I'm told my car has 6 computers driving various functions and that to replace them would total $10,000.
Using replacement cost to determine vehicle cost or the cost to build is not valid - since they don't necessarily refeletc the cost of a part but what the market will bear. As a result, margins vary, with the greatest margin generally on the most commonly sold parts.
If you add up the cost of prelacemnt parts, you'd generally find your 10k car is really a 50k car. That's why wrecks have value - the salvage value of the parts is enough to make a profit (often quite a profit) selling it piece by piece.
I believe liberal education to be a largely bankrupt concept. I didn't go to college to learn a little bit about a lot of things, I went to college to become really good at one specific thing.
The problem with that is:
1. You don't know if the one thing you do well will be valuable 5 years from now or if some new tech will displace it;
2. It's ofetn cheaper to hire a new grad to replace you; and,
3. I can train someone with a broad skill set on specific tasks, and hope they will bring new insights to problems, but am less sure I can broaden a specialist beyond their narrow functional skill.
I wouldn't bet my future on being able to chose tommorrow's skill based on today's hot topic.
Yeah, right... thats the ideal but in practice we all know thats not the way things go down. i graduated with a B.S. in biomedical engineering... after all the engineering courses (fluids, thermo, mechanics, etc) all the required math courses (one class shy of a minor!!!), all the required technical electives and required, non-substitutable "core" classes (which were a joke), I ended up with 4 free elective classes. (How do you expect to broaden your knowledge in many subject areas in 12 credit hours worth of work?)
And really, thats the way engineering is. If you had a different experience then you probably didn't get as thorough education in engineering as I did. You make the assumption that you should only take the minimum required elective load, when nothing is preventing you from taking more to get a broader education. If you truly wanted to learn more, you'd find a way. And please don't tell me how tough it is getting a BS in Engineering; I've been there, done that, got the sheepskin to prove it, all while taking at least one class per quarter above the what I need to graduate in 4 years.
For example, you mentioned 1 more class was need to get a math minor - why didn't you do that? That's more impressive to an interviewer (yes, I've done that) tahn answering the questioon "why no math minor since you took all those math classes?" with "I didn't have time."
It's like people who say "I've always wanted to [sydive,drive a raececar,visit XYZ,etc.]" - if you really wanted to, you'd find a way to do it.
for all intents and purposes, the college of engineering IS a trade school.
That's because most engineering students make it one, failing to see the big picture and realizing for many of them, working as an engineer is something they'll only do for 5, maybe 10 years before they move on to either management or some otehr field. As a result, they miss an opportunity to develop skills (writing, sales, general business knowledge such as how to real a balance sheet & cash flow statement, etc.) in college where they can make big mistakes without penalty.
Most engineering studenst are their own worst enemy.
While having Wal-Mart sell Lindows is interetsing, I'm not sure how much benefit Linux will ultimately reap, because:
1. People will not necessarily associate Lindows with Linux - more likely think it's a cheap Windows clone;
2. If and when Lindows doesn't run something, they'll assume it's Lindows fault, not that that's the price of running Lindows; so, If they do link Lindows with Linux, they assume it's an OS for cheap machines; and that Linux has all the faults and problems that Lindows has (i.e. not 100% Windows compatable) Never mind it isn't intended to be a Windows clone, any bad impressions of Lindows will reflect on Linux.
As a side note, it's interesting that Wal-mart, another favorite/. target, is all of a sudden one of the good guys. (The enemy of my enemy is my friend?)
Also, how well is Lindows complying with GPL terms? If they are successfull, they may be reluctant to give away what they view as the foundation of tehir success, and have the cash to fend off challenges.
[i]You never heard all the proposals for an Apple branded ISP? (I don't remember where that went; maybe they realized they didn't want to be AOL.).Mac has all the features of a typicals ISP account except the connectivity. And, there's always future expansion to protect.[/i]
back in 1984 or so, Apple and Quantum developed Applelink - first on the Apple ][, then on the Mac. Quantum ran it, Apple controlled much of teh look and feel and licensed the Apple name. Applelink eventually split with Apple, and went on the become AOL. So it's all really Apple's fault when AOL unleashed the horde of newbies onto the internet. Where was Jobs when we really needed him?
I still have my Applelink mugs and T-shirts, complete with "Once your linked, your hooked" slogans.
And before you flame, those joining the military agree under oath to accept these different laws upon joining. I know very little about the Armed Forces, but this leads me to a question: If I'm drafted (forced) into service, does this still apply? Because then they're essentially taking away my rights, and I'm not consenting to it? (Again, not criticizing you, just trying to understand this.)
Yes, the UCMJ applies equally to all service members, regardless of how they entered into the service. The rules for searchs on military property are different than for civilian - for example, a command can do a health inspection of all living quarters, complete with drug dogs, and prosecute anyone found with illegal drugs. (As a side note, they can even do one on civilian apartmenst *if* the government is the actual lease holder). In addiotn, entrance on a base is considered consent to search - most bases have large signs stating that a condition for entry is consent to search. Also, bases can do random searchs, such as vehicles leaving - but they must truely be random. You can't target a particular vehicle, and then search it.
A web site has every right to decide wether or not they allow a particular browser configuration to access their site. Of course, the more people block pop-up ads, the fewer people that will be able to visit anti-blocking enabled sites, the less cash they'll get for ads, and eventually they'll die a natural death from lack of money.
A free market cure for stupid business models. one that I will totally support by continuing to use pop-up blockers - and encourage friends to do likewise.
Anyone notice that the Fossile press release list "Rocker" as a registered trademark?
Re:Per Transaction Fees Suck...
on
Add-Ons Add Up
·
· Score: 2
My boss gets lots of complaints because we pass the 3% credit card charge on directly. Like somehow people who pay with cash or check should subsidize the credit industry.
Have you checked your merchant agreement - many do not allow tagging on a fee for CC's or requiring a minimum purchase. Some companies add the fee in the price and then offer a discount for cash.
I'm not sure what a CC company would do if someone complained? Back-charge the 3%? Cut off the vendor if enough people complained?
Re:Not Soldier....Sailor....Not Sailor....A Nuke..
on
Book on NR-1
·
· Score: 2
Nah - RM's and NavET's always beat the ELT's ashore.
You missed my point. If the hypothetical company is NEVER going to pay out a dividend, what do I care about owning it? Why does anyone ever care? It never does me any good unless it pays me money! Growth is great, if and only if it enables larger dividends in the future.
When a company is able to grow fast, it can make good sense for it to not pay dividends.
The idea that a company can never pay dividends is obvious nonsense, unless you mean that it will go broke before it starts repaying the owners for the use of their capital.
Dividends are just one way a company can distribute cash to its stockholders. The notion that stockholders never get a payout is wrong, because they can chose to sell the stock at any point.
You should know better than that. A bond is a promise to repay money, like an IOU. It is a certificate saying that you have loaned money. A stock certificate is a certificate of (limited liability) ownership. A stock which pays regular dividends has the same sort of value that a bond has.
Not really - bonds (in general) are priced based on interest rates, if a dividend paying stock behaved like a bond, it would be as well. Stocks are based on the present value plus the value of future growth opportunities.
Imagine that you bought some share of MSFT when it was first listed, and that you never sell any. So far, you've gotten no return on your investment (MSFT pays no dividend, right?). There are three possibilities: 1) MSFT will eventually start paying a dividend. If it is big enough, it will pay you sufficently to justify your years of patient waiting.
That's the point - when I want the money, I can sell the stock, or chose to wait if I think it will become even more valuable. As soon as I sell, I realize my return. That is why their are different types of stocks - those that pay dividends, for people who want or need cash flow, growth stocks, for those who want future returns at the expense of cash now, and dot coms, for the real fools.
My original point stands: the value of a stock is the expected present value of the future stream of dividends.
It may stand, but it's wrong - as evidneced by the value of companies, such as MSFT, that don't pay dividends.
Palm has had five years to get their act together when it comes to PDA functionality. I hate to say it, but the PocketPC devices are far superior to anything that Palm has had to date.
I've used Palms and WinCe devices (as well as various Newtons since teh MP100) since the original Palm Pilot and WinCE 1.0, and I've nevevr found WinCE (por PPC) devices to be far superior. Yes, they are more powerful than a Palm, but power never translated to usefulness.
The ability to play full-length color feature movies,
Excpet that it takes a large CF/SD card to store one, and don't count on the batteries lasting through an entire movie if you use the backlight. Battery life has been a really issue for me - I can't use my 565 a lot and get through a day.
MP3s,
Yes, although the Clie has done this for a while as well. In fact, my main use for my 565 is to play MP3's.
true wireless internet with a real web browser, document creation,PDF reading,
The web browser is nice - I use it with my CF modem in a pinch.
Document creation is one area where MS really dropped the ball - why go to yet another incompatable document format? I want to be able to edit a Word/Excel document on my PPC, pull the CF card, and plop it in my laptop - and be able to open the PPC file. Currently, that is a no go. Even worse, converetd files lose formating - a real pain for excel files. Not to mention the lack of a native ppt viewer.,pdf - Palm had it before PPC.
And, no one has really got a Datebook5 clone for teh PPC, not to mention decent expense apps. (I 've tried Fusion, Traveller, AgendaToday, etc. and none match DBK5- Gulliver - iambics Expense program (I forget the name) for managing a schedule and expenses.)
chat, console emulators, and actual MULTITASKING has been available for over a year and a half now.
MAME and NES are the other main reasons I still have a PPC. If someone ports them to the Palm, I could dummp my Jornada once again.
the PPC has a lot of potential, but has too many near-misses to really be useful for me - someone who travela s alot and would really like a portable device to use when it's just too much troubel to pull out a laptop.
It's really too bad Apple dumped the Newton - one product where they, not Palm, could have created a market. I really liked my MP2000.
... growth is what drives stock value - its the combination of current value (what you are selling) plus the value of future growth (what addtional sales, above current, you'll make in the future).
There's something wrong with this. Think about it: if you sell everything at a loss, are you going to make it up on volume? You probably were using sales as a proxy for profits, and that's great, but what good does it do me the stockholder for the company to make a profit if I never share it?
The value of the stock, ultimately, is nothing but the present (i.e., discounted) value of the stream of future DIVIDENDS. Dividends are vital, since if the company doesn't pay out something, someday, why own it?
You do share in it - all those non-paid dividends are included in the value of the stock - because the company either sits on the cash or reinevest to grow (of course, if they invest badly, they can decrease the total value of the company). You can recoup the value of your dividends at any point by selling the stock - which in someways better than dividends because you can time the event to best meet your tax and cash needs, not some arbitrary schedule set by the company.
And a company is worth more than just the dividends it would pay - something that pays a (generally) predictable cash flow is a bond.
The value of the stock, ultimately, is nothing but the present (i.e., discounted) value of the stream of future DIVIDENDS. Dividends are vital, since if the company doesn't pay out something, someday, why own it?
The payout comes in the growth of the value of the company - represented by increasing stock price, which allows you to get your share anytime you decide to sell.
Leaving aside the bigger fools, there is no reason to pay a cent for a company which has never paid a dividend and never will.
Right. To take a line from MR.T, I pity the fool who bought MSFT when it first was listed.
n other words, financial analysts can only measure linear growth as measured by financial results in order to predict future prospects for profits.
Growth doesn't hav eto be linear - it can follow any curve you want. It's the expected growth that goes into the calculation. That's why stocks get hammered when the growth stops unexpectedly.
1. What kind of idiot thinks that profits and company growth follows straight lines from the past into the future?
Not this one, at least, a sposted above.
2. What kind of moron thinks that predictions based on last quarter's balance sheet are more accurate than one based on whether the company is full of creative geniuses working to their best potential with lots of cool stuff in the pipeline or whether it's packed with shortsighted PHBs and petty political squabbles?
No good analyst does (is that an oxymoron?) - they need to understand a company and its business to even have a chance at majking a good caill - but that's a seperate issue from how you value a company.
Why do "the analysts" feel it's imperative and so ungoldy urgent that a company like Intel must grow ALL THE TIME?
Because growth is what drives stock value - its the combination of current value (what you are selling) plus the value of future growth (what addtional sales, above current, you'll make in the future).
If you are growing, and people believe you will continue to grow, your stock rises to reflect the value of that growth. If you don't grow, your stock drops to the value of your existing revenue stream. If you simply make x dollars of profit month per month, your company is going to have less value than one where the X grows consistantly by 10%.
In the end, it's all about fairly valuing a stock.
If it's costing that much less, why isn't that saving passed on to the consumer?
Because pricing is based on demand, not costs, and companies seek to maximize profit, not volume. (Unless you're an internet company, that seeks to sell dollar bills for 90 cents but make up for it in marketshare.) If I can make more profits selling 10 items for a dollar than 20 for 50 cents, I'll stick with the dollar.
Re:Learn to state your case clearly
on
Ebay vs. Musician
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I also think his "can't sell this on ebay" logo is invalid; that would violate the right of first sale, wouldn't it; the right to resell anything you have bought? Part of fair use, last I checked.
A while ago, while a grad student, I did some resaerch into the right of first sale. I spoke with sevral lawyers, and the general concensus was the "right of first sale" is in murkey legal water. Basically, there is no universal, US -wide iron-clad right to sell any item you purchased, since the laws vary from state to state. I had expected it to be very clear-cut, but discovered it wasn't so.
Two sidebars:
Some of my legal research was done on-line in the mid 90's for teh article - it was interesting to see lawyers using the net to offer free advice - as one put it, if only few calls results in business it's still a good deal for him.
I got into this becuse my B-school admins forbade us selling our case books - the (very expensive) compilations of HBS cases, articles and other material that supplemented our textbooks. At 70-100+ $ a book, they cost more thna a real, printed textbook. The school didn't want us to resell them beacuse they negotiated a discount on the copyright fees based on expected annual revnue, and resales potentially cut into that. So, we couldn't advertise casebooks for sale on campus.
Because I no longer own the physical copy and won't use it while you do - just as I could sell it to you, under the doctrine of first sale. I thought that what was at issue was that piracy is getting something for free that the producer wants you to pay for. You've still got your CD, you've not paid for it, and the artist hasn't benefitted in any way.
No - in the case of a physical object that changes hands, you have a legitimate copy that is used by one person at a time - which is different than making a copy and keeping the original. Just as I can lend a book to someone - the copyright owner ight wnat someone to buy it instead, but it's pretty well established that I can lend something out to someone else.
Wether they would pay someone is irrelevent - since the opens ource developer isn't losing any money, by the original argument using their code is OK
How is it irrelevant? Again, the point of the original arguement was about whether you are gaining something that should be being paid for, and not paying for it.
Way back when, it was stated that it was OK to make copies if you never intend to buy th eproduct - since you don't dpeprive the owner of revenue - I said that if denying someone money was the criteria, than anyone can do what they want with OS code, even incorporating it in closed projects and ignorining the GPL, because the owner doesn't lose any money.
First off all, I didn't say it wasn't theft - it is, but I view the try before buy or delete as a defendable response to unreasonable EULA,
So you are admitting that it's theft and then trying to rationalising it? Hmmm. I'm sure that's what you accused me of about three posts ago. You feel that you can justify theft in your case, and I think I can justify it in mine. It's still legally theft, and neither instance is depriving anyone of anything.
Sure it is - but I think it is a far more defensable position than "I won't pay - so it's OK". I never said it was as black and white as the RIAA/BSA would like us to believe.
Slashdot Mirror
Laser disks experienced a similar problem - which generally showed up as snow on the video, or freezing at a particular frame.
I'm told my car has 6 computers driving various functions and that to replace them would total $10,000.
Using replacement cost to determine vehicle cost or the cost to build is not valid - since they don't necessarily refeletc the cost of a part but what the market will bear. As a result, margins vary, with the greatest margin generally on the most commonly sold parts.
If you add up the cost of prelacemnt parts, you'd generally find your 10k car is really a 50k car. That's why wrecks have value - the salvage value of the parts is enough to make a profit (often quite a profit) selling it piece by piece.
I believe liberal education to be a largely bankrupt concept. I didn't go to college to learn a little bit about a lot of things, I went to college to become really good at one specific thing.
The problem with that is:
1. You don't know if the one thing you do well will be valuable 5 years from now or if some new tech will displace it;
2. It's ofetn cheaper to hire a new grad to replace you; and,
3. I can train someone with a broad skill set on specific tasks, and hope they will bring new insights to problems, but am less sure I can broaden a specialist beyond their narrow functional skill.
I wouldn't bet my future on being able to chose tommorrow's skill based on today's hot topic.
Yeah, right... thats the ideal but in practice we all know thats not the way things go down. i graduated with a B.S. in biomedical engineering... after all the engineering courses (fluids, thermo, mechanics, etc) all the required math courses (one class shy of a minor!!!), all the required technical electives and required, non-substitutable "core" classes (which were a joke), I ended up with 4 free elective classes. (How do you expect to broaden your knowledge in many subject areas in 12 credit hours worth of work?)
And really, thats the way engineering is. If you had a different experience then you probably didn't get as thorough education in engineering as I did.
You make the assumption that you should only take the minimum required elective load, when nothing is preventing you from taking more to get a broader education. If you truly wanted to learn more, you'd find a way. And please don't tell me how tough it is getting a BS in Engineering; I've been there, done that, got the sheepskin to prove it, all while taking at least one class per quarter above the what I need to graduate in 4 years.
For example, you mentioned 1 more class was need to get a math minor - why didn't you do that? That's more impressive to an interviewer (yes, I've done that) tahn answering the questioon "why no math minor since you took all those math classes?" with "I didn't have time."
It's like people who say "I've always wanted to [sydive,drive a raececar,visit XYZ,etc.]" - if you really wanted to, you'd find a way to do it.
for all intents and purposes, the college of engineering IS a trade school.
That's because most engineering students make it one, failing to see the big picture and realizing for many of them, working as an engineer is something they'll only do for 5, maybe 10 years before they move on to either management or some otehr field. As a result, they miss an opportunity to develop skills (writing, sales, general business knowledge such as how to real a balance sheet & cash flow statement, etc.) in college where they can make big mistakes without penalty.
Most engineering studenst are their own worst enemy.
In a decade or so, there will be no living humans who walked on the moon. A sad legacy..
[i]The MPAA claims that video over the net has to be locked up in a chastity belt in order to survive.[/i]
That's because the porn industry views chastity belts as mere temporary impediments to delivering the goods.
Yes - the AFU poster boy; only one fifty for teh poster.
[i]No. 40: A tenured professor willing to recite profane lyrics from a gangsta rap song.[/i]
Try the B-school. Anyplace a prof would teach in a tux on his wedding day would be easy pickings for gansta rap.
While having Wal-Mart sell Lindows is interetsing, I'm not sure how much benefit Linux will ultimately reap, because:
/. target, is all of a sudden one of the good guys. (The enemy of my enemy is my friend?)
1. People will not necessarily associate Lindows with Linux - more likely think it's a cheap Windows clone;
2. If and when Lindows doesn't run something, they'll assume it's Lindows fault, not that that's the price of running Lindows; so, If they do link Lindows with Linux, they assume it's an OS for cheap machines; and that Linux has all the faults and problems that Lindows has (i.e. not 100% Windows compatable) Never mind it isn't intended to be a Windows clone, any bad impressions of Lindows will reflect on Linux.
As a side note, it's interesting that Wal-mart, another favorite
Also, how well is Lindows complying with GPL terms? If they are successfull, they may be reluctant to give away what they view as the foundation of tehir success, and have the cash to fend off challenges.
[i]You never heard all the proposals for an Apple branded ISP? (I don't remember where that went; maybe they realized they didn't want to be AOL.) .Mac has all the features of a typicals ISP account except the connectivity. And, there's always future expansion to protect.[/i]
back in 1984 or so, Apple and Quantum developed Applelink - first on the Apple ][, then on the Mac. Quantum ran it, Apple controlled much of teh look and feel and licensed the Apple name. Applelink eventually split with Apple, and went on the become AOL. So it's all really Apple's fault when AOL unleashed the horde of newbies onto the internet. Where was Jobs when we really needed him?
I still have my Applelink mugs and T-shirts, complete with "Once your linked, your hooked" slogans.
[I]"Dr. Dobb's Journal of Computer Calisthenics and Orthodontia".[/I]
"Running light with overbyte"
and, of course, Intergalactic Digital Research.
Then the suits came, and it wasn't fun anymore.
And before you flame, those joining the military agree under oath to accept these different laws upon joining. I know very little about the Armed Forces, but this leads me to a question: If I'm drafted (forced) into service, does this still apply? Because then they're essentially taking away my rights, and I'm not consenting to it? (Again, not criticizing you, just trying to understand this.)
Yes, the UCMJ applies equally to all service members, regardless of how they entered into the service. The rules for searchs on military property are different than for civilian - for example, a command can do a health inspection of all living quarters, complete with drug dogs, and prosecute anyone found with illegal drugs. (As a side note, they can even do one on civilian apartmenst *if* the government is the actual lease holder). In addiotn, entrance on a base is considered consent to search - most bases have large signs stating that a condition for entry is consent to search. Also, bases can do random searchs, such as vehicles leaving - but they must truely be random. You can't target a particular vehicle, and then search it.
A web site has every right to decide wether or not they allow a particular browser configuration to access their site. Of course, the more people block pop-up ads, the fewer people that will be able to visit anti-blocking enabled sites, the less cash they'll get for ads, and eventually they'll die a natural death from lack of money.
A free market cure for stupid business models. one that I will totally support by continuing to use pop-up blockers - and encourage friends to do likewise.
Anyone notice that the Fossile press release list "Rocker" as a registered trademark?
My boss gets lots of complaints because we pass the 3% credit card charge on directly. Like somehow people who pay with cash or check should subsidize the credit industry.
Have you checked your merchant agreement - many do not allow tagging on a fee for CC's or requiring a minimum purchase. Some companies add the fee in the price and then offer a discount for cash.
I'm not sure what a CC company would do if someone complained? Back-charge the 3%? Cut off the vendor if enough people complained?
Nah - RM's and NavET's always beat the ELT's ashore.
You missed my point. If the hypothetical company is NEVER going to pay out a dividend, what do I care about owning it? Why does anyone ever care? It never does me any good unless it pays me money! Growth is great, if and only if it enables larger dividends in the future.
When a company is able to grow fast, it can make good sense for it to not pay dividends.
The idea that a company can never pay dividends is obvious nonsense, unless you mean that it will go broke before it starts repaying the owners for the use of their capital.
Dividends are just one way a company can distribute cash to its stockholders. The notion that stockholders never get a payout is wrong, because they can chose to sell the stock at any point.
You should know better than that. A bond is a promise to repay money, like an IOU. It is a certificate saying that you have loaned money. A stock certificate is a certificate of (limited liability) ownership. A stock which pays regular dividends has the same sort of value that a bond has.
Not really - bonds (in general) are priced based on interest rates, if a dividend paying stock behaved like a bond, it would be as well. Stocks are based on the present value plus the value of future growth opportunities.
Imagine that you bought some share of MSFT when it was first listed, and that you never sell any. So far, you've gotten no return on your investment (MSFT pays no dividend, right?). There are three possibilities:
1) MSFT will eventually start paying a dividend. If it is big enough, it will pay you sufficently to justify your years of patient waiting.
That's the point - when I want the money, I can sell the stock, or chose to wait if I think it will become even more valuable. As soon as I sell, I realize my return. That is why their are different types of stocks - those that pay dividends, for people who want or need cash flow, growth stocks, for those who want future returns at the expense of cash now, and dot coms, for the real fools.
My original point stands: the value of a stock is the expected present value of the future stream of dividends.
It may stand, but it's wrong - as evidneced by the value of companies, such as MSFT, that don't pay dividends.
"why hasn't anyone ported vi?"
Because EMACS is better? LOL
Jim 'nothing like a holy war' Coffey
Palm has had five years to get their act together when it comes to PDA functionality. I hate to say it, but the PocketPC devices are far superior to anything that Palm has had to date.
,pdf - Palm had it before PPC.
I've used Palms and WinCe devices (as well as various Newtons since teh MP100) since the original Palm Pilot and WinCE 1.0, and I've nevevr found WinCE (por PPC) devices to be far superior. Yes, they are more powerful than a Palm, but power never translated to usefulness.
The ability to play full-length color feature movies,
Excpet that it takes a large CF/SD card to store one, and don't count on the batteries lasting through an entire movie if you use the backlight. Battery life has been a really issue for me - I can't use my 565 a lot and get through a day.
MP3s,
Yes, although the Clie has done this for a while as well. In fact, my main use for my 565 is to play MP3's.
true wireless internet with a real web browser, document creation,PDF reading,
The web browser is nice - I use it with my CF modem in a pinch.
Document creation is one area where MS really dropped the ball - why go to yet another incompatable document format? I want to be able to edit a Word/Excel document on my PPC, pull the CF card, and plop it in my laptop - and be able to open the PPC file. Currently, that is a no go. Even worse, converetd files lose formating - a real pain for excel files. Not to mention the lack of a native ppt viewer.
And, no one has really got a Datebook5 clone for teh PPC, not to mention decent expense apps. (I 've tried Fusion, Traveller, AgendaToday, etc. and none match DBK5- Gulliver - iambics Expense program (I forget the name) for managing a schedule and expenses.)
chat, console emulators, and actual MULTITASKING has been available for over a year and a half now.
MAME and NES are the other main reasons I still have a PPC. If someone ports them to the Palm, I could dummp my Jornada once again.
the PPC has a lot of potential, but has too many near-misses to really be useful for me - someone who travela s alot and would really like a portable device to use when it's just too much troubel to pull out a laptop.
It's really too bad Apple dumped the Newton - one product where they, not Palm, could have created a market. I really liked my MP2000.
There's something wrong with this. Think about it: if you sell everything at a loss, are you going to make it up on volume? You probably were using sales as a proxy for profits, and that's great, but what good does it do me the stockholder for the company to make a profit if I never share it?
The value of the stock, ultimately, is nothing but the present (i.e., discounted) value of the stream of future DIVIDENDS. Dividends are vital, since if the company doesn't pay out something, someday, why own it?
You do share in it - all those non-paid dividends are included in the value of the stock - because the company either sits on the cash or reinevest to grow (of course, if they invest badly, they can decrease the total value of the company). You can recoup the value of your dividends at any point by selling the stock - which in someways better than dividends because you can time the event to best meet your tax and cash needs, not some arbitrary schedule set by the company.
And a company is worth more than just the dividends it would pay - something that pays a (generally) predictable cash flow is a bond.
The value of the stock, ultimately, is nothing but the present (i.e., discounted) value of the stream of future DIVIDENDS. Dividends are vital, since if the company doesn't pay out something, someday, why own it?
The payout comes in the growth of the value of the company - represented by increasing stock price, which allows you to get your share anytime you decide to sell.
Leaving aside the bigger fools, there is no reason to pay a cent for a company which has never paid a dividend and never will.
Right. To take a line from MR.T, I pity the fool who bought MSFT when it first was listed.
n other words, financial analysts can only measure linear growth as measured by financial results in order to predict future prospects for profits.
Growth doesn't hav eto be linear - it can follow any curve you want. It's the expected growth that goes into the calculation. That's why stocks get hammered when the growth stops unexpectedly.
1. What kind of idiot thinks that profits and company growth follows straight lines from the past into the future?
Not this one, at least, a sposted above.
2. What kind of moron thinks that predictions based on last quarter's balance sheet are more accurate than one based on whether the company is full of creative geniuses working to their best potential with lots of cool stuff in the pipeline or whether it's packed with shortsighted PHBs and petty political squabbles?
No good analyst does (is that an oxymoron?) - they need to understand a company and its business to even have a chance at majking a good caill - but that's a seperate issue from how you value a company.
Why do "the analysts" feel it's imperative and so ungoldy urgent that a company like Intel must grow ALL THE TIME?
Because growth is what drives stock value - its the combination of current value (what you are selling) plus the value of future growth (what addtional sales, above current, you'll make in the future).
If you are growing, and people believe you will continue to grow, your stock rises to reflect the value of that growth. If you don't grow, your stock drops to the value of your existing revenue stream. If you simply make x dollars of profit month per month, your company is going to have less value than one where the X grows consistantly by 10%.
In the end, it's all about fairly valuing a stock.
If it's costing that much less, why isn't that saving passed on to the consumer?
Because pricing is based on demand, not costs, and companies seek to maximize profit, not volume. (Unless you're an internet company, that seeks to sell dollar bills for 90 cents but make up for it in marketshare.) If I can make more profits selling 10 items for a dollar than 20 for 50 cents, I'll stick with the dollar.
I also think his "can't sell this on ebay" logo is invalid; that would violate the right of first sale, wouldn't it; the right to resell anything you have bought? Part of fair use, last I checked.
A while ago, while a grad student, I did some resaerch into the right of first sale. I spoke with sevral lawyers, and the general concensus was the "right of first sale" is in murkey legal water. Basically, there is no universal, US -wide iron-clad right to sell any item you purchased, since the laws vary from state to state. I had expected it to be very clear-cut, but discovered it wasn't so.
Two sidebars:
Some of my legal research was done on-line in the mid 90's for teh article - it was interesting to see lawyers using the net to offer free advice - as one put it, if only few calls results in business it's still a good deal for him.
I got into this becuse my B-school admins forbade us selling our case books - the (very expensive) compilations of HBS cases, articles and other material that supplemented our textbooks. At 70-100+ $ a book, they cost more thna a real, printed textbook. The school didn't want us to resell them beacuse they negotiated a discount on the copyright fees based on expected annual revnue, and resales potentially cut into that. So, we couldn't advertise casebooks for sale on campus.
Because I no longer own the physical copy and won't use it while you do - just as I could sell it to you, under the doctrine of first sale.
I thought that what was at issue was that piracy is getting something for free that the producer wants you to pay for. You've still got your CD, you've not paid for it, and the artist hasn't benefitted in any way.
No - in the case of a physical object that changes hands, you have a legitimate copy that is used by one person at a time - which is different than making a copy and keeping the original. Just as I can lend a book to someone - the copyright owner ight wnat someone to buy it instead, but it's pretty well established that I can lend something out to someone else.
Wether they would pay someone is irrelevent - since the opens ource developer isn't losing any money, by the original argument using their code is OK
How is it irrelevant? Again, the point of the original arguement was about whether you are gaining something that should be being paid for, and not paying for it.
Way back when, it was stated that it was OK to make copies if you never intend to buy th eproduct - since you don't dpeprive the owner of revenue - I said that if denying someone money was the criteria, than anyone can do what they want with OS code, even incorporating it in closed projects and ignorining the GPL, because the owner doesn't lose any money.
First off all, I didn't say it wasn't theft - it is, but I view the try before buy or delete as a defendable response to unreasonable EULA,
So you are admitting that it's theft and then trying to rationalising it? Hmmm. I'm sure that's what you accused me of about three posts ago. You feel that you can justify theft in your case, and I think I can justify it in mine. It's still legally theft, and neither instance is depriving anyone of anything.
Sure it is - but I think it is a far more defensable position than "I won't pay - so it's OK". I never said it was as black and white as the RIAA/BSA would like us to believe.