Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:you're both right (Score 1) 829

That's in a diversified portfolio of long-term investments, a fairly reliable income.

A "diversified portfolio of long-term investments" is nothing. It's not a reliable income, it's not a reliable strategy

But nobody said it is a strategy. Nobody even said the investments must all be in equity all the time. Windmills that you perceive to be giant warriors. Why must every statement on /. be a strategy? It can be a part of a strategy, or not a strategy at all.

The suggestion that you *should* be investing if you're not a skilled, well-versed, highly-competent investor implies that money is generated in the market.

In spite of recently becoming a well-versed student of horticulture, how can you still assume this? Desirable stuff need not be generated at the place where it is acquired. There is a lot of stealing in the vegetable market - gourds the dealer knows to possess worms within are sold at "high" prices. Yet vegetables remain PART of most good nutrition strategies.

You don't have to outright say a thing to *say* a thing. Smoking ...

You don't have to outright *send* giant warriors to fight you. Just erecting windmills is enough for you to mistake them for giant warriors and start fighting them.

and historically has lead people to believe smoking would make them healthy, happy, relaxed, ...... it sure sounds like money just pours out of the stock market as long as you're "diversified

There was a time in 18th century when it was the considered opinion of many influential members of society that tobacco is good for health. Later research proved them wrong.

At what time point do you think stocks became completely bad idea as a part of "diversified portfolio of long-term investments" ?

Comment Re:you're both right (Score 1) 829

You are fighting windmills.

Or, in short: it's not a way to make sure you have a steady upward gain

Nobody said it is a way to make sure you have a steady upward gain. But that in itself is no reason to not participate in stock market - or if it is, you don't show how in your longish replies to my short posts.

All in all, the whole of this doesn't suggest diversification is a way to maximize profits

Nobody said "diversification is a way to maximize profits" either.

Similarly, earlier you said

Dogma, most often repeated to dazzle small fish into thinking the stock market is a place where money is generated, instead of stolen

Nobody said it is a place where money is generated, instead of stolen.

But like vegetables are not grown in vegetable market but yet it might make sense to buy them in vegetable market, just because money isn't generated in the stock market doesn't mean it is not a good idea to buy stocks in the stock market.

Comment Re:F that (Score 1) 829

Other points have been discussed replies from others, I just want to chime in about "big" dogs. Most small dog species are mentally retarded - so if you're getting a dog for intelligent company, you don't get much choice than big dogs.

Some big dogs can be dumb, and some small dogs can be smart but big ones on an average are smarter by some margin.

Comment Re:you're both right (Score 1) 829

Dogma, most often repeated to dazzle small fish into thinking the stock market is a place where money is generated, instead of stolen

No one said that. And "Small fish" might also think that a vegetable market is a place where vegetables are grown. They would be as wrong as "small fish" who think that "stock market is a place where money is generated".

The company backing the stock is what might generate the money - stock is just a part representation of it. In the process of conversion/division of companies into stocks, and the sale/exchange process of course has some stealing as well as inefficiencies.

Comment Re:BSD is looking better all the time (Score 1) 744

it is the Unix way that is preventing it from going further

So you are saying any violation of the Unix philosophy will make it "go further"? Probably not, but if yes, I give up on you.

If no, are you saying linux kernel, or other "good" non-systemd things never violate the unix philosophy? If so, you are wrong. ZFS, and Btrfs violate the Unix philosophy quite spectacularly by merging filesystem, LVM, checksum etc. into one monolithic piece. Linus himself was against this initially (especially in the context of encryption), but he has come to terms with reality. Looked at very narrowly, emacs is a violation of the Unix philosophy because of being large, complex and multi-functional. But there are good reasons for those violations.

So smart violation of Unix philosophy is already underway. The remaining argument is about whether systemd stuff is violating Unix philosophy in a smart or a dumb way. Let us define smart to be something that improves the software rather than increase profits of a company while making lives of users/customers/administrators miserable.

I don't see an argument from you about how systemd kind of violation of Unix philosophy is a smart. If not, systemd's existence itself could be the "crime" here.

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 1) 744

He had a mouthful to say to Poettering and rest of the systemd committers when they contributed code to the kernel. They were even banned from contributing to kernel, if I remember correctly.

Linus doesn't and shouldn't interfere with things out of his scope - systemd is emphatically outside of his scope. Kernel and git are definitely within his scope and he hasn't minced words to defend them.

Comment Re:Are you trying to imply that systemd is faster? (Score 1) 744

Flinging poo at systemd is like yelling "get a horse!" when seeing a car, back in the 1900s. True at the moment, but in time proven to be shortsighted.

Do you have credible proof that it will be proven to be shortsighted? If not, you might want to say the following, much less exciting statement:

"Flinging poo at systemd might be like yelling "get a horse!" when seeing a car"

Or do you believe in proof by analogy? By this proof methodology, you could have proven in 1944 that there won't be any nuclear bomb explosion next year, because a nuclear bomb is like the proof of Fermat's last theorem - it hasn't been built yet and won't be by next year.

Comment Re:As much as possible (Score 1) 350

Like-for-like, a comparable Dell comes in at around 60-80% of a new MBP

That is if you start with an MBP. If you start with Dell - cheapest 16 GB business Dell Laptop (i5558-8574SLV) sells for $859 on Newegg. NOW try to get MBP that matches it - cheapest MBP with 16 GB RAM is $1799 on Apple's website ($1889 on Newegg so ignoring that).

Dell ends up costing 47% of MBP, in other words, less than half.

Chose memory for two reasons -
1. /. story is about memory.
2. Increasing tendency of Apple to solder memory.

Comment Re:Why not start now..and take if further? (Score 1) 373

For example, do you include clothing weight? If so, expect passengers to start stripping when they are on the borderline of a cheaper weight bracket. Like boxers do.

If they intend to carry along the stripped clothes, it counts as luggage and the charge should be almost[1] the same as if it were on their bodies.

If they don't intend to carry along the clothes, airport might charge them for waste disposal if it is a huge tonnage of clothing but otherwise not a problem.

As far as naked people making others uncomfortable, this problem pops up even without charging people for weight, so neither surprising nor insoluble nor unheard of in the service industries.

[1] Luggage can be slightly cheaper than live human bodies because it is easier to tie down and distribute. Luggage also doesn't shout when it is separated from its "friends and family" to adjust center of mass of the aircraft.

Comment Re:Why not start now..and take if further? (Score 1) 373

Charging for weight may not be discrimination. Most restaurants already charge extra for people who eat more. The others, the all-you-can-eat buffets, "discriminate" against anorexics by charging same for any amount of food eaten. Hell, hospitals charge ONLY the people who get sick - no hospital ever charged me for being healthy, but many of them charged me for being unhealthy.

It is even less likely to be considered discrimination if the price is fixed price + (weight in pounds)*(few cents).

Currently airlines are afraid to charge for weight because then wider people will start demanding their full quota of space. Charge for weight would justify their girth, at least in their own opinions. Separate charge for width is complicated to explain to users, and aircraft seating configuration is not easy to change for a single flight.

"Don't tell me I'm burning the candle at both ends -- tell me where to get more wax!!"