I agree - if you have the financial wherewithal, do it. Even if you don't, GED and community college beckon. There's no reason for anyone to suffer needlessly.
Take control of your life, 'cause no one else is going to.
Watching stocks and trading them are two very different things.
"They" may know more than you do, but "they" ultimately have to act on that knowledge, and price, volume and trend tell all. There's enough crumbs at the table to make a good living if you're deft and quick. And that can take quite a while to learn.
If you're one of "them" you're not really a stock trader, but an insider trying to unload onto the speculating public, which are the folks who take the risk the insiders don't want (insiders get nice cold hard cash, and the public gets these little pieces of paper of dubious value).
Market news isn't all it's cracked up to be. By the time news hits the wire, the price pretty much reflects whatever "value" the news had. I don't pay attention to news that much.
I agree with you about the insider shenanigans, and the blind eye of the SEC. But that doesn't require a new trading tax, but the SEC getting off its duff and doing what it's supposed to be doing, which I wish it would do.
Um, who would get this tax revenue to "end world poverty"? The poor? I doubt it. Although if you want to create barriers to international capital flows, that would do it. Those barriers may have unintended consequences in addition to stability.
But currency trading isn't stock trading at all. Currency trading and currency futures are in a league of their own. Have to be very rich and big to play in that arena. The name Soros comes to mind...
Most speculators lose their ass to the market. Speculation is hard, and you have to exert extraordinary self-discipline in order to succeed. Professional traders have often lost 2 or 3 fortunes before finally learning enough to make a living at it. Others have gone sideways for 10 or 20 years, before finally figuring it out.
Those "evil speculators" absorb a lot of risk and chaos. If you eliminate the speculators, that chaos has to go somewhere, and wherever else it goes, I don't think you'll like where it eventually ends up. Keep the chaos on the speculator - he/she actually wants it.
That being said, I think that inexperienced traders are using way too much leverage when trading, and that's the main problem. I'd be in favor of some sort of graduated system, where you're allowed to use more leverage as you gain experience (and manage to survive). Put the mandates on the brokers and let them do the enforcement.
I think physical security is more important here. And I wouldn't get too paranoid. Lots of professional thieves want the laptop just for the laptop, not the squidgy information inside it.
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Or are you just happy telling others how they should write code?
Requirements are more of a political/organizational tool than anything else. An *RD makes sure that Marketing and Engineering have their arses covered. One can't complain about features being left out. Maybe the customer enters into the equation, maybe not - depends on the company. While there is some politics in OSS, it's not nearly as much as in a traditional corporate environment. And not enough to justify anything like a *RD.
And for the initial coder who's just "scratching the itch", it's non-existent.
If we even began to pay off the national debt, the economy would implode so fast it would spin your head right off your body. Our monetary system is based on that national debt you want to liquidate.
Unfortunately, growth of the nationall debt is coming to an end, and it is going to liquidated one way or another. It ain't going to be pretty. Welcome to the new economy.
By the grantee of the options. The grantor gets to write off the options on its taxes. All of which presupposes a rising stock market.
However things look quite different in a falling or plateauing market. Then the grantor is stuck with a huge tax bill they haven't been prepared to pay. That affects earnings, which affect the stock price, which, well, you get the picture.
Options are a form of leverage and should be respected in use, the same way you would respect a chainsaw in use.
Whether or not the hatred now being expressed toward corporations is justified or not, I won't say. It does seem to be the new trend. All I will say is that the trend is your friend, unless you are at the end of the trend.
I find it interesting that these things have been going on for years, and it's only now that people are beginning to pay attention to them.
In bull markets, people ignore the bad news and pay attention to the good news. In bear markets, people pay attention to the bad news, and ignore the good news.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. There is much more to come.
If heroin were legal, it would be about as cheap as tobacco (which is still legal, for now), and crimes related to heroin addiction would drop precipitously.
After all, you don't see too many people burgling steroes to buy cigarettes. I bet you that as soon as tobacco becomes illegal, you'll see a sharp increase in property crimes related to obtaining expensive and illegal cigarettes. Or maybe nicotine inhalers will finally come into their own.
INTERCAL is the language your mother warned you about. INTERCAL home page. Seriously, I've used both C and C++, and let me tell you, when used properly, you can write and maintain a lot more code if you're using C++ then if you're using C. But you have to use it properly. And I wouldn't recommend anyone to start out with C++, just as I wouldn't recommend anyone to bench 200lbs, if they've never lifted any weights before. You have to work up to it. But once you're up to it, the difference between C++ and C is like shooting a bullet instead of throwing it.
I don't like it. Don't think it's probable. Too much extrapolation from present conditions. The future is nonlinear, arbitrary jumps. Can't predict it.
2035 will probably be another top of a much less enthusiastic bull market. The depression will bottom around 2010-20. It will be a profound depression. The social fabric of this country will come apart in the most profound manner.
If you have to get me to give a vision of the future, I think the world of Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash will be closest to it.
I think the choice of language matters less than the programmer who speaks it.
Generally if you become truly proficient in one programming language, it is not that hard to pick up another. They are all tied to machine code, and in some fundamental sense, are the same. The only attempt I've seen to make a language that is different is Intercal. Try comparing that to any other language out there, I dare you.
Try to be the best programmer you can be, and let the others argue over which ice cream flavor is best.
Their stock is overvalued, and they have to keep their earnings up. If they cut prices, they cut earnings, and, they cut their stock price.
If not Transmeta, then it will be AMD that does Intel in. And if Transmeta can do just 10% better than AMD, businesswise, they should have a very bright future ahead of them.
Didn't imply any coercion was involved. Simply want to state that the expectations of a physics major should be realistic. If you really love it, go for it.
You might want to take a look at a few other posts on this topic. One guy said he knew some "shipwrecked physicists who were ~30". Although no one forced them into a PhD program, if they knew that they would be "delivering pizzas" at 30, they probably would've made different decisions. It's a BIG investment in time, that could be spent doing something else.
It's great that you (or someone you knew) was able to make a go of it as a physicist. For your good story I know 3 bad ones off the top of my head. And I suspect this was one of the "really good" cases. There just aren't enough jobs to go around to all the "good" people who want one.
1. There was the post-doc who was previously delivering chinese food. And when I left, he was scrambling to find another post-doc.
2. There was the PhD who had to go back to his parents after graduation and start delivering pizzas.
3. Another PhD grad managed to slide into the computer industry and is doing well. But all of that QM expertise he had went straight to the shelf.
And I've heard enough other horror stories to know that it's a real struggle to find a job. Those of you out there who want to be a physics PhD, think long and hard about it!
The real solution is to limit PhD "births". However, there are vested interests in keeping the present system. Grad students form a pliable cheap labor pool. If they limited the number of grad students, work would take longer to perform, and/or cost more. That's a real bummer if you're a professor with fixed budget and a "publish or perish" imperative to fulfil.
Some grad students have started to organize unions at some universities.
Perhaps "career" is the wrong word. How about "expectations of a decent living" or "job security" or "medical insurance" or "adequate housing" or "middle class lifestyle" instead?
If you go into physics not expecting to obtain or keep any of these things, fine, go for it. Otherwise, I'd skip it and move on.
The tragic thing is, unless you're really good, you'll find yourself flipping burgers at 50 after having worked at a string of temporary trash post-doc jobs. YOu have to got to really love physics in order to put up with that. And the bar that defines "really good" keeps moving higher each year.
You might want to check out this URL. This is a Caltech professor talking about the lousy job market in physics. He goes into detail about what is going on. It is not a pretty picture. Unless you're very very good, physics is not something to base a careeer on. I wish it were different, and it will be someday, but not for quite a long while.
The economy is telling you that it has too many physicists. There is a NEGATIVE economic need for more scientists. Unless you think you're going to be the next Feynman or Gell-Mann, be something the economy needs more of.
This has been a problem fo a while. It is endemic to all of the basic sciences. It is going to get worse before it gets better.
Let me advise those of you out there who are thinking about working for a big company IT dept. Every big company has more interesting parts to it and less interesting parts to it. You want to work for the interesting bits of the company, and avoid the boring bits. The interesting bits of the company would be "Engineering" or "Product Development". The most boring bits of the company you can usually find under the "G&A" column. Guess who the CIO usually reports to? The CFO. Guess what the IT dept is generally considered part of? Accounting. Guess what Accounting is considered part of? G&A. Guess where the major mgt consultants concentrate their efforts on to work their special brand of, um, magic? The "G&A" part of the company. Do you see a pattern developing here?
Granted, it's not exactly this way in every company, but the majority operate similar to this.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree - if you have the financial wherewithal, do it. Even if you don't, GED and community college beckon. There's no reason for anyone to suffer needlessly.
Take control of your life, 'cause no one else is going to.
Watching stocks and trading them are two very different things.
"They" may know more than you do, but "they" ultimately have to act on that knowledge, and price, volume and trend tell all. There's enough crumbs at the table to make a good living if you're deft and quick. And that can take quite a while to learn.
If you're one of "them" you're not really a stock trader, but an insider trying to unload onto the speculating public, which are the folks who take the risk the insiders don't want (insiders get nice cold hard cash, and the public gets these little pieces of paper of dubious value).
Market news isn't all it's cracked up to be. By the time news hits the wire, the price pretty much reflects whatever "value" the news had. I don't pay attention to news that much.
I agree with you about the insider shenanigans, and the blind eye of the SEC. But that doesn't require a new trading tax, but the SEC getting off its duff and doing what it's supposed to be doing, which I wish it would do.
Um, who would get this tax revenue to "end world poverty"? The poor? I doubt it. Although if you want to create barriers to international capital flows, that would do it. Those barriers may have unintended consequences in addition to stability.
But currency trading isn't stock trading at all. Currency trading and currency futures are in a league of their own. Have to be very rich and big to play in that arena. The name Soros comes to mind...
Most speculators lose their ass to the market. Speculation is hard, and you have to exert extraordinary self-discipline in order to succeed. Professional traders have often lost 2 or 3 fortunes before finally learning enough to make a living at it. Others have gone sideways for 10 or 20 years, before finally figuring it out.
Those "evil speculators" absorb a lot of risk and chaos. If you eliminate the speculators, that chaos has to go somewhere, and wherever else it goes, I don't think you'll like where it eventually ends up. Keep the chaos on the speculator - he/she actually wants it.
That being said, I think that inexperienced traders are using way too much leverage when trading, and that's the main problem. I'd be in favor of some sort of graduated system, where you're allowed to use more leverage as you gain experience (and manage to survive). Put the mandates on the brokers and let them do the enforcement.
I think physical security is more important here. And I wouldn't get too paranoid. Lots of professional thieves want the laptop just for the laptop, not the squidgy information inside it.
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Or are you just happy telling others how they should write code?
Requirements are more of a political/organizational tool than anything else. An *RD makes sure that Marketing and Engineering have their arses covered. One can't complain about features being left out. Maybe the customer enters into the equation, maybe not - depends on the company. While there is some politics in OSS, it's not nearly as much as in a traditional corporate environment. And not enough to justify anything like a *RD.
And for the initial coder who's just "scratching the itch", it's non-existent.
If we even began to pay off the national debt, the economy would implode so fast it would spin your head right off your body. Our monetary system is based on that national debt you want to liquidate.
Unfortunately, growth of the nationall debt is coming to an end, and it is going to liquidated one way or another. It ain't going to be pretty. Welcome to the new economy.
By the grantee of the options. The grantor gets to write off the options on its taxes. All of which presupposes a rising stock market.
However things look quite different in a falling or plateauing market. Then the grantor is stuck with a huge tax bill they haven't been prepared to pay. That affects earnings, which affect the stock price, which, well, you get the picture.
Options are a form of leverage and should be respected in use, the same way you would respect a chainsaw in use.
Whether or not the hatred now being expressed toward corporations is justified or not, I won't say. It does seem to be the new trend. All I will say is that the trend is your friend, unless you are at the end of the trend.
And then sticking it to FBI for patent infringement?
And "Content Provider"?
Have you ever thought that maybe the big boys
who run things want this?
They'd rather preserve the status-quo than feel
the pain of growth.
In their eyes, we are the enemy, little punks who are just going to screw up their gravy train if they let us have our way.
Next refuel - 10 years. Would be a bear to maintain though :)
I find it interesting that these things have been going on for years, and it's only now that people are beginning to pay attention to them.
In bull markets, people ignore the bad news and pay attention to the good news. In bear markets, people pay attention to the bad news, and ignore the good news.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. There is much more to come.
If heroin were legal, it would be about as cheap as tobacco (which is still legal, for now), and crimes related to heroin addiction would drop precipitously.
After all, you don't see too many people burgling steroes to buy cigarettes. I bet you that as soon as tobacco becomes illegal, you'll see a sharp increase in property crimes related to obtaining expensive and illegal cigarettes. Or maybe nicotine inhalers will finally come into their own.
INTERCAL is the language your mother warned you about. INTERCAL home page. Seriously, I've used both C and C++, and let me tell you, when used properly, you can write and maintain a lot more code if you're using C++ then if you're using C. But you have to use it properly. And I wouldn't recommend anyone to start out with C++, just as I wouldn't recommend anyone to bench 200lbs, if they've never lifted any weights before. You have to work up to it. But once you're up to it, the difference between C++ and C is like shooting a bullet instead of throwing it.
I don't like it. Don't think it's probable. Too much extrapolation from present conditions. The future is nonlinear, arbitrary jumps. Can't predict it.
2035 will probably be another top of a much less enthusiastic bull market. The depression will bottom around 2010-20. It will be a profound depression. The social fabric of this country will come apart in the most profound manner.
If you have to get me to give a vision of the future, I think the world of Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash will be closest to it.
I think the choice of language matters less than the programmer who speaks it.
Generally if you become truly proficient in one programming language, it is not that hard to pick up another. They are all tied to machine code, and in some fundamental sense, are the same. The only attempt I've seen to make a language that is different is Intercal. Try comparing that to any other language out there, I dare you.
Try to be the best programmer you can be, and let the others argue over which ice cream flavor is best.
Their stock is overvalued, and they have to keep their earnings up. If they cut prices, they cut earnings, and, they cut their stock price.
If not Transmeta, then it will be AMD that does Intel in. And if Transmeta can do just 10% better than AMD, businesswise, they should have a very bright future ahead of them.
Didn't imply any coercion was involved. Simply want to state that the expectations of a physics major should be realistic. If you really love it, go for it.
You might want to take a look at a few other posts on this topic. One guy said he knew some "shipwrecked physicists who were ~30". Although no one forced them into a PhD program, if they knew that they would be "delivering pizzas" at 30, they probably would've made different decisions. It's a BIG investment in time, that could be spent doing something else.
It's great that you (or someone you knew) was able to make a go of it as a physicist. For your good story I know 3 bad ones off the top of my head. And I suspect this was one of the "really good" cases. There just aren't enough jobs to go around to all the "good" people who want one.
1. There was the post-doc who was previously delivering chinese food. And when I left, he was scrambling to find another post-doc.
2. There was the PhD who had to go back to his parents after graduation and start delivering pizzas.
3. Another PhD grad managed to slide into the computer industry and is doing well. But all of that QM expertise he had went straight to the shelf.
And I've heard enough other horror stories to know that it's a real struggle to find a job. Those of you out there who want to be a physics PhD, think long and hard about it!
The real solution is to limit PhD "births". However, there are vested interests in keeping the present system. Grad students form a pliable cheap labor pool. If they limited the number of grad students, work would take longer to perform, and/or cost more. That's a real bummer if you're a professor with fixed budget and a "publish or perish" imperative to fulfil.
Some grad students have started to organize unions at some universities.
Perhaps "career" is the wrong word. How about "expectations of a decent living" or "job security" or "medical insurance" or "adequate housing" or "middle class lifestyle" instead?
If you go into physics not expecting to obtain or keep any of these things, fine, go for it. Otherwise, I'd skip it and move on.
The tragic thing is, unless you're really good, you'll find yourself flipping burgers at 50 after having worked at a string of temporary trash post-doc jobs. YOu have to got to really love physics in order to put up with that. And the bar that defines "really good" keeps moving higher each year.
You might want to check out this URL. This is a Caltech professor talking about the lousy job market in physics. He goes into detail about what is going on. It is not a pretty picture. Unless you're very very good, physics is not something to base a careeer on. I wish it were different, and it will be someday, but not for quite a long while.
Goodstein's The Big Crunch
The economy is telling you that it has too many physicists. There is a NEGATIVE economic need for more scientists. Unless you think you're going to be the next Feynman or Gell-Mann, be something the economy needs more of.
This has been a problem fo a while. It is endemic to all of the basic sciences. It is going to get worse before it gets better.
Let me advise those of you out there who are thinking about working for a big company IT dept. Every big company has more interesting parts to it and less interesting parts to it. You want to work for the interesting bits of the company, and avoid the boring bits. The interesting bits of the company would be "Engineering" or "Product Development". The most boring bits of the company you can usually find under the "G&A" column. Guess who the CIO usually reports to? The CFO. Guess what the IT dept is generally considered part of? Accounting. Guess what Accounting is considered part of? G&A. Guess where the major mgt consultants concentrate their efforts on to work their special brand of, um, magic? The "G&A" part of the company. Do you see a pattern developing here?
Granted, it's not exactly this way in every company, but the majority operate similar to this.
What if this bug got into say, the storage tank
at a dairy farm, for example. Or maybe the
pipes that carry peanut butter in a candy bar
factory?
It would be IMPOSSIBLE to disinfect the
equipment. Resistant to radiation. Resistant to
heat. Resistant to harsh chemicals.
What if someone took this bug, merged it with
anthrax and dropped it over New York?
I'm not saying that this kind of research shouldn't be done, but think a little bit before
saying "kewl!"
Gee, I really wasn't that interested in this
whole DeCSS mess. As a working programmer, I've
got better things to do.
But now I'm interested in downloading the code.
And I'm interested in learning the decryption
algorithm.
Wouldn't have happened if they hadn't started
using heavy handed tactics.