Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment This will work! (Score 1) 170


Sigh. I mean I like how we're not wasting $ on F-35A in the Too Big To Afford mil budget, but this is not where we have the problem in cybersecurity.

Our problem is we let things be open that should never be open, we trust "secure clouds" that are by design insecure, and we waste a lot of time on counter measures that any trained monkey knows don't work.

But, hey, let's throw money at the problem and see if it goes away.

Comment Re:More interesting is Age Adjusted Funds (Score 1) 71

I know splitting between equity and bonds is a typical allocation strategy, but I really feel like any bond holdings are inappropriate if you're not planning on retiring in the next ten years. The rule of thumb was always ten percent more bonds every ten years closer to retirement, but I feel like that's much too conservative.

I agree, my personal mix is 90 percent S&P 500 index, 5 percent MidCap, 5 percent Bonds. When I'm about 5 years out, I'll convert some more to bond funds, but sadly most of these age adjusted funds have a heavy overweight on bonds, for some reason.

Comment More interesting is Age Adjusted Funds (Score 5, Informative) 71

A lot of American and Canadian retirement accounts are in "age adjusted" funds, which are really just a mix of mutual funds or ETFs of bond funds and stock funds.

If you check, you'll find most large firms have an S&P 500 index from Vanguard or Fidelity (like the VINIX) which has an expense ratio of around 0.02 or 0.04 percent, and a Total Stock Market index with an expense ratio of around 0.05 or 0.07 percent and a Total Bond Market index with an expense ration of around 0.10 or 0.12 percent.

You could replace the "age adjusted" fund that charges you 0.40 to 0.65 percent with an automatic stock fund and bond fund allocation, e.g. 70/30, and then just reallocate periodically. Cost to you drops from 0.40 to 0.05 percent, in many cases.

That's all these "wealth firm robots" really do. You can buy the underlying components and pay less.

It's the fees that kill you. You don't notice them when returns are 12 percent, but when the market is crawling (like today) with 1-2 percent returns, you sure notice the fees that siphon off up to 1/4 of your earnings.

Comment Good to restrict to males only (Score 2) 125

Mitochondrial DNA (actually more like mRNA) only passes to children from the mother's DNA contribution. So if a male has it altered, they can't pass it on to kids.

That said, it's not quite as straightforward as you might think. Chromosomal abnormalities could, theoretically, allow the sequences to pass from fathers, but most or all of the maternal mitochondrial sequences would have to not transcribe and some bizarre stuff would have to happen.

If you were going to Mars, the exposure to radiation, or some Fantastic Four coronal event might do this, but it's fairly safe to do this on males only, as a biological precaution.

A long time ago we absorbed these buggers to power our cells, and misfires are one reason to force mitochondrial replacement periodically (what is often referred to a calorie restricted diet, or fasting 10-24 days with water and minerals and broth), as damaged mitochondria build up inside your cells.

Slashdot Top Deals

10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.