That may be true, but you can go to Barnes & Noble or Borders and find books off of the shelf that still teach things that way, with recent publication dates.
Anyway, if they're teaching dangerous programming practices, they should be removed. We don't need generations of ignorant PHP programmers causing SQL-injection in their projects.
Lack of namespaces and inconsistent function name / calling conventions -- yes. What else? I'll chime in with "making it easier to mix design and code than it is to separate the two."
there's about 7 different ways to do everything How's that a drawback? It makes it harder to read and maintain applications that you didn't author.
PHP sucks but when you get right down to it, so does pretty much everything else. You want something that really sucks -- RAILS. Being asked to do a RoR site because some suit heard it's cool is equivalent to being asked to code in a straight jacket! I couldn't agree more, but I do think that there are lessons that could be learned from Rails. Rails enforces templating, which is generally a good thing. I also like models for applications which don't need advanced database functionality. In fact, I think that MVC itself is a pretty decent programming model--it's just that most of the frameworks that implement it (like Rails) work for very specific application types, and any deviation from this norm requires more work than if you were implementing the site using a conventional paradigm.
Microsoft is able to diversify so well because of their OS (they money they made during their hardcore antitrust years is truly mindblowing)--but of course that doesn't mean that the OS is still their main product. You're probably right that they don't have a core anymore, however:
As an example, I'd be interested to see a chart comparing revenue from sales of Windows versus sales of Microsoft Office. I'd be rather surprised if they didn't tie, or even have Office out in front. In what, gross dollars? I'd be surprised if Office didn't surpass the OS, but I wouldn't expect it to be by a huge margin. In units sold? They sell far more copies of Windows. In retail units sold? Hard to say, but I'd guess that Office would win this one by a small margin.
Microsoft probably also makes a decent amount of money on Xbox 360-related products. They only recently started making profits on the consoles themselves, however they're bound to make good money on licensing, peripherals, and Gold accounts.
As to their diversification strategy, it seems like this is the standard practice: 1) See an area where someone else is making money. 2) Buy the company with the largest or second-largest marketshare. 3) Build up and promote the new division. New division probably doesn't make much, but it's helps the diversification strategy.
It's not so much that they're doing anything innovative--it's that they have massive acquisitions. They want to be all things technology--it's kinda frightening, when you think about it.
So why do they expect so much more from Internet ads? Because generally speaking, people have a hard time taking concepts from one domain and applying them in another.
Of course, in this case, it's not unreasonable to at least try something new. Never before have we had an advertising medium where direct, immediate feedback in the same context was even possible. You can't talk to your TV or write on your newspaper and have anyone receive your words. You have to switch contexts--pick up your phone--in order to respond to the advertiser.
I think that what we're seeing is that the current advertising scheme isn't working. It was a neat experiment, but the bubble's going to burst. We'll start seeing more obtrusive ads--ones that either halt your browsing experience while you view it (like TV--and we're seeing these more and more online as it is) or ads which take up a much larger portion of the screen (like newspapers.) That, or we'll see more sites go to a pay-per-use model, possibly with eventual government subsidies for certain sites (much like we have libraries today.)
This would make me far less likely to click on ads... If I'm no longer supporting the site I'm on by clicking an ad, then I lose all motivation to click on them. Well...that's what the advertisers want. They don't want you to click just to support your favorite site, they want you to click to find out more information and buy some product. It may be bad for the website, but that's largely irrelevant--if the site isn't getting visitors who generate sales, their ad revenue plummets anyway.
First of all, not that many people clear cookies. Second, the person is going to sign in eventually to buy the item--otherwise, this is all a moot point and further discussion is irrelevant.
Most people/will/ sign in, too. They'll sign in to their Live.com account or their Google account, and they'll probably never sign out. Their browsing history will be traceable across computers in this way. For those people who do sign out (and good for them--it's just good sense) then sure, this model of tracking won't work for them. There probably aren't a significant enough number of people for this to cause a problem, though.
Lots of geeks recommend Macs to their less-geeky family for the security of obscurity. It's just too bad that they're taking off so much that malware authors are likely to start targeting them soon.
I've clicked on ads before to learn more about a product, but I have never clicked and bought from the page that I clicked on. I'm confident that I could discern a phishing page from a real one, but I consider it safe practices to only enter sensitive information when I'm sure that I'm sending it to the people I think I am. It's just prudence--people come up with new attacks every day, and I might not hear about one before it's too late.
Of course, always going to the location bar and typing in the web address means that no click-through ad gets money from me. Microsoft's solution would presumably change that (though now that I think about it, my cookie policy might prevent it, too.) I don't have the slightest problem with advertisers making money, but they won't make it at the expense of my safe computing practices.
Actually, the answer probably lies somewhere between these extremes.
Almost every computer sold comes with Windows. The deals OEMs make with Microsoft vary--Dell probably pays about $50 per copy. At millions of machines sold per month (239 million sales in 2006, estimated 264 million in 2007), it's going to add up. Then you start talking about the volume licensing that Microsoft does, and the copies that they sell off of the shelf (at much, much higher prices, but to an ever growing market of Mac users who want to virtualize) and I don't think that it's fair to call it just "leverage."
Prism is an interesting idea, but I doubt that it will ever be more than a toy. I am curious, though: what happens when someone clicks on an off-site hyperlink in their Prismed Gmail? Does it take them to the link? Does it open a "real" instance of Firefox? How does Prism differentiate between legitimate portions of an application which are off-site?
One of the main web-safety concerns I have these days is with XSS and cookie stealing. It'd be pretty nice if I could keep instances of my browser completely segregated--banking details in one instance, webmail in another, Slashdot in another--so that without an actual browser/OS vulnerability, there would be no way for them to read the sensitive information in my browser profile. Prism looks like it could be leveraged to do this--and to some degree, you already can do it using different profiles. The tough part is figuring out when a site is legitimately accessing something from another domain.
Anecdote time. I recently had an absolutely awful experience with Citibank's website. I use the Firefox extension Noscript, and I needed to go to the Citibank website to check on some credit card information. I got to the front page and had to enable Javascript. When I logged in, it redirected me to a different domain, where again, I had to enable Javascript. Then when I told it that I needed to look at my credit card--you guessed it. I was sent to yet a third site and for the third time, I had to enable Javascript. Trying to keep all of this in a single browser instance is going to be a daunting task.
A work only has as much value as people are willing to pay to have a copy. If there was no copyright--no arbitrary scarcity, almost no one would pay for works. Why should they? You'd get those few people who donate because they want to support the artist, but it's unlikely that those would be significant.
All three forms if intellectual property are good in theory. The problem with the patent system you've described is that it doesn't match up with the reality of the US patent system. Most specifically, the specificity and lengthy examination process simply aren't true anymore (well, there may be a wait time between patent application and approval, but they aren't well examined.)
The biggest problem with copyright is that the length of the term has increased as technology has decreased the amount of time it takes to publish. That's bass-ackwards. If I can get my work out to everyone in the world in the blink of an eye, the copyright term should be decreased, though not necessarily proportionally.
If the punishment for pirating music was 10x the cost of what was pirated, I'd pirate everything I want. The likelihood of getting sued is low enough that the gamble would pay off.
I never saw HD players hit $99 anywhere. The best I saw was about $130 for HD-DVD. At that price they're almost certainly taking a loss--which is another manipulation in order to gain marketshare. I did see some High Definition SD-DVD players (upscalers) for $99 about a year ago, which many people confused for HD-DVD players.
Competition is almost universally good, but I don't think that competing formats are good for the consumer. When you have to buy extra parts for your widget to work, and when parts for competing widgets are incompatible, you end up with what are essentially mini-monopolies. This is where open standards come in. Competing implementations of the same standard are good.
Also, at least some studios were doing both. I didn't say or imply otherwise.
Sure, no doubt. There was bribery on both sides, and it's hard to say who would have won in either case (there's speculation that studios were "bought" before the Microsoft deal, on both sides.)
The idea is that competing products weren't allowed to compete on the merits of the product--rather, they were competing based upon who could grease the most palms.
In this case, however, it could turn out to be better for the consumer. If there hadn't been these bribes, who knows how long the format war would have lasted? I bought into HD-DVD and I think that it was the superior (for the consumer) product, but without these dirty tricks, the format war could have gone on for years longer, and any customer who wanted to upgrade to HD would have to either buy two separate players (or one combo player which is much more expensive and which doesn't include all of the features of any one player) or relegate themselves to only buying movies from studios who support that format. Worse, it might be a trend that the studios realize they could push further--imagine if each studio had its own format (as you see with DRM downloads, in some cases) requiring its own player?
That doesn't mean that allowing bribery, collusion, etc. is better in the general case.
A better metric for the consumer would be "miles per dollar." Unfortunately, the gasoline/dollar exchange rate fluctuates a lot, so it's pretty hard to use this ratio in marketing.
As for the costs of compressing the air--well, that's going to be hard to say. Much like electric cars, it's going to take energy. Moving the energy from an inefficient gasoline engine in a car to the more efficient power grid is a step in the right direction, but it's just a stopgap until we can get better sources of power (nuclear or truly renewable energy providing the majority of the power on the grid.)
Such a thing would not be HDCP compliant. Even if you don't want to watch films on it, lots of people do.
Regardless, you wouldn't put lossy compression on the cable from the computer to the monitor--you want information sent to the monitor from the computer to be lossless, anyway.
Coupled with the higher power consumption, you have a higher data rate. This means that you'll be using the device for a shorter period of time while syncing your mobile device to your computer. It's entirely possible that it will be a wash, overall, though I think that Bluetooth uses around 1/20th of the power, and has a listed data rate of only 3Mb/s.
Of course, the truth is that it's just too early to speculate on its performance, as real world performance rarely matches up with theoretical performance.
I don't really think that most file sharers would stop just because the production studio decided to give more money to the artist. Most people I know justify their copyright infringement by saying that they wouldn't have bought the song/album/movie anyway, so the studio isn't really out any money.
There are probably some who feel this way, but I doubt that it's the majority.
I think that was highly non-obvious, and others assumed you were making the same comparison that I thought you were making. Maybe English isn't your first language and the nuances weren't clear?
The post to which you replied had two clauses:
I'm sure the Air is not a 5-star product, let's admit it, they could have made it 0,5inch thicker and put some ports in that thing. and
I'll stay with my M1330 thanks. You replied:
What? They already did, it's called a MacBook. Ok, so the original poster was complaining about the Air not having as many ports, and that by making it 0.5" thicker, they could have added more ports. You reply that they did make a device which is like a Macbook Air, but thicker, heavier, and with the ports. Then you say that the prices are comparable, but you've switched from comparing the Macbook Air and the Macbook to comparing the Macbook and the M1330. Surely you can understand why people would become confused?
You have. They have entitlements to their fair share, being the ones who have and who are paying for those copyrighted works, and their distribution. They are the ones lowering the barrier of entry for artists. They spend lots of money promoting artists, encouraging them, and risking their all important finances (they're a corporation after all) in doing so. They at least deserve some money if you like the music. Imagine two scenarios: 1) I never buy The Killer's Hot Fuss. I hear their music on the radio, and I enjoy it, but I don't want to spend the money on the CD. 2) I download a copy of The Killer's Hot Fuss. I listen to it daily.
In neither of these scenarios does anyone associated with The Killer's get any money from me. I've harmed them as much in scenario 2 as I have in scenario 1. In scenario 2, they probably don't even know that I've downloaded their works.
The last quoted line of yours is the telling one. They don't deserve anything just because I like the music. They don't even deserve anything just because I listen to it, or just because I have a copy of it which I can listen to on demand, except for the fact that absurd laws claim that they do.
I'm not against copyright in the least. I think that we wouldn't live in the culture-rich world we have if it wasn't for them. But I can't abide by the tricks that the media cartels have used to increase their stranglehold on media. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act says it best:
This law effectively 'froze' the advancement date of the public domain in the United States for works covered by the older fixed term copyright rules. Under this Act, additional works made in 1923 or afterwards that were still copyrighted in 1998 will not enter the public domain until 2019 or afterwards (depending on the date of the product) unless the owner of the copyright releases them into the public domain prior to that or if the copyright gets extended again. Laws like this and the DMCA, which allows companies to arbitrarily remove certain of people's rights, are simply unacceptable. The major content producers who lobby for these laws aren't playing by the rules--why should we, as consumers?
So who is first? Who is going to give up their IP for their home for the greater good?
Thought as much, absolutly nobody. I'd do it. The only service I run from home is SSH, and I could do without that given my co-lo. Most moms and pops and grandmas who only use the Internet for browsing the web and sending e-mail could do it, too. Heck, they'd probably never notice.
It could be marketed pretty well, to boot. It's a free firewall, free virus protection, free RIAA protection. Real IPs could be leased at a higher rate, meaning the ISP makes more money.
Of course, I don't really want this to happen, but mostly because I'd like to see us get on with it and implement IPV6. I'm getting tired of all of the hoopla in the headlines.
Perhaps it's a problem with corporate culture? Stockholders won't like an expenditure to prepare for IPV6. It's money going out without any perceived benefit. They'd rake over the coals any manager who approved such a thing.
Once there's a benefit, however, things will be different. Even if it means spending three times as much in the scramble as you would have if you'd prepared earlier on, people will understand that it's vital to expand the IT interests.
You see this all the time in corporate America. The goal is to get gains no matter the cost. Long-term plans don't fly because, simply, they're not fast enough. They don't get that stock to go up RIGHT NOW. If your stock's not going up, people are going to be selling.
I don't think it's a fundamental problem with the stock market, however. I think it's what happens when you get greedy people buying stocks.
Slashdot Mirror
At first I thought I'd misspelled it--the correction would be welcome, but I was looking for the error.
Then I read down the rest of the post, and I burst out laughing. Thank you! I wish I had mod points to give you.
That may be true, but you can go to Barnes & Noble or Borders and find books off of the shelf that still teach things that way, with recent publication dates.
Anyway, if they're teaching dangerous programming practices, they should be removed. We don't need generations of ignorant PHP programmers causing SQL-injection in their projects.
Microsoft probably also makes a decent amount of money on Xbox 360-related products. They only recently started making profits on the consoles themselves, however they're bound to make good money on licensing, peripherals, and Gold accounts.
As to their diversification strategy, it seems like this is the standard practice:
1) See an area where someone else is making money.
2) Buy the company with the largest or second-largest marketshare.
3) Build up and promote the new division. New division probably doesn't make much, but it's helps the diversification strategy.
It's not so much that they're doing anything innovative--it's that they have massive acquisitions. They want to be all things technology--it's kinda frightening, when you think about it.
Of course, in this case, it's not unreasonable to at least try something new. Never before have we had an advertising medium where direct, immediate feedback in the same context was even possible. You can't talk to your TV or write on your newspaper and have anyone receive your words. You have to switch contexts--pick up your phone--in order to respond to the advertiser.
I think that what we're seeing is that the current advertising scheme isn't working. It was a neat experiment, but the bubble's going to burst. We'll start seeing more obtrusive ads--ones that either halt your browsing experience while you view it (like TV--and we're seeing these more and more online as it is) or ads which take up a much larger portion of the screen (like newspapers.) That, or we'll see more sites go to a pay-per-use model, possibly with eventual government subsidies for certain sites (much like we have libraries today.)
These are flaws, but not showstoppers.
/will/ sign in, too. They'll sign in to their Live.com account or their Google account, and they'll probably never sign out. Their browsing history will be traceable across computers in this way. For those people who do sign out (and good for them--it's just good sense) then sure, this model of tracking won't work for them. There probably aren't a significant enough number of people for this to cause a problem, though.
First of all, not that many people clear cookies. Second, the person is going to sign in eventually to buy the item--otherwise, this is all a moot point and further discussion is irrelevant.
Most people
Lots of geeks recommend Macs to their less-geeky family for the security of obscurity. It's just too bad that they're taking off so much that malware authors are likely to start targeting them soon.
I've clicked on ads before to learn more about a product, but I have never clicked and bought from the page that I clicked on. I'm confident that I could discern a phishing page from a real one, but I consider it safe practices to only enter sensitive information when I'm sure that I'm sending it to the people I think I am. It's just prudence--people come up with new attacks every day, and I might not hear about one before it's too late.
Of course, always going to the location bar and typing in the web address means that no click-through ad gets money from me. Microsoft's solution would presumably change that (though now that I think about it, my cookie policy might prevent it, too.) I don't have the slightest problem with advertisers making money, but they won't make it at the expense of my safe computing practices.
Actually, the answer probably lies somewhere between these extremes.
Almost every computer sold comes with Windows. The deals OEMs make with Microsoft vary--Dell probably pays about $50 per copy. At millions of machines sold per month (239 million sales in 2006, estimated 264 million in 2007), it's going to add up. Then you start talking about the volume licensing that Microsoft does, and the copies that they sell off of the shelf (at much, much higher prices, but to an ever growing market of Mac users who want to virtualize) and I don't think that it's fair to call it just "leverage."
Prism is an interesting idea, but I doubt that it will ever be more than a toy. I am curious, though: what happens when someone clicks on an off-site hyperlink in their Prismed Gmail? Does it take them to the link? Does it open a "real" instance of Firefox? How does Prism differentiate between legitimate portions of an application which are off-site?
One of the main web-safety concerns I have these days is with XSS and cookie stealing. It'd be pretty nice if I could keep instances of my browser completely segregated--banking details in one instance, webmail in another, Slashdot in another--so that without an actual browser/OS vulnerability, there would be no way for them to read the sensitive information in my browser profile. Prism looks like it could be leveraged to do this--and to some degree, you already can do it using different profiles. The tough part is figuring out when a site is legitimately accessing something from another domain.
Anecdote time. I recently had an absolutely awful experience with Citibank's website. I use the Firefox extension Noscript, and I needed to go to the Citibank website to check on some credit card information. I got to the front page and had to enable Javascript. When I logged in, it redirected me to a different domain, where again, I had to enable Javascript. Then when I told it that I needed to look at my credit card--you guessed it. I was sent to yet a third site and for the third time, I had to enable Javascript. Trying to keep all of this in a single browser instance is going to be a daunting task.
You can generalize what you've said.
A work only has as much value as people are willing to pay to have a copy. If there was no copyright--no arbitrary scarcity, almost no one would pay for works. Why should they? You'd get those few people who donate because they want to support the artist, but it's unlikely that those would be significant.
All three forms if intellectual property are good in theory. The problem with the patent system you've described is that it doesn't match up with the reality of the US patent system. Most specifically, the specificity and lengthy examination process simply aren't true anymore (well, there may be a wait time between patent application and approval, but they aren't well examined.)
The biggest problem with copyright is that the length of the term has increased as technology has decreased the amount of time it takes to publish. That's bass-ackwards. If I can get my work out to everyone in the world in the blink of an eye, the copyright term should be decreased, though not necessarily proportionally.
If the punishment for pirating music was 10x the cost of what was pirated, I'd pirate everything I want. The likelihood of getting sued is low enough that the gamble would pay off.
I never saw HD players hit $99 anywhere. The best I saw was about $130 for HD-DVD. At that price they're almost certainly taking a loss--which is another manipulation in order to gain marketshare. I did see some High Definition SD-DVD players (upscalers) for $99 about a year ago, which many people confused for HD-DVD players.
Competition is almost universally good, but I don't think that competing formats are good for the consumer. When you have to buy extra parts for your widget to work, and when parts for competing widgets are incompatible, you end up with what are essentially mini-monopolies. This is where open standards come in. Competing implementations of the same standard are good. Also, at least some studios were doing both. I didn't say or imply otherwise.
Sure, no doubt. There was bribery on both sides, and it's hard to say who would have won in either case (there's speculation that studios were "bought" before the Microsoft deal, on both sides.)
The idea is that competing products weren't allowed to compete on the merits of the product--rather, they were competing based upon who could grease the most palms.
In this case, however, it could turn out to be better for the consumer. If there hadn't been these bribes, who knows how long the format war would have lasted? I bought into HD-DVD and I think that it was the superior (for the consumer) product, but without these dirty tricks, the format war could have gone on for years longer, and any customer who wanted to upgrade to HD would have to either buy two separate players (or one combo player which is much more expensive and which doesn't include all of the features of any one player) or relegate themselves to only buying movies from studios who support that format. Worse, it might be a trend that the studios realize they could push further--imagine if each studio had its own format (as you see with DRM downloads, in some cases) requiring its own player?
That doesn't mean that allowing bribery, collusion, etc. is better in the general case.
A better metric for the consumer would be "miles per dollar." Unfortunately, the gasoline/dollar exchange rate fluctuates a lot, so it's pretty hard to use this ratio in marketing.
As for the costs of compressing the air--well, that's going to be hard to say. Much like electric cars, it's going to take energy. Moving the energy from an inefficient gasoline engine in a car to the more efficient power grid is a step in the right direction, but it's just a stopgap until we can get better sources of power (nuclear or truly renewable energy providing the majority of the power on the grid.)
Such a thing would not be HDCP compliant. Even if you don't want to watch films on it, lots of people do.
Regardless, you wouldn't put lossy compression on the cable from the computer to the monitor--you want information sent to the monitor from the computer to be lossless, anyway.
Coupled with the higher power consumption, you have a higher data rate. This means that you'll be using the device for a shorter period of time while syncing your mobile device to your computer. It's entirely possible that it will be a wash, overall, though I think that Bluetooth uses around 1/20th of the power, and has a listed data rate of only 3Mb/s.
Of course, the truth is that it's just too early to speculate on its performance, as real world performance rarely matches up with theoretical performance.
I don't really think that most file sharers would stop just because the production studio decided to give more money to the artist. Most people I know justify their copyright infringement by saying that they wouldn't have bought the song/album/movie anyway, so the studio isn't really out any money.
There are probably some who feel this way, but I doubt that it's the majority.
The post to which you replied had two clauses: I'm sure the Air is not a 5-star product, let's admit it, they could have made it 0,5inch thicker and put some ports in that thing. and I'll stay with my M1330 thanks. You replied: What? They already did, it's called a MacBook. Ok, so the original poster was complaining about the Air not having as many ports, and that by making it 0.5" thicker, they could have added more ports. You reply that they did make a device which is like a Macbook Air, but thicker, heavier, and with the ports. Then you say that the prices are comparable, but you've switched from comparing the Macbook Air and the Macbook to comparing the Macbook and the M1330. Surely you can understand why people would become confused?
1) I never buy The Killer's Hot Fuss. I hear their music on the radio, and I enjoy it, but I don't want to spend the money on the CD.
2) I download a copy of The Killer's Hot Fuss. I listen to it daily.
In neither of these scenarios does anyone associated with The Killer's get any money from me. I've harmed them as much in scenario 2 as I have in scenario 1. In scenario 2, they probably don't even know that I've downloaded their works.
The last quoted line of yours is the telling one. They don't deserve anything just because I like the music. They don't even deserve anything just because I listen to it, or just because I have a copy of it which I can listen to on demand, except for the fact that absurd laws claim that they do.
I'm not against copyright in the least. I think that we wouldn't live in the culture-rich world we have if it wasn't for them. But I can't abide by the tricks that the media cartels have used to increase their stranglehold on media. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act says it best: This law effectively 'froze' the advancement date of the public domain in the United States for works covered by the older fixed term copyright rules. Under this Act, additional works made in 1923 or afterwards that were still copyrighted in 1998 will not enter the public domain until 2019 or afterwards (depending on the date of the product) unless the owner of the copyright releases them into the public domain prior to that or if the copyright gets extended again. Laws like this and the DMCA, which allows companies to arbitrarily remove certain of people's rights, are simply unacceptable. The major content producers who lobby for these laws aren't playing by the rules--why should we, as consumers?
Thought as much, absolutly nobody. I'd do it. The only service I run from home is SSH, and I could do without that given my co-lo. Most moms and pops and grandmas who only use the Internet for browsing the web and sending e-mail could do it, too. Heck, they'd probably never notice.
It could be marketed pretty well, to boot. It's a free firewall, free virus protection, free RIAA protection. Real IPs could be leased at a higher rate, meaning the ISP makes more money.
Of course, I don't really want this to happen, but mostly because I'd like to see us get on with it and implement IPV6. I'm getting tired of all of the hoopla in the headlines.
Perhaps it's a problem with corporate culture? Stockholders won't like an expenditure to prepare for IPV6. It's money going out without any perceived benefit. They'd rake over the coals any manager who approved such a thing.
Once there's a benefit, however, things will be different. Even if it means spending three times as much in the scramble as you would have if you'd prepared earlier on, people will understand that it's vital to expand the IT interests.
You see this all the time in corporate America. The goal is to get gains no matter the cost. Long-term plans don't fly because, simply, they're not fast enough. They don't get that stock to go up RIGHT NOW. If your stock's not going up, people are going to be selling.
I don't think it's a fundamental problem with the stock market, however. I think it's what happens when you get greedy people buying stocks.