From article At least in part by shrewdly manufacturing a winning mystique. No outsider today can prove definitively that Google is not an office park full of geniuses who could at any moment announce, simultaneously, world peace and a cure for the common cold. That is because no outsider today can say anything definitive about Google at all. This is intentional. Google makes itself totally opaque by camouflaging itself with lots of what journalists call "colour".
Nope. This is what is called in financial circles as "risk". Sure, the company COULD do wonderful things, but we really aren't sure. Large standard deviation in potential returns.
For finance types who actually understand how valuations are done, we must take the median expected return of future cash flows, and use a present value discount rate that appropriately reflects this "risk" among other risks. If I have a $100 bond from the US Government that will mature in 3 weeks, it is worth a little bit less that $100 -- the discount rate isn't very high. If I have a $100 promise from uncle Guido due in three weeks, it is worth about 10 cents, since his word means jack -- his discount rate is virtually infinite.
In Google's case, we must use a high discount rate for several reasons.
The first is that Google really doesn't have anything that cannot be reproduced. The barriers to competition are not incredibly high, though it wold take a significant competitor. Combine this with the fact that Google could easily misstep, and lose their "do no evil" status. This bumps up the discount rate.
The second is that Google investors are basing their valuations on vague promises of what might happen in the future. Sorry. I am only 31, but have seen enough promises not pan out to make me a sceptic. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Sure, we must account for their prior stellar track record. But the promise of $100 in five years is not the same as $100 in my hand now.
Should you invest in Google? That question is, in itself, ambiguous. Would I invest at $100? Yes. Would I invest at $300. Hell no.
There is a chance they will live up to their expectations. There is a chance they won't. But investors are acting like their future promises have a 100% chance of occuring.
My bet is that this "mini bubble" will burst by end of 2006.
For all those who don't know, this is the equivilant of 'Copy Article Text' karma whores.
On Slashdot, you just go out, find the article, and make sure you are among the first to paste it into yor 'Comment' box. Mods with no brains mark it up. Then, others copy the article text, but because they weren't first, get modded down.
In the political world, you go out, find a hot button topic, and make sure you are amoung the first to 'go after it', while in reality doing nothing. Voters with no brains vote for you. Then, Jesse Jackson goes after the issue, but because he wasn't first, people roll their eyes and laugh.
1) Getting to the front of the queue only to find that the filler cap is on the other side of the rocket - you'd have to exit and queue again adding to further fuel and time wastage.
2) The reach from the shuttle's window to the credit card slot on the fuel pump is too far and someone has to suit up and take the card
You are right, of course. A woman is piloting this thing...;)
I have a faulty fuel sensor in my car. My solution: just fill up every few days to make sure I don't run out of gas. Why can't these "genius" rocket scientist just have the crew stop off and get gas half way up, and again when they come back down?
Dammit, *I* should be in charge of NASA.
(please note, that this post is as insightful as most of the other Slashdot 'advice' to NASA. please mod accordingly)
I've read about 500 analogies on what electronic information "is like".
Every analogy is bad. We cannot equate electronic information with physical information of ages past. Every analogy just plain sucks.
The reason the information age has taken off is because of the ease of transmitting, storing and copying of electronic data. These methods weren't available fifty years ago, and weren't wide spread until about twenty years ago. Trying to stuff these concepts into one-hundred plus year old ways of thinking is just useless.
This does not mean we can't use older solutions to problems to guide us in the future. But, we need to stop shackling ourselves to old ways of thinking. The fundamental way we transmit thoughts and ideas have changed, our fundamental way of thinking about information needs to change as well.
Does this mean "all information is free"? No. But trying to treat electronic information like a book is useless. Web sites are put out to be publicly consumed. It is contradictory to say that someone cannot cache it for non-profit purposes. Trying to reuse the "creative" parts of the web site for commercial purposes should be prohibited.
Bottom line: Stop with the analogies. Start thinking fresh.
Yup. But here's the problem: Firefox has built its reputation on "We are secure. Microsoft is not" The more incidents like this one, the less differentiation between Firefox and Microsoft.
But ofcourse, the mods "flamebait" the granparent which had a very valid point.
As gp pointed out, people become zealots so easily.
The only problem I have is if there is no "check" to the power the FBI has. If, as advertised, they need court approval to make it happen, then no, I have no problem with a ten minute, or a ten second implementation time.
As always, I have suspicions that this technology might be used without court approval. But, I can't say "no" to something based upon my suspicions only.
Slashdot Mirror
From article
At least in part by shrewdly manufacturing a winning mystique. No outsider today can prove definitively that Google is not an office park full of geniuses who could at any moment announce, simultaneously, world peace and a cure for the common cold. That is because no outsider today can say anything definitive about Google at all. This is intentional. Google makes itself totally opaque by camouflaging itself with lots of what journalists call "colour".
Nope. This is what is called in financial circles as "risk". Sure, the company COULD do wonderful things, but we really aren't sure. Large standard deviation in potential returns.
For finance types who actually understand how valuations are done, we must take the median expected return of future cash flows, and use a present value discount rate that appropriately reflects this "risk" among other risks. If I have a $100 bond from the US Government that will mature in 3 weeks, it is worth a little bit less that $100 -- the discount rate isn't very high. If I have a $100 promise from uncle Guido due in three weeks, it is worth about 10 cents, since his word means jack -- his discount rate is virtually infinite.
In Google's case, we must use a high discount rate for several reasons.
The first is that Google really doesn't have anything that cannot be reproduced. The barriers to competition are not incredibly high, though it wold take a significant competitor. Combine this with the fact that Google could easily misstep, and lose their "do no evil" status. This bumps up the discount rate.
The second is that Google investors are basing their valuations on vague promises of what might happen in the future. Sorry. I am only 31, but have seen enough promises not pan out to make me a sceptic. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Sure, we must account for their prior stellar track record. But the promise of $100 in five years is not the same as $100 in my hand now.
Should you invest in Google? That question is, in itself, ambiguous. Would I invest at $100? Yes. Would I invest at $300. Hell no.
There is a chance they will live up to their expectations. There is a chance they won't. But investors are acting like their future promises have a 100% chance of occuring.
My bet is that this "mini bubble" will burst by end of 2006.
For all those who don't know, this is the equivilant of 'Copy Article Text' karma whores.
On Slashdot, you just go out, find the article, and make sure you are among the first to paste it into yor 'Comment' box. Mods with no brains mark it up. Then, others copy the article text, but because they weren't first, get modded down.
In the political world, you go out, find a hot button topic, and make sure you are amoung the first to 'go after it', while in reality doing nothing. Voters with no brains vote for you. Then, Jesse Jackson goes after the issue, but because he wasn't first, people roll their eyes and laugh.
Really? I wish someone would post a link to that story. That would rock!
Parent isn't a troll... Okay... it is. But it is very true. I got an "F" on a paper in third grade for doing the same thing. Book review != Summary.
1) Getting to the front of the queue only to find that the filler cap is on the other side of the rocket - you'd have to exit and queue again adding to further fuel and time wastage.
;)
2) The reach from the shuttle's window to the credit card slot on the fuel pump is too far and someone has to suit up and take the card
You are right, of course. A woman is piloting this thing...
Excuse me, mods, but parent is a member of anti-slash. Read his freaking signature.
I am?
In order to make your own 17' wind turbine, you will need the following items:
1) Seventeen tubes from paper towel rolls.
2) A roll of Duct tape
3) Ten cans of Bush Beans
Next week, we put it all together.
I think their launch window broke.
I have a faulty fuel sensor in my car. My solution: just fill up every few days to make sure I don't run out of gas. Why can't these "genius" rocket scientist just have the crew stop off and get gas half way up, and again when they come back down?
Dammit, *I* should be in charge of NASA.
(please note, that this post is as insightful as most of the other Slashdot 'advice' to NASA. please mod accordingly)
Hey, maybe this is how SlashMemes get started. Maybe there needs to be an LDIF-formatted post in every thread now.
You fail it.
I've read about 500 analogies on what electronic information "is like".
Every analogy is bad. We cannot equate electronic information with physical information of ages past. Every analogy just plain sucks.
The reason the information age has taken off is because of the ease of transmitting, storing and copying of electronic data. These methods weren't available fifty years ago, and weren't wide spread until about twenty years ago. Trying to stuff these concepts into one-hundred plus year old ways of thinking is just useless.
This does not mean we can't use older solutions to problems to guide us in the future. But, we need to stop shackling ourselves to old ways of thinking. The fundamental way we transmit thoughts and ideas have changed, our fundamental way of thinking about information needs to change as well.
Does this mean "all information is free"? No. But trying to treat electronic information like a book is useless. Web sites are put out to be publicly consumed. It is contradictory to say that someone cannot cache it for non-profit purposes. Trying to reuse the "creative" parts of the web site for commercial purposes should be prohibited.
Bottom line: Stop with the analogies. Start thinking fresh.
I want my 15 seconds back reading your reply.
Yup. But here's the problem: Firefox has built its reputation on "We are secure. Microsoft is not" The more incidents like this one, the less differentiation between Firefox and Microsoft.
But ofcourse, the mods "flamebait" the granparent which had a very valid point.
As gp pointed out, people become zealots so easily.
But it makes my internet run faster!
You're browsing the web on your way home?!?! Crap, I thought cell phone drivers were dangerous!
(no, I don't know there are other ways to get hom besides automobile)
Right now, at least 65% of Slashdot readers are masturbating to porn instead of working.
Shut up and wash your hands off.
misspelt
You spell bad.
You know it is time to go outside and meet real people when you have to consult wiki to find out if someone is joking or not.
spread-spectrum
Cue goatse jokes.
Real life "Leisure Suit Larry"?
;)
Nope. This is Slashdot!
But you could have the equivilant of a dog's "bark collar". Hit the GPS line and get a couple hundred volts.
;)
Betcha that would make you take it seriously
The only problem I have is if there is no "check" to the power the FBI has. If, as advertised, they need court approval to make it happen, then no, I have no problem with a ten minute, or a ten second implementation time.
As always, I have suspicions that this technology might be used without court approval. But, I can't say "no" to something based upon my suspicions only.
Or perhaps there really IS more to a game than just how good it looks.
.
.
.
.
(you too can be part of history, and help reconstruct the entire first thread under the original story)
Doom III was a very dark game, not something the bright people in Capitalist America would find entertaining.
How long has that been around? I was playing with the Palm 6, 7 years ago, and that didn't exist AFAIK.