It is incorrect to assume that all investors in the stock market -- or even a majority of them -- are making decisions based on sound data.
There is one theory that is widely regarded in the investment world, usually called the Efficient Market Hypothesis. It states that the stock market is efficient, that at any given time all public factors relating to a given issue (company) have been considered by intelligent investors and that the price of a company's stock always accurately reflects the value of the underlying business.
The problem with this theory is that it is utter nonsense. People buy companies based on all manner of crazy metrics: whether a certain football team won, a company seeming like a "sure bet," or some charlatan hawking the latest penny issue (that he purchased in large quantity before making the recommendation.) And price, by the way, is determined by supply and demand.
Now, that might make for a very boring story, but it is relevant in the following manner: there is another valuation model that more accurately reflects the way the stock market actually works.
It's called the Greater Fool Theory.
The definition of the Greater Fool Theory has changed over time, but a current definition is: a fool buys a stock without any sound fundamental analysis hoping to sell it at a profit to a greater fool, who expects in turn to sell it at a profit to a still greater fool. Rinse and repeat.
SCO may well have a case. I really don't know, but you all had better believe that the Greater Fool Theory played a big role in SCO's meteoric rise.
I think my point is made: science can never explain the primal causes, can never account for the ultimate origin of anything.
But neither can religion. God as a creator of everything also doesn't explain any "primal causes," because then you have to account for the origin of a god. You're just adding another layer of complexity, to no end.
And you don't get to claim that "well, god is infinite; he always existed." Because you can just as easily say "well, matter always existed and evolution just happened."
Computer flicks aren't the only ones that suffer from inaccuracy. I imagine most any movie with some type of specialized skill as a theme does.
I can't count the number of times I have seen an action movie where the firearm action was, well, pretty damn inaccurate (e.g., someone firing thirty or fourty rounds from a handgun, or shooting an MP5 full auto for an extended period of time without reloading). The only reason I notice such things is because I have a working knowledge of guns, just like you notice the blunders in computer movies because you (seem to) have a working knowledge of computers. I'm sure vulcanologists laughed at Volcano.
Hollywood's function is not to produce movies that are accurate in every minute technical detail. Movies are for entertainment. If you want accuracy, go watch the Discovery Channel.
I think writing about this particular subset of the Linux community has already been done here, so I'm not going to post about that.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is another kind of hurtful advocacy; the type that is, shall we say, not entirely true.
For example, ESR frequently says that Linux systems "never crash", which is not true. While Linux is certainly more stable than some other operating systems, it does crash - regularly for some people.
As I write this I am trying to figure out why three of my servers, all with perfectly good hardware, and all running 2.2, crash on a regular basis.
I think everyone could stand to go back and re-read the Linux Advocacy HOWTO.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhh.. You missed a few: TCP uses segments, UDP uses datagrams.
Most proponents refer to it as a theory, and there is enough academic research to back up that designation.
See, for example, A Random Walk Down Wall Street.
It is incorrect to assume that all investors in the stock market -- or even a majority of them -- are making decisions based on sound data.
There is one theory that is widely regarded in the investment world, usually called the Efficient Market Hypothesis. It states that the stock market is efficient, that at any given time all public factors relating to a given issue (company) have been considered by intelligent investors and that the price of a company's stock always accurately reflects the value of the underlying business.
The problem with this theory is that it is utter nonsense. People buy companies based on all manner of crazy metrics: whether a certain football team won, a company seeming like a "sure bet," or some charlatan hawking the latest penny issue (that he purchased in large quantity before making the recommendation.) And price, by the way, is determined by supply and demand.
Now, that might make for a very boring story, but it is relevant in the following manner: there is another valuation model that more accurately reflects the way the stock market actually works.
It's called the Greater Fool Theory.
The definition of the Greater Fool Theory has changed over time, but a current definition is: a fool buys a stock without any sound fundamental analysis hoping to sell it at a profit to a greater fool, who expects in turn to sell it at a profit to a still greater fool. Rinse and repeat.
SCO may well have a case. I really don't know, but you all had better believe that the Greater Fool Theory played a big role in SCO's meteoric rise.
What do you think won WWII? Harsh language?
But neither can religion. God as a creator of everything also doesn't explain any "primal causes," because then you have to account for the origin of a god. You're just adding another layer of complexity, to no end.
And you don't get to claim that "well, god is infinite; he always existed." Because you can just as easily say "well, matter always existed and evolution just happened."
Computer flicks aren't the only ones that suffer from inaccuracy. I imagine most any movie with some type of specialized skill as a theme does.
I can't count the number of times I have seen an action movie where the firearm action was, well, pretty damn inaccurate (e.g., someone firing thirty or fourty rounds from a handgun, or shooting an MP5 full auto for an extended period of time without reloading). The only reason I notice such things is because I have a working knowledge of guns, just like you notice the blunders in computer movies because you (seem to) have a working knowledge of computers. I'm sure vulcanologists laughed at Volcano.
Hollywood's function is not to produce movies that are accurate in every minute technical detail. Movies are for entertainment. If you want accuracy, go watch the Discovery Channel.
I think writing about this particular subset of the Linux community has already been done here, so I'm not going to post about that.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is another kind of hurtful advocacy; the type that is, shall we say, not entirely true.
For example, ESR frequently says that Linux systems "never crash", which is not true. While Linux is certainly more stable than some other operating systems, it does crash - regularly for some people.
As I write this I am trying to figure out why three of my servers, all with perfectly good hardware, and all running 2.2, crash on a regular basis.
I think everyone could stand to go back and re-read the Linux Advocacy HOWTO.