I'm a nerd, I care, plenty of other nerds in this thread care. The fact that I'm willing to debate the point on the internet honestly only emphasises my point.
FYI, the "I'm going to say you're a fanboy so that I can feel I've got the moral high ground" schtick only works as far as you can make a convincing case for fanboyism. It doesn't play very well as a rhetorical approach outside videogame forums, so you may want to restrict it to your arguments on those.
Ah, apologies, I should say that you were asserting that the article should never have been posted in the first place and was of no relevance to Slashdot's audience, because it was of no personal relevance to you.
A fan of Marvel "Iron Man" comics cares far more about the quality of writing and artwork in the comic than Marvel's share prices.
Even assuming point 1 was true (it's fallacious, as established), you implicitly allow that a nerd, in this case a fan of Marvel's Iron Man comics, could care about Marvel's share prices, provided that they cared about the comic itself more. So if point 1 was true as written, then my assertion - that this is news for nerds - would be implicitly true.
A commonly used tactic. Cannot win main argument discussion, therefore moves to discussion of semantics.
You should have considered that before you made an inept attempt at attacking my semantics, and were found wanting.
Points 1 and 2 in your argument are examples of the true Scotsman fallacy, and are at any rate unsubstantiated. It's great to see my ability to predict internet debating styles holds up.
Once again, the objective is not to convince you to be interested. The objective is to demonstrate that this is/is not news for nerds. You've not done so.
Are you kidding me? You can't even parse a sentence? It means "I have no doubt, that your accusation was not founded on logic", not "your accusation has neither logic nor doubt". Sweet non-existent Christ, you're a tedious troll.
I rebutted your statement thoroughly by existing, as a nerd who has an interest in this topic. I outlined the reasons for my interest, for completeness, in the above comments. There are several other nerds discussing the subject avidly at this moment in this comments section.
If you're going to play the "no true scotsman" fallacy and claim that none of us are nerds, you're on your own.
Actually, if you define 0.999... as having an infinite number of decimal points, then it is true. And that's how that ellipsis is defined! It means exactly infinite repeating decimals.
You've demonstrated the first hurdle that this problem raises in people's brains: they start thinking about adding "one more" decimal point to the expression, meaning they're thinking of a large but finite number of decimal points. And the second hurdle: people find it hard to believe that you can do mathematics with "infinity" as a meaningful quantity.
If you think Apple, the company, has no influence over AAPL, the stock, you're a complete idiot. In absolute seriousness you'd need a combination of total ignorance of the facts and a complete disinterest in discovering them for you to draw that conclusion.
You have m shares, and Apple's projected value in tangable assets like cash (from selling gizmos), facilities, and personnel in the near future is X. X = m * $n.
The housing market imploded because the estimates of X were a mixture of delusion, fiction, and outright lies. By comparision Apple's financials are available in easy-to-digest quarterly reports.
The stocks' value is no more abstracted than that of cash money. It's not useful for anything except passing it onto somebody else, but it represents something with a well-defined value, respectively a certain fraction of the nation's collective resources in food, material, and skill, and a fraction of Apple's resources in facilities, personnel, knowledge, and cold hard cash.
Excuse me? Nobody's asking you to be personally interested in this article. You're the one calling for it to be stricken from Slashdot because you can't see the relevance of it, and I've shown why it's "news for nerds", which was all that was necessary to rebut you. The discussion is over.
I'm certainly not going to answer your hilarious, and no doubt logic-free, accusation in the third paragraph. I have in my entire life possessed exactly one Apple product. I've experienced significantly more brand loyalty to hot beverages.
The only way you can make money from Apple shares is by selling Apple shares
And the only way you can make money from diamonds is by selling diamonds. Ergo, diamonds are valueless, and it's all a huge bubble. You twit.
You get a pyramid scheme or bubble when there's a disconnect between the actual value of the item being speculated upon, and the price that is placed on it by the speculators. Apple's got a high share price right now because they're raking in a truly comical amount of money with a hugely successful line of high-margin consumer goods. The company is actually worth a great deal more than it was in 2004. No bubble.
Re:You didn't even have to purchase it that early
on
Apple's Long Road To $300
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
With restrospect, around 2004 the iPod was sold on its luxury, and the Mac on its friendliness. They flipped that around so that the iPod was friendly and massmarket (Mini), while the Mac was a capable computer (Macbook, new iMac). Yet they held an afterimage that the iPod was high quality and the Mac was easy to use. That switcheroo was pretty savvy, in hindsight.
This is true, they're not integrated to nearly the same extent. It's something they seem to be aiming to increase, though. I have to wonder if they'll buy out some of their more important component manufacturers in the coming decade.
I have to wonder what triggered Apple's interest in RI. If/when we have a display technology that can reliably produce large, very high resolution (ten times the current dot pitch) displays, it'll be useful and nigh-essential, but on LCD that's not going to happen because of cost, and the current wave of upcoming technologies are more about picture quality than resolution.
Use your imagination! We're talking about one company that controls its hardware, its software, and increasingly the services you can use on them, and it's doing very well. What happens when they're not a minority player any more? What happens if they get pulled up for anticompetitive practices? What happens if the reliability of their stock turns them into a cornerstone of investment banking? What happens to the economy if Jobs then dies and Apple, almost inevitably, does a backflip? What if they get bought out by the government because they're "too big to fail"? MacUS?
If the only thing you see in an article about Apple's stock price is what it means for their investors' bank balances, I humbly suggest that you are the one who is obsessed with money.
There is nothing fundamentally sound about apple stock -- it is a company that sells overpriced inessential consumer items...
They sell those overpriced luxury items to a loyal, expanding base of consumers with large disposable incomes, following a consistent yearly schedule of product releases and upgrades. And that's been the state of their business for the best part of a decade. As an investor, it's practically everything you could ask for in a consumer goods company.
Maybe you should respect that other people have broader interests than you? I personally find it interesting that a vertically-integrated software and hardware company could become a serious part of the economy, after seeing the aftermath of Commodore two decades ago. If this offends you so, you can go stand with the dipshits who can't stand SF clogging up precious sports time in the TV schedule.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a nerd, I care, plenty of other nerds in this thread care. The fact that I'm willing to debate the point on the internet honestly only emphasises my point.
FYI, the "I'm going to say you're a fanboy so that I can feel I've got the moral high ground" schtick only works as far as you can make a convincing case for fanboyism. It doesn't play very well as a rhetorical approach outside videogame forums, so you may want to restrict it to your arguments on those.
"True nerd"! Ding ding ding! We have the No True Scotsman fallacy!
Congratulations!
Ah, apologies, I should say that you were asserting that the article should never have been posted in the first place and was of no relevance to Slashdot's audience, because it was of no personal relevance to you.
In addition, in point 1 you state:
A fan of Marvel "Iron Man" comics cares far more about the quality of writing and artwork in the comic than Marvel's share prices.
Even assuming point 1 was true (it's fallacious, as established), you implicitly allow that a nerd, in this case a fan of Marvel's Iron Man comics, could care about Marvel's share prices, provided that they cared about the comic itself more. So if point 1 was true as written, then my assertion - that this is news for nerds - would be implicitly true.
Thanks.
A commonly used tactic. Cannot win main argument discussion, therefore moves to discussion of semantics.
You should have considered that before you made an inept attempt at attacking my semantics, and were found wanting.
Points 1 and 2 in your argument are examples of the true Scotsman fallacy, and are at any rate unsubstantiated. It's great to see my ability to predict internet debating styles holds up.
Once again, the objective is not to convince you to be interested. The objective is to demonstrate that this is/is not news for nerds. You've not done so.
You have got to be fucking kidding me.
Yeah, terrible example, apologies. I should've stuck with something mundane like platinum.
Are you kidding me? You can't even parse a sentence? It means "I have no doubt, that your accusation was not founded on logic", not "your accusation has neither logic nor doubt". Sweet non-existent Christ, you're a tedious troll.
I rebutted your statement thoroughly by existing, as a nerd who has an interest in this topic. I outlined the reasons for my interest, for completeness, in the above comments. There are several other nerds discussing the subject avidly at this moment in this comments section.
If you're going to play the "no true scotsman" fallacy and claim that none of us are nerds, you're on your own.
Actually, if you define 0.999... as having an infinite number of decimal points, then it is true. And that's how that ellipsis is defined! It means exactly infinite repeating decimals.
You've demonstrated the first hurdle that this problem raises in people's brains: they start thinking about adding "one more" decimal point to the expression, meaning they're thinking of a large but finite number of decimal points. And the second hurdle: people find it hard to believe that you can do mathematics with "infinity" as a meaningful quantity.
Begging your pardon, but if Slashdot removed every article where one person had "little interest" in the topic, then there'd be no fucking articles.
If you think Apple, the company, has no influence over AAPL, the stock, you're a complete idiot. In absolute seriousness you'd need a combination of total ignorance of the facts and a complete disinterest in discovering them for you to draw that conclusion.
You have m shares, and Apple's projected value in tangable assets like cash (from selling gizmos), facilities, and personnel in the near future is X. X = m * $n.
The housing market imploded because the estimates of X were a mixture of delusion, fiction, and outright lies. By comparision Apple's financials are available in easy-to-digest quarterly reports.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Apple's customer base is anything but fickle, it's famously loyal.
Yeah, that was a stupid example now you mention it.
Y'know, calling you a twit was unjustifiably douchebaggy of me, and I apologise for that unconditionally.
The stocks' value is no more abstracted than that of cash money. It's not useful for anything except passing it onto somebody else, but it represents something with a well-defined value, respectively a certain fraction of the nation's collective resources in food, material, and skill, and a fraction of Apple's resources in facilities, personnel, knowledge, and cold hard cash.
Excuse me? Nobody's asking you to be personally interested in this article. You're the one calling for it to be stricken from Slashdot because you can't see the relevance of it, and I've shown why it's "news for nerds", which was all that was necessary to rebut you. The discussion is over.
I'm certainly not going to answer your hilarious, and no doubt logic-free, accusation in the third paragraph. I have in my entire life possessed exactly one Apple product. I've experienced significantly more brand loyalty to hot beverages.
The only way you can make money from Apple shares is by selling Apple shares
And the only way you can make money from diamonds is by selling diamonds. Ergo, diamonds are valueless, and it's all a huge bubble. You twit.
You get a pyramid scheme or bubble when there's a disconnect between the actual value of the item being speculated upon, and the price that is placed on it by the speculators. Apple's got a high share price right now because they're raking in a truly comical amount of money with a hugely successful line of high-margin consumer goods. The company is actually worth a great deal more than it was in 2004. No bubble.
With restrospect, around 2004 the iPod was sold on its luxury, and the Mac on its friendliness. They flipped that around so that the iPod was friendly and massmarket (Mini), while the Mac was a capable computer (Macbook, new iMac). Yet they held an afterimage that the iPod was high quality and the Mac was easy to use. That switcheroo was pretty savvy, in hindsight.
This is true, they're not integrated to nearly the same extent. It's something they seem to be aiming to increase, though. I have to wonder if they'll buy out some of their more important component manufacturers in the coming decade.
I have to wonder what triggered Apple's interest in RI. If/when we have a display technology that can reliably produce large, very high resolution (ten times the current dot pitch) displays, it'll be useful and nigh-essential, but on LCD that's not going to happen because of cost, and the current wave of upcoming technologies are more about picture quality than resolution.
Use your imagination! We're talking about one company that controls its hardware, its software, and increasingly the services you can use on them, and it's doing very well. What happens when they're not a minority player any more? What happens if they get pulled up for anticompetitive practices? What happens if the reliability of their stock turns them into a cornerstone of investment banking? What happens to the economy if Jobs then dies and Apple, almost inevitably, does a backflip? What if they get bought out by the government because they're "too big to fail"? MacUS?
That's off the top of my head.
If the only thing you see in an article about Apple's stock price is what it means for their investors' bank balances, I humbly suggest that you are the one who is obsessed with money.
There is nothing fundamentally sound about apple stock -- it is a company that sells overpriced inessential consumer items ...
They sell those overpriced luxury items to a loyal, expanding base of consumers with large disposable incomes, following a consistent yearly schedule of product releases and upgrades. And that's been the state of their business for the best part of a decade. As an investor, it's practically everything you could ask for in a consumer goods company.
Jobs is crying himself to sleep that he makes half the money in the cellphone industry with only a twentieth of the marketshare. Weeping.
Maybe you should respect that other people have broader interests than you? I personally find it interesting that a vertically-integrated software and hardware company could become a serious part of the economy, after seeing the aftermath of Commodore two decades ago. If this offends you so, you can go stand with the dipshits who can't stand SF clogging up precious sports time in the TV schedule.