Become an investor, not a trader. Before you buy, research the hell out of interesting stocks. After you buy, hold onto them and continue to study their performance and financial condition. Sell when the cracks (if ever) appear. You'll avoid the hustle and bust of a trader's life (more likely, death) and make more money with less work. It's also boring, which is why it's unpopular.
That said, I'll recommend the following books: The Intelligent Investory, Ben Graham. The Essays of Warren Buffett, Cunningham. Contrarian Investment Strategies, Dreman.
Those books teach what others ignore, that identifying good stocks means identifying good companies. People do make money otherwise by gaming the market, selling on sentiment etc. But then again, you never hear of wealthy traders... investors like Buffett get all the attention, because value investing is what works. Get rich slowly or not at all.
I'll suggest UTRC, though I don't really know about the work environment (which seems to matter to you). Considering the projects of UTC proper though (high performance turbine engines, scramjets, rotorcraft etc.), I think it'd be exciting research for a MechE major.
As others have said, pay down your loans before attempting to invest. If you must invest, open an IRA and put your money in an S&P 500 index fund, which is almost guaranteed to gain 9% annually on average before inflation. As an IRA the gains will be tax-exempt. But do not attempt picking stocks on your own without at least a year of fantasy investing and constant research. Most mutual funds lose against the S&P 500, and those are run by professional fund managers. As a beginner, you might pick better stocks by getting lucky (if that interests you, consider poker and lottery tickets as well), or by extensive study which will likely bore you and take longer than maintaining linux. For a start, stick to index funds in an IRA, and unlike most people around your age, you might have a chance at retiring comfortably. You'll also outpace most of the pros without the number crunching insanity.
(1) Shampoo hair (I use Finesse, sometimes Pantene) and make sure it lathers up good before rinsing.
(2) Rinse shampoo out of hair.
(3) Condition hair (use conditioner that's the same brand as the shampoo) and make sure you apply the conditioner at the ends first so they get the most amount of conditioner because with long hair, usually the ends are the most neglected.
(4) Wait 3 minutes. I usually brush my teeth during this period.:)
(5) Completely rinse out all conditioner
(6) When you get out of the shower, towel-dry your hair as much as possible
(7) The next step is optional, but I sometime put a hair straightener in because my hair is naturally wavy. I use Get It Straight (Sebastian). Just a small amount that you apply to your waviest sections (I usually apply it near the ends).
(8) These last three steps are the most important ones in the whole routine and are what make all the difference: Blow-dry your hair until it's completely dry. Don't half-dry your hair, you gotta go all the way. I always flip my hair over in front of my face and look at the floor while using a brush and hair dryer to slowly dry all my hair. Brushing downward while drying will help straighten your hair and completely drying it will make sure it doesn't kink up or curl up.
(9) When you're done drying, put your hair back in a ponytail holder for at least 5 minutes. This allows all the hot air trapped in your hair to get out so your hair isn't too puffy.
(10) After 5 minutes or more you will still have a bunch of frizzy hair strands sticking up thanks to the magnetic field that was emanating from the hair dryer. At this final step, I take my hair out of the ponytail holder, apply one drop of Laminates Drops (Sebastian) to one palm, rub the Laminates in a circular motion between my hands so they are both covered in it, then start applying it to the back of my head with both hands first because a lot of it will come off at first application and you don't want a bunch on the top of your head because it will look wet or greasy. Rub it into your ends, then finally get back to the top of your head and rub it in and make sure you get the frizzy strands so they will lie down. Keep rubbing it into your hair until your hands have no more Laminates on them. Wash your hands, brush your hair and you're done!
>> Notice that every year except 2002, the stock price started accelerating after WWDC. Apple stock, therefore, is usually flat or slightly downward trending for the first half of the year.
You claim the years of 2003, 2004 and 2005 demonstrate a cyclical trend of AAPL, which should presumably carry through 2006. Notwithstanding the tiny sampling of three years, you're pulling something out of nothing. In 2003, the share price was increasing quickly several months before WWDC, and growth actually slowed immediately after. In 2004 overall growth was strong throughout the entire year, there is no flat or downward trend prior to WWDC. In 2005 lies your only possibly valid example of any "WWDC effect." One data point obviously cannot establish a trend, and the downward movement of the stock nearly centered on WWDC. There weren't 6-months of stagnation before June 6 followed by growth. It went down for 2 months before WWDC, then down for another 2 months before it turned up. There's no 6 months of falling, 6 months of rising anywhere So where's this cyclical you're talking about?
It is very interesting that posts which lack any real insight are modded up liberally as long as the author sounds friendly and the post is made early.
Obviously you haven't tried Steam recently (or ever) if you're considering a $300 Xbox 360 an alternative. It's about as painless as an online game distribution system can be. If you're ok with ordering something from Amazon, then you can tolerate Steam. Steam does not make you "do" any "crap," and it's a godsend for indie game developers.
Maybe someone should tell you that car manufacturers haven't been able to keep up with hybrid demand in the US for years. Believe it or not, Americans have been feeling pain at the pump for a long time. You might as well start telling people that smoking causes cancer.
"The encyclopedia that Slashdot built."
on
When Wikipedia Fails
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I can see the coder-geek authorbase as the primary cause of Wikipedia's problems. Here are the issues I've noticed in the past. Many of these examples may have been rectified, but they still exist in countless other forms:
They're insidiously opinionated. Instead of saying wasabi is "fried with peas," they say it is "considered quite tasty with fried peas." Gee, "tasty" is completely objective I guess, not a matter of personal, ahem, taste, at all. Someone tries to argue them down, but they know they're "right," after all they learned C++ when they were 10.
They miss the forest for the trees. The article on AIDS has wonderful information on the disease's origins, treatment and spread throughout the world. Too bad there's no fucking organization to anything in the article, and the section titled, "Global epidemic" is precisely redundant with the one named, "Current status." It's like the typical geek's desk, awash in code printouts and spec sheets. There's good stuff in there, somewhere (he's sure) but he'll be damned if he can make any sense out of it (but hey it's like a puzzle and those are fun). He should just print one more copy instead of checking if it's already there, and organizing his shit.
They don't know how to write. If the spelling and language mechanics are correct, then it's good writing (which is like saying that any code that compiles is good code). There's no rule in Strunk & White about too many clauses in one sentence! Thus, the writing is perfect. Decent style, flowing sentences, consistent tone and voice are only for the weak-minded; hackers are made of sterner stuff (well, mentally).
They're obsessed with dumb trivia. Every article must have its "In popular culture" section, just to prove that they, like Ken Jennings, know stupid references to everything.
They don't know jackshit about page layout. Does every table need a full set of borders? Must LaTeX equations be fucking huge? Why can't editors use a color wheel (or common sense) to choose nicely matching colors? Deitel & Deitel is not the standard on typesetting or formatting; use a textbook that had an editor as a guide on page layout, like "Fundamentals of Aerodynamics" by Anderson. Clean tables without distracting borders, equations modestly marked by centering and italics (no huge font necessary), headings used only when needed. It's black and white because colors would be superfluous. But it's fun on Wikipedia to add superfluous formatting, it's just like adding new features to software. Oooh, shiney! Instead of featuritis, it's sectionitist, bolditis, table-itis.
So that's what I think ails Wikipedia in a nutshell. Many of these are addressed by Wikipedia policies, but when even Wikipedia's founder (Jimbo Wales) dislikes following them, how will they ever gain decent implementation? Especially when any editor with half a brain who does support them is just another uncool, uptight elitist who should be ignored. It's no wonder that Wikipedia today is still a nightmare of good information. Citing Wikipedia at the college level is still academic suicide. Unless their policies and people change throughout the chain of command, Wikipedia will never evolve to a real authoritative source that is a true encyclopedia. It's fun to read, but only as accurate and objective as the rest of the internet.
Do we really need a double heading for this story? This kinda reminds me why geeks are usually not tasked with documentation; they don't know anything about page layout. See Wikipedia for more examples.
In case you didn't notice, the mod system is all but broken due to mod point inflation and the granular range of scores itself. With the constant influx of new users who post well enough to earn mod points, each point loses value as more moderators enter the fray. Heavy-handed troll-control and editors with unlimited mod points reduce down-modding opportunities, meaning that most moderators look only for the happy posts to mod up. And so, we have vapid "oh cool!" posts ranked "insightful" and flamebait that nonetheless reaches +4. There are good moderators, but as with any democracy the naysayers get beaten down by the groupthink.
And there is groupthink. The moderation system established it and perpetuates it. Joe Blow makes one "interesting" (what ever the fuck that means) post and gets modded +5. My goodness, the majesty; a +5 score demonstrates his 5x greater intelligence. Post like him and eventually earn that precious +1 bonus. It's not hard. Fall into the mode of things; never swear (only "immature" Slashdotters do that, Steve Jobs be damned), be upbeat and never get too technical. Slashdot thrives on Newsweek-like tech breakdowns, they're just so fun to read! Car analogies are okay, but political ones are getting in style too. And if possible, add a liberal slant; Bush-bashing never gets old, no matter how irrelevant and plainly untrue (e.g. "Greenpeace activists don't like nuclear power today because Bush supports it." Greenpeace has never liked nuclear power, Bush or not.). And so we see the same types of posts espousing the same views getting modded to +5. There is seldom any K5-like convergence to ratings like "1.12"; a post shoots up to its final score immediately, lest a user have the cajones to dissent (and burn karma) and a mod actually cares to dig into the thread. Even Fark has more diverse and yes, intelligent posts than Slashdot. Its SNR is lower no doubt lower than that of Slashdot, but its signal is much more vibrant and diverse. K5 is better; a max score of 3.00 along with "unrated" starting scores reduce the perceived superiority of one thought over another, a -1 to +5 range just establishes a taller bureaucracy of opinions that every user attempts to climb. Slashdot's moderation system is just an utter failure, a system that rewards in areas it shouldn't and maintains a dialect of stupid on all levels.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit on Slashdot? Never...
But we visit it daily all the same.
Become an investor, not a trader. Before you buy, research the hell out of interesting stocks. After you buy, hold onto them and continue to study their performance and financial condition. Sell when the cracks (if ever) appear. You'll avoid the hustle and bust of a trader's life (more likely, death) and make more money with less work. It's also boring, which is why it's unpopular.
That said, I'll recommend the following books:
The Intelligent Investory, Ben Graham.
The Essays of Warren Buffett, Cunningham.
Contrarian Investment Strategies, Dreman.
Those books teach what others ignore, that identifying good stocks means identifying good companies. People do make money otherwise by gaming the market, selling on sentiment etc. But then again, you never hear of wealthy traders... investors like Buffett get all the attention, because value investing is what works. Get rich slowly or not at all.
When I was near their exhibit, they asked a lady to take off her skirt (presumably so that her silouhette would appear better).
It seemed like whole the activity was just too goofy for most people. Then again, people probably thought that about DDR at first too.
"I happened to watch Stargate Atlantis and there was an incredible scene that just caught the emotion and emergency."
After reading that, I must seriously question your ability to judge any film or video work.
I'll suggest UTRC, though I don't really know about the work environment (which seems to matter to you). Considering the projects of UTC proper though (high performance turbine engines, scramjets, rotorcraft etc.), I think it'd be exciting research for a MechE major.
Talk about link noise. Excessive linkage nullifies the use of a link as a highlight of key words. What a mess.
Legendary thread ahead.
As others have said, pay down your loans before attempting to invest. If you must invest, open an IRA and put your money in an S&P 500 index fund, which is almost guaranteed to gain 9% annually on average before inflation. As an IRA the gains will be tax-exempt. But do not attempt picking stocks on your own without at least a year of fantasy investing and constant research. Most mutual funds lose against the S&P 500, and those are run by professional fund managers. As a beginner, you might pick better stocks by getting lucky (if that interests you, consider poker and lottery tickets as well), or by extensive study which will likely bore you and take longer than maintaining linux. For a start, stick to index funds in an IRA, and unlike most people around your age, you might have a chance at retiring comfortably. You'll also outpace most of the pros without the number crunching insanity.
Shut the fuck up. Conspiracy Theory was just a movie, you know.
"Would you buy a Ferrari and put regular gas into it? I don't think so."
Actually, I would.
His first name actually is just "J," yes you can have a single letter as a name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Allard
>> Notice that every year except 2002, the stock price started accelerating after WWDC. Apple stock, therefore, is usually flat or slightly downward trending for the first half of the year.
You claim the years of 2003, 2004 and 2005 demonstrate a cyclical trend of AAPL, which should presumably carry through 2006. Notwithstanding the tiny sampling of three years, you're pulling something out of nothing. In 2003, the share price was increasing quickly several months before WWDC, and growth actually slowed immediately after. In 2004 overall growth was strong throughout the entire year, there is no flat or downward trend prior to WWDC. In 2005 lies your only possibly valid example of any "WWDC effect." One data point obviously cannot establish a trend, and the downward movement of the stock nearly centered on WWDC. There weren't 6-months of stagnation before June 6 followed by growth. It went down for 2 months before WWDC, then down for another 2 months before it turned up. There's no 6 months of falling, 6 months of rising anywhere So where's this cyclical you're talking about?
Yeah, it was nice. Anyways I jumped ship a year later; I got a new offer with even better pay. I love money.
It is very interesting that posts which lack any real insight are modded up liberally as long as the author sounds friendly and the post is made early.
>> one even works for a man who dropped out of his undergraduate college to study calligraphy
Steve Jobs?
Since about a year ago.
Obviously you haven't tried Steam recently (or ever) if you're considering a $300 Xbox 360 an alternative. It's about as painless as an online game distribution system can be. If you're ok with ordering something from Amazon, then you can tolerate Steam. Steam does not make you "do" any "crap," and it's a godsend for indie game developers.
Maybe someone should tell you that car manufacturers haven't been able to keep up with hybrid demand in the US for years. Believe it or not, Americans have been feeling pain at the pump for a long time. You might as well start telling people that smoking causes cancer.
I can see the coder-geek authorbase as the primary cause of Wikipedia's problems. Here are the issues I've noticed in the past. Many of these examples may have been rectified, but they still exist in countless other forms:
They're insidiously opinionated. Instead of saying wasabi is "fried with peas," they say it is "considered quite tasty with fried peas." Gee, "tasty" is completely objective I guess, not a matter of personal, ahem, taste, at all. Someone tries to argue them down, but they know they're "right," after all they learned C++ when they were 10.
They miss the forest for the trees. The article on AIDS has wonderful information on the disease's origins, treatment and spread throughout the world. Too bad there's no fucking organization to anything in the article, and the section titled, "Global epidemic" is precisely redundant with the one named, "Current status." It's like the typical geek's desk, awash in code printouts and spec sheets. There's good stuff in there, somewhere (he's sure) but he'll be damned if he can make any sense out of it (but hey it's like a puzzle and those are fun). He should just print one more copy instead of checking if it's already there, and organizing his shit.
They don't know how to write. If the spelling and language mechanics are correct, then it's good writing (which is like saying that any code that compiles is good code). There's no rule in Strunk & White about too many clauses in one sentence! Thus, the writing is perfect. Decent style, flowing sentences, consistent tone and voice are only for the weak-minded; hackers are made of sterner stuff (well, mentally).
They're obsessed with dumb trivia. Every article must have its "In popular culture" section, just to prove that they, like Ken Jennings, know stupid references to everything.
They don't know jackshit about page layout. Does every table need a full set of borders? Must LaTeX equations be fucking huge? Why can't editors use a color wheel (or common sense) to choose nicely matching colors? Deitel & Deitel is not the standard on typesetting or formatting; use a textbook that had an editor as a guide on page layout, like "Fundamentals of Aerodynamics" by Anderson. Clean tables without distracting borders, equations modestly marked by centering and italics (no huge font necessary), headings used only when needed. It's black and white because colors would be superfluous. But it's fun on Wikipedia to add superfluous formatting, it's just like adding new features to software. Oooh, shiney! Instead of featuritis, it's sectionitist, bolditis, table-itis.
So that's what I think ails Wikipedia in a nutshell. Many of these are addressed by Wikipedia policies, but when even Wikipedia's founder (Jimbo Wales) dislikes following them, how will they ever gain decent implementation? Especially when any editor with half a brain who does support them is just another uncool, uptight elitist who should be ignored. It's no wonder that Wikipedia today is still a nightmare of good information. Citing Wikipedia at the college level is still academic suicide. Unless their policies and people change throughout the chain of command, Wikipedia will never evolve to a real authoritative source that is a true encyclopedia. It's fun to read, but only as accurate and objective as the rest of the internet.
Google Checkout Launched
Do we really need a double heading for this story? This kinda reminds me why geeks are usually not tasked with documentation; they don't know anything about page layout. See Wikipedia for more examples.
Oh fuck, I made a political analogy. We're all in it.
>> a -1 to +5 range just establishes a taller bureaucracy of opinions that every user attempts to climb
And let me emphasize this; the only way to climb it is to game the system, which the current moderation system just asks for. It's like Congress.
In case you didn't notice, the mod system is all but broken due to mod point inflation and the granular range of scores itself. With the constant influx of new users who post well enough to earn mod points, each point loses value as more moderators enter the fray. Heavy-handed troll-control and editors with unlimited mod points reduce down-modding opportunities, meaning that most moderators look only for the happy posts to mod up. And so, we have vapid "oh cool!" posts ranked "insightful" and flamebait that nonetheless reaches +4. There are good moderators, but as with any democracy the naysayers get beaten down by the groupthink.
And there is groupthink. The moderation system established it and perpetuates it. Joe Blow makes one "interesting" (what ever the fuck that means) post and gets modded +5. My goodness, the majesty; a +5 score demonstrates his 5x greater intelligence. Post like him and eventually earn that precious +1 bonus. It's not hard. Fall into the mode of things; never swear (only "immature" Slashdotters do that, Steve Jobs be damned), be upbeat and never get too technical. Slashdot thrives on Newsweek-like tech breakdowns, they're just so fun to read! Car analogies are okay, but political ones are getting in style too. And if possible, add a liberal slant; Bush-bashing never gets old, no matter how irrelevant and plainly untrue (e.g. "Greenpeace activists don't like nuclear power today because Bush supports it." Greenpeace has never liked nuclear power, Bush or not.). And so we see the same types of posts espousing the same views getting modded to +5. There is seldom any K5-like convergence to ratings like "1.12"; a post shoots up to its final score immediately, lest a user have the cajones to dissent (and burn karma) and a mod actually cares to dig into the thread. Even Fark has more diverse and yes, intelligent posts than Slashdot. Its SNR is lower no doubt lower than that of Slashdot, but its signal is much more vibrant and diverse. K5 is better; a max score of 3.00 along with "unrated" starting scores reduce the perceived superiority of one thought over another, a -1 to +5 range just establishes a taller bureaucracy of opinions that every user attempts to climb. Slashdot's moderation system is just an utter failure, a system that rewards in areas it shouldn't and maintains a dialect of stupid on all levels.
I drive on Merritt and over the Sikorsky bridge twice a day. It's no fun. Sikorsky's an amazing company though. I work there now.