The fact that you do not realize why that statement is irrelevant to the point I made tells me all I need to know. You are here with a bone to pick about the single topic in this field you understand and are immune to all other information. I get it now.
Ok. You win. I give up. Feel free to miss the point entirely. This is a complete and utter waste of my time.
I took pains to describe in my previous post this was NOT A THEORY but an insight into WHAT ACTUALLY GOES ON for most investors evaluating ANY stock. Whether YOU or I think Musk deserves it or not is entirely irrelevant to the discussion - the stock price will dictate that.
Holy Christ...beating your head against a brick wall really hurts...
Also...if you are an investor and think that "faith" (FFS!) is required in an investment decision then you are doing it wrong!
Accumulating debt for expansion can increase the value of the company and thus the stock price. (buy new factory for new sales which increases sales by more than total cost of loan)
It can also be neutral. (buy plant with debt that roughly equates to value added or pay back a loan)
It can also be a disaster. (invest heavily in something that does not work out)
Decisions can be good and bad.
Not sure how to make this more obvious or simpler so I will not try further. Feel free to use your own advice for your own investments however.
Investors, at least the smart ones, are not primarily interested in profits.
They are interested in growth. A company that has zero growth potential and a stable profit paid in dividends can be far less attractive than a company posting losses with massive potential growth potential. Especially when capital gains taxes are a factor as they are in the US. This is not always the case depending on your circumstances but most often is.
Remember the finance 101 law that states share price increases are always better than dividends because with share increases you can choose to sell some of your shares and get the same effect as dividends should you want it.
Also remember that, theoretically, share price is a combination of current company value with future growth potential and risk factored in. (hence why most stocks are valued far in excess of their book value) Risk is mitigated by investors across their portfolios (unless they are idiots) and in fact they would WANT them to take risks for the potential gains.
So yes, government and company books are nothing like personal accounts.
With government books it is wise to save during booms and spend like crazy during crashes to help smooth the economic cycle and prevent depressions. Completely counter intuitive to personal spending.
I don't think they are directly comparable. This is apples and pears. (not oranges as the concepts are somewhat related)
I think there is a place for both - in fact I am not sure why so many people are missing this as it seem blatantly obvious to me. Hell, maybe in the distant future there will be a single device capable of both. In fact I find arguments that are merely penis measuring competitions between the two to be wholly ridiculous.
Having said that, if you compare the PROMISE of the technology compared to the implementation I would say that it is clear that MS AR is the one severely lacking. Especially when one considers their marketing hype versus the reality. VR is living up to its tech promise - I am ignoring price here as this is irrelevant to my point.
But again, these are two separate technologies that have overlap but in practice have very different application.
Actually I do take it well. In fact people comment on this. I am more than happy to accept when I am wrong. I am an academic at heart which I credit to the 7 years I taught at university.
But taking criticism well does NOT mean accepting some random persons demonstrably incorrect and patronizing assumptions as fact (I even took the time to explain why) and allowing them sit in a cloud of smugness pretending they have all the answers when they clearly do not.
If it bothers you that I used a passionate rebuttal to the original poster then that is your problem to deal with. I was responding to his snide post in kind while not detracting from the main point which I would firmly argue was the correct way to deal with it. It certainly deserved it.
I then responded in kind to your incredibly incorrect premises and snarky, patronizing tone in kind also. While pretending to be "classy" can make the small minded feel superior I am a firm believer that sometimes you just have to whack a fool when he deserves it - be that intellectually or otherwise.
I also turn 40 this year....so wrong yet again buddy.
How wrong can one person be before they just admit defeat?! The mind boggles.
This ridiculousness conversation is over for me now but feel free to have that last word you were pretending you don't care about...
You are correct, what I was saying wasn't stupid at all. In fact it was very intelligent and somewhat amusing.
Psychotic: relating to, denoting, or suffering from a psychosis Psychosis: a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.
Since this was a metaphor and not a diagnosis I stand by my words 100%. I was (correctly) implying that he was detracted from reality and acting irrationally.
It also just so happens I have a degree in psychology among other things.
I NEVER write ANYTHING to score "points". I say what I think. Usually after much thought on the topic but not always because I am human.
I am not sure how much more wrong you could be but I imagine it would take herculean effort to achieve such.
Not that I want to interrupt the flow of your psychotic and irrational ranting...but...
Were one to be strategically releasing things one would want to release something a little juicy at the beginning to wet the appetite and begin the story you are trying to tell. (i.e. leading to the sacking of corrupt DNC head)
Then fill the middle with the less interesting stuff so it will be reported, continue momentum as possible and create an ongoing story. In marketing it is important to at least double tap the consumer - one impression is too easily forgettable. Remember the media and general public are like a child with ADHD - keeping their attention is difficult and they are easily distracted by shiny, disingenuous, prepackaged speeches.
Once all that is out of the way one might end with a bang in a final awesome explosion of fireworks as the Demo convention closes. Maybe more than one if one had them.
Now I have no evidence that they have any evidence that might lead to this. But likewise you have no evidence that they do not.
So I guess what I am saying is that you are going off half cocked while acting like a cock crowing far too early and likely to end up under the farmer's axe when your irrational ranting is shown to be just that...
Hash made up up user-specific facebook hash token + wifi password has token. Authentication is done via windows to verify the wifi password hash and contacts the facebook open authentication server (as many other servers do already for shared logins) to make sure the person requesting access is who they say they are. For additional security the comms during auth will be secure also.
So to access the system you would need the wifi hash and a valid ("live") FB token. About as safe or safer as many other things currently being used...
Also you don't give away your original password so they cannot "lend" it to a friend or write it down. One could make a case for how this is practically more safe than the current method....
But I am sure there are fastidious people out there who will be up in arms about this regardless...same sort who make password restrictions so difficult everyone just writes their passwords down and keeps them in the top draw.
Thank you for giving yet another example why people confuse this issue and end up not understanding that you can travel distances of 1000's of light years in much shorter than those years without making Einstein sad.
I understand the theory. I don't need yet another reinterpretation or metaphor.
If you think that is what was required then you missed my point entirely.
Yup. Please continue the grand tradition of voting for candidates and parties based on one or two issues only while breathing heavily through your mouth.
Nice and comprehensive try at reverse explaining your not-so-well thought out knee jerk response to the article. "As to strawmen, I think you're drawing a distinction without meaning." Nope, I explained this as thoroughly as needed.
"As to 20 percent of the labor force being out of work... it has happened many times before. We're still here." Those did not occur "here". With trillions in debt and outsourcing of the manufacturing industry. You have NEVER been there. But again...nice straw man.
"As to less people buying stuff... that doesn't make any sense." Then you need to redo economics 101. This is not even close to a contentious point and if you DO think it is, then that explains why you fail to understand the rest of my post!
"Why outsource when you're automating?" Because the number of highly skilled people reduces and land/labour/tax/etc costs are a small fraction of that in your own country. And all those widgets you need? Most of those are made in China...
"No really. Take a few deep breaths to get some more oxygen to your brain... and TRY to make sense..." I have been. Just because you don't understand does not mean I am not making sense. Try breathing through your nose and perhaps you will also.
"As to trade deficits causing a loss in economic growth... How? " Holy shite. Really? You REALLY don't understand how trade deficits are bad for a country?!
"I could go on... the fears of everyone losing their jobs to robots are ill founded. "
You could, but it would not enlighten anyone. You are talking in absolutes and margins like they are all that count because you are arguing a straw man. The "fears" (from people not writing clickbait articles) are not around "everyone" losing their job. They are around too many people losing their job.
Do you know what would happen to ANY of the modern first world economies if 20% of their workforce is no longer needed? Fucking disaster. And most at much less than that!
So here is a list that has actual meaning in terms of this subject.
- Less people working means less people buying all that rubbish that is the only thing keeping our debt fueled economies from collapsing.
- More automation means (even) more companies outsourcing entire factories overseas: INCLUDING many of those jobs you mention above.
- Since more stuff is made in 3rd world countries which means your trade deficit worsens.
- The above depresses economic growth in said country and thus causes jobs losses in support industries which cause further job losses...etc
- More unemployed means more pressure on government money and less tax to pay for it. It also can mean civil unrest and crime spikes.
- Income inequality skyrockets as the the rich invest worldwide but the rest must earn locally - which further slows the economy.
- All this also depresses wages which also reduces spending which brings us back to DOH!
And this is not theory. This process has already taken place in many areas of manufacturing already. The OECD has just released a report on the impact of income inequality on economic growth.
And this is not an exhaustive list by any means and many of those bullet points are heavily summarized.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for that final summary of your intellectual ability.
I think no more need be said.
It depends on the country and the laws. I am not from the US.
In my country the tax is withheld by the company from the dividend payment.
And it was a single example of why profit is not always the most important thing. It example still holds if you can run it in reverse.
So in other words your post is tangential and pointless.
The fact that you do not realize why that statement is irrelevant to the point I made tells me all I need to know. You are here with a bone to pick about the single topic in this field you understand and are immune to all other information. I get it now.
Discussion ended.
Ok. You win. I give up. Feel free to miss the point entirely. This is a complete and utter waste of my time.
I took pains to describe in my previous post this was NOT A THEORY but an insight into WHAT ACTUALLY GOES ON for most investors evaluating ANY stock. Whether YOU or I think Musk deserves it or not is entirely irrelevant to the discussion - the stock price will dictate that.
Holy Christ...beating your head against a brick wall really hurts...
Also...if you are an investor and think that "faith" (FFS!) is required in an investment decision then you are doing it wrong!
Then your evidence is crap.
It is more complicated than that.
Accumulating debt for expansion can increase the value of the company and thus the stock price. (buy new factory for new sales which increases sales by more than total cost of loan)
It can also be neutral. (buy plant with debt that roughly equates to value added or pay back a loan)
It can also be a disaster. (invest heavily in something that does not work out)
Decisions can be good and bad.
Not sure how to make this more obvious or simpler so I will not try further. Feel free to use your own advice for your own investments however.
Its not theory. Its what actually happens and how it actually works in practice.
There is theory, maths and evidence backing it also.
Investors, at least the smart ones, are not primarily interested in profits.
They are interested in growth. A company that has zero growth potential and a stable profit paid in dividends can be far less attractive than a company posting losses with massive potential growth potential. Especially when capital gains taxes are a factor as they are in the US.
This is not always the case depending on your circumstances but most often is.
Remember the finance 101 law that states share price increases are always better than dividends because with share increases you can choose to sell some of your shares and get the same effect as dividends should you want it.
Also remember that, theoretically, share price is a combination of current company value with future growth potential and risk factored in. (hence why most stocks are valued far in excess of their book value) Risk is mitigated by investors across their portfolios (unless they are idiots) and in fact they would WANT them to take risks for the potential gains.
So yes, government and company books are nothing like personal accounts.
With government books it is wise to save during booms and spend like crazy during crashes to help smooth the economic cycle and prevent depressions. Completely counter intuitive to personal spending.
I meant a proper overlay not a video feed and overlay.
Very much in the realm of science fiction at the moment.
I don't think they are directly comparable. This is apples and pears. (not oranges as the concepts are somewhat related)
I think there is a place for both - in fact I am not sure why so many people are missing this as it seem blatantly obvious to me. Hell, maybe in the distant future there will be a single device capable of both.
In fact I find arguments that are merely penis measuring competitions between the two to be wholly ridiculous.
Having said that, if you compare the PROMISE of the technology compared to the implementation I would say that it is clear that MS AR is the one severely lacking. Especially when one considers their marketing hype versus the reality. VR is living up to its tech promise - I am ignoring price here as this is irrelevant to my point.
But again, these are two separate technologies that have overlap but in practice have very different application.
Actually I do take it well. In fact people comment on this. I am more than happy to accept when I am wrong. I am an academic at heart which I credit to the 7 years I taught at university.
But taking criticism well does NOT mean accepting some random persons demonstrably incorrect and patronizing assumptions as fact (I even took the time to explain why) and allowing them sit in a cloud of smugness pretending they have all the answers when they clearly do not.
If it bothers you that I used a passionate rebuttal to the original poster then that is your problem to deal with. I was responding to his snide post in kind while not detracting from the main point which I would firmly argue was the correct way to deal with it. It certainly deserved it.
I then responded in kind to your incredibly incorrect premises and snarky, patronizing tone in kind also. While pretending to be "classy" can make the small minded feel superior I am a firm believer that sometimes you just have to whack a fool when he deserves it - be that intellectually or otherwise.
I also turn 40 this year....so wrong yet again buddy.
How wrong can one person be before they just admit defeat?! The mind boggles.
This ridiculousness conversation is over for me now but feel free to have that last word you were pretending you don't care about...
You are correct, what I was saying wasn't stupid at all. In fact it was very intelligent and somewhat amusing.
Psychotic: relating to, denoting, or suffering from a psychosis
Psychosis: a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.
Since this was a metaphor and not a diagnosis I stand by my words 100%. I was (correctly) implying that he was detracted from reality and acting irrationally.
It also just so happens I have a degree in psychology among other things.
I NEVER write ANYTHING to score "points". I say what I think. Usually after much thought on the topic but not always because I am human.
I am not sure how much more wrong you could be but I imagine it would take herculean effort to achieve such.
But nice try guy - please play again sometime.
It works both ways both phonetically and metaphorically.
Also I hate pedants.
I apologize. Sometimes I construct comments which require an IQ above 80 to understand...
It works both ways both phonetically and metaphorically.
Not that I want to interrupt the flow of your psychotic and irrational ranting...but...
Were one to be strategically releasing things one would want to release something a little juicy at the beginning to wet the appetite and begin the story you are trying to tell. (i.e. leading to the sacking of corrupt DNC head)
Then fill the middle with the less interesting stuff so it will be reported, continue momentum as possible and create an ongoing story. In marketing it is important to at least double tap the consumer - one impression is too easily forgettable. Remember the media and general public are like a child with ADHD - keeping their attention is difficult and they are easily distracted by shiny, disingenuous, prepackaged speeches.
Once all that is out of the way one might end with a bang in a final awesome explosion of fireworks as the Demo convention closes. Maybe more than one if one had them.
Now I have no evidence that they have any evidence that might lead to this. But likewise you have no evidence that they do not.
So I guess what I am saying is that you are going off half cocked while acting like a cock crowing far too early and likely to end up under the farmer's axe when your irrational ranting is shown to be just that...
What the fuck are you talking about son?
Your comment makes absolutely no sense in the context of what I wrote.
It is demonstrable FACT that the democrats are in the center right of politics globally. Calling them socially liberal is laughable.
And I have noticed that hypocrisy and right wing parties seem to go together like wine and cheese.
The democrats are not a liberal party. They are a center right party at best.
So its no surprise they are hypocrites...
Easy:
Hash made up up user-specific facebook hash token + wifi password has token. Authentication is done via windows to verify the wifi password hash and contacts the facebook open authentication server (as many other servers do already for shared logins) to make sure the person requesting access is who they say they are. For additional security the comms during auth will be secure also.
So to access the system you would need the wifi hash and a valid ("live") FB token. About as safe or safer as many other things currently being used...
Also you don't give away your original password so they cannot "lend" it to a friend or write it down. One could make a case for how this is practically more safe than the current method....
But I am sure there are fastidious people out there who will be up in arms about this regardless...same sort who make password restrictions so difficult everyone just writes their passwords down and keeps them in the top draw.
Speaking as someone from a country that idolises lamb and mint sauce...that sounds more like a desert...
As a non-US person I have noticed that your recipes can contain up to 5x the sugar I would ever think to put in a dish.
I guess this is a desensitisation thing?
The mind really does boggle...
What a complete load of shite.
You are another one like Karma Shock. My response to you is the same...
You just don't get it, do you?
You quite obviously lack the skills, knowledge and mental capacity to hold this conversation with.
I am done with you.
Thank you for giving yet another example why people confuse this issue and end up not understanding that you can travel distances of 1000's of light years in much shorter than those years without making Einstein sad.
I understand the theory. I don't need yet another reinterpretation or metaphor.
If you think that is what was required then you missed my point entirely.
But then that may have been the point...
Yup. Please continue the grand tradition of voting for candidates and parties based on one or two issues only while breathing heavily through your mouth.
The future is saved!
Nice and comprehensive try at reverse explaining your not-so-well thought out knee jerk response to the article.
"As to strawmen, I think you're drawing a distinction without meaning."
Nope, I explained this as thoroughly as needed.
"As to 20 percent of the labor force being out of work... it has happened many times before. We're still here."
Those did not occur "here". With trillions in debt and outsourcing of the manufacturing industry. You have NEVER been there. But again...nice straw man.
"As to less people buying stuff... that doesn't make any sense."
Then you need to redo economics 101. This is not even close to a contentious point and if you DO think it is, then that explains why you fail to understand the rest of my post!
"Why outsource when you're automating?"
Because the number of highly skilled people reduces and land/labour/tax/etc costs are a small fraction of that in your own country. And all those widgets you need? Most of those are made in China...
"No really. Take a few deep breaths to get some more oxygen to your brain... and TRY to make sense..."
I have been. Just because you don't understand does not mean I am not making sense. Try breathing through your nose and perhaps you will also.
"As to trade deficits causing a loss in economic growth... How? "
Holy shite. Really? You REALLY don't understand how trade deficits are bad for a country?!
Ok...I give up. There is no hope for you...
"I could go on... the fears of everyone losing their jobs to robots are ill founded. "
You could, but it would not enlighten anyone. You are talking in absolutes and margins like they are all that count because you are arguing a straw man.
The "fears" (from people not writing clickbait articles) are not around "everyone" losing their job. They are around too many people losing their job.
Do you know what would happen to ANY of the modern first world economies if 20% of their workforce is no longer needed? Fucking disaster.
And most at much less than that!
So here is a list that has actual meaning in terms of this subject.
- Less people working means less people buying all that rubbish that is the only thing keeping our debt fueled economies from collapsing.
- More automation means (even) more companies outsourcing entire factories overseas: INCLUDING many of those jobs you mention above.
- Since more stuff is made in 3rd world countries which means your trade deficit worsens.
- The above depresses economic growth in said country and thus causes jobs losses in support industries which cause further job losses...etc
- More unemployed means more pressure on government money and less tax to pay for it. It also can mean civil unrest and crime spikes.
- Income inequality skyrockets as the the rich invest worldwide but the rest must earn locally - which further slows the economy.
- All this also depresses wages which also reduces spending which brings us back to DOH!
And this is not theory. This process has already taken place in many areas of manufacturing already. The OECD has just released a report on the impact of income inequality on economic growth.
And this is not an exhaustive list by any means and many of those bullet points are heavily summarized.