And even once you hear about them you still have to analyze them.
Exactly. But that implies events don't have to be occurring at the rate of a million per second.
It's not just events that drive stock prices but also investors's perceptions of the likely future impact of those events. Events which, either directly or indirectly, have an impact on a companies' value are discrete, but the assessment of the magnitude of those impacts in terms of the company's stock price takes place virtually continuously. There's no known right answer when valuing the stock price impact of some event (or the value of the stock in the first place for that matter). The subjective element of valuation (arguably the largest determinant of a stock price) means a stock will continuously be repriced as new investors make judgements about a particular event's impact, or existing investors re-assess their earlier judgements.
The cost to Apple is irrelevant. If somebody is willing to pay the additional $50 (or whatever), they're getting good value, by definition. Or: if they didn't think they were getting good value they wouldn't pay.
I confess to being no more enlightened. Monetary policy instruments include not just setting of the interest rate (which is, admittedly, the usual mechanism) but also a range of other options, including open market operations and setting reserve requirements (which, if I interpret your comments correctly, you ascribe to Keynesianism).
"Previous Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has followed a more monetarist view in his tenure as Chairman."
Kind of intrigued by this. Given Fed Chairman's sole lever is the control of the money supply (and conversely, with no influence over fiscal levers a la Keynes) how could he be anything other than monetarist?
Technically, the NBER decide when/if a recession occurred, and it's generally well and truly after the fact. As an example, (from their explanation of business cycle timing):
Those criticising the analysis of the EVE economy on the basis that it's not a 'real' representation of a 'real' economy miss the point that, in this respect, EVE is no different from any other economic model. That is, all economic models are abstractions from reality, by definition, whether they be econometric, general equilibrium, game theoretical, or whatever. As somebody has pointed out, that doesn't render them - or EVE - useless as an analytical tool.
Apologies for the above. What I wanted to say was:
And let's not forget that in most developed economies (the US included) the central bank acts independently of the government. In fact, it's not unusual for government wishes and monetary policy to be at odds. A number of elected representatives are currently pushing for the Fed to cut the policy rate by 50bps or more, when arguably it's not yet clear that such a cut can be justified on monetary policy grounds alone. And on the flipside, expansionary fiscal policy tends to be inflationary (depending on current capacity constraints) and at odds with the central bank's goal of managing inflation.
...governments excercise influence over economies. They do this through a whole host of factors, of which monetary policy is only one of many.
And let's not forget that in most developed economies (the US included) the central bank acts independently of the government. In fact, it's not unusual for government wishes and monetary policy to be at odds. A number of elected representatives are currently pushing for the Fed to cut the policy rate
The government may wish to control monetary policy - the current urges of many representatives for the Fed to cut the Fed Funds rate being a
I will go away. Anybody who can justify insulting whole segments of the population - in your case, the female gender - while apparently abhorring individual criticism isn't worthy of my time.
I have both a Wii and a PS3. The PS3 I bought (rather than a 360) in the expectation that the next Gran Turismo will be a PS3 exclusive. Thus far I have Oblivion and Resistance, both of which are top-notch in my humble view.
I bought the Wii because, like most of Slashdot evidentally, I recognised the massive potential of the controller. Thus far, that potential is a long way from being realised. Zelda:TP, Wario Ware, Rayman, Madden all employ the controller to great effect. But the parent's right: these games are clearly the exception. Most games for the Wii are terrible ports of PS/Xbox games, that don't take advantage of the controller (or do so in a half-assed fashion).
That's not to say that Wii might not get there eventually - I'm hoping that it does. But as it stands currently, the 360 is a country mile ahead in terms of the quantity of high-quality games. (And as a PS3 owner, I don't say this lightly!)
Mod parent up. Not only does Levitt make a strong case for demographic change (albeit induced by legislative change) as the fundamental driver of declining crime in NYC, but he explicitly counters other mythicised causes, such as the roles of Guiliani and Clinton.
I can sympathise with those in Europe, but spare a thought for a moment for those of us in NZ. PS3 price is/will be $NZ1199 (incl 12.5% tax). At today's (spot) rate that's about $US835.
For context, 2005 GDP per capita (in US dollars and adjusted for price differences i.e. PPP):
Agree. Look back to the DS touch screen as an example of potentially cool hardware not utilised to decent effect by the games. Sure there are *some* great games that use the dual screens well - but there are a huge number of crappy ports, often of games that were actually very good on their original consoles. Lego Star Wars II is a classic example, but there are plenty of others. The thing that'll make the Wii for me will be games built with the Wiimote in mind from the outset.
Try the EMS Top Gun . Works on plasma, LCD and CRT. Calibrates to sensors placed around the edges of the screen. Works well for me, and has been given decent reviews ( for e.g.)
The whole point of the article you link to is to debunk the myth that Warren and Marshall's research was not favourably received. From the article:
"That, then, is the history of the H. pylori hypothesis and its acceptance by the medical mainstream. Its journey from proposal to acceptance was quite ordinary. The first reports were surprising but intriguing and entirely plausible. The potential implications didn't require a "new paradigm," just a little work. Other investigators quickly jumped on the research bandwagon, and in a matter of a few years, the basic story and its therapeutic ramifications were established. The profession, as represented by its literature and institutions, readily accepted it. The entire process took about eight years--ten, if one insists on including the NIH coming-out party (I don't), but not the thirteen that has been claimed. This amount of time was entirely appropriate, given the nature of the task." (my emphasis)
I'm no marketing expert, but your view isn't held by movie promoters despite having lifelike images to work with. Sometimes DVD covers are juxtaposed stills, but more often than not they're artistic portrayals of characters/scenes, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
And even once you hear about them you still have to analyze them.
Exactly. But that implies events don't have to be occurring at the rate of a million per second.
It's not just events that drive stock prices but also investors's perceptions of the likely future impact of those events. Events which, either directly or indirectly, have an impact on a companies' value are discrete, but the assessment of the magnitude of those impacts in terms of the company's stock price takes place virtually continuously. There's no known right answer when valuing the stock price impact of some event (or the value of the stock in the first place for that matter). The subjective element of valuation (arguably the largest determinant of a stock price) means a stock will continuously be repriced as new investors make judgements about a particular event's impact, or existing investors re-assess their earlier judgements.
And in similar vein I found The Number Devil to be very good.
The cost to Apple is irrelevant. If somebody is willing to pay the additional $50 (or whatever), they're getting good value, by definition. Or: if they didn't think they were getting good value they wouldn't pay.
I confess to being no more enlightened. Monetary policy instruments include not just setting of the interest rate (which is, admittedly, the usual mechanism) but also a range of other options, including open market operations and setting reserve requirements (which, if I interpret your comments correctly, you ascribe to Keynesianism).
"Previous Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has followed a more monetarist view in his tenure as Chairman."
Kind of intrigued by this. Given Fed Chairman's sole lever is the control of the money supply (and conversely, with no influence over fiscal levers a la Keynes) how could he be anything other than monetarist?
Technically, the NBER decide when/if a recession occurred, and it's generally well and truly after the fact. As an example, (from their explanation of business cycle timing):
"On July 16, 2003, the committee determined that a trough in economic activity occurred in November 2001." http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html
Correct. I'd mod up if I could.
Those criticising the analysis of the EVE economy on the basis that it's not a 'real' representation of a 'real' economy miss the point that, in this respect, EVE is no different from any other economic model. That is, all economic models are abstractions from reality, by definition, whether they be econometric, general equilibrium, game theoretical, or whatever. As somebody has pointed out, that doesn't render them - or EVE - useless as an analytical tool.
Apologies for the above. What I wanted to say was:
And let's not forget that in most developed economies (the US included) the central bank acts independently of the government. In fact, it's not unusual for government wishes and monetary policy to be at odds. A number of elected representatives are currently pushing for the Fed to cut the policy rate by 50bps or more, when arguably it's not yet clear that such a cut can be justified on monetary policy grounds alone. And on the flipside, expansionary fiscal policy tends to be inflationary (depending on current capacity constraints) and at odds with the central bank's goal of managing inflation.
And let's not forget that in most developed economies (the US included) the central bank acts independently of the government. In fact, it's not unusual for government wishes and monetary policy to be at odds. A number of elected representatives are currently pushing for the Fed to cut the policy rate The government may wish to control monetary policy - the current urges of many representatives for the Fed to cut the Fed Funds rate being a
Somehow, "practice" seems an entirely appropriate verb in the context of polygamy.
I will go away. Anybody who can justify insulting whole segments of the population - in your case, the female gender - while apparently abhorring individual criticism isn't worthy of my time.
How's this for a precise piece of criticism? Your statement that "insults are for girls" labels you both a sexist and a hypocrite.
And yet I still find room for an insult: you're also a moron.
Wholeheartedly agree.
I have both a Wii and a PS3. The PS3 I bought (rather than a 360) in the expectation that the next Gran Turismo will be a PS3 exclusive. Thus far I have Oblivion and Resistance, both of which are top-notch in my humble view.
I bought the Wii because, like most of Slashdot evidentally, I recognised the massive potential of the controller. Thus far, that potential is a long way from being realised. Zelda:TP, Wario Ware, Rayman, Madden all employ the controller to great effect. But the parent's right: these games are clearly the exception. Most games for the Wii are terrible ports of PS/Xbox games, that don't take advantage of the controller (or do so in a half-assed fashion).
That's not to say that Wii might not get there eventually - I'm hoping that it does. But as it stands currently, the 360 is a country mile ahead in terms of the quantity of high-quality games. (And as a PS3 owner, I don't say this lightly!)
Mod parent up. Not only does Levitt make a strong case for demographic change (albeit induced by legislative change) as the fundamental driver of declining crime in NYC, but he explicitly counters other mythicised causes, such as the roles of Guiliani and Clinton.
(Website: http://www.freakonomics.com/thebook.php)
Thank you, thank you and again, thank you. This is the funniest thing I've seen for a long time.
Well fuck me, what are the chances of there being two Pippin Galadriel Moonchilds? But then this is Slashdot...
I can sympathise with those in Europe, but spare a thought for a moment for those of us in NZ. PS3 price is/will be $NZ1199 (incl 12.5% tax). At today's (spot) rate that's about $US835.
For context, 2005 GDP per capita (in US dollars and adjusted for price differences i.e. PPP):
US: 41,399
UK: 30,436
NZ: 24,797.
( Source)
Agree. Look back to the DS touch screen as an example of potentially cool hardware not utilised to decent effect by the games. Sure there are *some* great games that use the dual screens well - but there are a huge number of crappy ports, often of games that were actually very good on their original consoles. Lego Star Wars II is a classic example, but there are plenty of others. The thing that'll make the Wii for me will be games built with the Wiimote in mind from the outset.
Try the EMS Top Gun . Works on plasma, LCD and CRT. Calibrates to sensors placed around the edges of the screen. Works well for me, and has been given decent reviews ( for e.g.)
"the scientific community's sledging"
Huh? What sledging?
The whole point of the article you link to is to debunk the myth that Warren and Marshall's research was not favourably received. From the article:
"That, then, is the history of the H. pylori hypothesis and its acceptance by the medical mainstream. Its journey from proposal to acceptance was quite ordinary. The first reports were surprising but intriguing and entirely plausible. The potential implications didn't require a "new paradigm," just a little work. Other investigators quickly jumped on the research bandwagon, and in a matter of a few years, the basic story and its therapeutic ramifications were established. The profession, as represented by its literature and institutions, readily accepted it. The entire process took about eight years--ten, if one insists on including the NIH coming-out party (I don't), but not the thirteen that has been claimed. This amount of time was entirely appropriate, given the nature of the task." (my emphasis)
Caveat emptor, my friend. I'm sure there were numerous other 'theys' quite happy to inform you that Bob Mould was/is nothing like Massive Attack.
I'm no marketing expert, but your view isn't held by movie promoters despite having lifelike images to work with. Sometimes DVD covers are juxtaposed stills, but more often than not they're artistic portrayals of characters/scenes, etc.
Why not look at something like http://www.metacritic.com/games/ which pools reviews from a bunch of sources?