Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Hey Apple if you want enterprise business (Score 3) 21

How about, well, learning to support an enterprise? Stop treating every device like it is a consumer toy. Offer some real management tools, don't require an Apple account to do everything on your computers, etc, etc, etc.

It always amuses me when I see Apple talk about the enterprise space because they have done such a shit job supporting OS-X for the enterprise for so long. You can make it work, of course, and there are plenty of 3rd party tools, many very expensive, to help but it is all your own doing. Apple themselves seem to view each device as an island, property of a single consumer to be used as a toy and thrown away when the next shiny toy comes along.

Of course what they really mean here is "We want big businesses to buy our stuff, but we don't want to actually go through the trouble of supporting them."

Comment Re:Editors suck at their jobs (Score 1) 200

Assuming it was when the first weather satellite was launched in 1960, we've had 55 years of data

Bad assumption. There is storm data (and damn good data) going back to the 1850s.

Thinking people didn't record storm data prior to satellites is like thinking that there was no data on human body temperature until the invention of the digital thermometer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Comment Re:pptthh (Score 2) 200

The climate does change. It changed when humans were still in the stone age and it will be changing when humans are memories in the fossil records.

It is really impressive the way a bunch of Java programmers and tech support guys become smarter than all the climate scientists as soon as there is a story on Slashdot that mentions climate change.

"All those damn scientists are just wrong, and I know this because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and Al Gore is fat."

Comment Re:Use-case? (Score 1) 152

The FreeBSD Project has a problem harboring unrepentant douche bags like Kip Macy, and also Randi Harper.

You do know that there is such a thing as false conviction, and the standard of "repentance or permanent ostracization"—remaining in glorious effect long after punishment by the state has run its course—effectively demands the the wrongfully convicted confess to crimes they never committed, in order to have any hope of returning to productive society ever again?

In general (absent subsequent evidence), we don't actually know who are the wrongfully convicted, or we wouldn't have convicted them in the first place.

Sometimes (for a value of "sometimes" with no fixed address) the rush to judgment really sucks ass. That ought to give you at least a moment's pause before this kind of sentiment as an anonymous coward. It's why we allow the state to assign punishment rather than throwing blemished produce at the town pillory (e.g. a perfectly edible cucumber that's not quite straight, or harbours somewhere a small scab).

Sure, he sounds like a royal douche. But is it really my job to see that he suffers forever-after on nothing but a thin gruel of second-hand story telling?

Has it never occurred to you that there's a downside to your unthoughtful bitterness?

Comment Re:you're both right (Score 1) 619

That's in a diversified portfolio of long-term investments

Dogma, most often repeated to dazzle small fish into thinking the stock market is a place where money is generated, instead of stolen. It's roughly equivalent to a poker table, and it's a zero-sum game. There's a great illusion where you put in a million dollars and a $5 stock with 200,000 shares issued becomes a $50 stock and woo there's ten million dollars!! ...except the other guy at the table only has the million dollars that was put into the market in the first place; you're not getting more than a million dollars by selling all your stock (the price will collapse or you won't sell it all) unless he brings another nine million dollars from outside *into* the stock market, netting $10 million in and $10 million out.

The trick is the idiot does come back with $10 million, because he sees the price going up and up, and wants in on that; you sell it back to him because you see the climb slowing and showing distress, and then it collapses and he cries and sells it back to you for $1 million, and you sell it to the next moron with $10 million in his pocket when it climbs back, and now you have $19 million in your pocket and two poor single-millionaires across the table from you.

The biggest argument against diversification isn't the most obvious. The most obvious is that investing 100% into SPY (the S&P500 tracker) is an instant diversified portfolio; as corollary, any selection of multiple securities--stocks, bonds, options (though they expire), commodities (they get delivered, so you have to keep trading contracts in practice; exchange funds that handle this for you are a close substitute)--behaves like a single security, fluctuating up and down as the market does and as their representative sectors in total do.

A diversified portfolio doesn't magically make money; it simply lowers risk. You must make good buying and selling decisions to make money. In the extreme, a single-stock strategy has the potential to gain *much* more than a diversified portfolio; it can also *lose* much more. In a diversification strategy, you try to select a bunch of securities--stocks or funds which represent a strategy (sector investment, profile investment)--based on what you think would make a good single-security investment, scaling their proportion to their relative risks versus return and your risk tolerance.

That all sounds complex, but it's easily illustrated. Let's say you think BGWNR is likely to climb sharply, making you a 7% profit in the next 6 weeks, but that it's of course more risky than SFBT which you believe is near-guaranteed to make you a 2% profit in the next 6 weeks. You have a pile of money with which to purchase these investments to fill a gap in your portfolio. If your strategy is an aggressive, higher-risk affair, you might put 75% of your money into BGWNR, and 25% into SFBT; if the market betrays you, BGWNR losses should be partially or wholly mitigated by SFBT losses, and the loss in total should be less even if both lose (because BGWNR would lose more of its value than SFBT). If your strategy is a conservative, lower-risk affair, you might put 10% into BGWNR, and 90% into SFBT, because a loss in both would be almost as small as a loss in SFBT, and a win in both would be significantly (but not greatly) larger than a 100% investment in SFBT, and a loss in BGWNR is way more likely than a loss in SFBT and so would probably leave you with *most* of the gain from SFBT if SFBT went up and BGWNR went down.

Does diversification magically mean profit? No. It means less profit, and less loss; it means you don't wake up one day finding out you got wiped out at the race track, and so can keep playing. If you're not a good trader in the first place, you might consistently lose money until you bleed to death slowly. For that matter, the market as a whole has a strong influence on individual securities: MSFT or AAPL can experience a 1.2% drop for the day for absolutely no other reason than the S&P having a shitty -3.2% day (an example of a strategy of all eggs in one basket managing better than a diversified strategy, which, again, isn't a magical rule and shouldn't be taken as an argument that one-bet-on-the-table is a good strategy, either). Your diversified portfolio should move around pretty much like everything else, just less extremely.

Long-term investments are also shit. To be more specific: buy-and-hold is shit; it's used along with diversification so that rich people can buy into small movements, hope for a modicum of stability over a much longer period than you really want to hold any security for, and then sell off and not have to pay income tax (if you hold for less than 1 year, you pay income tax--which can be 39.6% for rich people--versus 15% capital gains). Buy-and-hold is a great and powerful marketing tool used by investment funds who don't care if you make or lose money, as long as you keep it in their fund and let them suck 1% or 0.1% per year out of it.

This is why I no longer play the stock market. I made 1% per day for about a month, then decided to run as far the fuck away as I possibly can. I was waking up at 4am, checking foreign markets, checking foreign exchanges(!), checking commodities, reading news (MarketWatch, Seeking Alpha, anything eTrade brought through, anything UpDown brought through, etc.), reading charts, performing projections, manually calculating metrics (not all the metrics I use are standard-issue technical analysis), etc etc. My mind was in the stock market for 18 hours per day. Fuck that. If I'm not playing that hard, I'm just giving charity to Warren Buffet and Donald Trump; and there's no way I'm playing that hard ever again. There's nothing magic about it; it's stab-out-your-eyes obsession, and you still don't win 100% of your bets.

Maybe I'll take up day trading one day. That's much more casual, believe it or not: the exact same rules as swing trading and trend trading apply, but only over a period of hours. You don't need to make big projections, and you get much faster feedback and instant gratification; the problem is you have to invest more time (you have a few minutes of turn-around before you have to pull your investments, make shorts, buy out your shorts, make new long positions...), which, as I said, is kind of a farce when I'm spending almost zero time trading and 18 hours every fucking day researching. At least when the god damn market closes you're done day trading.

Comment Re:Trading one set of problems for another (Score 3, Interesting) 619

The first thing you do is hire manservants.

If I had $250,000/year income, I could do my own dishes, tend my own yard, and so forth. I probably would tend the bees; but I'd get out of gardening. I'd have a gardener. Someone else would clean my house.

There is no faster way to create jobs with some $200k/year of disposable income than by paying some teenage wench to clean your house, and some old fuck to tend your trees. There just isn't.

If you have millions of dollars, that's great! You can start businesses; but can you create jobs? Well, kind of. If you find a way to produce something currently in production, but with *less* labor, you can produce that product more cheaply. That means you can undersell your competition, outcompeting them, and *eliminate* jobs. More unemployed.

With more unemployed, but cheaper common goods, people generally have more money after buying all the shit they need (except the unemployed, who are struggling to get by). That means you can now spend your millions to expand some niche market--say, smart phones, which still cost $600 and bump your bill by $30/month, but now everyone has more than $600 on hand, whereas before they had the ability to spend an extra $50 on shit they wanted--and make a shitton of profit. That, of course, requires workers--this is why it costs money--so you wind up creating jobs, although only about the amount you displaced in the first place.

This is why we always have unemployment, and why population tends to expand: you create wealth by making things cheaper to produce; you make things cheaper to produce by reducing the total invested labor-hours in production. All those layers of profits added on every good (coal to make steel, steel to make bolts, bolts to make cars) are just aggregate price; bulk purchase can negotiate that down, and direct competition can force it down, but only to the aggregate human labor costs of everything put together. When you reduce the labor cost, you wind up increasing the total buying power--same number of humans produce more things, thus the same percentage of the total income (of everyone and every business) purchases more--which means you can re-employ the same amount of displaced labor (not necessarily the same people) elsewhere, and everyone can buy more shit.

It also means the cost of high amounts of production drops. Producing 10 things costs $100 per unit because of inefficient methods (you wouldn't open a million-dollar production facility to make ten chairs; you'd do it in a slow, inefficient manner that costs less than a million dollars in labor); producing producing 10 million costs $10 per unit, because you can use better methods; and then producing 10 billion starts relying on things like fertilizer and artificial irrigation to grow trees for wood, which is more expensive than simple tree farming, and so it costs $50 per unit. You can actually support a bigger population as you raise wealth in this way, because suddenly everyone can afford that $50 per unit good, since they're spending $50 less elsewhere on other goods; of course, then the population grows and keeps its 4%-8% unemployment, because low unemployment is restrictive on total population wealth and weird shit happens.

So yeah. I'd have tutors, manservants, and landscapers. I might have a purser, but uh... look, my finances are better than yours. Financial management is a side hobby that's reached such a point of acuity for me that I scare bankers and accountants. Their balls shrivel up and die when we talk. I'm hoping our interest rates will go up to 14% median on mortgages so I can start an information campaign to eliminate the 30-year mortgage, since high interest rates make 10-year mortgages accessible for most people who can afford a 30-year mortgage (you wind up only having to tip in $100-$200 more per payment, instead of $2,000+ more; and you pay overall less for the same house). I was going to kill my mortgage in three years, but decided to stretch it to four or five so I could end in a much stronger position--the kind of position where I basically buy whatever the hell I want and get *richer* by taking loans, and can retire on 5 years of savings--on a $60k (now $75k) salary; but that was handled by purchasing a lower-valued house (strategic finances).

If you're ever rich, hire yourself a purser. You definitely want somebody managing your finances. You want somebody telling you when and how to spend your money. You want someone who can say, "Hey, it's 2004, you definitely don't want to buy into this stupid solar panel fad", and then come back later like "Dude it's 2015 and the ROI on solar panels is 2.5 years instead of 19 years, and you'll eliminate a full $1,500/year out of your electric bill and draw $1,500-$2,000/year of income on top of it from energy credits. It's time to buy into this; divert your salary to your 401(k), pay yourself out of your emergency fund, and then take a $15,000 401(k) loan 6 months from now so all the interest goes back into your loan basis. Take this 30% credit and this $1,000 grant. Pay $450 for permitting and engineering." You want someone who constantly alerts you to when and how to save money and if it's a good proposition at the moment, as well as to tell you when you absolutely cannot spend money on stupid shit like a $30,000 sailboat unless you sell the RV or cancel your 4 week vacation in Japan this year.

Comment I must be happy (Score 1) 619

The only things I could think of to do if I was suddenly wealthy is a)get a $2500 gaming PC so I can max out the new games, and b) get a Suzuki G-48W Gregoire Maret signature chromatic harmonica (http://www.suzukimusic.com/harmonicas/g48w/).

The rest I'd turn over to my wife and daughter to do with as they please. Other than that, I'm already pretty satisfied.

Comment Re:wan port (Score 1) 118

What fucking IP will your modem give you?

Well, I have mine configured to give out leases from the range 192.168.100.100-199, which more than adequately serves my LAN for now. What sort of piece of crap modem do you have, that can only deal with a single client connection?


What fucking IP will things on the switch get?

I just answered that, but I'll repeat myself - Since switches work by transparently passing L2 traffic, they will get an address issued by the DHCP server on the modem, just like something directly plugged into the modem would. So something between 100 and 199.


What fucking IP will things on the router connected to the switch get?

They would get whatever range I configure the OnHub's own DHCP server to give out, exactly the same way it would work with any crappy $50 DLink/Linksys. Most likely I would pick 192.168.101.100-199, if you want an exact number.


How will traffic to and from these IPs be routed outside of your network?

DHCP leases include a gateway address. These can nest (almost) arbitrarily deep. How do you think your phone, connected to your WAP, in turn connected to your modem, manages to route traffic? Nothing magic here, dude.

What we anticipate seldom occurs; what we least expect generally happens. -- Bengamin Disraeli

Working...