Software can't go back and add the original light back to the image, it does a decent job, but there's a pretty noticable
increase in quality from upconverted DVD to Blu-Ray.
Top image is HD, bottom image is upconverted.
The stock price is basically the expectation of future stream of dividends, and the most important valuable are those over the next 10 or so years. For a growing company there might not be any dividends expected in 10 or so years, so the growth rate must remain exceptionally high for the stock to have any postitive value. The difference between a 50% growth rate and a 75% growth rate in the present on expected dividends 20-30 years from now (if you expect growth to follow some sort of decellerating growth rate) is pretty significant, so the stock price moves down to reflect the new expectations. It'll move less if management can make a good case for why the lower profit now will mean less decay in the future, but market participants will probably take it with a grain of salt and wonder why that wasn't in the original plan if it was such a good idea.
The cheapskate option in most bricks and morter stores is to buy over time, loss leaders/promotion/clearance will usually bring lower prices than any other method, if one is patient enough, the trick is the entire store is an exercise testing your patience.
Wal-Mart's secret to success is that they most efficiently communicate actual buyer behavior back to manufacturers with the minimum manipulation or cost. So while everyone may not like what's offered at wal-mart, many/most people prefer it to other options. This is the store that knows that Strawberry poptart demand rises 2-3x after a hurricane, but other flavors are flat. If they sell mostly cheap products at low prices with few options for more quality, it's because most buyers only buy cheap products at low prices and don't see any reason to trade up, that's a problem with manufacturer branding or value propositions though.
My experience has been that really expensive clothing lasts a lot longer than the moderately expensive stuff. There's a huge difference in durability (especially after 10-20 washs) of the stuff that was sourced through Nordstrom's boutique vs the stuff sourced through their mainline stores. Oddly the price difference is pretty slim once it gets to the clearance rack at their liquidator.
I think it comes down to most people not giving a rats ass about the King's English when posting anything online, because English is a very flexible language that can be correctly intrepreted even when it's horribly mangled. Writing perfect English is something most people realized turns out to be mostly a waste of time in terms of how much meaning one gets across. Plus it gives all the lemon suckers something to bitch about.
It's an unfortunate flaw of a market system that some people will have more resources than others. It's the application of scarce resources that forces all parties to explicitly reveal their preferences that makes markets such effective distributors of resources. If your lawyer is lazy/overworked, it's expected that as the principle you have selected your attorney with the utmost care and wanted him for a reason. It's not the court's job to force you to change, outside of several very specific cases.
Courts are organized to allow imperfect humans to reach the most fair decision by allowing all information presented to be opposed if desired by the opposition. Introducing information into that decision making process without presenting the opportunity to reveal any issues, is a more dangerous potential bias, than the unequal distribution of lawyer resources.
The whole point of a trial in the US is to allow both sides an opportunity to present their view of the facts as they relate to the law. If one side's attorney isn't smart enough to bring up a relavent point, that's sort of their loss. Jurors randomly educating themselves from likely biased sources is far from a fair way to make decisions.
The problem as I see it is that programming is the only industrial process that combines design and implementation, and construction work, and it's pretty rare to find a designer who's also a good engineer who's also a good machinist (meaning that there are precious few truly good programmers). I'm not sure how to split programming, but suspect someone will figure out how to split the two parts of the job.
The article was about a merchant who is talked about (almost entirely in exceedingly negative reviews) online a lot. Previously more reviews meant the google algorithm decided people were interested, enough that this site was above the, much larger and more useful links, from manufacturers of the products they, resold. In essense their version of SEO, was to be recklessly fraudulent because it meant a host of negative reviews, that google interpreted as interest.
I would think it is important to prevent companies from simply writing off illegal activities and paying off some trivial amount of money in the even they get caught.
Even if the "activities" only caused trivial damage?
If I regularly shoot bullets in random directions in my city, I can probably get away with trivial damages most of the time too. Would you think a fair penalty is simply to have me pay for the windows I shoot out?
I don't disagree, except that the truly rich mostly have capital gains/carried interest which wasn't subject to social security in the first place (and as Ireland shows) is easy to move offshore. Really who you propose going after are generally smart people born poor or middle class (or the rare layabout who gets a very good job at daddy's company) whose assets aren't financial and whose income is the return on those assets.
Starting in the next few years, social security is solvent only if the government can continue to borrow, which might well be quite a bit shorter than 29 years at the current borrowing rates. (Social security begins drawing down the debt the government has accumulated fairly soon (it's already occuring on an seasonal monthly basis).
I don't, I'd be quite happy paying out of pocket for health care, and would be exceedingly happy to have the option to pocket my health insurance benefit except to buy a very high deductable plan (say coverage for stuff $20,000 and up or higher). I don't carry collision or comprehensive on my cars, and only have fire insurance because the mortgage requires it (once it's paid off, I'd drop fire insurance).
I agree though that the current reforms are pretty terrible (though after 2014, they seem to be designed to bankrupt insurers which was probably a feature not a bug).
They still are, Citizens United only allows them to express an opinion on an issue, but makes no restriction on their ability ot express an opinion on an issue.
Because the founders realized that if the rights weren't codified there was potential for future governments to trample them. The constitution is very clear, that the rights expressed in the bill of rights are fundamental to humanness, and are explicitly not granted by the state.
No one cares if the bank can tie your transaction at the ATM directly to you, also banks only care that fraud stays low enough that it doesn't kill profitability, not the 0% standard that elections require.
Here's a nice paper to get a ball park estimate of the value of the internet (not telecom equipment) companies in 1999. I came up with 300-450 bn depending on how quickly growth occured between 98 and 99. That's awfully close to the current value of the 3 winners I mentioned (~300 bn) and ignoring several other winners. Granted, you and i can consider them overpriced, but I doubt anyone would consider them anything other than legitimate businesses. Everyone was gambling that they owned a piece of one of the 3-5 eventual winners. Since there are real internet businesses worth arguably 200-300 bn today, the dot com boom wasn't as insane as the housing bubble or telecom equipment bubble (neither of which are/will be worth a fraction of their peak value).
The problem was twofold, first there were way too many potential winners public (that's where all the excess value came from, and second, coincidental to the dot com boom was a real bubble in telecom equipment that was inflated due to government meddling in the telecom market (long distance degregulation and the 96 telecommunications act). That was a much bigger bubble with much higher real costs.
Most of the 100 year old Dow Firms are still companies even if they're not in the dow. Public companies aren't start ups they're very well entrenched competitors (airlines obviously excepted). All but one of the original members still exists as a large business today. The dot com period was pretty rare because it was a period of speculation on firms that weren't yet established.
Dot com IPOs rarely sold more than 10-20% of the firm initially. Since the prices were rising quickly, most of the insiders preferred to wait until the lockups were expired and sell then. This created temporary periods where 10 million people were chasing 5 million shares (adjust for the firm size as needed). From the perspective of a public buyer, there's no difference between the founder and the venture capitalists, all are large holding insiders.
I agree with you except to separate dot coms from telecom firms. Dot coms \dot coms weren't a bubble (as there was plenty of profit in owning the valuable properties of the interent to justify the industry's value in 1999) in the same way that telecoms and homes were unjustly valued (and both were inflated with a plethera of government support).
Slashdot Mirror
Software can't go back and add the original light back to the image, it does a decent job, but there's a pretty noticable increase in quality from upconverted DVD to Blu-Ray.
Top image is HD, bottom image is upconverted.
Probably not intential metal roofing is the cheapest material.
The stock price is basically the expectation of future stream of dividends, and the most important valuable are those over the next 10 or so years. For a growing company there might not be any dividends expected in 10 or so years, so the growth rate must remain exceptionally high for the stock to have any postitive value. The difference between a 50% growth rate and a 75% growth rate in the present on expected dividends 20-30 years from now (if you expect growth to follow some sort of decellerating growth rate) is pretty significant, so the stock price moves down to reflect the new expectations. It'll move less if management can make a good case for why the lower profit now will mean less decay in the future, but market participants will probably take it with a grain of salt and wonder why that wasn't in the original plan if it was such a good idea.
The airlines learned this a little while ago.
The cheapskate option in most bricks and morter stores is to buy over time, loss leaders/promotion/clearance will usually bring lower prices than any other method, if one is patient enough, the trick is the entire store is an exercise testing your patience.
Wal-Mart's secret to success is that they most efficiently communicate actual buyer behavior back to manufacturers with the minimum manipulation or cost. So while everyone may not like what's offered at wal-mart, many/most people prefer it to other options. This is the store that knows that Strawberry poptart demand rises 2-3x after a hurricane, but other flavors are flat. If they sell mostly cheap products at low prices with few options for more quality, it's because most buyers only buy cheap products at low prices and don't see any reason to trade up, that's a problem with manufacturer branding or value propositions though.
My experience has been that really expensive clothing lasts a lot longer than the moderately expensive stuff. There's a huge difference in durability (especially after 10-20 washs) of the stuff that was sourced through Nordstrom's boutique vs the stuff sourced through their mainline stores. Oddly the price difference is pretty slim once it gets to the clearance rack at their liquidator.
I think it comes down to most people not giving a rats ass about the King's English when posting anything online, because English is a very flexible language that can be correctly intrepreted even when it's horribly mangled. Writing perfect English is something most people realized turns out to be mostly a waste of time in terms of how much meaning one gets across. Plus it gives all the lemon suckers something to bitch about.
http://www.mytechinterviews.com/is-your-husband-a-cheat This situation isn't all that different, think of the US as the mayor in this problem.
It's an unfortunate flaw of a market system that some people will have more resources than others. It's the application of scarce resources that forces all parties to explicitly reveal their preferences that makes markets such effective distributors of resources. If your lawyer is lazy/overworked, it's expected that as the principle you have selected your attorney with the utmost care and wanted him for a reason. It's not the court's job to force you to change, outside of several very specific cases.
Courts are organized to allow imperfect humans to reach the most fair decision by allowing all information presented to be opposed if desired by the opposition. Introducing information into that decision making process without presenting the opportunity to reveal any issues, is a more dangerous potential bias, than the unequal distribution of lawyer resources.
The whole point of a trial in the US is to allow both sides an opportunity to present their view of the facts as they relate to the law. If one side's attorney isn't smart enough to bring up a relavent point, that's sort of their loss. Jurors randomly educating themselves from likely biased sources is far from a fair way to make decisions.
The problem as I see it is that programming is the only industrial process that combines design and implementation, and construction work, and it's pretty rare to find a designer who's also a good engineer who's also a good machinist (meaning that there are precious few truly good programmers). I'm not sure how to split programming, but suspect someone will figure out how to split the two parts of the job.
The article was about a merchant who is talked about (almost entirely in exceedingly negative reviews) online a lot. Previously more reviews meant the google algorithm decided people were interested, enough that this site was above the, much larger and more useful links, from manufacturers of the products they, resold. In essense their version of SEO, was to be recklessly fraudulent because it meant a host of negative reviews, that google interpreted as interest.
I would think it is important to prevent companies from simply writing off illegal activities and paying off some trivial amount of money in the even they get caught.
Even if the "activities" only caused trivial damage?
If I regularly shoot bullets in random directions in my city, I can probably get away with trivial damages most of the time too. Would you think a fair penalty is simply to have me pay for the windows I shoot out?
I'd guess a fence probably sells their goods for far less than retail, too.
I don't disagree, except that the truly rich mostly have capital gains/carried interest which wasn't subject to social security in the first place (and as Ireland shows) is easy to move offshore. Really who you propose going after are generally smart people born poor or middle class (or the rare layabout who gets a very good job at daddy's company) whose assets aren't financial and whose income is the return on those assets.
Something like a force on force with miles gear? It's tough to get too realistic with battles, because people are kinda squishy.
Starting in the next few years, social security is solvent only if the government can continue to borrow, which might well be quite a bit shorter than 29 years at the current borrowing rates. (Social security begins drawing down the debt the government has accumulated fairly soon (it's already occuring on an seasonal monthly basis).
1. Fly 14 billion km measure, radio results back.
2. Continue flying for a few hundred years, then return in giant ship whose communications wreak havoc across your homeworld.
I don't, I'd be quite happy paying out of pocket for health care, and would be exceedingly happy to have the option to pocket my health insurance benefit except to buy a very high deductable plan (say coverage for stuff $20,000 and up or higher). I don't carry collision or comprehensive on my cars, and only have fire insurance because the mortgage requires it (once it's paid off, I'd drop fire insurance).
I agree though that the current reforms are pretty terrible (though after 2014, they seem to be designed to bankrupt insurers which was probably a feature not a bug).
They still are, Citizens United only allows them to express an opinion on an issue, but makes no restriction on their ability ot express an opinion on an issue.
Because the founders realized that if the rights weren't codified there was potential for future governments to trample them. The constitution is very clear, that the rights expressed in the bill of rights are fundamental to humanness, and are explicitly not granted by the state.
No one cares if the bank can tie your transaction at the ATM directly to you, also banks only care that fraud stays low enough that it doesn't kill profitability, not the 0% standard that elections require.
Here's a nice paper to get a ball park estimate of the value of the internet (not telecom equipment) companies in 1999. I came up with 300-450 bn depending on how quickly growth occured between 98 and 99. That's awfully close to the current value of the 3 winners I mentioned (~300 bn) and ignoring several other winners. Granted, you and i can consider them overpriced, but I doubt anyone would consider them anything other than legitimate businesses. Everyone was gambling that they owned a piece of one of the 3-5 eventual winners. Since there are real internet businesses worth arguably 200-300 bn today, the dot com boom wasn't as insane as the housing bubble or telecom equipment bubble (neither of which are/will be worth a fraction of their peak value).
The problem was twofold, first there were way too many potential winners public (that's where all the excess value came from, and second, coincidental to the dot com boom was a real bubble in telecom equipment that was inflated due to government meddling in the telecom market (long distance degregulation and the 96 telecommunications act). That was a much bigger bubble with much higher real costs.
Most of the 100 year old Dow Firms are still companies even if they're not in the dow. Public companies aren't start ups they're very well entrenched competitors (airlines obviously excepted). All but one of the original members still exists as a large business today. The dot com period was pretty rare because it was a period of speculation on firms that weren't yet established.
Dot com IPOs rarely sold more than 10-20% of the firm initially. Since the prices were rising quickly, most of the insiders preferred to wait until the lockups were expired and sell then. This created temporary periods where 10 million people were chasing 5 million shares (adjust for the firm size as needed). From the perspective of a public buyer, there's no difference between the founder and the venture capitalists, all are large holding insiders.
I agree with you except to separate dot coms from telecom firms. Dot coms \dot coms weren't a bubble (as there was plenty of profit in owning the valuable properties of the interent to justify the industry's value in 1999) in the same way that telecoms and homes were unjustly valued (and both were inflated with a plethera of government support).
The dot com bubble more or less correctly predicted the eventual value of ebay, amazon, and google. The problems were
a) no one had any idea who the winners would be
b) the game was sort of a tournment for firms so there were going to be many losers and only a few winners, and
c) most of the dot com companies issued very small portions of the company.