In theory, you are right. The problem is that in practice stocks, particularly tech stocks, almost always experience a surge in value around a split. The basic effect seems to be that people _dont_ do the math, and instead often buy based on 'market perception' and comfort zone - ie 'other techs are at 50, so microsoft should be at least 75'.
I did my undergrad degree in physics. 105 people enrolled in the 'top level' course that year, a significant fraction nominally intending to major in physics. 35 people ended up taking the final, and (I think) 23 of those passed. maybe 13 ended up getting the degree. Numbers for the front-line engineering disciplines (Engineering Physics and Applied Math) were similar though less dramatic. So, certanly the 'weed them out early' is a real effect, but I dispute the notion that there is an evil agenda attached. I really believe that it is usually an honest process of setting expectations - being a nice guy and trying hard is only so valuable, and preserving the illusion that you can be successful in advanced research (the point of pure science, after all) for a couple years until you finally bail out too late to switch disciplines doesn't help anyone. I cruised through first year with A's, but struggled somewhat to get my degree. Advanced 'hard' science is truly a very difficult pursuit, particularly considering that getting an undergrad degree in these fields is of questionable value in itself - you pretty much have to go for the PhD to get anywhere. Do you not think it's better to divert people who might struggle to a c+ degree in physics (or something), (at which point they're screwed because nobody wants a mediocre undergrad physicist) towards being an A student in CompSci? (happened to me and to many of my friends, who had no regrets) I'm sure we all run into people every day in the course of our lives (usurally our bosses) that are in way over their heads and are completely unsuited for their jobs. How do you react to it, particularly when you have to explain something to them for the zillionth time, or have to cover for their mistakes? Do you see how there might have been a benefit if they had been subject to a similar weeding out?
One thing that makes direct bitrate comparison difficult is that the MD recorder must of course be a real-time encoder implemented on a relatively modest DSP, whereas MP3 can take arbitrary amounts of time (and memory). As with any compression scheme (music, files, video etc), the more time you have and the more signal you can look at, the better job you can do. I've never done a direct MD vs MP3 comparison, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if 256k MP3 was comparable if not better.
It might be overkill, but the TB Fiji has an optional S/PDIF daughtercard, and is supported under Linux. (I've verified that both digital in and digital out work) I'm not entirely sure this is needed, though, as the analog out from the Fiji is _very_ good as it is. Better than any of the portable CD players I have, and probably comparable to a $4-500 player. These might be a bit tough to find now, but well worth the effort, IMHO.
Agreed. the run-up on internet stocks _is_ based on ideas. It's based on the idea that nobody really understands the Internet yet, other than the fact that it's going to become pervasive, which means that there is lots of potential. Nobody is really sure how people are going to make $$$ on the net in the long run, and so people are simply placing their bets on the folks that generate a lot of traffic to their sites, or who seem to have cool ideas that might get them there. However, I think we're at least glimpsing the end of this speculative phase. The 'advertising' gambit has pretty much run it's course, and the verdict isn't too positive. Amazon is still losing money despite being a virtual unqualified success in terms of the experience of actually shopping on the net - people are realizing that market share isn't necessarily worth that much, since the margins are vanishingly small if not negative. Yahoo has 50 kajillion people through it's site every day, but still has very low revenue (relatively speaking).
My guess is that online retailing will be 'successful' in generating lots of traffic/revenue, but the margins and complete lack of customer loyalty will mean that they are not appreciably more profitable than conventional retailers, and that eventually this will come out in the valuations. It's also only really successful in the 'commodity' markets, where people are shopping for items they already know they want - I am yet to be convinced that the web is sufficient to replace in-person shopping in many areas - ie would you buy food on the web?(nothing fresh, for sure) Furniture? (maybe). clothing? (catalogs already have defined this market - the web will take it over, but not turn any more significant profit...) The only really long-term viable ventures i see right now are subscription-based content providers, but they are far from being ready, since the 'web content should be free' mentality still reigns, and the technology is still evolving. The 'big' web companies in the future will compete with TV and print media in offering content, but since the advertising paradigm that fuels the conventional media doesn't work too well on the web, they'll have to figure out how to charge people for it. This isn't too bad, IMHO - I'd gladly pay 10-15/month for/. in it's current form, but I'm probably the exception.
(I should point out, though, that online brokerages do really make sense to me - huge value-add for their target market. Online banking makes sense to me as well, although I don't quite see the same type of revenue stream.)
You're pretty much right on the money (no pun intended). Day trading (not addressing IPO's here) is getting a lot of press lately, but is is fiendishly hard to make any money at it. About the only ones making money are the ones that run Day Trading advice sites, and even then it's only because they manipulate the market to make the $$$. [okay, overgeneralization, but not too far from the truth] It is, absolutely, a 'full time job' any time you're doing it- seconds can make the difference, forget minutes. For the most part, it is a purely technical operation - it is based on market dynamics by looking at the bid/ask spread and market depth and placing trades based on that - which is why in general Day Traders use brokers that are targeted specifically at them. The generic ETrade site, for example, doesn't have the facilities to support Day Traders (though they have a 3rd party agreement for Power users, which takes it part way).
Slashdot Mirror
In theory, you are right. The problem is that in practice stocks, particularly tech stocks, almost always experience a surge in value around a split. The basic effect seems to be that people _dont_ do the math, and instead often buy based on 'market perception' and comfort zone - ie 'other techs are at 50, so microsoft should be at least 75'.
Definately get the Criterion set. The 'Love Conquers All' version is truly an eye-opener as to how editing can alter a movie.
I did my undergrad degree in physics. 105 people enrolled in the 'top level' course that year, a significant fraction nominally intending to major in physics. 35 people ended up taking the final, and (I think) 23 of those passed. maybe 13 ended up getting the degree. Numbers for the front-line engineering disciplines (Engineering Physics and Applied Math) were similar though less dramatic. So, certanly the 'weed them out early' is a real effect, but I dispute the notion that there is an evil agenda attached. I really believe that it is usually an honest process of setting expectations - being a nice guy and trying hard is only so valuable, and preserving the illusion that you can be successful in advanced research (the point of pure science, after all) for a couple years until you finally bail out too late to switch disciplines doesn't help anyone. I cruised through first year with A's, but struggled somewhat to get my degree. Advanced 'hard' science is truly a very difficult pursuit, particularly considering that getting an undergrad degree in these fields is of questionable value in itself - you pretty much have to go for the PhD to get anywhere. Do you not think it's better to divert people who might struggle to a c+ degree in physics (or something), (at which point they're screwed because nobody wants a mediocre undergrad physicist) towards being an A student in CompSci? (happened to me and to many of my friends, who had no regrets) I'm sure we all run into people every day in the course of our lives (usurally our bosses) that are in way over their heads and are completely unsuited for their jobs. How do you react to it, particularly when you have to explain something to them for the zillionth time, or have to cover for their mistakes? Do you see how there might have been a benefit if they had been subject to a similar weeding out?
One thing that makes direct bitrate comparison difficult is that the MD recorder must of course be a real-time encoder implemented on a relatively modest DSP, whereas MP3 can take arbitrary amounts of time (and memory). As with any compression scheme (music, files, video etc), the more time you have and the more signal you can look at, the better job you can do. I've never done a direct MD vs MP3 comparison, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if 256k MP3 was comparable if not better.
It might be overkill, but the TB Fiji has an optional S/PDIF daughtercard, and is supported under Linux. (I've verified that both digital in and digital out work) I'm not entirely sure this is needed, though, as the analog out from the Fiji is _very_ good as it is. Better than any of the portable CD players I have, and probably comparable to a $4-500 player. These might be a bit tough to find now, but well worth the effort, IMHO.
Agreed.
/. in it's current form, but I'm probably the exception.
the run-up on internet stocks _is_ based on ideas. It's based on the idea that nobody really understands the Internet yet, other than the fact that it's going to become pervasive, which means that there is lots of potential. Nobody is really sure how people are going to make $$$ on the net in the long run, and so people are simply placing their bets on the folks that generate a lot of traffic to their sites, or who seem to have cool ideas that might get them there.
However, I think we're at least glimpsing the end of this speculative phase. The 'advertising' gambit has pretty much run it's course, and the verdict isn't too positive. Amazon is still losing money despite being a virtual unqualified success in terms of the experience of actually shopping on the net - people are realizing that market share isn't necessarily worth that much, since the margins are vanishingly small if not negative. Yahoo has 50 kajillion people through it's site every day, but still has very low revenue (relatively speaking).
My guess is that online retailing will be 'successful' in generating lots of traffic/revenue, but the margins and complete lack of customer loyalty will mean that they are not appreciably more profitable than conventional retailers, and that eventually this will come out in the valuations. It's also only really successful in the 'commodity' markets, where people are shopping for items they already know they want - I am yet to be convinced that the web is sufficient to replace in-person shopping in many areas - ie would you buy food on the web?(nothing fresh, for sure) Furniture? (maybe). clothing? (catalogs already have defined this market - the web will take it over, but not turn any more significant profit...)
The only really long-term viable ventures i see right now are subscription-based content providers, but they are far from being ready, since the 'web content should be free' mentality still reigns, and the technology is still evolving. The 'big' web companies in the future will compete with TV and print media in offering content, but since the advertising paradigm that fuels the conventional media doesn't work too well on the web, they'll have to figure out how to charge people for it. This isn't too bad, IMHO - I'd gladly pay 10-15/month for
(I should point out, though, that online brokerages do really make sense to me - huge value-add for their target market. Online banking makes sense to me as well, although I don't quite see the same type of revenue stream.)
You're pretty much right on the money (no pun intended).
Day trading (not addressing IPO's here) is getting a lot of press lately, but is is fiendishly hard to make any money at it. About the only ones making money are the ones that run Day Trading advice sites, and even then it's only because they manipulate the market to make the $$$. [okay, overgeneralization, but not too far from the truth] It is, absolutely, a 'full time job' any time you're doing it- seconds can make the difference, forget minutes. For the most part, it is a purely technical operation - it is based on market dynamics by looking at the bid/ask spread and market depth and placing trades based on that - which is why in general Day Traders use brokers that are targeted specifically at them. The generic ETrade site, for example, doesn't have the facilities to support Day Traders (though they have a 3rd party agreement for Power users, which takes it part way).