What most whiners about ink costs totally fail to comprehend is how much ink it takes to perform steps 1 and 2 repeatedly, with perfect results on the first sheet of paper.
Yes, ink jets are *really* expensive, but they aren't meant to do volume work. And along the way, to inspire more consumption they figured out how to do a decent job printing photos.
Desktop printing is a good example of a maturing market with minimal regulation. This is the logical outcome and a perfect example of the politically expedient phrase "free markets." But I don't see many/.'ers calling their political representatives in Washington demanding that the IP restrictions be eliminated to legitimize 3rd-party inks. Nearly all of you get exactly what you put into it. Pricing abuse by the electronics conglomerates.
The geeks way around the problem is keeping an old hp laserjet going. **Dirt** cheap per page, built to last, and spare parts availability. They aren't rocket science to fix either.
It seems to me they are moving from Common Carrier to something else, definitely *not* agnostic about what's going over their wire.
This is to be expected though because *everyone* who has some kind of legislative play in Washington wants to make sure the Internet is a one-way sh!t pipe into the American home. The policy wonks want it too because they can't keep the insanely talented black-hats out of their networks. The third strike is that a two-way Internet is too Democratic for all governments.
In today's political environment the courts will enforce whatever the telco's and media conglomerates want. Look at how fast (measured in beuracracy(sp!) time) the Crackberry patent battle was magically swept away by the PTO.
I've been trying to articulate the same thing because I used to think it was about using litigation to bury distros or at least key clean-room implementations of their products.
It's unclear how Redmond will use the agreements to trigger a figurative bomb or _what_ the bomb will do.
That $8 package is the way to go. We usually get about 3 months of basic cable for free throughout the year.
Which is enough discover that there's not much worth watching _now_ versus waiting for a good series to come on DVD.
OT rant: It boggles my mind that people pay for all of that premium stuff. They all seem to forget that customer service in these organizations has nothing to do with either the customer or service and grind away at the bloody stump graciously provided by the telco/cable provider.
It's a pathetic state of affairs when comments like this get modded insightful.
What the US needs isn't a new administration, it's a new system.
I disagree. What's needed is the average american needs to be _very_ involved in his/her government and actually attend to boring issues like fiscal discipline, broad foreign policy targets and a host of other domestic policies. There are lots of countries in the world that have started over and in most cases it doesn't help.
The presidency is too powerful, too tempting, too corrupting. Spoken like someone who doesn't understand the underpinnings of their government. The constitution is very well laid out to the point where the average american can still understand it.
Lots of countries have less corrupting systems. No they don't. "Corruption" is endemic regardless of the country and its political system.
The US needs to...media... No. Media mostly distracts and rarely informs. Sell your 50" plasma and disconnect your cable. It's liberating.
guard the guardians You and I are the guardians in our system! Something about "by the people..." sounds vaguely familiar. You've and the numbskulls that modded you insightful have been outsourcing this job to private interests and look where it's gotten you.
How about getting involved in your own government first before laying on the platitudes? There's lots going on even in your town. Oh, wait this is the/. echo chamber so go back to whatever it was that you were doing.
you're going to be blowing out quite a few of the clear pixels
In a production CMOS/CCD assembly this is not likely. In order to get a digital camera sensor to produce a pleasing image in many lighting conditions the CCD/CMOS assemblies already have controls for this.
The best example of proof is to try using a scanner head as a digital camera. You will find that the CCD assembly in a scanner is not designed to handle variable light, so most things outside a narrow range of brightness (luminance maybe?) are blown out.
For most photography applications, it is a meaningful advance for which there is no downside.
The marketing hype surrounding resolution just keeps spinning further away from reality.
Digital photographic prints off the average production photo printer (my costco has them right on the floor) the lines per milimeter resolution is _way_ below what even a **really** good digital SLR with **great** optics can capture.
Also keep in mind the color gamut of the average digital camera is quite narrow, and unsophisticated compared to analog. There are a number of segments of photography where film still rules the day because the results are more "cinematic" than digital.
So throwing out 3/4 of the color resolution still leaves you with extra data that will be thrown out when the data hits the paper. I can think of one or two exceptions, but they are way, way out of the norm.
A related anecdote, I recall the photos from the Mars rover were taken with a 1.5MP sensor and they made *gigantic* beautiful images.
When you become a part of the average big soul-sucking support center, what passes as productivity is **precisely** tracked.
Read the following carefully.
-No caring. -Know nothing. They provide scripts. Don't _ever_ deviate from the scripts.
If you are with me so far, read on carefully.
Call center productivity is *NEVER* measured by customer satisfaction. It is measured as calls per unit of time. Period.
Take a moment to comprehend the implications of the previous statement before moving on.
If you meet/exceed the calls per hour (or whatever) then another component of your productivity is the number of parts shipped. More parts bad, less parts gets you an atta-boy from your manager and maybe even a shiny nickel.
Finally, a call center is most profitable when there is a queue. Fewer support people processing more calls per hour = profit & productivity.
not based on threatening their costumers with patent violation bullshit, breaking the law, or strong arming unfairly their business partners.
The facts prove otherwise. Here's one example that made it to the media from just last year: http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/05/04/78065_HN sunsuesazul_1.html It's important to note, few patent issues ever get as far as the courts. Sun and other corporations like it just collect their vig or bury the company with litigation costs if they are viewed as an actual threat.
Sun has behaved mostly impeccably Get back to me when you speak to a VAR that specs Sun products who is bidding on the same contract as Sun. Sun eats their babies when they get the opportunity. All the big vendors do it.
Some people have this paranoid view of corporations out to screw anybody in order to make profits. That's not paranoia. Sun's first duty is to return a profit on the company's assets. Everything else just doesn't matter. Your belief that Sun is somehow better is misguided at best.
Clearly you have not been in a situation where _you_ are standing in the way of something Sun wants. In this situation, Sun wants more Solaris users and Linus stands in the way.
I'm shooting in the dark on this one, but here goes.
Maybe the idea is to create a shed load of legal documents for the sole purpose of legally defining Linux.
Right now, Microsoft is building a legal library of sorts. Instead of directly attacking Linux in front of a judge, they are ensuring the outcome of dragging something through court. They have the ability to legitimately claim to a judge, "This is a standard term because there are X number of agreements with Y number of other parties that use it. Therefore, it is SOP."
The litigation bomb never goes off because the outcome is already slanted in Microsoft's favor.
Someone with more Legal experience please chime in and tell me how wrong I could be.
Let's stop wasting time recreating wheels we both need to roll forward."
This is _classic_ corporate PHB psychological warfare that simultaneously discredits Linus in this case and elevates Sun's position. It's intent is to weaken the stronger party by getting them angry.
And, no, corporations can't "just get along" with individuals. Sun's job is to return a profit to its investors. They do that by crushing competitors when they aren't abandoning projects that didn't make enough money.
If Sun sticks with the GPL long enough, it is only a matter of time before Sun's interests in the GPL will diverge from the GPL's original intent.
Let me put it to you more simply: if the only thing that stands between Sun and profits was a GPL license, then wave the GPL goodbye.
Those who provide content and services over the Internet have lined up in favor of "network neutrality,"
Either the guy doesn't have a clue, or the ridiculous statement was intentionally misleading.
Both content and services are run by some combination of the telco's and media conglomerates. It is very plain to see that their objective is to turn the Internet into a _delivery_ system that they control. Most governments in the world go along with this because an Internet that has some semblance of unfiltered communication between individuals is a direct threat to their control.
This guy is dead wrong. That he's from Harvard probably means I'll be modded down for disagreeing with him.
Mod parent way, way down. It's like I walked into the Steve Ballmer Reality Distortion Field.
Plus since 99.9% of the rest of the world still uses.doc format government and everyone else will still have to use MS Office & MS Windows.
What is so evil about this well-crafted statement is it manipulates the reader by doing the "everyone uses it" argument. When your Mom said, "If everyone you knew wanted to jump off a cliff, then I suppose you would jump too." when you wanted to do something justified by referring to your friend's activities. Maintaining closed standards is harmful, like jumping off a cliff.
The truth is everyone doesn't use it. Look at the standard document format in the American legal system. Most documents published on the web are in PDF and there's a Free (as in speech) pdf generator for every platform. Even windows. http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator/
ODF is a great idea. But it is only a tiny step away from propriatary formats.
This statement is materially false. No patent encumbrances, no license encumbrances, no distribution encumbrances, and an API that a programmer can _actually_ use. versus Microsoft's API which should win an award for documents that say nothing.
Microsoft harms everyone who uses a computer by defending their closed document formats. Congratulations, you've blown the truthiness meter up.
Parent starts out saying something everyone can agree with:
Were GWB's recess appointments any less questionable than Clinton's?
Then takes a left turn into fairytale land:
Was the firing of certain federal prosecutes by bush any less questionable than Clinton firing *all* of them?
You are sorely mistaken as to why matters are different in this case. I copied this nice summary: "During the Clinton administration, there were just four people in the White House -- the President, the Vice President, the White House Counsel, and the Deputy White House Counsel -- who could participate in discussions with the Justice Department "regarding pending criminal investigations and criminal cases." There were just three Justice Department officials authorized to talk with the White House. This arrangement was intended restrict political interference in the administration of justice.
Yesterday in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said that it was important that the Justice Department "be independent from" the White House. But as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) pointed out, the firewalls that had existed during the Clinton administration have been ripped down. In the Bush administration, the rules have been rewritten so that 417 White House officials and 30 Justice Department officials are eligible to have discussions about criminal cases."
struggle between branches The current administration is not struggling. They _have_ vastly expanded the executive offices powers. Nixon tried and failed. They got it right this time.
heck we have the speaker of the house trying to make herself the face of American foreign policy This comment suggest you believe in an executive branch with infinite powers. I respectfully disagree.
I have a particular gift for breaking things that are supposed to be reliable. (Admittedly, mostly through ignorance, but I digress)
Besides the worrisome concepts of delayed writing and an always consistent file system, I can imagine never being able to bring a zfs back pretty easily. Which, the snapshots are supposed to solve, but pretty soon, my hardware storage budget just went through the roof because I'm storing terabytes of snapshots pretty quickly.
I'd like to teach some graphic design and web production skills to my coworkers
The baseline knowledge of the pupils has been established as practically zero. It's important to note that this situation sounds completely different than the mercenary graphic designer going from shop to shop.
The purpose for teaching them isn't perfectly clear. I get the feeling that their work will flow through the designer anyway, so the lesser skilled workers production probably won't go untouched anyway. In this case, GIMP and Scribus certainly will do the job. Quanta Plus is acceptable for coding some html and php too.
The new users won't be married to a specific gui, won't be terribly productive with the software to begin with anyway so they'll get productive on GIMP/Scribus/etc. There are plenty of formats supported by GNU applications that printers and Adobe products can open, so there is a good chance it would work just fine.
Politically though, unless you have very pragmatic management who are smart enough to focus on sticking with tools that do the job, they will want to buy Adobe.
Who needs regulation when market competition is more efficient? Oh, except:
1. no transparency without regulation, 2. no competition without regulation. Hint: a market is temporarily competitive and evolves to a mature market. 3. no accountability without regulation.
Yet another misguided attempt to falsely attribute market-based anything with efficiency or effectiveness.
The second thing I learned in my finance class is that the individual investor loses the most and simultaneously bears most costs of trading stocks.
-The individual investor is _always_ the last to know and has no control over the average publicly traded company.
-Getting above-average payouts on mergers and Google-like stock stories are improbable.
The most likely path to above-average returns in real dollars is: 1. Buying and holding top-2 competitors in a given stock segment. 2. Set a hard range for the stock to buy and sell at. This is important for many reasons. You need to be able to walk away with gains in share price and just let the losers go.
I'm not opposed to taking chances on stocks, but the pool of money used to take these chances should be very small with gains split between the risk pool and a low-risk pool so there is definite growth.
Slashdot Mirror
as promised.
/.'ers calling their political representatives in Washington demanding that the IP restrictions be eliminated to legitimize 3rd-party inks. Nearly all of you get exactly what you put into it. Pricing abuse by the electronics conglomerates.
Step 1: turn printer on
Step 2: print
What most whiners about ink costs totally fail to comprehend is how much ink it takes to perform steps 1 and 2 repeatedly, with perfect results on the first sheet of paper.
Yes, ink jets are *really* expensive, but they aren't meant to do volume work. And along the way, to inspire more consumption they figured out how to do a decent job printing photos.
Desktop printing is a good example of a maturing market with minimal regulation. This is the logical outcome and a perfect example of the politically expedient phrase "free markets." But I don't see many
The geeks way around the problem is keeping an old hp laserjet going. **Dirt** cheap per page, built to last, and spare parts availability. They aren't rocket science to fix either.
It seems to me they are moving from Common Carrier to something else, definitely *not* agnostic about what's going over their wire.
This is to be expected though because *everyone* who has some kind of legislative play in Washington wants to make sure the Internet is a one-way sh!t pipe into the American home. The policy wonks want it too because they can't keep the insanely talented black-hats out of their networks. The third strike is that a two-way Internet is too Democratic for all governments.
In today's political environment the courts will enforce whatever the telco's and media conglomerates want. Look at how fast (measured in beuracracy(sp!) time) the Crackberry patent battle was magically swept away by the PTO.
"Here here!"
I've been trying to articulate the same thing because I used to think it was about using litigation to bury distros or at least key clean-room implementations of their products.
It's unclear how Redmond will use the agreements to trigger a figurative bomb or _what_ the bomb will do.
Kudos to you sir in your knowledge of American history and participating in government. There are very few of us.
I live in Florida
Well, there's your first problem right there... It's a joke people.
That $8 package is the way to go. We usually get about 3 months of basic cable for free throughout the year.
Which is enough discover that there's not much worth watching _now_ versus waiting for a good series to come on DVD.
OT rant:
It boggles my mind that people pay for all of that premium stuff.
They all seem to forget that customer service in these organizations has nothing to do with either the customer or service and grind away at the bloody stump graciously provided by the telco/cable provider.
It's a pathetic state of affairs when comments like this get modded insightful.
/. echo chamber so go back to whatever it was that you were doing.
What the US needs isn't a new administration, it's a new system.
I disagree. What's needed is the average american needs to be _very_ involved in his/her government and actually attend to boring issues like fiscal discipline, broad foreign policy targets and a host of other domestic policies. There are lots of countries in the world that have started over and in most cases it doesn't help.
The presidency is too powerful, too tempting, too corrupting.
Spoken like someone who doesn't understand the underpinnings of their government. The constitution is very well laid out to the point where the average american can still understand it.
Lots of countries have less corrupting systems.
No they don't. "Corruption" is endemic regardless of the country and its political system.
The US needs to...media...
No. Media mostly distracts and rarely informs. Sell your 50" plasma and disconnect your cable. It's liberating.
guard the guardians
You and I are the guardians in our system! Something about "by the people..." sounds vaguely familiar. You've and the numbskulls that modded you insightful have been outsourcing this job to private interests and look where it's gotten you.
How about getting involved in your own government first before laying on the platitudes? There's lots going on even in your town. Oh, wait this is the
Research suggests the county population is quite well off as compared to other counties. http://www.city-data.com/county/Contra_Costa_Count y-CA.html
i a.html
At what point does this cross over from "poor school district" to clever constituents trying to get out of a deal?
I doubt this would happen in, say, compton CA.http://www.city-data.com/city/Compton-Californ
you're going to be blowing out quite a few of the clear pixels
In a production CMOS/CCD assembly this is not likely. In order to get a digital camera sensor to produce a pleasing image in many lighting conditions the CCD/CMOS assemblies already have controls for this.
The best example of proof is to try using a scanner head as a digital camera. You will find that the CCD assembly in a scanner is not designed to handle variable light, so most things outside a narrow range of brightness (luminance maybe?) are blown out.
For most photography applications, it is a meaningful advance for which there is no downside.
The marketing hype surrounding resolution just keeps spinning further away from reality.
Digital photographic prints off the average production photo printer (my costco has them right on the floor) the lines per milimeter resolution is _way_ below what even a **really** good digital SLR with **great** optics can capture.
Also keep in mind the color gamut of the average digital camera is quite narrow, and unsophisticated compared to analog. There are a number of segments of photography where film still rules the day because the results are more "cinematic" than digital.
So throwing out 3/4 of the color resolution still leaves you with extra data that will be thrown out when the data hits the paper. I can think of one or two exceptions, but they are way, way out of the norm.
A related anecdote, I recall the photos from the Mars rover were taken with a 1.5MP sensor and they made *gigantic* beautiful images.
When you become a part of the average big soul-sucking support center, what passes as productivity is **precisely** tracked.
Read the following carefully.
-No caring.
-Know nothing. They provide scripts. Don't _ever_ deviate from the scripts.
If you are with me so far, read on carefully.
Call center productivity is *NEVER* measured by customer satisfaction. It is measured as calls per unit of time. Period.
Take a moment to comprehend the implications of the previous statement before moving on.
If you meet/exceed the calls per hour (or whatever) then another component of your productivity is the number of parts shipped. More parts bad, less parts gets you an atta-boy from your manager and maybe even a shiny nickel.
Finally, a call center is most profitable when there is a queue. Fewer support people processing more calls per hour = profit & productivity.
(or at least paid lip service) to open standards
N sunsuesazul_1.html It's important to note, few patent issues ever get as far as the courts. Sun and other corporations like it just collect their vig or bury the company with litigation costs if they are viewed as an actual threat.
I agree with you on that specific point.
not based on threatening their costumers with patent violation bullshit, breaking the law, or strong arming unfairly their business partners.
The facts prove otherwise. Here's one example that made it to the media from just last year: http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/05/04/78065_H
Sun has behaved mostly impeccably
Get back to me when you speak to a VAR that specs Sun products who is bidding on the same contract as Sun. Sun eats their babies when they get the opportunity. All the big vendors do it.
Some people have this paranoid view of corporations out to screw anybody in order to make profits.
That's not paranoia. Sun's first duty is to return a profit on the company's assets. Everything else just doesn't matter. Your belief that Sun is somehow better is misguided at best.
Clearly you have not been in a situation where _you_ are standing in the way of something Sun wants. In this situation, Sun wants more Solaris users and Linus stands in the way.
I'm shooting in the dark on this one, but here goes.
Maybe the idea is to create a shed load of legal documents for the sole purpose of legally defining Linux.
Right now, Microsoft is building a legal library of sorts. Instead of directly attacking Linux in front of a judge, they are ensuring the outcome of dragging something through court. They have the ability to legitimately claim to a judge, "This is a standard term because there are X number of agreements with Y number of other parties that use it. Therefore, it is SOP."
The litigation bomb never goes off because the outcome is already slanted in Microsoft's favor.
Someone with more Legal experience please chime in and tell me how wrong I could be.
Let's stop wasting time recreating wheels we both need to roll forward."
This is _classic_ corporate PHB psychological warfare that simultaneously discredits Linus in this case and elevates Sun's position. It's intent is to weaken the stronger party by getting them angry.
And, no, corporations can't "just get along" with individuals. Sun's job is to return a profit to its investors. They do that by crushing competitors when they aren't abandoning projects that didn't make enough money.
If Sun sticks with the GPL long enough, it is only a matter of time before Sun's interests in the GPL will diverge from the GPL's original intent.
Let me put it to you more simply: if the only thing that stands between Sun and profits was a GPL license, then wave the GPL goodbye.
when the comment was posted under a wiretapping story a couple of days ago. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=237723&cid=194 29139
What's the deal?
Those who provide content and services over the Internet have lined up in favor of "network neutrality,"
Either the guy doesn't have a clue, or the ridiculous statement was intentionally misleading.
Both content and services are run by some combination of the telco's and media conglomerates. It is very plain to see that their objective is to turn the Internet into a _delivery_ system that they control. Most governments in the world go along with this because an Internet that has some semblance of unfiltered communication between individuals is a direct threat to their control.
This guy is dead wrong. That he's from Harvard probably means I'll be modded down for disagreeing with him.
vendor neutrality and interoperability
When you are with a bunch of the government sales people, uttering that phrase would make you look like a complete ass hass.
Mod parent way, way down. It's like I walked into the Steve Ballmer Reality Distortion Field.
.doc format government and everyone else will still have to use MS Office & MS Windows.
Plus since 99.9% of the rest of the world still uses
What is so evil about this well-crafted statement is it manipulates the reader by doing the "everyone uses it" argument. When your Mom said, "If everyone you knew wanted to jump off a cliff, then I suppose you would jump too." when you wanted to do something justified by referring to your friend's activities. Maintaining closed standards is harmful, like jumping off a cliff.
The truth is everyone doesn't use it. Look at the standard document format in the American legal system. Most documents published on the web are in PDF and there's a Free (as in speech) pdf generator for every platform. Even windows. http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator/
ODF is a great idea. But it is only a tiny step away from propriatary formats.
This statement is materially false. No patent encumbrances, no license encumbrances, no distribution encumbrances, and an API that a programmer can _actually_ use. versus Microsoft's API which should win an award for documents that say nothing.
Microsoft harms everyone who uses a computer by defending their closed document formats. Congratulations, you've blown the truthiness meter up.
Get back to me when you price a terabyte of production quality fiber channel drives.
I'm not talking about some sata drives for my desktop.
That's right people MSFT is paying protection money to Linux vendors...
Your statement is very clever, but untrue.
Yes, microsoft is paying linux vendors. But history has shown that Microsoft has an end-game in mind that will harm everyone.
Parent starts out saying something everyone can agree with:
Were GWB's recess appointments any less questionable than Clinton's?
Then takes a left turn into fairytale land:
Was the firing of certain federal prosecutes by bush any less questionable than Clinton firing *all* of them?
You are sorely mistaken as to why matters are different in this case. I copied this nice summary: "During the Clinton administration, there were just four people in the White House -- the President, the Vice President, the White House Counsel, and the Deputy White House Counsel -- who could participate in discussions with the Justice Department "regarding pending criminal investigations and criminal cases." There were just three Justice Department officials authorized to talk with the White House. This arrangement was intended restrict political interference in the administration of justice.
Yesterday in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said that it was important that the Justice Department "be independent from" the White House. But as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) pointed out, the firewalls that had existed during the Clinton administration have been ripped down. In the Bush administration, the rules have been rewritten so that 417 White House officials and 30 Justice Department officials are eligible to have discussions about criminal cases."
struggle between branches
The current administration is not struggling. They _have_ vastly expanded the executive offices powers. Nixon tried and failed. They got it right this time.
heck we have the speaker of the house trying to make herself the face of American foreign policy
This comment suggest you believe in an executive branch with infinite powers. I respectfully disagree.
I have a particular gift for breaking things that are supposed to be reliable. (Admittedly, mostly through ignorance, but I digress)
Besides the worrisome concepts of delayed writing and an always consistent file system, I can imagine never being able to bring a zfs back pretty easily. Which, the snapshots are supposed to solve, but pretty soon, my hardware storage budget just went through the roof because I'm storing terabytes of snapshots pretty quickly.
I'd like to teach some graphic design and web production skills to my coworkers
The baseline knowledge of the pupils has been established as practically zero. It's important to note that this situation sounds completely different than the mercenary graphic designer going from shop to shop.
The purpose for teaching them isn't perfectly clear. I get the feeling that their work will flow through the designer anyway, so the lesser skilled workers production probably won't go untouched anyway. In this case, GIMP and Scribus certainly will do the job. Quanta Plus is acceptable for coding some html and php too.
The new users won't be married to a specific gui, won't be terribly productive with the software to begin with anyway so they'll get productive on GIMP/Scribus/etc. There are plenty of formats supported by GNU applications that printers and Adobe products can open, so there is a good chance it would work just fine.
Politically though, unless you have very pragmatic management who are smart enough to focus on sticking with tools that do the job, they will want to buy Adobe.
Who needs regulation when market competition is more efficient? Oh, except:
1. no transparency without regulation,
2. no competition without regulation. Hint: a market is temporarily competitive and evolves to a mature market.
3. no accountability without regulation.
Yet another misguided attempt to falsely attribute market-based anything with efficiency or effectiveness.
The second thing I learned in my finance class is that the individual investor loses the most and simultaneously bears most costs of trading stocks.
-The individual investor is _always_ the last to know and has no control over the average publicly traded company.
-Getting above-average payouts on mergers and Google-like stock stories are improbable.
The most likely path to above-average returns in real dollars is:
1. Buying and holding top-2 competitors in a given stock segment.
2. Set a hard range for the stock to buy and sell at. This is important for many reasons. You need to be able to walk away with gains in share price and just let the losers go.
I'm not opposed to taking chances on stocks, but the pool of money used to take these chances should be very small with gains split between the risk pool and a low-risk pool so there is definite growth.
It's good advice, and worth every penny you paid!
Today it's content you don't care about.
Tomorrow, it will be content you used to care about.
It has nothing to do with new ideas because there aren't any.