Motley Fool and other vices

So I have been an avid reader of the Motley Fool for about 2 years now, and I’ve decided to post a few of the articles I like from their mailing list today:

Normally following the mantra of living below your means (LBYM is the community message board, now free as in beer and open to the public, which covers this subject) is of the upmost importance to most of the writers at The Motley Fool. As someone who likes to save her paycheck and eat out too I have been inspired and impressed by all fo the people who save thousands a year for their rainy-day or retirement funds. However I myself, while beign reasonably frugal, have always felt a little like an ugly step-sister to the beautifully responcibly Fools over at TMF. The above article however gives me some hope. now my foolish, not Foolish, spending of money on nice haircuts and pretty hardbacks is not so taudry.

This next link is to an article which is part of TMF community resources.

It is a chart to the cheap online travel sites. It compares them in a concise, business-like way, with the selective creativity so common of that site.

I enjoy reading TMF because it gives me another perspective on the world around me. I hear about the growing pains of an increasingly global world, well, at TMF I can bet my money on who will grow best. I may growl over the potential privacy invasions of Google but it is through TMF that I find the quantifiable terms in which to describe how very big a party of the world Google is eating up. Too often humanities people are too touchy-feely to be taken seriously, too emotional to be argue effectivly for their points of view. I think reading TMF is a great way to counter-act our essential disrespect for completely scientific study.

Now, I need to going back to watcing iRobot on FX. And in that vein:

  1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
  2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
  3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

(Isaac Asimov’s 3 laws)

Get in touch

%d bloggers like this: