The stock market exists to marry suckers with the people who put their capital into businesses.
You will likely never get the opportunity to do so.
When you trade in the stock market, you are paying off people who hold stock, not putting your money into the company whose shares you are buying. Your willingness to buy them gives the true investor confidence that he can lay off his risk in his investment by selling you the company at a time of his choosing. This in turn inflates the amount he's willing to risk in the company. That does not mean you are investing. It means you are helping to inflate the market value of companies well above their true risk.
Which means that investors don't have to work as hard to determine the viability of a company, and in fact don't care how well it will do, only how well it sounds like it will do. Which means many companies that shouldn't exist are brought into being, and sold to you as great "investments".
Now, there are ways to get value from the company itself for your shares. Divedends, commonly. Very, very, very rarely you will get a cash disbursement when the company ceases to exist. You will more often be given different shares of stock or cash when the company is acquired by another company. But you will also often be given a notification that your stock is worthless and the company has been delisted in a bankruptcy proceeding. And you get to vote on company referenda. Although there are other individuals who get to vote a hundred thousand times for every one of your votes. And some of those don't even own the class of stock you own, or as many shares.
The stock market is not investing. It is speculation. It is a pure application of the greater-fool theory, plus the imagined hope that somehow openly buying and selling items that are priced by random decisionmaking will estimate the "true value" of a company, something that, so far as I've been able to research, has never actually occurred. When the value of the company is finally adjudicated, the market price is either 30% too low or 100% too high. In between, nobody with inside information is even marking the price to the company, because they're not allowed to trade. The stock market is legally bound to be ignorant of the facts. And that makes it eminently unqualified to be involved in investing.
Gamble all you want, but try to avoid spreading the lie.
Violates a principle of business law: these machines, despite being machines, know the price they're going to trade at before they agree to the trade. If you put in fuzzy timing you are also necessarily putting in fuzzy pricing.
You and me, since we have to go through brokers, are always dealing with fuzzy pricing when we make "market" orders, and speculating that our price will be met in a reasonable time when we make "limit" orders. We can never look at the book and say, "give me 200 of that 1000-share offer at the asking price". But we cede our rights to know the facts when we sign up with a broker instead of becoming licensed to trade directly in the market; in return, we get some measure of protection from the regulations we place on brokerages, but that of course is an imprecise system in itself.
Companies are completely cognizant of the ways they can manipulate information to confuse the public and their competitors. And they're completely cognizant that this gives them a competitive advantage and everyone else a disadvantage. Their only fear is that they don't get hit with the same tactic.
What's going on here is just an attempt to sway the markets without taking on any risk. It's a manipulation of a mechanism that wasn't designed to prevent it. The PR they toss around to get the public to look the other way, or better, to ignorantly approve of the practice, is part of the game.
That's because if you're using a proportional font your machinery is kerning the sentences for you. It will put more space between them than it does between words.
Print media use one space. It saves paper and ink and makes room for brasierre ads.
Electronic media use one or two spaces. The software will reformat it to fit some default system anyway, so it doesn't matter.
When typing a letter, use two spaces. Because it's the correct way to write, and you're not really worried about the cost of paper or ink or the revenues you're losing from using space you could be selling for brasierre ads.
The only data we have is on Avatar, which sells great regardless of the format,
Yep. It's such an outlying data point that any good statistical analysis would account for it as an exception, not include it in a mean of a small number of samples.
But I would be willing to bet that the people who put these numbers together lumped it in to get a better chance at getting money for their movies, and the 20% bump in revenues is not common.
"Tickets for 3-D films carry a $3 to $5 premium, and industry executives roughly estimate that 3-D pictures average an extra 20 percent at the box office."
So adding an extra 30-50% to the unit price results in a 20% increase in revenues, or an 8-20% drop in unit sales.
Are you by chance a downtrodden minority? I doubt it, or you'd be a little more insightful as to the distortion of American culture represented by only depicting the median - or worse, the personal ideal of the editor - in incidental material, and the costs it places on those who don't happen to fit those stereotypes when people are making political decisions later in life.
All information is educational, especially to a child.
It does work. But there are human beings involved, and that immediately reduces the reliability of any system. Wikileaks offers itself as a channel to redress errors in classification. But there are already channels for that. The people leaking this information are making a serious mistake thinking Wikileaks is the correct way to go. If they do it the right way, the problem gets resolved and the person who brought it up gets commended. Do it the Wikileaks way, the problem gets worse and the person who leaked the info goes to jail.
BTW, you seem to be following me around, making idiotic comments on my posts.
Fair enough. It's a free/. I'll just make rational replies when you do. That'll fix you. In theory. If only it really worked.
Let's make this clear: the Taliban are the ones committing the murders. The Taliban sent terrorists to America. America sent doctors to Afghanistan. You are complaining about American sending doctors to Afghanistan, not about doctors being murdered by the Taliban.
I looked for that leaflet. There are no images of it I can find on the Internet. Every story referencing it talks of a girl carrying a bag of wheat and that statement you quote. But everywhere I found that description along with a picture, the picture isn't of a leaflet with a girl with a bag of wheat, it's of a leaflet depicting two men in turbans with weapons. If it exists, it's not distinctively about "or else you won't get medical care". So, as I said, that part is made up.
As for your claim that I'm a right-winger, that's as laughable a distortion of reality as your claim that the people fighting the Taliban are to blame for what the Taliban do.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree.
The stock market exists to marry suckers with the people who put their capital into businesses.
You will likely never get the opportunity to do so.
When you trade in the stock market, you are paying off people who hold stock, not putting your money into the company whose shares you are buying. Your willingness to buy them gives the true investor confidence that he can lay off his risk in his investment by selling you the company at a time of his choosing. This in turn inflates the amount he's willing to risk in the company. That does not mean you are investing. It means you are helping to inflate the market value of companies well above their true risk.
Which means that investors don't have to work as hard to determine the viability of a company, and in fact don't care how well it will do, only how well it sounds like it will do. Which means many companies that shouldn't exist are brought into being, and sold to you as great "investments".
Now, there are ways to get value from the company itself for your shares. Divedends, commonly. Very, very, very rarely you will get a cash disbursement when the company ceases to exist. You will more often be given different shares of stock or cash when the company is acquired by another company. But you will also often be given a notification that your stock is worthless and the company has been delisted in a bankruptcy proceeding. And you get to vote on company referenda. Although there are other individuals who get to vote a hundred thousand times for every one of your votes. And some of those don't even own the class of stock you own, or as many shares.
The stock market is not investing. It is speculation. It is a pure application of the greater-fool theory, plus the imagined hope that somehow openly buying and selling items that are priced by random decisionmaking will estimate the "true value" of a company, something that, so far as I've been able to research, has never actually occurred. When the value of the company is finally adjudicated, the market price is either 30% too low or 100% too high. In between, nobody with inside information is even marking the price to the company, because they're not allowed to trade. The stock market is legally bound to be ignorant of the facts. And that makes it eminently unqualified to be involved in investing.
Gamble all you want, but try to avoid spreading the lie.
Manipulation of the markets is as old as the buttonwood tree, and probably a lot older.
They actually had to pass a law to stop brokers from front-running on their customers' orders...
Seems like a horrendous system to set up, and a great way to get caught, since that data is logged by default.
Violates a principle of business law: these machines, despite being machines, know the price they're going to trade at before they agree to the trade. If you put in fuzzy timing you are also necessarily putting in fuzzy pricing.
You and me, since we have to go through brokers, are always dealing with fuzzy pricing when we make "market" orders, and speculating that our price will be met in a reasonable time when we make "limit" orders. We can never look at the book and say, "give me 200 of that 1000-share offer at the asking price". But we cede our rights to know the facts when we sign up with a broker instead of becoming licensed to trade directly in the market; in return, we get some measure of protection from the regulations we place on brokerages, but that of course is an imprecise system in itself.
No. If the receiving system doesn't know the difference between a bid and a trade, it's too broken to be tricked.
Not hardly.
It goes to dinner at 4 p.m. and is fast asleep before 9.
Companies are completely cognizant of the ways they can manipulate information to confuse the public and their competitors. And they're completely cognizant that this gives them a competitive advantage and everyone else a disadvantage. Their only fear is that they don't get hit with the same tactic.
What's going on here is just an attempt to sway the markets without taking on any risk. It's a manipulation of a mechanism that wasn't designed to prevent it. The PR they toss around to get the public to look the other way, or better, to ignorantly approve of the practice, is part of the game.
That's because if you're using a proportional font your machinery is kerning the sentences for you. It will put more space between them than it does between words.
Print media use one space. It saves paper and ink and makes room for brasierre ads.
Electronic media use one or two spaces. The software will reformat it to fit some default system anyway, so it doesn't matter.
When typing a letter, use two spaces. Because it's the correct way to write, and you're not really worried about the cost of paper or ink or the revenues you're losing from using space you could be selling for brasierre ads.
"If the Itanium had succeeded there would no longer be a choice of processor for Intel based systems."
It's been a long time since the x86 could be called "Intel based". Intel and AMD have been sharing instruction-set extensions for a couple of decades.
Intel didn't do most of the things AMD accused Intel of doing, and lots of people have misinterpreted legal dealmaking as illegal dealmaking.
So unless you do have documented proof, I'm afraid we have to doubt you know of anything illegal that Intel did.
He who smelt it, dealt it.
Signed,
Sol
The only data we have is on Avatar, which sells great regardless of the format,
Yep. It's such an outlying data point that any good statistical analysis would account for it as an exception, not include it in a mean of a small number of samples.
But I would be willing to bet that the people who put these numbers together lumped it in to get a better chance at getting money for their movies, and the 20% bump in revenues is not common.
"Tickets for 3-D films carry a $3 to $5 premium, and industry executives roughly estimate that 3-D pictures average an extra 20 percent at the box office."
So adding an extra 30-50% to the unit price results in a 20% increase in revenues, or an 8-20% drop in unit sales.
Why would a director complain about that?
Nothing really exists until it passes by the rolled-up theater program pressed to the eye of /.
Sure.
Lower rolling resistance means more speed per horsepower and less fatigue per horse.
compared to slopping fat on a stick!
Last night your mom...aah, forget it. I don't need the -1 Redundant points.
Egypt isn't all sand dunes. Near the Nile it's pretty light on the sand dunes, and 4600 years ago could have been even less sand-duney.
They even had paved roads.
Suddenly it's twitter in here...
Are you by chance a downtrodden minority? I doubt it, or you'd be a little more insightful as to the distortion of American culture represented by only depicting the median - or worse, the personal ideal of the editor - in incidental material, and the costs it places on those who don't happen to fit those stereotypes when people are making political decisions later in life.
All information is educational, especially to a child.
So again, please go fuck yourself to death with something. Any inanimate object would do fine, as long as it's sufficiently large.
What's your head doing Saturday night?
"dominated"?
http://www.state.gov/
Handily, the top item on their blogroll is about the DoS's priorities and accomplishments:
http://bit.ly/d5U9oa
Feel free to disbelieve it.
It does work. But there are human beings involved, and that immediately reduces the reliability of any system. Wikileaks offers itself as a channel to redress errors in classification. But there are already channels for that. The people leaking this information are making a serious mistake thinking Wikileaks is the correct way to go. If they do it the right way, the problem gets resolved and the person who brought it up gets commended. Do it the Wikileaks way, the problem gets worse and the person who leaked the info goes to jail.
BTW, you seem to be following me around, making idiotic comments on my posts.
Fair enough. It's a free /. I'll just make rational replies when you do. That'll fix you. In theory. If only it really worked.
Let's make this clear: the Taliban are the ones committing the murders. The Taliban sent terrorists to America. America sent doctors to Afghanistan. You are complaining about American sending doctors to Afghanistan, not about doctors being murdered by the Taliban.
I looked for that leaflet. There are no images of it I can find on the Internet. Every story referencing it talks of a girl carrying a bag of wheat and that statement you quote. But everywhere I found that description along with a picture, the picture isn't of a leaflet with a girl with a bag of wheat, it's of a leaflet depicting two men in turbans with weapons. If it exists, it's not distinctively about "or else you won't get medical care". So, as I said, that part is made up.
As for your claim that I'm a right-winger, that's as laughable a distortion of reality as your claim that the people fighting the Taliban are to blame for what the Taliban do.
Congress funds it. That's what they voted on, and continue to vote on.