If if if. And if they continue to dominate in market share, and their profits continue to go up, the stock will go even higher in the future.
Like I said before, if you're so sure of your "fashion stock" opinion, you can make a bunch of money by shorting the stock. No? Not so sure? Well, then I guess it's not as overvalued as you say it is.
Fair enough. I would add that buying (or shorting!) this particular stock at this time is pretty much just straight-up gambling either way. I wouldn't call that type of investing prudent either, but here we are, with tons of "investors" just betting.
Sure, their income is higher than historical rates - that in no way precludes their income going even higher. Remember that they're doing this in a recession - when we come out of this recession in 2 or 4 or 8 years, who knows how much money people will throw to get the latest iphone and/or ipad?
Investors are simply betting on that eventuality. Of course, if that was a certainty, the price would no doubt be even higher than it is.
My point is, it's ridiculous to say they're overvalued by a factor of 30, but even to say that they're overvalued by 20-30% is just an opinion. You could be wrong, you could be right. If you're so sure about the overvaluation, feel free to short the stock and make tons of money when it tumbles.
The stock is worth exactly what people are willing to pay for it at any given moment. No more, no less. I seem to recall a lot of people calling Google overvalued by rather large numbers when it first went public, too.
Can a true pacifist use lethal force? Can a true vegetarian knowingly eat meat? Can a true Christian willfully disobey parts of the Bible?
Dude, in the second friggin paragraph of the article he linked to: "Broadly speaking, the fallacy does not apply if there is a clear and well-understood definition of what membership in a group requires and it is that definition which is broken (e.g., "no honest man would lie like that!", "no Christian would worship Satan!" and so on). "
Which, of course, is exactly what you just demonstrated. Only problem is, saying "No Christian would worship an idol!" doesn't apply because you're talking your personal definition of Christian, and not the "clear and well-understood definition" of it.
Meanwhile, you're all nuts, but that's another topic entirely.
Yeah, hey, in 1999, we already had pocket still cameras, pocket video recorders, and cell phones, and laptops that could get on the internet. So why would we ever want one device that could do all those things? That would just be progress for the sake of progress.
Or did you miss the part where he said "everything in your wallet could be in your phone, so this is just a step towards that" ?
You don't use a credit or debit card? because, uh, those details about your buying habits might already be everywhere. And you didn't even get $10 for that.
You must've misread the part about you saying "it sucks NOW!" as "it sucks if it wasn't from that specific decade when I was discovering music/movies/whatever." Since the first part is what I said, and the second one isn't. Anyway, Magus also gently explained to you where your logic is fucked, better than I could.
No, the delay came from the time it took from you being at the age where you enjoyed new movies to being at the age you are now. It's a universal constant, best expressed as a function of X + ~15 or 25 years, where X is the birth year of anyone who complains that "Music/movies/everything was better back in the day, it sucks now!"
A minor point, but aren't "affect" and "effect" the same in Am. Eng. ? If so, it is weird to see it being misused - although, admittedly, I hadn't realised that this particular linguistic error is also a sign of political bias...
No, they are not. To use "affect" as a noun (as the original illiterate attempted) you would only be talking about a disposition, feeling, or tendency. He was trying to convey the meaning of the word "effect" as a noun and failed. If he had said "It will not affect seniors" and used it as a verb, he would have been right.
Thank you for articulating this succinctly, better than I could have.
For years now I've only gone on vacations I can drive to. I've had it with airports; I still have to fly 3 or 4 times a year for work and that's plenty enough to make me avoid airports at all costs when I'm supposed to be relaxing on vacation. I don't know how many people are spending thousands less per year on flights, but I'm pretty sure I'm not alone.
The thing is, it's worth it to buy if you're able to jailbreak it/downgrade it whatever, because it seriously is a good phone. If the jailbreaking ever becomes impossible, then maybe that subset of users will stop buying it. But until then, there's no reason for me to not buy it.
I would disagree on the grounds that far more people drive 30mpg-ish cars than drive full-size trucks. And the idea isn't to get 40mpg out of it, it's to get 100 or 200mpg, eventually.
That same technology would eventually filter to the guys that "need" a turbo-charged V6 full-size pickup. You know, to uh.... haul stuff in. Really fast. Or something.
There's no functionality lost. If you type in an address, you get that address. If you type in some search terms, you get the search results. Perhaps if you were an average fuckwad, you'd know this.
Well, you missed the point entirely, but because I'm in a garrulous mood, I'll take the time to explain it to you.
Most people don't type addresses anymore (which has been pointed 1 billion times in the comments on this ICANN story). They just type searches. In Chrome's interface you can type either, because, guess what, it's totally unnecessary to have two separate bars for 99% of users. And the remaining 1% are old jerk-offs that fear change for no good reason.
I know a lot of people who would be willing to pay $25 to upgrade their entire music collection to that bitrate, regardless of whether their collection was obtained legitimately or not.
You do? Name them.
I submit that anyone that has downloaded a bunch of 128k mp3's illegally and really wants to upgrade to 256k or even 320k can do so easily, THE SAME WAY THEY GOT THE 128k's.
Slashdot Mirror
If if if. And if they continue to dominate in market share, and their profits continue to go up, the stock will go even higher in the future. Like I said before, if you're so sure of your "fashion stock" opinion, you can make a bunch of money by shorting the stock. No? Not so sure? Well, then I guess it's not as overvalued as you say it is.
ooo, tmosley smacked down just a half hour after his post. That's gotta smart.
Fair enough. I would add that buying (or shorting!) this particular stock at this time is pretty much just straight-up gambling either way. I wouldn't call that type of investing prudent either, but here we are, with tons of "investors" just betting.
Sure, their income is higher than historical rates - that in no way precludes their income going even higher. Remember that they're doing this in a recession - when we come out of this recession in 2 or 4 or 8 years, who knows how much money people will throw to get the latest iphone and/or ipad?
Investors are simply betting on that eventuality. Of course, if that was a certainty, the price would no doubt be even higher than it is.
My point is, it's ridiculous to say they're overvalued by a factor of 30, but even to say that they're overvalued by 20-30% is just an opinion. You could be wrong, you could be right. If you're so sure about the overvaluation, feel free to short the stock and make tons of money when it tumbles.
The stock is worth exactly what people are willing to pay for it at any given moment. No more, no less. I seem to recall a lot of people calling Google overvalued by rather large numbers when it first went public, too.
Can a true pacifist use lethal force? Can a true vegetarian knowingly eat meat? Can a true Christian willfully disobey parts of the Bible?
Dude, in the second friggin paragraph of the article he linked to: "Broadly speaking, the fallacy does not apply if there is a clear and well-understood definition of what membership in a group requires and it is that definition which is broken (e.g., "no honest man would lie like that!", "no Christian would worship Satan!" and so on). "
Which, of course, is exactly what you just demonstrated. Only problem is, saying "No Christian would worship an idol!" doesn't apply because you're talking your personal definition of Christian, and not the "clear and well-understood definition" of it.
Meanwhile, you're all nuts, but that's another topic entirely.
What's the benefit of the automobile? It's just gonna make those oil companies rich. Forget it, then. Bunch of crap!
Yeah, hey, in 1999, we already had pocket still cameras, pocket video recorders, and cell phones, and laptops that could get on the internet. So why would we ever want one device that could do all those things? That would just be progress for the sake of progress.
Or did you miss the part where he said "everything in your wallet could be in your phone, so this is just a step towards that" ?
You don't use a credit or debit card? because, uh, those details about your buying habits might already be everywhere. And you didn't even get $10 for that.
You must've misread the part about you saying "it sucks NOW!" as "it sucks if it wasn't from that specific decade when I was discovering music/movies/whatever." Since the first part is what I said, and the second one isn't. Anyway, Magus also gently explained to you where your logic is fucked, better than I could.
No, the delay came from the time it took from you being at the age where you enjoyed new movies to being at the age you are now. It's a universal constant, best expressed as a function of X + ~15 or 25 years, where X is the birth year of anyone who complains that "Music/movies/everything was better back in the day, it sucks now!"
Okay, looking further down the comments, I see some people did notice. But still, this is ridiculous. You suck, timothy.
Woosh!
Thanks, I know the difference; I'm British.
I find it amusing that you think there's some kind of correlation between those two things.
A minor point, but aren't "affect" and "effect" the same in Am. Eng. ? If so, it is weird to see it being misused - although, admittedly, I hadn't realised that this particular linguistic error is also a sign of political bias...
No, they are not. To use "affect" as a noun (as the original illiterate attempted) you would only be talking about a disposition, feeling, or tendency. He was trying to convey the meaning of the word "effect" as a noun and failed. If he had said "It will not affect seniors" and used it as a verb, he would have been right.
Thank you for articulating this succinctly, better than I could have.
For years now I've only gone on vacations I can drive to. I've had it with airports; I still have to fly 3 or 4 times a year for work and that's plenty enough to make me avoid airports at all costs when I'm supposed to be relaxing on vacation. I don't know how many people are spending thousands less per year on flights, but I'm pretty sure I'm not alone.
The thing is, it's worth it to buy if you're able to jailbreak it/downgrade it whatever, because it seriously is a good phone. If the jailbreaking ever becomes impossible, then maybe that subset of users will stop buying it. But until then, there's no reason for me to not buy it.
I would disagree on the grounds that far more people drive 30mpg-ish cars than drive full-size trucks. And the idea isn't to get 40mpg out of it, it's to get 100 or 200mpg, eventually.
That same technology would eventually filter to the guys that "need" a turbo-charged V6 full-size pickup. You know, to uh.... haul stuff in. Really fast. Or something.
... said the big-boned Slashdot user.
There's no functionality lost. If you type in an address, you get that address. If you type in some search terms, you get the search results. Perhaps if you were an average fuckwad, you'd know this.
Well, you missed the point entirely, but because I'm in a garrulous mood, I'll take the time to explain it to you.
Most people don't type addresses anymore (which has been pointed 1 billion times in the comments on this ICANN story). They just type searches. In Chrome's interface you can type either, because, guess what, it's totally unnecessary to have two separate bars for 99% of users. And the remaining 1% are old jerk-offs that fear change for no good reason.
Now go get a sense of humor, you twat.
Thanks Grampa. I'll inform the Google Chrome team of your wacky 90's idea. Should go over big.
So, in other words, you made it up. Thanks for confirming.
Not saying I'm 100% sure it didn't happen; I'd just like to see the proof before I buy into your malarkey.
I know a lot of people who would be willing to pay $25 to upgrade their entire music collection to that bitrate, regardless of whether their collection was obtained legitimately or not.
You do? Name them.
I submit that anyone that has downloaded a bunch of 128k mp3's illegally and really wants to upgrade to 256k or even 320k can do so easily, THE SAME WAY THEY GOT THE 128k's.
That is, they'll download them for free.
I believe the problem might lie in the fact that you were giving a dead-serious response to a clearly satirical comment.