The combination of depreciation, dropping prices, and financing costs probably means they install new systems when they need it. No one in their right mind buys 9000 computers if they only need 4500.
Saying the system isn't perfect is like insisting precision equipment manufacturing equipment can never be made. The original weights and measures weren't accurate to a hundred decimal places. We use faulty things everyday, and the highest quality software and precision today will look like a joke in 30 years.
Worst case scenario, you get a wrong proof. You'll notice eventually... And find out what was wrong, and end up with a better proving program. Best case scenario, you discover proofs that are impossible for humans to discover. I think this is a member of the set 'no brainers.'
I'm afraid too. In the '80s, lots of businessmen talk about American enterprise losing its soul. Levereged buyouts started taking over the 'socially responsible' companies, hacking them apart, selling the new soulless company (now with n% more profit!), and making a tidy profit. Since then, being a public company means you need to watch your stock price. When to take the chance to forward a social agenda or pull your punches, you may end up on the wrong side of a hostile takeover.
If someone offers you $10 billion dollars for something, and you think may be worth more, you turn it down. Because, once you tell everyone else the minimum you're worth is $10 billion, you create a market mechanism to prop the company up to at least that price. MS won't attempt a hostile takeover because of the anti-trust implications, but its nice to have a $10 billion offer to fall back on.
Re:Manufacturers are doing what they're supposed t
on
KISS
·
· Score: 1
Those 15% of the people that think that they have an HDTV, probably bought something that was overpriced, and might end up buying equipment that would only work to it's fullest with a HDTV system. They're making money off of the stupid.
Fraud occurs to smart people too. Some companies put "Receives HDTV signals" or some such statement, when they mean "Normal TV that can take HDTV input". Deception is fraud, and the govt should be intervening.
RTFM - He referenced previous works people can't read because it isnt in English. Second paragraph: "This tretis, divided in 5 parties, wol I shewe the under full light reules and naked wordes in Englissh, for Latyn ne canst thou yit but small, my litel sone. But natheles suffise to the these trewe conclusions in Englissh as wel as sufficith to these noble clerkes Grekes these same conclusions in Grek; and to Arabiens in Arabik, and to Jewes in Ebrew, and to the Latyn folk in Latyn; whiche Latyn folk had hem first out of othere dyverse langages, and writen hem in her owne tunge, that is to seyn, in Latyn."
Similarly, if someone takes your CD, it's theft. If it's an illegal CD, they're just charged with stealing while you get charged with copyright violation. If they threaten you to take it by force, its assault. If they touch you while taking it, its battery. These vigilante teams are strongly discouraged in case law, and will not find a court that will be too lenient.
It's a PR stunt that will land RIAA employees in jail, and since they're acting within the scope of employment, this opens up massive lawsuits against the RIAA that will quickly go through. If a manager tells an employee to steal, then the RIAA itself will be charged with that theft as the manager is an agent of the company.
"Citizen's Arrest" is legal, but of course if the are guilty of a "false arrest" it's actually "False imprisonment" or "kidnapping" so they had better be damned sure they can make the case stick, or they're going to jail.
1) Spend n billion dollars making Linux better than MS 2) Tell everyone its free and it supports everything they need. Provide them free OS CD's and downloading bandwidth. 3) Only they need IBM to migrate businesses. For a nominal fee, of course. After all, they practically created Linux, right? 4) Then savor the shocked look on Bill's face.
The answer is definitely not a media company. Media is very expensive, a totally different business, and in the information age, it's a damned business model.
More intriguing would be a new business model they need big cash to develope.
But the truth is the VCs want cash. Thats how VCs get money to give money to new Googles, so they can find a couple they can sell. They're betting Google's glory days are today, not tomorrow. They have to cash out at some point.
$200M growing 20% a year isn't worth $12B, considering how fast technology changes, Google will be mature within 5 years. 1.2^5 (200M)/12B = 4% ROI maybe? But how much is it worth to Microsoft, Time Warner, USAInteractive, or Yahoo!? Probably still not that much.
I don't think the market cap will be that high. $6 billion is still speculative, and it really doesnt deserve all the attention its getting unless they can actually create phenomenal growth for a long period of time.
The system goes basically like so: Everybody and their uncle places a bid. Bids are taken from the highest price to the lowest price at the end. So bid high, and you'll get in.
If a histogram of bids looks like hyperbola, the lowest accepted bid is k, the shares outstanding n for p percent of the company, and the "market cap" is then nk/p. And the money raised is the area under the histrogram right of k >nk. Sounds egalitarian, but its pretty sneaky actually.
You're at least half right. But this isn't a question of information about prices - if it were, NASDAQ and the ECN would be off the hook. This is a question of whether the ECN executed orders that should not have been executed and NASDAQ didn't cancel them all. That's when risk minimizers are hit.
If I market buy because the ticker says a $50 stock is selling at $40, it goes through between 10:46 and 10:58, then NASDAQ is right to cancel at 12:30: no problem. If my option straddle executes on the volatility on both sides, one before and one after 10:58, but NASDAQ cancels the options in-the-money (on Instinet) but not the options out-the-money (on another ECN), then its a problem. If I'm an idiot, and leave those options open unchecked through a halt, then its my fault for engaging in a risky behavior and getting slammed in the ensuing short-squeeze.
Other stocks in the sector were off by 10%, so it was not stupidity to think that a 20% move was legitimate. NASDAQ halted Instinet, but not other ECNs. Archipeligo already announced intentions to file suit with the SEC on the matter. And that won't be the last suit filed on it.
The big companies that go public hope that an infusion of cash will make them more profitable, but it usually ends up that they get to take a break on stockholder's money for a while until it's deadline time again and they have to scramble to make product/service X work.
I've seen many types of correct critiques of the system, but this is just wrong. When a company receives money by issuing equity, they give up (through dilution of voting rights) partial control of the company. Management only authorizes stock issues when they expect to make money faster with the increased capital than their original equity could. An IPO or follow-on offering brings in money, but it doesn't make the issuer "rich." If those accelerated earnings don't materialize, the company will be worth just as much as it was worth before, only now the original owners have a smaller stake.
Look at all the ads for investing these days. They all suggest that you trust them to make you money, and they have as selling points, how easy it is to make money.
I challenge you to produce evidence of this. This is strictly illegal. Read up on securities law my friend, and you will notice that the regulations on investment advertising is pretty severe. If you promise someone to make them money and can't deliver, you are in violation of the law. The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 set out the general provisions, and the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) Advertising Rules have strict guidlines on what constitutes violations regarding investment advertising.
And even if somehow this ad got past the NASD, it wouldn't get past the SEC. If you learn anything about investing, learn that SEC Rule 10b-5 is your friend.
I was going to say the same thing, but I couldn't have done as well. People need to recognize that the risk is getting an unforseen qualities of the product, not getting an unforseen price.
Cheap power is crucial to most industries. What's 20% of the cost of steel? Electricity. So if electricity is suddenly 10 times as plentiful, the cost of steel comes down 18%. Sounds downright deflationary to me.
3.5 trillion kW/yr means a savings of $3.15 trillion per year if electricity costs went down 90%, or stated another way, the GDP of the US would grow 30% instantly. Costs of products across the board would fall because their energy cost compentents shrink.
Of course, cheap electricity makes lots of things much more feasible, like giant particle accelerators or energy intensive electronics. So then there'll be those benefits.
This isn't an accounting trick, this is real money being created and distributed.
Yes, BP, Exxon, and Shell are the most likely candidates to fund this kind of operation because theyre the ones in the power business and theyre the ones with billions of dollars on hand for science projects. But if you have a 401k or a pension fund or a band account, you're probably an owner of one of these companies. Banks (and fund managers) like the safety of investing in massive corporations, and thats where your interest and/or retirement are gonna come from.
And everyone benefits from nearly free electricity. Energy and transportation costs are major factors in everything you buy, and would be significantly reduced. And if you account for the fact that 27 years after its patented, everyone's doing it, then by 2050 it should be evenly distributed.
Slashdot Mirror
The combination of depreciation, dropping prices, and financing costs probably means they install new systems when they need it. No one in their right mind buys 9000 computers if they only need 4500.
Saying the system isn't perfect is like insisting precision equipment manufacturing equipment can never be made. The original weights and measures weren't accurate to a hundred decimal places. We use faulty things everyday, and the highest quality software and precision today will look like a joke in 30 years.
Worst case scenario, you get a wrong proof. You'll notice eventually... And find out what was wrong, and end up with a better proving program. Best case scenario, you discover proofs that are impossible for humans to discover. I think this is a member of the set 'no brainers.'
Does there exist an error in the complex computer manufactured proof? Suppose this is true. Now find the contradiction.
Do programs have bugs? Do we use programs anyway?
These are left as an exercise for the reader.
"Analysts estimate the Intel CPU costs more than a comparable product from rival Advanced Micro Devices."
I think I found where I want to do research.
I'm afraid too.
In the '80s, lots of businessmen talk about American enterprise losing its soul. Levereged buyouts started taking over the 'socially responsible' companies, hacking them apart, selling the new soulless company (now with n% more profit!), and making a tidy profit. Since then, being a public company means you need to watch your stock price. When to take the chance to forward a social agenda or pull your punches, you may end up on the wrong side of a hostile takeover.
If someone offers you $10 billion dollars for something, and you think may be worth more, you turn it down. Because, once you tell everyone else the minimum you're worth is $10 billion, you create a market mechanism to prop the company up to at least that price. MS won't attempt a hostile takeover because of the anti-trust implications, but its nice to have a $10 billion offer to fall back on.
Um, what about the Leprechaun? He made 6 movies as that character, including "Leprechaun: Back 2 tha Hood." That is absolute genius.
Make drunk driving a felony.
Jail time will make people think harder about it. Fines only force so much compliance.
Too late
Those 15% of the people that think that they have an HDTV, probably bought something that was overpriced, and might end up buying equipment that would only work to it's fullest with a HDTV system. They're making money off of the stupid.
Fraud occurs to smart people too. Some companies put "Receives HDTV signals" or some such statement, when they mean "Normal TV that can take HDTV input". Deception is fraud, and the govt should be intervening.
RTFM - He referenced previous works people can't read because it isnt in English.
Second paragraph:
"This tretis, divided in 5 parties, wol I shewe the under full light reules and naked wordes in Englissh, for Latyn ne canst thou yit but small, my litel sone. But natheles suffise to the these trewe conclusions in Englissh as wel as sufficith to these noble clerkes Grekes these same conclusions in Grek; and to Arabiens in Arabik, and to Jewes in Ebrew, and to the Latyn folk in Latyn; whiche Latyn folk had hem first out of othere dyverse langages, and writen hem in her owne tunge, that is to seyn, in Latyn."
And then there "impersonating a police officer"...
Similarly, if someone takes your CD, it's theft. If it's an illegal CD, they're just charged with stealing while you get charged with copyright violation. If they threaten you to take it by force, its assault. If they touch you while taking it, its battery. These vigilante teams are strongly discouraged in case law, and will not find a court that will be too lenient.
It's a PR stunt that will land RIAA employees in jail, and since they're acting within the scope of employment, this opens up massive lawsuits against the RIAA that will quickly go through. If a manager tells an employee to steal, then the RIAA itself will be charged with that theft as the manager is an agent of the company.
Let them hang themselves with this.
"Citizen's Arrest" is legal, but of course if the are guilty of a "false arrest" it's actually "False imprisonment" or "kidnapping" so they had better be damned sure they can make the case stick, or they're going to jail.
1) Spend n billion dollars making Linux better than MS
2) Tell everyone its free and it supports everything they need. Provide them free OS CD's and downloading bandwidth.
3) Only they need IBM to migrate businesses. For a nominal fee, of course. After all, they practically created Linux, right?
4) Then savor the shocked look on Bill's face.
Oh, yeah
5) ???
6) PROFIT!!
The answer is definitely not a media company. Media is very expensive, a totally different business, and in the information age, it's a damned business model.
More intriguing would be a new business model they need big cash to develope.
But the truth is the VCs want cash. Thats how VCs get money to give money to new Googles, so they can find a couple they can sell. They're betting Google's glory days are today, not tomorrow. They have to cash out at some point.
$200M growing 20% a year isn't worth $12B, considering how fast technology changes, Google will be mature within 5 years. 1.2^5 (200M) /12B = 4% ROI maybe? But how much is it worth to Microsoft, Time Warner, USAInteractive, or Yahoo!? Probably still not that much.
I don't think the market cap will be that high. $6 billion is still speculative, and it really doesnt deserve all the attention its getting unless they can actually create phenomenal growth for a long period of time.
GOO is a NYSE ticker symbol. NASDAQ requires four letters, and as far as I've seen, every indication is that its going on NASDAQ.
In Hambrecht's Open IPO process, you can.
The system goes basically like so:
Everybody and their uncle places a bid.
Bids are taken from the highest price to the lowest price at the end. So bid high, and you'll get in.
If a histogram of bids looks like hyperbola, the lowest accepted bid is k, the shares outstanding n for p percent of the company, and the "market cap" is then nk/p. And the money raised is the area under the histrogram right of k >nk. Sounds egalitarian, but its pretty sneaky actually.
...Politicians choose YOU!
I think a simple fix would be to require districts to have no more than 4 borders. "Contiguous" means nothing.
You're at least half right. But this isn't a question of information about prices - if it were, NASDAQ and the ECN would be off the hook. This is a question of whether the ECN executed orders that should not have been executed and NASDAQ didn't cancel them all. That's when risk minimizers are hit.
If I market buy because the ticker says a $50 stock is selling at $40, it goes through between 10:46 and 10:58, then NASDAQ is right to cancel at 12:30: no problem. If my option straddle executes on the volatility on both sides, one before and one after 10:58, but NASDAQ cancels the options in-the-money (on Instinet) but not the options out-the-money (on another ECN), then its a problem. If I'm an idiot, and leave those options open unchecked through a halt, then its my fault for engaging in a risky behavior and getting slammed in the ensuing short-squeeze.
Other stocks in the sector were off by 10%, so it was not stupidity to think that a 20% move was legitimate. NASDAQ halted Instinet, but not other ECNs. Archipeligo already announced intentions to file suit with the SEC on the matter. And that won't be the last suit filed on it.
The big companies that go public hope that an infusion of cash will make them more profitable, but it usually ends up that they get to take a break on stockholder's money for a while until it's deadline time again and they have to scramble to make product/service X work.
I've seen many types of correct critiques of the system, but this is just wrong. When a company receives money by issuing equity, they give up (through dilution of voting rights) partial control of the company. Management only authorizes stock issues when they expect to make money faster with the increased capital than their original equity could.
An IPO or follow-on offering brings in money, but it doesn't make the issuer "rich." If those accelerated earnings don't materialize, the company will be worth just as much as it was worth before, only now the original owners have a smaller stake.
Look at all the ads for investing these days. They all suggest that you trust them to make you money, and they have as selling points, how easy it is to make money.
I challenge you to produce evidence of this. This is strictly illegal. Read up on securities law my friend, and you will notice that the regulations on investment advertising is pretty severe. If you promise someone to make them money and can't deliver, you are in violation of the law.
The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 set out the general provisions, and the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) Advertising Rules have strict guidlines on what constitutes violations regarding investment advertising.
And even if somehow this ad got past the NASD, it wouldn't get past the SEC. If you learn anything about investing, learn that SEC Rule 10b-5 is your friend.
I was going to say the same thing, but I couldn't have done as well. People need to recognize that the risk is getting an unforseen qualities of the product, not getting an unforseen price.
Cheap power is crucial to most industries. What's 20% of the cost of steel? Electricity. So if electricity is suddenly 10 times as plentiful, the cost of steel comes down 18%. Sounds downright deflationary to me.
3.5 trillion kW/yr means a savings of $3.15 trillion per year if electricity costs went down 90%, or stated another way, the GDP of the US would grow 30% instantly. Costs of products across the board would fall because their energy cost compentents shrink.
Of course, cheap electricity makes lots of things much more feasible, like giant particle accelerators or energy intensive electronics. So then there'll be those benefits.
This isn't an accounting trick, this is real money being created and distributed.
Yes, BP, Exxon, and Shell are the most likely candidates to fund this kind of operation because theyre the ones in the power business and theyre the ones with billions of dollars on hand for science projects. But if you have a 401k or a pension fund or a band account, you're probably an owner of one of these companies. Banks (and fund managers) like the safety of investing in massive corporations, and thats where your interest and/or retirement are gonna come from.
And everyone benefits from nearly free electricity. Energy and transportation costs are major factors in everything you buy, and would be significantly reduced. And if you account for the fact that 27 years after its patented, everyone's doing it, then by 2050 it should be evenly distributed.