And of course, you can make the same returns by getting lucky at the craps table . . . This kind of investing tends to be basically gambling (not saying all the time, but most of the time for most people). But good for you in this particular instance. Wonder what your 5 year, or 30 year returns will be. (Also, it's a 900% gain, not 1000%.)
It's more to do with his attitude, the history behind his success, and the fundamentals behind the technology he "invented". Also, moves like this one that are just the type of thing you'd expect from someone who was basically lucky in his success.
The same isn't/wasn't generally said about Google's founders who aren't all that much older -- 10 years older now, but were roughly the same age when Google IPO'd.
I also started investing in late 2006, and 2007. I continued to put money in as the market went down (even though I'd lost over 50% of my initial investments at that point). Now I'm up well over 30% (or about 6% a year, but that's not considering the fact that my investment capital increased over the years). I'm also relatively well diversified and largely in index funds, so I'm guessing you just didn't reinvest enough when the market looked scary (which is a very typical investor mistake).
But yeah, certainly not a long enough period for buy-and-hold long-term returns, regardless.
It wasn't, it was "financial engineers" or "quants" (people with engineering/science backgrounds that were crossed over to finance positions) that created/engineered mortgaged derivatives that caused a huge housing bubble and so on and so forth XD
Nope, it was a concurrence of greedy (in a free-market way, not in a bad way) people making short-term decisions that were in their own best interests because companies lost sight of providing appropriately long-term incentives, and government decided to abandon regulations and let companies decide for themselves what's best for the country.
We are not in another tech bubble. There are certainly isolated instances of overvaluation, but overall, there isn't a consistent pattern of it. Take Groupon for instance. It's almost certainly headed for failure, but people have pretty much already caught on to that and the stock has already receded from its IPO. In fact, it never really enjoyed a large and long stock burst that you'd expect in a bubble. Pandora is also well below its IPO. Facebook, while well overvalued at $100B in my opinion, seems to have a solid revenue and profit stream and isn't particularly indicative of a bubble (though buying Instagram at $1B certainly doesn't make me want to be an investor, long term).
I think there was some realistic fear of a tech bubble back before any of these "sexy" IPOs actually took place and people seemed overly eager for them. But with a little bit of bubble-fear from the media, people seem to have stepped back and are respecting true valuations again . . . more or less.
And yeah, Zuckerberg making a dumb (or more probably, cronyism-based) decision for his company is neither here nor there.
The theory behind it is sound: Lower the cost of anything and people will use more of it, including the cost of running energy consuming equipment. But as with many economic ideas that are sound theory (like the idea that you can raise government revenues by cutting tax rates), the trick is in knowing how far to take them in reality. (Cutting tax rates from 100% to 50% would certainly raise revenues. Cutting them from 50% to 0% would just as surely lower them.)
Is it possible to reasonably feel threatened without anyone reasonably intending to threaten? For instance, could Trayvon have reasonably perceived a threat of death simply by seeing Zimmerman approaching him with a (holstered) gun? Could then Zimmerman reasonably perceive a threat of death after Trayvon punched him (justifiably, due to his own perceived threat). In that case, each person reasonably felt a threat of death without any wrongdoing on the others' part. In that case, could either person successfully claim self-defense (or stand your ground, or whatever)? Or can an entirely reasonably, unintentionally threatening, action void future claims to self-defense? Either way, there seems to be a problem.
That said, there are a few places where it is less good. For example, it doesn't have integrated route finding... The search feature in OSM is pretty poor as well.
Well. I was getting mildly interested in OSM, until you mentioned these things. Searching and route-finding is 90% of what I use maps for... Too bad. Well, there's also the fact that as it gets more use it'll get worse too (the instance of Google not covering Sarajevo, for instance, seemed to be a pretty clear case of the country demanding they don't cover them, whereas OSM has fallen through the cracks . . . for now).
This is a common problem of unfunded community-driven (not to be confused with open-source) projects. They work great for a relatively small number of users, but as soon as they get anywhere near mainstream, they start falling apart. Scaling fail.
Um, no. The majority of the money apple makes on iPhones comes from the carriers, who pay the difference between the discounted $200 consumers pay (with a contract) and the retail price (~$700).
I agree with most of what you say. First of all, the whole concept of the ending is terrible, deus-ex machina and all that, blah blah, others have said it better, it's a terrible concept. But even aside from that, it is totally idiotic that they didn't even try to give us some ending slides and voice overs. It's sad that fans can come up with something so much more satisfying than their crappy endings. This site has made me feel a lot better about the endings (but a lot worse about Bioware/EA):
there's been a huge backlash of people demanding that the ending be changed, with one going so far as to complain to the FCC.
Like you said, they're using their right to free speech. I too demand that Bioware change the ending . . . or else I won't buy any more of their games. No one says they're obligated to change it, there's always the implicit or explicit assumption that failure to satisfy your consumers' demands, simply means they won't be your consumers anymore. You seem to be saying on the one hand people should be free to voice their feelings on the ending, but on the other they should only do it in a way that doesn't tell Bioware what they actually want (ie a new ending). Makes no sense.
As for the FCC, there's some valid consideration if they actually advertised 16 "vastly" different endings that depended on your choices in the game (as they seemed to be in interviews). If that's the case, then people are almost certainly entitled to refunds (and maybe damages?) for false advertising.
Doesn't make it justified if you assaulted him (with your gun in hand) in the first place.
The only thing that's clear to me in this case is that a) Treyvon wasn't in fact doing anything illegal or out of the ordinary, and b) Zimmerman chose to follow and confront him against the direction of the 911 operator. It's very hard to see how this isn't manslaughter at the least. Otherwise, you set a pretty scary precedent that it's somehow okay to purposefully instigate a fight with someone in order to shoot them and later claim self-defense/stand-your-ground.
Truth. I agree expulsion is very harsh for this, but it is a lesson better learned sooner than later. I was fired from a very good job for something along similar lines (and maybe even more benign). It was a very painful lesson, but I certainly will be much more careful about how I use company hardware in the future.
On the other hand, some lessons just don't stick until you're a little older. I'm not sure a high school kid will really internalize this situation and come out with any benefit. And expulsion for a kid is probably significantly worse than getting fired from a good job. That sort of thing at that point in life can have much longer-reaching consequences (not getting into a good college, for example). Not that the school cared about what was best for their students, so much as simply covering their ass or whatever.
A lot of their other semi-experimental projects that have been shut down recently (Wave, for example) were also sunk costs, but they were shut down nonetheless, in a bid to streamline Google's services. So no, sunk cost alone is not enough justification anymore for Google to continue a project. There must be something else about GVoice to justify its continued existence. (Especially because it's almost certainly more costly maintenance-wise than something like Wave.)
You don't need any advantage to do this. Just a little luck and a big bankroll. Twice, I've won over 1k in Vegas starting with just 200, betting 25-50 at a time. (And a third time, I lost my starting 200 and that was it.) If I started with 1mm and bet 100k a hand, I'd have won in the 4mm range each of those times too. Assuming I had the stomach for it of course. And that's without having dropped enough in the past to get the casinos to offer you the kinds of deals they did for this guy.
The only story here is who let this guy make such big bets. Other than that, I'm sure these sorts of winnings pretty much happen all the time, just people aren't particularly forward about discussing it.
Except it's not really a software patent, is it? It's really just an idiotic patent, and looks like our system actually managed to catch it this time. So the summary really should read: "Idiot who filed idiotic patent can't handle rejection."
Or worse. 15 years olds can be charged with a felony and forced to register as sex offenders for sexting naked pictures of themselves.
That's not to say I agree or disagree with reddit here (I have no idea what these subreddits actually consisted of), just agreeing that the reality is not always as black and white as the phrase "child pornography" evokes.
I'm always slightly tempted to find a solution for scanning paperwork, but it's just not worth it. Three years is about the most time you'll need any of that stuff -- it's not like photos and such that you want to digitize to keep forever and have easy access to. So throw everything in a box during the year. It's easy enough to find what you need through one year's paperwork. Then sometime after new years, box it up and throw it in a closet. After 3 years, shred it.
If you want to keep track of finances there are much better solutions than scanning receipts. For example, Mint.com.
The question is why did they reverse split in the first place? It's pretty rare and carries a stigma (which could be the causation, yes), so I imagine there must have been a very good reason for it.
It is funny how stock splits almost always end up bumping value, while reverse stock splits do the opposite...
Not so funny. The primary reason a stock splits is that it's going up, so makes sense that it'd keep going up. And reverse splits happen when a stock is already dropping. Correlation, not causation.
Slashdot Mirror
And of course, you can make the same returns by getting lucky at the craps table . . . This kind of investing tends to be basically gambling (not saying all the time, but most of the time for most people). But good for you in this particular instance. Wonder what your 5 year, or 30 year returns will be. (Also, it's a 900% gain, not 1000%.)
It's more to do with his attitude, the history behind his success, and the fundamentals behind the technology he "invented". Also, moves like this one that are just the type of thing you'd expect from someone who was basically lucky in his success.
The same isn't/wasn't generally said about Google's founders who aren't all that much older -- 10 years older now, but were roughly the same age when Google IPO'd.
Explain. It wasn't inflation that caused the housing bubble. I don't really see how a gold-standard would've prevented it.
I also started investing in late 2006, and 2007. I continued to put money in as the market went down (even though I'd lost over 50% of my initial investments at that point). Now I'm up well over 30% (or about 6% a year, but that's not considering the fact that my investment capital increased over the years). I'm also relatively well diversified and largely in index funds, so I'm guessing you just didn't reinvest enough when the market looked scary (which is a very typical investor mistake).
But yeah, certainly not a long enough period for buy-and-hold long-term returns, regardless.
Especially given the history of who was offering it in this case . . .
It wasn't, it was "financial engineers" or "quants" (people with engineering/science backgrounds that were crossed over to finance positions) that created/engineered mortgaged derivatives that caused a huge housing bubble and so on and so forth XD
Nope, it was a concurrence of greedy (in a free-market way, not in a bad way) people making short-term decisions that were in their own best interests because companies lost sight of providing appropriately long-term incentives, and government decided to abandon regulations and let companies decide for themselves what's best for the country.
We are not in another tech bubble. There are certainly isolated instances of overvaluation, but overall, there isn't a consistent pattern of it. Take Groupon for instance. It's almost certainly headed for failure, but people have pretty much already caught on to that and the stock has already receded from its IPO. In fact, it never really enjoyed a large and long stock burst that you'd expect in a bubble. Pandora is also well below its IPO. Facebook, while well overvalued at $100B in my opinion, seems to have a solid revenue and profit stream and isn't particularly indicative of a bubble (though buying Instagram at $1B certainly doesn't make me want to be an investor, long term).
I think there was some realistic fear of a tech bubble back before any of these "sexy" IPOs actually took place and people seemed overly eager for them. But with a little bit of bubble-fear from the media, people seem to have stepped back and are respecting true valuations again . . . more or less.
And yeah, Zuckerberg making a dumb (or more probably, cronyism-based) decision for his company is neither here nor there.
This is similar in nature to the Laffer curve. It depends where exactly on the curve you are, and we have no real idea (in either case).
Debunking the Jevons Paradox:
The theory behind it is sound: Lower the cost of anything and people will use more of it, including the cost of running energy consuming equipment. But as with many economic ideas that are sound theory (like the idea that you can raise government revenues by cutting tax rates), the trick is in knowing how far to take them in reality. (Cutting tax rates from 100% to 50% would certainly raise revenues. Cutting them from 50% to 0% would just as surely lower them.)
Is it possible to reasonably feel threatened without anyone reasonably intending to threaten? For instance, could Trayvon have reasonably perceived a threat of death simply by seeing Zimmerman approaching him with a (holstered) gun? Could then Zimmerman reasonably perceive a threat of death after Trayvon punched him (justifiably, due to his own perceived threat). In that case, each person reasonably felt a threat of death without any wrongdoing on the others' part. In that case, could either person successfully claim self-defense (or stand your ground, or whatever)? Or can an entirely reasonably, unintentionally threatening, action void future claims to self-defense? Either way, there seems to be a problem.
That said, there are a few places where it is less good. For example, it doesn't have integrated route finding... The search feature in OSM is pretty poor as well.
Well. I was getting mildly interested in OSM, until you mentioned these things. Searching and route-finding is 90% of what I use maps for... Too bad. Well, there's also the fact that as it gets more use it'll get worse too (the instance of Google not covering Sarajevo, for instance, seemed to be a pretty clear case of the country demanding they don't cover them, whereas OSM has fallen through the cracks . . . for now).
This is a common problem of unfunded community-driven (not to be confused with open-source) projects. They work great for a relatively small number of users, but as soon as they get anywhere near mainstream, they start falling apart. Scaling fail.
Um, no. The majority of the money apple makes on iPhones comes from the carriers, who pay the difference between the discounted $200 consumers pay (with a contract) and the retail price (~$700).
God. Who's saying they're entitled?!? Where do you get this from? I'd love to see where you seem to think everyone is acting all entitled over this.
I agree with most of what you say. First of all, the whole concept of the ending is terrible, deus-ex machina and all that, blah blah, others have said it better, it's a terrible concept. But even aside from that, it is totally idiotic that they didn't even try to give us some ending slides and voice overs. It's sad that fans can come up with something so much more satisfying than their crappy endings. This site has made me feel a lot better about the endings (but a lot worse about Bioware/EA):
http://shannon.users.sonic.net/masseffect/
there's been a huge backlash of people demanding that the ending be changed, with one going so far as to complain to the FCC.
Like you said, they're using their right to free speech. I too demand that Bioware change the ending . . . or else I won't buy any more of their games. No one says they're obligated to change it, there's always the implicit or explicit assumption that failure to satisfy your consumers' demands, simply means they won't be your consumers anymore. You seem to be saying on the one hand people should be free to voice their feelings on the ending, but on the other they should only do it in a way that doesn't tell Bioware what they actually want (ie a new ending). Makes no sense.
As for the FCC, there's some valid consideration if they actually advertised 16 "vastly" different endings that depended on your choices in the game (as they seemed to be in interviews). If that's the case, then people are almost certainly entitled to refunds (and maybe damages?) for false advertising.
She should just be happy she's in Toronto. If she were in the US, it'd be strip search time.
Doesn't make it justified if you assaulted him (with your gun in hand) in the first place.
The only thing that's clear to me in this case is that a) Treyvon wasn't in fact doing anything illegal or out of the ordinary, and b) Zimmerman chose to follow and confront him against the direction of the 911 operator. It's very hard to see how this isn't manslaughter at the least. Otherwise, you set a pretty scary precedent that it's somehow okay to purposefully instigate a fight with someone in order to shoot them and later claim self-defense/stand-your-ground.
Truth. I agree expulsion is very harsh for this, but it is a lesson better learned sooner than later. I was fired from a very good job for something along similar lines (and maybe even more benign). It was a very painful lesson, but I certainly will be much more careful about how I use company hardware in the future.
On the other hand, some lessons just don't stick until you're a little older. I'm not sure a high school kid will really internalize this situation and come out with any benefit. And expulsion for a kid is probably significantly worse than getting fired from a good job. That sort of thing at that point in life can have much longer-reaching consequences (not getting into a good college, for example). Not that the school cared about what was best for their students, so much as simply covering their ass or whatever.
A lot of their other semi-experimental projects that have been shut down recently (Wave, for example) were also sunk costs, but they were shut down nonetheless, in a bid to streamline Google's services. So no, sunk cost alone is not enough justification anymore for Google to continue a project. There must be something else about GVoice to justify its continued existence. (Especially because it's almost certainly more costly maintenance-wise than something like Wave.)
You don't need any advantage to do this. Just a little luck and a big bankroll. Twice, I've won over 1k in Vegas starting with just 200, betting 25-50 at a time. (And a third time, I lost my starting 200 and that was it.) If I started with 1mm and bet 100k a hand, I'd have won in the 4mm range each of those times too. Assuming I had the stomach for it of course. And that's without having dropped enough in the past to get the casinos to offer you the kinds of deals they did for this guy.
The only story here is who let this guy make such big bets. Other than that, I'm sure these sorts of winnings pretty much happen all the time, just people aren't particularly forward about discussing it.
Except it's not really a software patent, is it? It's really just an idiotic patent, and looks like our system actually managed to catch it this time. So the summary really should read: "Idiot who filed idiotic patent can't handle rejection."
Or worse. 15 years olds can be charged with a felony and forced to register as sex offenders for sexting naked pictures of themselves.
That's not to say I agree or disagree with reddit here (I have no idea what these subreddits actually consisted of), just agreeing that the reality is not always as black and white as the phrase "child pornography" evokes.
I'm always slightly tempted to find a solution for scanning paperwork, but it's just not worth it. Three years is about the most time you'll need any of that stuff -- it's not like photos and such that you want to digitize to keep forever and have easy access to. So throw everything in a box during the year. It's easy enough to find what you need through one year's paperwork. Then sometime after new years, box it up and throw it in a closet. After 3 years, shred it.
If you want to keep track of finances there are much better solutions than scanning receipts. For example, Mint.com.
The question is why did they reverse split in the first place? It's pretty rare and carries a stigma (which could be the causation, yes), so I imagine there must have been a very good reason for it.
It is funny how stock splits almost always end up bumping value, while reverse stock splits do the opposite...
Not so funny. The primary reason a stock splits is that it's going up, so makes sense that it'd keep going up. And reverse splits happen when a stock is already dropping. Correlation, not causation.
Dude, RTFA. It clearly explains how he uses relativity clouds to achieve these feets.