Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re: How to get it in future? Where is it lodged? (Score 1) 397

It is a bit weird, given non-literal phrases are common in modern American lexicon (and this is slashdot with it's US centric nature). That phrase is common enough:

In a related expression "social justice warriors" are not actually specialized in combat or warfare.

When someone says their car "is on its last legs" they don't actually mean their car doesn't use wheels and is more of an AT-AT type vehicle

Comment Re:How can a currency be an investment"? (Score 1) 104

You are free to pretend that wealth preservation isn't a valid form of investment.

Yes gold is not going to generate income, in fact it is going to have holding costs. It is a terrible thing to put large amounts (in relative terms) of money in, it is not however betting on disaster when it isn't large amounts. It is hedging against downturns in the asset classes that historically have had a negative correlation with gold. No every part of an investment has to be income generating.

And no you can't always collect rent. It's within the realm of possibility for the value of real estate to go to 0. Locations can become uninhabitable for various reasons. Having 100% of your money invested in apartments in Chernobyl in 1986 probably wouldn't have worked out well, for example. Not a lot of renters...

Comment Re:How can a currency be an investment"? (Score 1) 104

Being 100% in gold is hoarding betting on a disaster. Just like being 100% in oil futures is gambling. Or 100% in miami apartments is gambling.

Having some of you holdings in gold, however, is not.

Pick the right start and end dates and you can have any one of gold, housing, and the S&P 500 perform better than both of the other two.

Comment Re:What's next? (Score 1) 492

The US seems to have selected police based upon just how psychotic they are. That Australian cop would fit right in, what would happen in the US to him is there would be some media attention and he would be stood down (or he'd resign). Then he would either get a new job as a cop in the next town down the highway (since the police are far more local in the US than in Australia) or the union would challenge it and he would be reinstated with full back pay 6 months later after the media attention had gone away.

They're untouchable because they get to use the great "we have investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong". Prosecutors work with the police as an essential part of their job, so something has to be seriously terrible for them to try and prosecute anything. For reasons that remain a mystery to me most people seem to take the word of a police officer over a random person as well, so they win the he said/she said cases from either side. Law enforcement has also done a great job of marketing probably the safest time to be a cop in US history as a "war on police" environment in which they are terrified for their safety at all times and thus it's ok that they shoot first.

At least in the US they are supposed to have probable cause before harassing you. Of course that doesn't stop them since there is never any punishment when they violate those rules - at worse the person sues and gets a payout from the city but that doesn't affect the cop in any way. But at least something like MDT isn't a thing...I shudder to think how bad things would be without at least that fast eroding protection.

Comment Re:What's next? (Score 4, Insightful) 492

If the local police knew a person had epilepsy and turned on their lights for no other reason than to try and induce a seizure in said person and stated that that was the reason and that they hoped it would cause a seizure, then yes I would expect that person to be filing a lawsuit of some sort.

Doesn't mean they would win such a lawsuit of course...

Comment Re:Time's Person of Year is not a popularity conte (Score 1) 145

And while Trump's election was a big deal, he hasn't actually done anything (except win an election), and won't until late January 2017. This isn't the Nobel Peace Prize which you can win just because they think you're going to do big things.

For the last 20 years just winning the US Presidential election was enough to get it. There have only been 4 occassions since 1964 that the newly elected President wasn't given it, and on all of those occasions that person got it the year before or during that term... It is an American publication after all.

Comment Re:Was that on purpose? (Score 0) 145

Yes he did.

"At least Fox puts out something truthful once in a while" is clearly a statement contrasting Fox with RT and thus is claiming that RT never puts out something truthful and thus the claim must be false.

Just like we know McGregor must not have KOed Aldo last year since it must be not be truthful:

Comment Re:Time's "Person of the Year" is not chosen by po (Score 1) 145

You have strong opinions about something you apparently no next to nothing about.

Osama never got it. Bush got it twice. At least you managed to get Merkel right. 1 out of 3 ain't bad I guess...

And you really don't think Bush, Bush, Bush, Gingrich, Giuliani, Nixon, Nixon, and Reagan were Republican?

Slashdot Top Deals

"This is lemma 1.1. We start a new chapter so the numbers all go back to one." -- Prof. Seager, C&O 351