Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Good news for all us have-nots!!! (Score 1) 241

SPY (big-ass S&P 500 index ETF; click the "10y" link in the graph). The index went up 73.7% over the past 10 years and it pays about a 1.9% dividend. That's 5.7% per year compounded on the index alone plus another 1.9% dividend = 7.6% per year return over the past 10 years.

Even better, a NASDAQ ETF QQQ has returned 152% over the past 10 years with a dividend of 1.2%. This is 9.7% on the index plus 1.2% giving a total compounded annual return of 10.8%! But don't worry, you're totally brilliant for staying out of all of this.

Comment Re:Symbolic and symbolic only (Score 1) 181

Two thousand wind turbines ... now you're talking.

Wind turbines only generate about 20% of their rated power on average, so you're going to need ten thousand instead of two thousand of them. Also, they can go for days on end generating zero power, so you'll also need to build a 4.7-GW nuclear-power plant to back them up.

Comment Trading term (Score 0) 91

Since I am a longer-term investor and not a twitchy day-trader, this kind of thing doesn't affect me at all. The great thing about the stock market is that it is instantly and severely self-correcting. I just wish I could get in on more of these mis-pricings on time, as these failures are usually excellent opportunities, if, as I said, I watched the markets every second of the day.

Comment Re:Meh (Score 2) 324

We could spend billions preventing it, or we could spend trillions and trillions dealing with the effects.

More like: we could spend $trillions trying to prevent it and fail, or we could spend $billions counter-acting it and succeed. According to the alarmists, we have already unintentionally manipulated the climate twice: once with CO2 to warm it up, and again with aerosols to cool it down. We could be a lot more effective if we actually did something intentionally. Trying to limit CO2 emissions will fail because people with the power to vote will never accept a materially lower standard of living and alternative energy simply isn't practical.

Comment Re:I'm amazed... (Score 2) 1737

It seems like since he couldn't have known, it didn't affect the situation at hand

While Zimmerman wouldn't have know about it, it can inform our calculus of who started the fight. Martin was a drug-abusing hothead in a downward spiral with a penchant for starting fights. The courts have rules about evidence like this as being 'prejudicial', but I disagree with them. The jury never heard exactly what kind of person Martin was to help them assess what happened.

What I'm wondering is why that law didn't give Martin the right to stand his ground when Zimmerman pursued him?

Stand Your Ground applies after some attacks you. All the evidence indicates that Martin started the fight by sucker-punching Zimmerman in the nose. (Martin had no injuries other than to his fist and the gunshot wound.) Thus, Martin wouldn't have the benefit of Stand Your Ground; Zimmerman would. However, the defence never asserted it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Somebody ought to cross ball point pens with coat hangers so that the pens will multiply instead of disappear.

Working...