The big news this week seemed to be the US debt downgrade and the stock market. I’ll likely get around to posting about the market sometime later. <\/p>\n
I never liked Top Gear, but then again, I’ve only seen it when pointed to it by something outrageously unrealistic, like when they tried to pick the only test where a BMW could beat a Prius in fuel efficiency (all-out throttle on a closed track at speeds you could never drive on a police-patrolled road and hope to keep your license). So it’s not surprising to see them called out again for distorting a “test” to make their point that they don’t like technology or saving gas<\/a> — in this case draining the battery of an electric car before setting out on a trip to cripple the car. They seem to have a genuine, irrational hatred for any new technology or even the very notion of saving fuel instead of going fast. Zoom-zoom is definitely a bias present in many automotive journalists, but Top Gear is brain-damaged in their fervour about it. “Jeremy Clarkson is either an idiot or a genius. He’s either an idiot who actually believes all the badly researched lying offensive shit that he says. Or he’s a genius, who’s worked out exactly the most accurate way to annoy me.”<\/a><\/p>\n An interesting juxtaposition in the Globe this weekend: a “Me and My Money” column on a GIC-only investor<\/a> who claims to have achieved returns of “within a few dollars” of the S&P500 from 1980 to 2002 using just GICs, and another article says that we can’t avoid investing in the stock markets<\/a> with our nest egg since cash doesn’t provide the needed returns. For the GIC investor, I suppose it’s possible that he did match the market performance with just his GICs: though the S&P500 increased 900% (not including dividends) over that time, for a CAGR of ~11% (probably more like 13% once dividends are included), interest rates were high over much of that period. Plus, 2002 was the bottom of the tech wreck, so he looks to have cherry-picked. Though I do have to wonder if he’s including the effects of taxes (did he have enough RRSP room for an all-GIC portfolio?), or perhaps he forgot about dividends. <\/p>\n The uproar over Google’s real name policy for G+ continues to rage, even picking up a moniker of its own: the “nymwars”. The EFF weighs in<\/a>, as doesMicrosoft Research, calling “real” name policies “an abuse of power”.<\/a><\/p>\n