trash output by people. If you look at any household, they most certainly do *not* use that much trash on average. What's bringing up the figure is heavy industrial processes. It's fun to blame individual Americans and all, but most of that trash is due to the decisions of a relatively small number of people, so even if households cut their trash back by ~50%, it wouldn't make much of a difference.
Just wanted to let everyone know what policies are pointless.
Well... that, and the fact that games back then were *extremely* limited on graphics, so they had to focus all their efforts on making it fun rather than pretty.