There is no moral perspective to shorting shares (unless you are acting on material insider information and your local regulating authority [SEC?] won't allow you to act on that particular information). When you buy shares, you are speculating that the stock has a good value. When you sell shares, you are speculating that the stock is not as good a value. Whether or not you own the shares before you sell (selling shares you already own versus shorting shares you don't own) makes no difference.
You won't be making money from people who bet against linux. You will be making money from people who bought the SCO shares you sold... poeple who think SCO stock has a good value. I suspect this has little to do with Linux.
Finally, the grammar nazi takes offense to the story: "Judge Kimball has stated that The SCO Group has failed to meet the requirements of the law in its complaint against Novell and has dismissed the case but gives TSG 30 days to try to meet the legal requirements." I've been around Slashdot long enough to realize the futility of pointing out stories' grammatical errors... but Dammit! A run-on sentience is a run-on sentence, and it pisses off the grammar nazi to no end.
Hey MoxCamel, don't make fun of a clunky office-object type interface just yet. Although the pen interface might appear clunky at first, I've came up with a few, more efficient, office item type interfaces:
1. Copy Files -- Everybody knows that Xerox machines are for copying things. When you want to copy a file to another directory, why go through the tedious process of [ctrl]click & drag to the directory where you want it? This is unintuitive. Instead, I suggest opening the file on your laptop/PDA, and then holding the screen over the Xerox machine in your office (don't forget to enter a billing code!) and pressing [copy]. Then you have created an identical copy of the file. Now THAT's intuitive!
2. Deleting file -- Same as copying a file, except done by shaking the PDA/laptop (with file opened) above a wastebasket. Don't shake too hard or you might delete an entire directory. This is an extremely efficient method, because when you are done, there is NO paper in the trash for the custodian to empty.
3. Converting file formats -- If there's one thing that everybody knows, it's that 3-hole punches are the symbol for converting documents into other formats. Whenever you want to convert, say, a MS Word document into a PDF, you would hold the 3-hole punch up next to your PDA/Laptop and punch it. There would have to be a switch on the 3-hole punch to pick which filetype to convert to, but that's just a technicality.
4. Accessing a database -- Companies require much less data now than they did in the 70s. This is because large amounts of data are stored in computer files rather than hardcopies. The problems with these "data" files is they only exist on a computer and are hard to organize (as opposed to hardcopy files). For example, a hardcopy file will be physically stored somewhere, while "data" computer files might be inadvertently copied or moved or transfered. I suggest having a physical proxy represent this computer "data" file. If you wanted to track down Customer X's information from accounting. You would walk down to accounting, pick up Customer X's accounting info (from a physical proxy, such as a book or folder), and when you placed it near your computer screen, Customer X's info would pop up. This is a very simple and intuitive way for people to share information.
Finally, the article implies in the first line that I would be in a work meeting with friends. What gives? Who sits in work meetings with friends. Some of my coworkers are work-friends, but the last thing we do in a meeting is sit around and chat about family photos. If they are friends, I will email them the family photos. if they are work colleagues, then maybe the pen would be good to transfer files with.
The reader would have to think in 3D, but it would be easier. Each letter would be the intersection of 3 words rather than 2 words. You would have one additional clue for each letter, hence it would be easier.
The only hard part would be visualization of a 3D or 4D matrix on a 2D sheet of paper. IMO, crossword enthusists would rather focus on *crossword* skills rather than 3D visualization skills, so higher-D puzzles would fail to catch on.
If you are just interested in creating a challenging crossword puzzle, then create a 1D crossword puzzle. I think it would be a challenge to create a 0D crossword puzzle. I can't even imagine how that would work.
Thank you smallpaul. Your comment was very lucid. It's amazing that people would think any differently than what you described... but then that must be what drives P/E ratios so high on stupid companies (AMZN,...)
Re:I think the real question is...
on
Google IPO Swami
·
· Score: 1
...does this person really think that getting wild guesses from thousands of non-investor types will help him determine anything?
Probably. All those same non-investor types will be the people placing bids on small lots of shares. I will be surprised if the auction does NOT result in some overpriced shares.
you are wrong. I have studied quantitative finance and I have never heard of the term "dutch auction effect". A google search doesn't return anything either... although google might be _censoring_ it until after the IPO:-)
The dutch auction had nothing to do with who captures the upside (besides google).
1 -- Winners' Curse means that everybody who bids and wins shares of google will have overestimated the value of google. Institutional investors have more resources and can more accurately value companies than individual investors. Thus, institutional investors will be less likely to overvalue the company, and less likely to obtain large blocks of shares.
2 -- Dutch Auction keeps out institutional investors for another reason: They don't get blocks of shares at an early price set by the underwriter. They have to bid on shares just like everybody else.
Google doesn't care who buys it's shares. They are lower class shares with almost no voting rights. All google's current share holders want is the highest $$$ for the shares as of issuance. Dutch auction (via winners' curse) assures this.
Re:You know, he's doing a bayesian survey
on
Google IPO Swami
·
· Score: 1
a bayesian average won't work in the case of google auction due to winners' curse. Winners' curse states that the winners of the auctions are the people who mis-estimated the value of the stock.
It's works best for google which is why they are holding a dutch auction. Winners' curse means they will earn more $$$ per share than what would have happened with a more traditional IPO route.
Of course, nothing is stopping ~volinsky from applying a winners' curse adjustment to his average. I didn't read the link, so he may, in fact, be doing just that.
yeah... either the mailroom or quant department. I guess i just never learned how to follow moving averages since they, and most of technical analysis, is similar to reading tea leaves. You, yourself say you can't trade on historical data anymore, yet in the very next paragraph you claim that the "historical" moving averages and other historical techniques predict the future. Technical analysis is no way to play the market. Traders who use technical analysis blow up.
...and thanks to "Winners' Curse", the US Treasury and IPO company always get *more* money than the percieved worth of the instrument (stock/bond/etc).
you have NO idea what you are talking about. The NASDAQ composite was up over 30% in 2003.
Please enlighten us what exactly you mean by "declining pattern", "breaking moving averages", and "downward positions". If you trying to say that the NASDAQ has been going down, I've already cleared that up in my first paragraph. I work in the finance industry and I have never heard such jargon.
If all you are interested in is money (which some people find an enjoyable pursuit), then you are in the wrong field. Get a law degree, accounting degree, or a business degree. Those tend to work with a lot of money, and they never have a short supply of it. No matter where our world goes, we'll always need lawyers, accountants, and businesspeople.
I would disagree. If you all you are interested in is making money, then stick with the computer engineering/Physics/Math degree, depending on where your true interests lie. After a M.S. or PhD in such topics, then it is very easy to switch to finance or law and you will have EVERY advantage over somebody who earned a a business/accounting degree. If you choose law, you will likely still need to attend law school, but you will have every advantage over other law school applicants.
These fields compensate handsomely for smart technical people. I speak this from experience as somebody with math/engineering background (B.S. / M.S.) and switched into quantitative finance. It turns out that quantitative finance is much more interesting than engineering ever was. It uses much more applied mathematics than engineering ever did (I was an engineer for a year), and finally, my salary is double what my engineering salary was (after 2 years experience in finance).
My bro-in-law has similar experience with math/C.S. and he switched to creating programs that generate legal documents. He didn't even have to go to law school.
I agree, USAPhotoMaps is great. I use it to overlay all my Garmin GPS tracks in new york city onto arieal photographs. This morning I ran the Brooklyn 1/2 marathon and should have that pic posted to gpsrunner.net within the hour.
My book *does* run linux. It's a homebrew Linux/LaTeX/XDVI terminal. I'm still working out weight & battery issues... as the CRT is too large to carry with me on the train. Many great books are available in LaTeX.
China booklets are great! I bought a chinese pellet gun when i was a kid. The manual warns, "Do not shoot the gun at the people," and later states, "The gun is for target practice and the killing of the rats.".
I've glanced at *every* comment and haven't seen a single Johny Nmemonic reference? Isn't this supposed to be a geek website? Doesn't anybody remember the elevator scene where Reeves plugs into "Memory Doubler" to increase what he can store in his brain?
Certicom announced on Tuesday that the winners, a team from Ars Technica and a member of TeamIMO, will both receive $2500 each for the matching distinguished pairs that has solved the elliptical curve encryption scheme."
The grammar nazi says, "Tsktsk!" ...will each receive $2500 for matching distinguished pairs that have solved...
It is my theory that capitalism, or more precisely free markets, lead to monopolies and oligopolies. As long as you keep introducing good products, have good marketing, have a lot of capital, keep trying hard, and/or have good employees, you will aways dominate. Companies like Microsoft, IBM, ExxonMobil, BP, Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, and others, will always dominate.
I noticed that you left Parmalat, Ford Motor Company, Barings Bank, and Corning. Both of the 2 points in your paragraph difficult to support. 1. Capitalism & free markets lead to monopolies and oligopolies: Not quite. although I agree that unregulated capitalism leads to unfair monopolies and the such... i also believe that the US Govmnt does a reasonable job (better or worst depending upon Presidential administration, etc) of regulating the markets. Look at the Investment Banking and Commercial Banking industry. A monopoly in these industries would have long term negative effects on the US currency and economy. For this reason, the Govt (US - Treasury, SEC, and State - Spitzer) regulate these industries very carefully. So capitalism (regulated free mkt) does not lead to monopolies & oligopolies. Also... if you are right and it does lead to Monopolies and oligopolies, then what would you suggest as an alternative??? Socialism? Govt run corps? These are not alternatives... but rather pass the monopolies from a private corp to the govt.. which creates a "mega-corp-govt".
2. As long as companies have good products/marketing/capital/try hard/good employees. Actually, I agree with this statement. A dominate corporation with these things will always dominate. They also need to adapt to changing markets (e.g. recording companies)... but in general you are correct. However, it's easy to say this, but nearly impossible to ensure. Look at the companies I list above: Parmalat was the largest Milk distributor in Italy and one of the largest in the US, and Europe. They were hit by a huge scandal. Enronr is another example of a scandal destroying a dominate corporation. You can't ensure good products and good employees. a company is lucky to have all the things above. it is nothing that can be ensured over the long run.
This comment is rather long winded and not very focused. Hopefully i made some point... but i don't feel like rereading it right now.
the guy mentions that he works for a manufacturing plant. Who knows what CNC mills a EFDs pass accross the network. He's probably debugging the controller software for various equipment that they have.
That's funny that so many people hit the ball. I find I can hit just as far, yet with much more contol if I put both hands on either side of the ball and use both thumbs to snap the ball. This works even if I've been drinking.
Remember that Microsoft Office, unlike TeX, is not a type setting system, but merely an office grade "word processor."
Heaven forbids that somebody might use a "word processor" to *gasp* process words! Why process words with a "word processor" when you can simply use a typesetting system. Is it because software that was designed to track concurrent changes to sourcecode offers more *features* than using something as lowly as a word processor's track-changes feature? (read paragraph as it is intended, to be sarcastic)
Seriously, if you need to use a word processor for something, then use a word processor. If you're typing a mathematical/technical paper and your colleagues use LaTeX, then use LaTeX. If your colleagues are all familiar with LaTeX and CVS, then use MS Word, because when you graduate from college, you'll realize that nobody in the *real world* uses LaTeX and CVS (programmers know CVS, researchers know LaTeX). It's pretty simple, actually. Using a word processor does not imply that you are forced to use MS Word. Use the right tool for the right job.
The original poster is correct. Perl teaches terrible programming habits. Have you ever tried code object oriented Perl? You have to struggle just to maintain consistent clean code.
I am more comfortable programming in perl than any other language.
Your statement about "writing a beautiful program" misses the point entirely. The point isn't to write a beautiful program. It's to write a consistent and maintainable program. Perl loses on the consistancy side. There's-more-than-one-way-to-do-it only makes sense when you want to write a one-shot script to accomplish a menial task. Not when other poeple may eventually look at your code.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for clearing that up.
You won't be making money from people who bet against linux. You will be making money from people who bought the SCO shares you sold... poeple who think SCO stock has a good value. I suspect this has little to do with Linux.
Finally, the grammar nazi takes offense to the story: "Judge Kimball has stated that The SCO Group has failed to meet the requirements of the law in its complaint against Novell and has dismissed the case but gives TSG 30 days to try to meet the legal requirements." I've been around Slashdot long enough to realize the futility of pointing out stories' grammatical errors... but Dammit! A run-on sentience is a run-on sentence, and it pisses off the grammar nazi to no end.
1. Copy Files -- Everybody knows that Xerox machines are for copying things. When you want to copy a file to another directory, why go through the tedious process of [ctrl]click & drag to the directory where you want it? This is unintuitive. Instead, I suggest opening the file on your laptop/PDA, and then holding the screen over the Xerox machine in your office (don't forget to enter a billing code!) and pressing [copy]. Then you have created an identical copy of the file. Now THAT's intuitive!
2. Deleting file -- Same as copying a file, except done by shaking the PDA/laptop (with file opened) above a wastebasket. Don't shake too hard or you might delete an entire directory. This is an extremely efficient method, because when you are done, there is NO paper in the trash for the custodian to empty.
3. Converting file formats -- If there's one thing that everybody knows, it's that 3-hole punches are the symbol for converting documents into other formats. Whenever you want to convert, say, a MS Word document into a PDF, you would hold the 3-hole punch up next to your PDA/Laptop and punch it. There would have to be a switch on the 3-hole punch to pick which filetype to convert to, but that's just a technicality.
4. Accessing a database -- Companies require much less data now than they did in the 70s. This is because large amounts of data are stored in computer files rather than hardcopies. The problems with these "data" files is they only exist on a computer and are hard to organize (as opposed to hardcopy files). For example, a hardcopy file will be physically stored somewhere, while "data" computer files might be inadvertently copied or moved or transfered. I suggest having a physical proxy represent this computer "data" file. If you wanted to track down Customer X's information from accounting. You would walk down to accounting, pick up Customer X's accounting info (from a physical proxy, such as a book or folder), and when you placed it near your computer screen, Customer X's info would pop up. This is a very simple and intuitive way for people to share information.
Finally, the article implies in the first line that I would be in a work meeting with friends. What gives? Who sits in work meetings with friends. Some of my coworkers are work-friends, but the last thing we do in a meeting is sit around and chat about family photos. If they are friends, I will email them the family photos. if they are work colleagues, then maybe the pen would be good to transfer files with.
The reader would have to think in 3D, but it would be easier. Each letter would be the intersection of 3 words rather than 2 words. You would have one additional clue for each letter, hence it would be easier.
The only hard part would be visualization of a 3D or 4D matrix on a 2D sheet of paper. IMO, crossword enthusists would rather focus on *crossword* skills rather than 3D visualization skills, so higher-D puzzles would fail to catch on.
If you are just interested in creating a challenging crossword puzzle, then create a 1D crossword puzzle. I think it would be a challenge to create a 0D crossword puzzle. I can't even imagine how that would work.
Thank you smallpaul. Your comment was very lucid. It's amazing that people would think any differently than what you described... but then that must be what drives P/E ratios so high on stupid companies (AMZN, ...)
Probably. All those same non-investor types will be the people placing bids on small lots of shares. I will be surprised if the auction does NOT result in some overpriced shares.
The dutch auction had nothing to do with who captures the upside (besides google).
1 -- Winners' Curse means that everybody who bids and wins shares of google will have overestimated the value of google. Institutional investors have more resources and can more accurately value companies than individual investors. Thus, institutional investors will be less likely to overvalue the company, and less likely to obtain large blocks of shares.
2 -- Dutch Auction keeps out institutional investors for another reason: They don't get blocks of shares at an early price set by the underwriter. They have to bid on shares just like everybody else.
Google doesn't care who buys it's shares. They are lower class shares with almost no voting rights. All google's current share holders want is the highest $$$ for the shares as of issuance. Dutch auction (via winners' curse) assures this.
It's works best for google which is why they are holding a dutch auction. Winners' curse means they will earn more $$$ per share than what would have happened with a more traditional IPO route.
Of course, nothing is stopping ~volinsky from applying a winners' curse adjustment to his average. I didn't read the link, so he may, in fact, be doing just that.
yeah... either the mailroom or quant department. I guess i just never learned how to follow moving averages since they, and most of technical analysis, is similar to reading tea leaves. You, yourself say you can't trade on historical data anymore, yet in the very next paragraph you claim that the "historical" moving averages and other historical techniques predict the future. Technical analysis is no way to play the market. Traders who use technical analysis blow up.
Auctions are a great model for the seller.
Please enlighten us what exactly you mean by "declining pattern", "breaking moving averages", and "downward positions". If you trying to say that the NASDAQ has been going down, I've already cleared that up in my first paragraph. I work in the finance industry and I have never heard such jargon.
Hmm. Grammar nazi has to type something this sentence for 20 seconds before /. lameness filter allows her to post a comment.
These fields compensate handsomely for smart technical people. I speak this from experience as somebody with math/engineering background (B.S. / M.S.) and switched into quantitative finance. It turns out that quantitative finance is much more interesting than engineering ever was. It uses much more applied mathematics than engineering ever did (I was an engineer for a year), and finally, my salary is double what my engineering salary was (after 2 years experience in finance).
My bro-in-law has similar experience with math/C.S. and he switched to creating programs that generate legal documents. He didn't even have to go to law school.
I agree, USAPhotoMaps is great. I use it to overlay all my Garmin GPS tracks in new york city onto arieal photographs. This morning I ran the Brooklyn 1/2 marathon and should have that pic posted to gpsrunner.net within the hour.
My book *does* run linux. It's a homebrew Linux/LaTeX/XDVI terminal. I'm still working out weight & battery issues... as the CRT is too large to carry with me on the train. Many great books are available in LaTeX.
China booklets are great! I bought a chinese pellet gun when i was a kid. The manual warns, "Do not shoot the gun at the people," and later states, "The gun is for target practice and the killing of the rats.".
The grammar nazi officially commends you for clearing that up.
I've glanced at *every* comment and haven't seen a single Johny Nmemonic reference? Isn't this supposed to be a geek website? Doesn't anybody remember the elevator scene where Reeves plugs into "Memory Doubler" to increase what he can store in his brain?
It must have been pretty chilly in hell today, seeing as a Slashdot editor made a better grammatical choice than an actual writer.
1. Capitalism & free markets lead to monopolies and oligopolies: Not quite. although I agree that unregulated capitalism leads to unfair monopolies and the such... i also believe that the US Govmnt does a reasonable job (better or worst depending upon Presidential administration, etc) of regulating the markets. Look at the Investment Banking and Commercial Banking industry. A monopoly in these industries would have long term negative effects on the US currency and economy. For this reason, the Govt (US - Treasury, SEC, and State - Spitzer) regulate these industries very carefully. So capitalism (regulated free mkt) does not lead to monopolies & oligopolies. Also... if you are right and it does lead to Monopolies and oligopolies, then what would you suggest as an alternative??? Socialism? Govt run corps? These are not alternatives... but rather pass the monopolies from a private corp to the govt.. which creates a "mega-corp-govt".
2. As long as companies have good products/marketing/capital/try hard/good employees. Actually, I agree with this statement. A dominate corporation with these things will always dominate. They also need to adapt to changing markets (e.g. recording companies)... but in general you are correct. However, it's easy to say this, but nearly impossible to ensure. Look at the companies I list above: Parmalat was the largest Milk distributor in Italy and one of the largest in the US, and Europe. They were hit by a huge scandal. Enronr is another example of a scandal destroying a dominate corporation. You can't ensure good products and good employees. a company is lucky to have all the things above. it is nothing that can be ensured over the long run.
This comment is rather long winded and not very focused. Hopefully i made some point... but i don't feel like rereading it right now.
the guy mentions that he works for a manufacturing plant. Who knows what CNC mills a EFDs pass accross the network. He's probably debugging the controller software for various equipment that they have.
That's funny that so many people hit the ball. I find I can hit just as far, yet with much more contol if I put both hands on either side of the ball and use both thumbs to snap the ball. This works even if I've been drinking.
Heaven forbids that somebody might use a "word processor" to *gasp* process words! Why process words with a "word processor" when you can simply use a typesetting system. Is it because software that was designed to track concurrent changes to sourcecode offers more *features* than using something as lowly as a word processor's track-changes feature? (read paragraph as it is intended, to be sarcastic)
Seriously, if you need to use a word processor for something, then use a word processor. If you're typing a mathematical/technical paper and your colleagues use LaTeX, then use LaTeX. If your colleagues are all familiar with LaTeX and CVS, then use MS Word, because when you graduate from college, you'll realize that nobody in the *real world* uses LaTeX and CVS (programmers know CVS, researchers know LaTeX). It's pretty simple, actually. Using a word processor does not imply that you are forced to use MS Word. Use the right tool for the right job.
The original poster is correct. Perl teaches terrible programming habits. Have you ever tried code object oriented Perl? You have to struggle just to maintain consistent clean code.
I am more comfortable programming in perl than any other language.
Your statement about "writing a beautiful program" misses the point entirely. The point isn't to write a beautiful program. It's to write a consistent and maintainable program. Perl loses on the consistancy side. There's-more-than-one-way-to-do-it only makes sense when you want to write a one-shot script to accomplish a menial task. Not when other poeple may eventually look at your code.