I don't think *most* (not all) Apple users care that much. Most users just want something that does what it's supposed to do and does it well: and Apple is just very good at making solid products that are easy to use. It's obviously a nice plus that their products also look pretty darn sweet (and for some a decision factor).
Personally, I can see why people are occasionally irked by Apple's behavior. But honestly, I don't think they're any more "evil" than most companies who want to make a profit. And again... they make up for it by making sweet products!
If I'd had an iPhone when it first came out I would probably have done the whole jailbreak thing, but remember that the vast majority of users don't care about that: Apple products are well designed, pleasant to use, and accomplish rather well what they are designed to accomplish. That's all most people care about.
Still, $129 for a full new version of Mac OS X doesn't seem completely unreasonable. (And if -as you suggested- you are prepared to bend the rules, it's much easier to install OS X on 5 computers than it is to install XP or Vista on multiple computers)
Well each major revision of OS X in the past 5 years (Panther, Tiger, Leopard) has been - in terms of features - as big as the upgrade (if you can call it that) from XP to Vista. We're not simply talking Service Packs or Software Updates.
I'm assuming that when "upgrading" from XP to Vista you pay the full Vista price, is that correct?
Well, I don't like the idea of tying software to hardware either, and I don't like that they don't let people unlock their iPhones or install whatever apps they want... but Apple does have reasons not to let people do anything they want with their iPhone:
1. Apple does not want to have to fix anything bad that might happen if you install software that they don't have control over.
Example: You decide to jailbreak your phone in order install what you think looks like a cool game. It turns out that the game is actually a harmful piece of malware that destroys your phone - freezes, can't place calls, spams the network, or causes your hardware to fail. Instead Apple makes it clear that if you play around outside of the limits set by them, you do so at your own risk. And the relatively recent release of the SDK, the even more recent unveiling of the App Store is going to make a lot of very cool apps available to every iPhone user.
2. They have a contract with AT&T. I'm pretty sure certain things are imposed by AT&T, such as not allowing VoIP over 3G. You could say AT&T is evil, but they have their own reasons to not allow that. You could say that Apple should have gone with another provider, but I would tell you they tried. In the end, Apple was a risky bet for any provider, so I'm sure they had to compromise if they wanted their phone to be supported by anyone.
I'm not saying that Apple is a model company, but there are so many people vehemently opposing Apple for doing what lots of companies do: making a profit and protecting their interests. And honestly, in the end the iPhone really has changed the wireless industry, and it truly is an impressive gadget with very advanced technology and great software architecture. Have fun using Windows Mobile.
PS: I'm a Blackberry user for business reasons and I love my Curve, but I'm seriously considering switching now that the iPhone supports Exchange.
Half the fun of wikipedia is looking up something, then wasting a couple hours wandering through topics till you get someplace you might not have gone otherwise.
I had some fun messing around with this... very cool. If you're too lazy to click the links above, essentially it lets you calculate the lowest number of links between two Wikipedia articles! Awesome.
Did you know you could get from the article on Hitler to that on Diarrhea with only 2 mouse clicks?
I don't think anyone would disagree with your statement. My post was in response to KrimZon's assertion that ad-blocking essentially only prevents accidental clicks, therefore increasing the value of each click. Behind that assertion is the assumption that the people who use ad-blocking software would never purchase anything anyway (as a result of ads that is). I would challenge this assumption, as I'm quite sure there are lots of people who just find it very convenient to get rid of all ads, but who would perhaps still click on an ad if it were well-targeted (to your point). I don't think ad-blocking significantly increases the value of each click from those who don't use it.
the total number of clicks is decreased. However, the total number of purchases doesn't really change
You would reasonably expect that if fewer people click the ads, fewer purchases will be made. Or are you just making the point that fewer accidental clicks will be made?
I find ads annoying, but I can't say I ever click on them accidentally. I have on occasion clicked an ad because it sounded interesting, and although this hasn't happened, I could potentially see myself buying a product to which an online ad directed me. If I were to block all ads, this would not happen, and if anyone else is like me ad-blocking = fewer purchases.
Strangely enough, the first programming I learned was on a Texas Instruments Ti-89 scientific calculator. I wasn't even sure in what language I was programming in, but I found some games (generally text-based RPGs) and science programs (math or physics) and decided to understand what was going on. Soon I was making my own RPG (never completed it but I learned a lot) and my own math/physics programs.
I won't say this is the best way to learn programming, but everyone has a different introduction, and this one definitely piqued my interest enough to take a computer science class in college (which I loved).
On a somewhat unrelated note, there's a great book that may get him interested in Ruby: Why's Poignant Guide to Ruby. Maybe give that a try.
Ok, I've taken your entire post (minus sig) without removing anything else, and broken it down into what I think are the main elements:
It dropped 12% from its high yesterday, which was basically an artificial buildup in the hopes of something good. It is now at $4.6, which is roughly where it was before,
1. Ok, good observation, but this really can't be your main point, right? I mean, this stuff happens all the time during quarterly or annual earnings reports. Stock goes up or down in anticipation of results, and the results aren't what was expected.
I expect it will drop to $4.3 or even under $4 when this news settles.
2. Alright, I see where you're going with this. You're saying AMD stock is probably going to keep falling based on the recent performance as the news sinks in. Valid point, I think many investors will agree that AMD is in trouble, and this will drive stock price down. I don't think anyone needs to comment on this.
Remember, there is no way to properly value this company, the proper valuation is NEGATIVE because that's what profits are.
3. Seems like this is where you were trying to be insightful (observe the caps for emphasis)... If you already made the point you wanted to make (that stock is going to keep falling), you wouldn't need to add this. So I take this as being one of your main points, and this is what I responded to in my post.
Thus there is no bottom limit to what the stock will reach, it is only bound by the optimism of the stock's investors.
4. Your last point. It makes no sense so I guess it was just dramatic exaggeration, but note that my initial post was NOT in response to this comment, but in response to (3).
In short, (1) and (2) are perfectly fine comments although they don't really add much value. (3) is the one I responded to and it's just plain wrong. (4) is wrong too, but who cares.
You should really just stop insisting on being right on this. I'm wasting my time at the office right now responding to your post.
No, I really did have a point, and that really wasn't it.
What is the point you were trying to make?
If you want, I'll let you change as many words as you want to make a different point, ok? Just don't say that valuation is negative because profits are negative.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you're being really stubborn. If you have a point, here's your chance to make it.
I agree that he was probably overstating and he's not as dumb as he insists on appearing. I mean, I've heard people say "the stock dropped 200%". I ended up looking at his user history, and when he posts on topics he knows he doesn't sound as dumb.
The problem is that he maintains that he's right on something that he clearly doesn't seem to have a good grasp of. Profit does not directly translate into valuation, period.
The funny thing is that he tries to defend his position by obscuring it with mathematical terms like "eigenvectors". I was an engineering major, so although I wouldn't say I've used eigenvectors in a while, I know what they are. And now I work in business, and I sure as hell know I don't use eigenvectors when building a discounted cash-flow model:P
In any case, Slashdot is a place where anyone can be an expert on anything. Everyone will post a somewhat stupid comment now and then (some more than others), but if you do that don't go on insisting that you're right.
What? Did you actually read your post again before posting any replies? Here it is, if it makes any sense to you:
It dropped 12% from its high yesterday, which was basically an artificial buildup in the hopes of something good. It is now at $4.6, which is roughly where it was before, I expect it will drop to $4.3 or even under $4 when this news settles. Remember, there is no way to properly value this company, the proper valuation is NEGATIVE because that's what profits are. Thus there is no bottom limit to what the stock will reach, it is only bound by the optimism of the stock's investors.
I don't see what else there is in this post that I would actually comment on, except the absurd statement that there is "no bottom limit to what the stock will reach" (yes there is: $0.00).
Your response to CodeBuster's post was just as dumb as your response to mine. I think CodeBuster's main point in his post was to argue your idea that valuation is negative because profits are negative. I quote him:
but when valuing a company one must look not only a short term results
So by responding to his post with some ridiculous statement about eigenvectors (I don't mean to judge, but you don't seem to know much about business) and still writing
My point is, I don't really care. What I originally said is true
... you're just proving how dumb you are.
If you still don't understand, here's a brief description of events:
You: stupid statement about stocks being able to drop infinitely and how valuation is negative because profits are negative.
CodeBuster: response to your post explaining why both your statements are wrong.
You: "I don't really care. What I originally said is true" (obscured by a bunch of bull crap about eigenvectors first)
Me: "No, it's not". I explain why.
You: Try to make it seem like you had any other valid point in your post.
You win, and AMD still might go down the tubes.
Yeah, I think we both agree that AMD might not be in a good position right now and I'm definitely not suggesting that I'm going to buy their stock, but that wasn't the point of your original post, which you were arguing was true.
Remember, there is no way to properly value this company, the proper valuation is NEGATIVE because that's what profits are.
The point that everyone above has made is that just because you have negative profits over a certain time period does not mean your valuation is negative.
There are many ways to value a company, and although some companies trade at a multiple of their EBITDA, the most commonly used valuation tool in investment banks or consulting firms is the discounted cash flow analysis. Discounted cash flow analysis is technically the sum of all future cash flows of the company, discounted over time. This means that if you can show that profits are not going to remain negative, the valuation could very well be positive.
A very simple example of this is that most new companies and startups have negative EBITDA in the first few years. Obviously this isn't the case of AMD (not a new company), but it doesn't mean they can't turn it around or don't already have solid strategic plans to do so, with new products in the pipeline, etc.
So no, "the proper valuation is NEGATIVE because that's what profits are" is not a true statement.
If you don't believe me, take a look at companies like GM, which had negative operating income for several quarters in a row.
Hehe, I love driving fast myself (German Autobahn anyone?). But in Sweden, if you get pulled over at 180kph on a road where the limit is 80kph, it's bye-bye license, hello cellmate! Again, if you get pulled over... (which GP did if I read his story correctly)
Sweden has really cracked down on speeding and it's very easy to lose your license and even go to jail, which is one of the reasons they have one of the lowest accident rates in Europe, compared to France or Spain for example.
I won't judge you for driving 100kph on an 80kph road, but 180? really? A highway is the only place where that sort of speed is reasonably safe.
I think both of you have a point. My main issue with the GP (Opportunist) - and I think I'd agree with parent on this - is that while there are good principles to live by (the ones you described) in the Bible, there is also a lot of less good and benevolent stuff.
My question is: why do you need the Bible to tell you these things? And why do they have to come as the "Word of God" (e.g. Ten Commandments) when there are perfectly logical reasons to do "good", even if you don't believe in God?
Honestly, that's one of the things I hear the most from religious people about atheists/agnostics when discussing God - "how do you distinguish good from bad if you don't believe in God?" (simplified question). Personally, I think it would be really sad if you couldn't distinguish good from bad without having it dictated to you.
along with meaning that we can't know if God exists (which just as much a "leap of faith").
I'm not sure what you mean in this case by a "leap of faith". Maybe I misunderstood your comment, but are you saying that claiming we can't know is in and of itself a leap of faith? Without certainty about how you define "know", I would disagree. I believe it was Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, who logically proved that the idea of god the way we usually define it is not within the realm of science, and can therefore not be proven or disproved in a scientific manner. I don't remember the exact argument he makes, but that's a very simplified summary of it. (if any other/.ers want to comment or correct me, be my guest)
I reject belief in God (without asserting that there certainly is no God), so I'm an atheist. That's a definition backed up by many dictionaries and other references.
Well, I think this is a question of semantics: the way I've most commonly seen it defined is that atheists not only "reject the belief in God", but actually "reject the existence of God". The two of very different, and I would say the first one is a closer description of agnosticism, whereas the second is the definition of atheism. Taken in this sense, I feel uncomfortable calling myself an atheist.
This being said, I think there is ambiguity in the meaning of atheism, and I've seen several different definitions, including the one from Wikipedia, which is very ambiguous as it describes atheism as being "either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism" (capturing both definitions above). In this sense, agnosticism could almost be described as a form of atheism.
I feel agnosticism is also ambiguous because it can mean you don't know because you can't tell or haven't thought about it, or you have decided you can't know as a result of a rational thought process. My literature professor in high school (he was very Catholic) always said "agnostics are the worst kind, because they can't make up their mind" - I would disagree with that.
I think there may be a distinction to make. Someone who with certainty affirms that there is no god (in a very broad sense) is making an assertion for which he has no evidence nor proof. As such, it is a leap of faith.
Most people who call themselves atheist should really call themselves agnostic instead.
This being said, I think it is possible to be atheist with respect to specific religions (as opposed to a broad and vague idea of god). There are enough inconsistencies in many religions to make them logically flawed and through simple proof by contradiction assert that the specific God described by that religion cannot exist.
The other problem with being agnostic comes when arguing with strongly religious people. Your agnosticism (with respect to a broad idea of god) may be driven by a very rational and logical train of thought. You may have made the decision to be agnostic because anything else would be - according to you - intellectually dishonest (as you have no evidence for or against this broad notion of god). Nevertheless, most people assume that if you are agnostic, you either haven't thought about it enough, you can't make up your mind, or you simply don't know. More importantly, they assume that you "accept" that they may be right, when really you don't find it right at all to believe in something without any rational evidence. In that situation, it's easier to just say you're an atheist, and avoid that entire confusion.
Disclaimer: You (whoever reads this comment) may have completely different views on religion than I have. I'm not trying to express my personal views on religion, so don't try to convince me to join your sect.
Apple's early success really isn't attributable to Jobs.
Probably one of the reasons he was fired.
But since his return, you could attribute a lot of Apple's recent success to him.
And to be honest, Apple has been immensely successful in the past few years, with the iPod, Mac OSX, Intel Macs and the iPhone being immediate examples that come to mind.
As small as their market share still is, Apple has done a great job at growing in recent years. I can only speak from my personal experience, but at the college I went to, Apple's market share was much higher than in the rest of the market (I would guess almost as high as 30%, with lots of campus machines being Macs as well). I can only imagine that a lot of these people will grow up to use Macs at home (and maybe eventually in the office as well).
Having grown up in Europe, I hardly knew about Apple until the iPod. Being somewhat technologically curious I knew Macs existed and I knew what they were, but I had never really come across one. It's only until I went to college in the US that I started seeing them all over the place. Now I feel they're capturing some European market share as well.
Obligatory disclaimer: I do like Macs personally even though I have to use Windows at work, but I would hardly consider myself an irrational fanboi. I think some of the criticism is warranted, but overall, even if you don't like them there's no denying that Apple has been doing something right in the past few years... Just look at their financials.
Not only, many of the top German scientists who had worked under Hitler's regime were "recruited" after WWII either by the Soviet Union or the US. Think of Wernher von Braun, the famous rocket physicist.
Maybe because it's in AT&T's TOS. Apple and AT&T are partners, and until now it's been a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" type of relationship.
Although I can't say I'm privy to the details of AT&T's deal with Apple, I'm pretty sure this was one of Apple's bargaining chips to get other things such as the visual voicemail feature.
In the end, Apple is the one entering a new market (new to them), and I'm sure they had to concede a lot in order to do so. I've heard that AT&T wasn't the first provider they talked to, and that Verizon turned them down.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think *most* (not all) Apple users care that much. Most users just want something that does what it's supposed to do and does it well: and Apple is just very good at making solid products that are easy to use. It's obviously a nice plus that their products also look pretty darn sweet (and for some a decision factor).
Personally, I can see why people are occasionally irked by Apple's behavior. But honestly, I don't think they're any more "evil" than most companies who want to make a profit. And again... they make up for it by making sweet products!
If I'd had an iPhone when it first came out I would probably have done the whole jailbreak thing, but remember that the vast majority of users don't care about that: Apple products are well designed, pleasant to use, and accomplish rather well what they are designed to accomplish. That's all most people care about.
I stand corrected.
Still, $129 for a full new version of Mac OS X doesn't seem completely unreasonable. (And if -as you suggested- you are prepared to bend the rules, it's much easier to install OS X on 5 computers than it is to install XP or Vista on multiple computers)
Well each major revision of OS X in the past 5 years (Panther, Tiger, Leopard) has been - in terms of features - as big as the upgrade (if you can call it that) from XP to Vista. We're not simply talking Service Packs or Software Updates.
I'm assuming that when "upgrading" from XP to Vista you pay the full Vista price, is that correct?
The Slashdot thread of course!
...wait, I take that back.
Well, I don't like the idea of tying software to hardware either, and I don't like that they don't let people unlock their iPhones or install whatever apps they want... but Apple does have reasons not to let people do anything they want with their iPhone:
1. Apple does not want to have to fix anything bad that might happen if you install software that they don't have control over.
Example: You decide to jailbreak your phone in order install what you think looks like a cool game. It turns out that the game is actually a harmful piece of malware that destroys your phone - freezes, can't place calls, spams the network, or causes your hardware to fail. Instead Apple makes it clear that if you play around outside of the limits set by them, you do so at your own risk. And the relatively recent release of the SDK, the even more recent unveiling of the App Store is going to make a lot of very cool apps available to every iPhone user.
2. They have a contract with AT&T. I'm pretty sure certain things are imposed by AT&T, such as not allowing VoIP over 3G. You could say AT&T is evil, but they have their own reasons to not allow that. You could say that Apple should have gone with another provider, but I would tell you they tried. In the end, Apple was a risky bet for any provider, so I'm sure they had to compromise if they wanted their phone to be supported by anyone.
I'm not saying that Apple is a model company, but there are so many people vehemently opposing Apple for doing what lots of companies do: making a profit and protecting their interests. And honestly, in the end the iPhone really has changed the wireless industry, and it truly is an impressive gadget with very advanced technology and great software architecture. Have fun using Windows Mobile.
PS: I'm a Blackberry user for business reasons and I love my Curve, but I'm seriously considering switching now that the iPhone supports Exchange.
Better yet, your kegerator and computer can be one and the same!
Actually, that third hand comes in really handy (no pun intended) when you're a basement-dwelling slashdotter!
Does it come as a surprise that the writer of said article is a software engineer from Mountain View?
Although to be fair I don't think it's one of those shameless acts of self-promotion, but rather an effort to get the Knol submission started.
Half the fun of wikipedia is looking up something, then wasting a couple hours wandering through topics till you get someplace you might not have gone otherwise.
.. which lead to a very cool project, posted on /. a few months ago:
The slashdot article: Six Degrees of Wikipedia
The project itself: Six Degrees of Wikipedia
I had some fun messing around with this... very cool. If you're too lazy to click the links above, essentially it lets you calculate the lowest number of links between two Wikipedia articles! Awesome.
Did you know you could get from the article on Hitler to that on Diarrhea with only 2 mouse clicks?
I don't think anyone would disagree with your statement. My post was in response to KrimZon's assertion that ad-blocking essentially only prevents accidental clicks, therefore increasing the value of each click. Behind that assertion is the assumption that the people who use ad-blocking software would never purchase anything anyway (as a result of ads that is). I would challenge this assumption, as I'm quite sure there are lots of people who just find it very convenient to get rid of all ads, but who would perhaps still click on an ad if it were well-targeted (to your point). I don't think ad-blocking significantly increases the value of each click from those who don't use it.
the total number of clicks is decreased. However, the total number of purchases doesn't really change
You would reasonably expect that if fewer people click the ads, fewer purchases will be made. Or are you just making the point that fewer accidental clicks will be made?
I find ads annoying, but I can't say I ever click on them accidentally. I have on occasion clicked an ad because it sounded interesting, and although this hasn't happened, I could potentially see myself buying a product to which an online ad directed me. If I were to block all ads, this would not happen, and if anyone else is like me ad-blocking = fewer purchases.
Strangely enough, the first programming I learned was on a Texas Instruments Ti-89 scientific calculator. I wasn't even sure in what language I was programming in, but I found some games (generally text-based RPGs) and science programs (math or physics) and decided to understand what was going on. Soon I was making my own RPG (never completed it but I learned a lot) and my own math/physics programs.
I won't say this is the best way to learn programming, but everyone has a different introduction, and this one definitely piqued my interest enough to take a computer science class in college (which I loved).
On a somewhat unrelated note, there's a great book that may get him interested in Ruby: Why's Poignant Guide to Ruby. Maybe give that a try.
It dropped 12% from its high yesterday, which was basically an artificial buildup in the hopes of something good. It is now at $4.6, which is roughly where it was before,
1. Ok, good observation, but this really can't be your main point, right? I mean, this stuff happens all the time during quarterly or annual earnings reports. Stock goes up or down in anticipation of results, and the results aren't what was expected.
I expect it will drop to $4.3 or even under $4 when this news settles.
2. Alright, I see where you're going with this. You're saying AMD stock is probably going to keep falling based on the recent performance as the news sinks in. Valid point, I think many investors will agree that AMD is in trouble, and this will drive stock price down. I don't think anyone needs to comment on this.
Remember, there is no way to properly value this company, the proper valuation is NEGATIVE because that's what profits are.
3. Seems like this is where you were trying to be insightful (observe the caps for emphasis)... If you already made the point you wanted to make (that stock is going to keep falling), you wouldn't need to add this. So I take this as being one of your main points, and this is what I responded to in my post.
Thus there is no bottom limit to what the stock will reach, it is only bound by the optimism of the stock's investors.
4. Your last point. It makes no sense so I guess it was just dramatic exaggeration, but note that my initial post was NOT in response to this comment, but in response to (3).
In short, (1) and (2) are perfectly fine comments although they don't really add much value. (3) is the one I responded to and it's just plain wrong. (4) is wrong too, but who cares.
You should really just stop insisting on being right on this. I'm wasting my time at the office right now responding to your post.
No, I really did have a point, and that really wasn't it.
What is the point you were trying to make?
If you want, I'll let you change as many words as you want to make a different point, ok? Just don't say that valuation is negative because profits are negative.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you're being really stubborn. If you have a point, here's your chance to make it.
I agree that he was probably overstating and he's not as dumb as he insists on appearing. I mean, I've heard people say "the stock dropped 200%". I ended up looking at his user history, and when he posts on topics he knows he doesn't sound as dumb.
:P
The problem is that he maintains that he's right on something that he clearly doesn't seem to have a good grasp of. Profit does not directly translate into valuation, period.
The funny thing is that he tries to defend his position by obscuring it with mathematical terms like "eigenvectors". I was an engineering major, so although I wouldn't say I've used eigenvectors in a while, I know what they are. And now I work in business, and I sure as hell know I don't use eigenvectors when building a discounted cash-flow model
In any case, Slashdot is a place where anyone can be an expert on anything. Everyone will post a somewhat stupid comment now and then (some more than others), but if you do that don't go on insisting that you're right.
It dropped 12% from its high yesterday, which was basically an artificial buildup in the hopes of something good. It is now at $4.6, which is roughly where it was before, I expect it will drop to $4.3 or even under $4 when this news settles. Remember, there is no way to properly value this company, the proper valuation is NEGATIVE because that's what profits are. Thus there is no bottom limit to what the stock will reach, it is only bound by the optimism of the stock's investors.
I don't see what else there is in this post that I would actually comment on, except the absurd statement that there is "no bottom limit to what the stock will reach" (yes there is: $0.00).
Your response to CodeBuster's post was just as dumb as your response to mine. I think CodeBuster's main point in his post was to argue your idea that valuation is negative because profits are negative. I quote him:
but when valuing a company one must look not only a short term results
So by responding to his post with some ridiculous statement about eigenvectors (I don't mean to judge, but you don't seem to know much about business) and still writing
My point is, I don't really care. What I originally said is true
... you're just proving how dumb you are.
If you still don't understand, here's a brief description of events:
You: stupid statement about stocks being able to drop infinitely and how valuation is negative because profits are negative.
CodeBuster: response to your post explaining why both your statements are wrong.
You: "I don't really care. What I originally said is true" (obscured by a bunch of bull crap about eigenvectors first)
Me: "No, it's not". I explain why.
You: Try to make it seem like you had any other valid point in your post.
You win, and AMD still might go down the tubes.
Yeah, I think we both agree that AMD might not be in a good position right now and I'm definitely not suggesting that I'm going to buy their stock, but that wasn't the point of your original post, which you were arguing was true.
What I originally said is true
Let me quote what you said:
Remember, there is no way to properly value this company, the proper valuation is NEGATIVE because that's what profits are.
The point that everyone above has made is that just because you have negative profits over a certain time period does not mean your valuation is negative.
There are many ways to value a company, and although some companies trade at a multiple of their EBITDA, the most commonly used valuation tool in investment banks or consulting firms is the discounted cash flow analysis. Discounted cash flow analysis is technically the sum of all future cash flows of the company, discounted over time. This means that if you can show that profits are not going to remain negative, the valuation could very well be positive.
A very simple example of this is that most new companies and startups have negative EBITDA in the first few years. Obviously this isn't the case of AMD (not a new company), but it doesn't mean they can't turn it around or don't already have solid strategic plans to do so, with new products in the pipeline, etc.
So no, "the proper valuation is NEGATIVE because that's what profits are" is not a true statement.
If you don't believe me, take a look at companies like GM, which had negative operating income for several quarters in a row.
Hehe, I love driving fast myself (German Autobahn anyone?). But in Sweden, if you get pulled over at 180kph on a road where the limit is 80kph, it's bye-bye license, hello cellmate! Again, if you get pulled over... (which GP did if I read his story correctly)
Sweden has really cracked down on speeding and it's very easy to lose your license and even go to jail, which is one of the reasons they have one of the lowest accident rates in Europe, compared to France or Spain for example.
I won't judge you for driving 100kph on an 80kph road, but 180? really? A highway is the only place where that sort of speed is reasonably safe.
1. The speed limit on that road is 80Kph
2. I was actually going just shy of 180Kph.
Was that a typo or are you saying you should really be in jail now?
I think both of you have a point. My main issue with the GP (Opportunist) - and I think I'd agree with parent on this - is that while there are good principles to live by (the ones you described) in the Bible, there is also a lot of less good and benevolent stuff.
My question is: why do you need the Bible to tell you these things? And why do they have to come as the "Word of God" (e.g. Ten Commandments) when there are perfectly logical reasons to do "good", even if you don't believe in God?
Honestly, that's one of the things I hear the most from religious people about atheists/agnostics when discussing God - "how do you distinguish good from bad if you don't believe in God?" (simplified question). Personally, I think it would be really sad if you couldn't distinguish good from bad without having it dictated to you.
along with meaning that we can't know if God exists (which just as much a "leap of faith").
I'm not sure what you mean in this case by a "leap of faith". Maybe I misunderstood your comment, but are you saying that claiming we can't know is in and of itself a leap of faith? Without certainty about how you define "know", I would disagree. I believe it was Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, who logically proved that the idea of god the way we usually define it is not within the realm of science, and can therefore not be proven or disproved in a scientific manner. I don't remember the exact argument he makes, but that's a very simplified summary of it. (if any other /.ers want to comment or correct me, be my guest)
I reject belief in God (without asserting that there certainly is no God), so I'm an atheist. That's a definition backed up by many dictionaries and other references.
Well, I think this is a question of semantics: the way I've most commonly seen it defined is that atheists not only "reject the belief in God", but actually "reject the existence of God". The two of very different, and I would say the first one is a closer description of agnosticism, whereas the second is the definition of atheism. Taken in this sense, I feel uncomfortable calling myself an atheist.
This being said, I think there is ambiguity in the meaning of atheism, and I've seen several different definitions, including the one from Wikipedia, which is very ambiguous as it describes atheism as being "either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism" (capturing both definitions above). In this sense, agnosticism could almost be described as a form of atheism.
I feel agnosticism is also ambiguous because it can mean you don't know because you can't tell or haven't thought about it, or you have decided you can't know as a result of a rational thought process. My literature professor in high school (he was very Catholic) always said "agnostics are the worst kind, because they can't make up their mind" - I would disagree with that.
I think there may be a distinction to make. Someone who with certainty affirms that there is no god (in a very broad sense) is making an assertion for which he has no evidence nor proof. As such, it is a leap of faith.
Most people who call themselves atheist should really call themselves agnostic instead.
This being said, I think it is possible to be atheist with respect to specific religions (as opposed to a broad and vague idea of god). There are enough inconsistencies in many religions to make them logically flawed and through simple proof by contradiction assert that the specific God described by that religion cannot exist.
The other problem with being agnostic comes when arguing with strongly religious people. Your agnosticism (with respect to a broad idea of god) may be driven by a very rational and logical train of thought. You may have made the decision to be agnostic because anything else would be - according to you - intellectually dishonest (as you have no evidence for or against this broad notion of god). Nevertheless, most people assume that if you are agnostic, you either haven't thought about it enough, you can't make up your mind, or you simply don't know. More importantly, they assume that you "accept" that they may be right, when really you don't find it right at all to believe in something without any rational evidence. In that situation, it's easier to just say you're an atheist, and avoid that entire confusion.
Disclaimer: You (whoever reads this comment) may have completely different views on religion than I have. I'm not trying to express my personal views on religion, so don't try to convince me to join your sect.
Apple's early success really isn't attributable to Jobs.
Probably one of the reasons he was fired.
But since his return, you could attribute a lot of Apple's recent success to him.
And to be honest, Apple has been immensely successful in the past few years, with the iPod, Mac OSX, Intel Macs and the iPhone being immediate examples that come to mind.
As small as their market share still is, Apple has done a great job at growing in recent years. I can only speak from my personal experience, but at the college I went to, Apple's market share was much higher than in the rest of the market (I would guess almost as high as 30%, with lots of campus machines being Macs as well). I can only imagine that a lot of these people will grow up to use Macs at home (and maybe eventually in the office as well).
Having grown up in Europe, I hardly knew about Apple until the iPod. Being somewhat technologically curious I knew Macs existed and I knew what they were, but I had never really come across one. It's only until I went to college in the US that I started seeing them all over the place. Now I feel they're capturing some European market share as well.
Obligatory disclaimer: I do like Macs personally even though I have to use Windows at work, but I would hardly consider myself an irrational fanboi. I think some of the criticism is warranted, but overall, even if you don't like them there's no denying that Apple has been doing something right in the past few years... Just look at their financials.
Not only, many of the top German scientists who had worked under Hitler's regime were "recruited" after WWII either by the Soviet Union or the US. Think of Wernher von Braun, the famous rocket physicist.
Enabling safe mode (for games) with networking pretty much disables the "safe" portion of that equation
2Good4U96 is trying to fire a rocket at you.
Accept or deny?
so I'm not sure wtf you'd think that.
Maybe because it's in AT&T's TOS. Apple and AT&T are partners, and until now it's been a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" type of relationship.
Although I can't say I'm privy to the details of AT&T's deal with Apple, I'm pretty sure this was one of Apple's bargaining chips to get other things such as the visual voicemail feature.
In the end, Apple is the one entering a new market (new to them), and I'm sure they had to concede a lot in order to do so. I've heard that AT&T wasn't the first provider they talked to, and that Verizon turned them down.