I think they get cited mostly because the run on windows. Windows is actually pretty cheap (in high volume OEM channels see how much you can save off a Dell by buying grey market components) that's about the cost of Windows to Dell. As a result most people are willing to pay for Windows, it's MS office that gets to be expensive.
I belive you on the mistake I'd guess Money and USA today are listing only the market value of the Class A stock which was the only kind floated. It's a pretty easy mistake to make (you would have had to have read their filings to know it was incorrect). I'd agree that GM is a bit undervalued and that Google is way overvalued. Part of the problem is that people are investing in tech companies trying to find the next Microsoft (but not remembering that the reason MS and Intel provided the returns they did is that they were all very small companies that no one took seriously once). I'm sure that investors are correct that a few companies will come to dominate a new market in the same way MS and Intel did, however they will be due for a very nasty surprise when they get a much smaller return (since they paid a whole lot more for them than early investors in the other two did).
Google's search was never driven off math, rather it used the free effort of millions of people to decide what to return with searches. Kind of ironic that the latest, greatest high tech company really just found a better way to utilize the labor of millions of people. Hopefully, this will spark an epiphany in the mind of some kid who will eventually change the world in their own way.
Um, last time I checked Google's market cap was much closer to 30 billion than 5 billion. Keep in mind that GM doesn't make anything off their cars anymore, and that a significant amount of value GM creates is more likely to flow to their pensions than their shareholders and you have the explination for their very low valuation. That said the contrarian money is beginning to take a look at the auto companies.
On blacksmithing, why is this such a faciniaton of geeks? I've always wanted to forge something, but the rational side of me realizes that my apartment isn't quite the best location. Ive seeen more than a few web pages (the early kind from the mid ninties when you had to be a geek to be online) devoted to smithing. And while I realize that it was certainly state of the art technology 1000 years ago, why is that particlular facet of tech development still an important part of what we want to do today. I think I'll have a forge about as long after it takes me to build it from when I retire.
One of the wisest definitions of prosperity I've ever heard was "enough to meet all of your needs and give something away, too." Much more than that and you won't really benefit much in addition, and much less and you will spend too much effort worrying about financial means. However, I will echo your child post with the statement better a dry crust with love than prime rib with strife. I had reached my definition of prosperity and will probably always be an optimist (so take the entire post with a grain of salt) but I don't think that the contentment that comes from prosperity really comes close to the happy couples and families that I've met. (Around here I could probably meet prosperity for myself on a WalMart salary, although it certainly wouldn't provide for a wife and kids).
I think of such important (family and very close friend) relatioships like leverage, if they are bad, you will have extra badness from those relationships, but if they are good they certainly improve bad external stimulii from all other fronts. Crumbling job markets do suck.
He made several of his early billions on a bet against the British central bank due to some oddities related to them moving away from a fixed exchange rate. Putting it simply he bought cheap Pounds from the British central bank and sold them on the open market at very, very high prices (they were attempting to hold a constant exchange rate he and others made the policy too costly) effectivly looting the British central bank. Someone will eventually be able to do something similar in China, although it will be more difficult given their larger resource base and considerable export base. You would have to find a very large pool of resources to break the Chinese currency authorities.
Yeah but you forgot the first tennant of finance. If you steal $100,000 you get 10 years in the klink. If you steal $100 million they call you a banker. Soros got his initial wealth by looting (trading against) the British central bank. So it really is no surprise that he would be doing the same thing in Russia a few years later. A state bond is no more stealing from tax payers than a mortgage stealing from you, it facilitates the purchase of goods that you can't afford now. Sometimes this can be a very good thing (in the case of project that might take 30 years to pay off but will provide a tremendous amount of benefits if you built it now (vs waiting 30 years to save for it). It generally works fine in the private sector, the theft in the public sector comes in the form of projects that shouldn't be built with the governments money (surplus or deficit). Asking the state to make you whole is certainly an attempt to benefit you over the citizens of the country.
I've always found it ironic that a guy who made billions off bad central bank policies can give a few hundred million (possibly two years of interest) to economic development and gets a get out of jail free card from all the people who would normally hate him. He certainly knew the risks when he bought the bonds (and likely paid far less than par) this is akin to a credit agency buying some unpaid consumer debt for a few cents on the dollar and then petitioning congress to make this type of debt a senior lein on your house if it is unpaid. The whole rest of the market thought Russia would default Soros thought they were wrong, these are the situations when fortunes are won and lost, but you pays your money and you takes your chances.
There is a democratic representative who has consistently supported similar positions to the average/.er. I cannot remember his name, but he has been featured on/. YRO articles before. I really cannot think of any presidential candidate who has a real position on IT.
Yeah and you could use slope and intercept for your plot too. But the easiest way to plot a linear regression is to chart your stuff, then right click on your data and add regression line... its there over the useful range and everything. You can do the same in OO.o but it takes a few more clicks context menus are vasty different from one to the other (not really better or worse just different).
You no doubt already know that were are insular, ignorant little fucknozzles who buy a whole lot of crap from the rest of the world and borrow a bunch of your money to pay for it. If we didn't you would be welcome to ignore us as we wouldn't be very likely to do much with the rest of the world (we'd probably go back to the Monroe doctrine, not that that would be a good thing). Since you asked, my question is can you show me an opinion poll from anywhere else in the world about the Chirac government?
The main point is that Americans will be turned off by world opinion. The secondary point is that it seems sort of pointless to survey global opinion about a country's election. No one surveys German opinion about French or Russian politics (with any expectation of affecting French or Russian voters) that I've ever seen. While interest occurs globally, (look at all the interest in the Chavez referendum) unless some one was planning an invasion it really doesn't amount to much. I was sor of rambling in hopes of coming up with something good.
We would occasionally sneak over and turn them off when another student wasn't looking. Or to turn them back on for that burst of power. Oddly enough my current computer is close to needing a turbine for the cooling system.
Outside of The Economist (which has and expresses an opinion about the dog catcher in Outer Mongolia) I don't see anything near this level of preference expressed regarding other nuclear powers' leaders. Italy's current prime minister caused a stir and the nationalists in Austria caused a bit of a stir a few years back (I'd categorize most of the international dissatisfaction toward the Blair government as misplaced anger towards the Bush administration). However, when was the last time you saw considerable, active interest (polls, etc) of the German opinion of the French government or the Putin administration. Sure, all informed citizens of the world have some opinion of other world leaders, but it seems that this election in the US is particularly important to the rest of the world.
Oddly enough the international interest is likely to have the opposite effect on the average American voter who is very independant and still generally prefers to be isolationist (unless oil is involved).
We're not voting for head of the UN (perhaps Kerry should seek that post) this is our election and most American's don't really care what the rest of the world wants in our leader, how come we never see global preferences for Britian, China, Japan or other countries' leader selection.
Put it in terms they understand. Next time they are argueing about splitting something. Explain that you help to grown ups when they cannot decide a fair way to split something. My uncle and grandfather were both attorneys and it didn't take too long to understand what they did (besides wear a tie every day).
Capital growth is certainly not a zero sum game, but the company needs to be growign capital. Too many public companies are more like Microsoft. I think once the bubble is finally fully deflated, you will see a signficant increase in companies going private as there is no need for them to be public. That could be a generation away however.
When elected officals funnel money to private causes almost every penny is accounted for you build a Sweedish-American history center in the town that brought you all the votes you needed to get elected. Or farmers find a special treat in the new farm bill. Or an air base gets built in your district. Or there is a provision in the newest tax bill that companies can take a tax credit for the R&D associated with a single industry. It's not "lost" to the government (they watched it walk out the door) and billions more goes that way than through the occasionall corrupt bureaucrat.
This was the same bubble that burst for everyone else. CA is rolling along fine now (along with everyone who wasn't bankrupt in 2001. The people who suffered already did. However, here as with Enron the wheels of Justice turn slowly.
Yeah but all the money retained by businesses goes to expanding the bond portfolio. This is espeically true for technology companies. MS, Cisco, and Intel all kept over 10% of their market value in bonds! Intel has some capital reqiurements (new fabs) but MS and Cisco don't really require signficant investments in capital. If you look at where tech companies spend their money its (>10% on capital, 90% on bonds). If you include the R&D expense it would be more like (25% R&D, 7% capital, 68% bonds) watch out those bonds are going to stike on a solid idea soon. It's hilarious to see any discussion of financial or economic topics on/. although it's just as funny to read investor message boards.
Keep in mind that it is still constitutionally prohibited for foreign born folk to be elected President. Candlestick makers are relaged to the House and Senate.
If it were really worth preserving it would be no problem to raise more than enough funds to buy it for the express purpose of not drilling oil in ANWR. Then your conservatory can tell the oil companies to go shove their collective thumb up their nose forever. Perhaps after raising the funds they would find other areas that were cheaper and more effective, or could come to some agreement with an environmentally sensitive oil company about ways to remove the oil that both were happy with. Unfortunately under governement control none of these things will ever happen because the oil companies have only a single incentive (drill the oil) and the greens only have a single incentive (keep the oil companies out. Private ownership is the most effective way to truly manage something for multiple uses.
Analog watches are following a fairly long trend of growth (about a decade) in exceedingly expensive (these are priced in the same range as cars) handmade mechanical watches. Since those are what the exceedingly wealthy are wearing everyone else wants to look like them too.
Slashdot Mirror
I think they get cited mostly because the run on windows. Windows is actually pretty cheap (in high volume OEM channels see how much you can save off a Dell by buying grey market components) that's about the cost of Windows to Dell. As a result most people are willing to pay for Windows, it's MS office that gets to be expensive.
Usually they use US treasury buying to try to limit exchange rate movements.
I belive you on the mistake I'd guess Money and USA today are listing only the market value of the Class A stock which was the only kind floated. It's a pretty easy mistake to make (you would have had to have read their filings to know it was incorrect). I'd agree that GM is a bit undervalued and that Google is way overvalued. Part of the problem is that people are investing in tech companies trying to find the next Microsoft (but not remembering that the reason MS and Intel provided the returns they did is that they were all very small companies that no one took seriously once). I'm sure that investors are correct that a few companies will come to dominate a new market in the same way MS and Intel did, however they will be due for a very nasty surprise when they get a much smaller return (since they paid a whole lot more for them than early investors in the other two did).
Google's search was never driven off math, rather it used the free effort of millions of people to decide what to return with searches. Kind of ironic that the latest, greatest high tech company really just found a better way to utilize the labor of millions of people. Hopefully, this will spark an epiphany in the mind of some kid who will eventually change the world in their own way.
Um, last time I checked Google's market cap was much closer to 30 billion than 5 billion. Keep in mind that GM doesn't make anything off their cars anymore, and that a significant amount of value GM creates is more likely to flow to their pensions than their shareholders and you have the explination for their very low valuation. That said the contrarian money is beginning to take a look at the auto companies.
On blacksmithing, why is this such a faciniaton of geeks? I've always wanted to forge something, but the rational side of me realizes that my apartment isn't quite the best location. Ive seeen more than a few web pages (the early kind from the mid ninties when you had to be a geek to be online) devoted to smithing. And while I realize that it was certainly state of the art technology 1000 years ago, why is that particlular facet of tech development still an important part of what we want to do today. I think I'll have a forge about as long after it takes me to build it from when I retire.
One of the wisest definitions of prosperity I've ever heard was "enough to meet all of your needs and give something away, too." Much more than that and you won't really benefit much in addition, and much less and you will spend too much effort worrying about financial means. However, I will echo your child post with the statement better a dry crust with love than prime rib with strife. I had reached my definition of prosperity and will probably always be an optimist (so take the entire post with a grain of salt) but I don't think that the contentment that comes from prosperity really comes close to the happy couples and families that I've met. (Around here I could probably meet prosperity for myself on a WalMart salary, although it certainly wouldn't provide for a wife and kids). I think of such important (family and very close friend) relatioships like leverage, if they are bad, you will have extra badness from those relationships, but if they are good they certainly improve bad external stimulii from all other fronts. Crumbling job markets do suck.
He made several of his early billions on a bet against the British central bank due to some oddities related to them moving away from a fixed exchange rate. Putting it simply he bought cheap Pounds from the British central bank and sold them on the open market at very, very high prices (they were attempting to hold a constant exchange rate he and others made the policy too costly) effectivly looting the British central bank. Someone will eventually be able to do something similar in China, although it will be more difficult given their larger resource base and considerable export base. You would have to find a very large pool of resources to break the Chinese currency authorities.
Yeah but you forgot the first tennant of finance. If you steal $100,000 you get 10 years in the klink. If you steal $100 million they call you a banker. Soros got his initial wealth by looting (trading against) the British central bank. So it really is no surprise that he would be doing the same thing in Russia a few years later. A state bond is no more stealing from tax payers than a mortgage stealing from you, it facilitates the purchase of goods that you can't afford now. Sometimes this can be a very good thing (in the case of project that might take 30 years to pay off but will provide a tremendous amount of benefits if you built it now (vs waiting 30 years to save for it). It generally works fine in the private sector, the theft in the public sector comes in the form of projects that shouldn't be built with the governments money (surplus or deficit). Asking the state to make you whole is certainly an attempt to benefit you over the citizens of the country.
I've always found it ironic that a guy who made billions off bad central bank policies can give a few hundred million (possibly two years of interest) to economic development and gets a get out of jail free card from all the people who would normally hate him. He certainly knew the risks when he bought the bonds (and likely paid far less than par) this is akin to a credit agency buying some unpaid consumer debt for a few cents on the dollar and then petitioning congress to make this type of debt a senior lein on your house if it is unpaid. The whole rest of the market thought Russia would default Soros thought they were wrong, these are the situations when fortunes are won and lost, but you pays your money and you takes your chances.
There is a democratic representative who has consistently supported similar positions to the average /.er. I cannot remember his name, but he has been featured on /. YRO articles before. I really cannot think of any presidential candidate who has a real position on IT.
Yeah and you could use slope and intercept for your plot too. But the easiest way to plot a linear regression is to chart your stuff, then right click on your data and add regression line... its there over the useful range and everything. You can do the same in OO.o but it takes a few more clicks context menus are vasty different from one to the other (not really better or worse just different).
You no doubt already know that were are insular, ignorant little fucknozzles who buy a whole lot of crap from the rest of the world and borrow a bunch of your money to pay for it. If we didn't you would be welcome to ignore us as we wouldn't be very likely to do much with the rest of the world (we'd probably go back to the Monroe doctrine, not that that would be a good thing). Since you asked, my question is can you show me an opinion poll from anywhere else in the world about the Chirac government?
The main point is that Americans will be turned off by world opinion. The secondary point is that it seems sort of pointless to survey global opinion about a country's election. No one surveys German opinion about French or Russian politics (with any expectation of affecting French or Russian voters) that I've ever seen. While interest occurs globally, (look at all the interest in the Chavez referendum) unless some one was planning an invasion it really doesn't amount to much. I was sor of rambling in hopes of coming up with something good.
This actually works well, as the database (or local test suite) could factor in all sorts of performance metrics that could change as time changes.
We would occasionally sneak over and turn them off when another student wasn't looking. Or to turn them back on for that burst of power. Oddly enough my current computer is close to needing a turbine for the cooling system.
Outside of The Economist (which has and expresses an opinion about the dog catcher in Outer Mongolia) I don't see anything near this level of preference expressed regarding other nuclear powers' leaders. Italy's current prime minister caused a stir and the nationalists in Austria caused a bit of a stir a few years back (I'd categorize most of the international dissatisfaction toward the Blair government as misplaced anger towards the Bush administration). However, when was the last time you saw considerable, active interest (polls, etc) of the German opinion of the French government or the Putin administration. Sure, all informed citizens of the world have some opinion of other world leaders, but it seems that this election in the US is particularly important to the rest of the world.
Oddly enough the international interest is likely to have the opposite effect on the average American voter who is very independant and still generally prefers to be isolationist (unless oil is involved).
We're not voting for head of the UN (perhaps Kerry should seek that post) this is our election and most American's don't really care what the rest of the world wants in our leader, how come we never see global preferences for Britian, China, Japan or other countries' leader selection.
Put it in terms they understand. Next time they are argueing about splitting something. Explain that you help to grown ups when they cannot decide a fair way to split something. My uncle and grandfather were both attorneys and it didn't take too long to understand what they did (besides wear a tie every day).
Capital growth is certainly not a zero sum game, but the company needs to be growign capital. Too many public companies are more like Microsoft. I think once the bubble is finally fully deflated, you will see a signficant increase in companies going private as there is no need for them to be public. That could be a generation away however.
When elected officals funnel money to private causes almost every penny is accounted for you build a Sweedish-American history center in the town that brought you all the votes you needed to get elected. Or farmers find a special treat in the new farm bill. Or an air base gets built in your district. Or there is a provision in the newest tax bill that companies can take a tax credit for the R&D associated with a single industry. It's not "lost" to the government (they watched it walk out the door) and billions more goes that way than through the occasionall corrupt bureaucrat.
This was the same bubble that burst for everyone else. CA is rolling along fine now (along with everyone who wasn't bankrupt in 2001. The people who suffered already did. However, here as with Enron the wheels of Justice turn slowly.
Yeah but all the money retained by businesses goes to expanding the bond portfolio. This is espeically true for technology companies. MS, Cisco, and Intel all kept over 10% of their market value in bonds! Intel has some capital reqiurements (new fabs) but MS and Cisco don't really require signficant investments in capital. /. although it's just as funny to read investor message boards.
If you look at where tech companies spend their money its (>10% on capital, 90% on bonds). If you include the R&D expense it would be more like (25% R&D, 7% capital, 68% bonds) watch out those bonds are going to stike on a solid idea soon. It's hilarious to see any discussion of financial or economic topics on
Keep in mind that it is still constitutionally prohibited for foreign born folk to be elected President. Candlestick makers are relaged to the House and Senate.
If it were really worth preserving it would be no problem to raise more than enough funds to buy it for the express purpose of not drilling oil in ANWR. Then your conservatory can tell the oil companies to go shove their collective thumb up their nose forever. Perhaps after raising the funds they would find other areas that were cheaper and more effective, or could come to some agreement with an environmentally sensitive oil company about ways to remove the oil that both were happy with. Unfortunately under governement control none of these things will ever happen because the oil companies have only a single incentive (drill the oil) and the greens only have a single incentive (keep the oil companies out. Private ownership is the most effective way to truly manage something for multiple uses.
Analog watches are following a fairly long trend of growth (about a decade) in exceedingly expensive (these are priced in the same range as cars) handmade mechanical watches. Since those are what the exceedingly wealthy are wearing everyone else wants to look like them too.