That gets back to predicting the future of VW rather than general stock techniques.
It looks like other auto makers have similar problems. We've only seen the start. The other co's study their competitors' smog systems. Why wouldn't they rat on VW? Why let your competitor cheat.
They probably considered ratting, but thought if they did that, they'd invite scrutiny to their own cars. So instead, they probably added and/or increased their cheating to match VW's.
If all car makers will be in the same boat, then it doesn't hurt VW's sales as much because people still need cars. They'll all get slapped by penalties eventually and their stocks will take turns diving.
Perhaps the smarter stock advice is to keep your VW stock but bail on other car stocks. VW will recover sooner and perhaps have a sales boom as the other car markers go thru the same investigative cycle.
and other major cloud and SaaS providers probably have lots more security experts and other IT people at their command than you do.
That's true, but if a hacker figures out how to crack one system in the host's server farm, they can probably crack many of the rest because the hoster probably uses the same equipment, setups, and conventions.
Whether that factor outweighs the extra expertise is hard to say.
"Buy low sell high" is still sound advice. Selling a downward-trending stock is not necessarily the most rational move. For example, Toyota had a rough patch with their breaks and are back on top again. You calculate your odds based on what you can control now, not how much you already lost.
Non-STEM people just can't concentrate because they have the attention span of a gnat, that's why they call the thinkers autistic.
Hogwash. Non-STEM generally pay more attention to social cues and "people issues". Us geeks have an "attention span" problem with regard to people. We often are not aware of this because, well, we are not aware of this.
Watch the faces of clothing shoppers; some are very attentive to their shopping task. They are weighing many issues in their mind.
The bottom line is the "regular" people are more interested in people issues and STEM people are more interested in machines, puzzles, and symbols. Each is bored by different things. (Yes, there are exceptions to the rule.)
So far it works; don't knock it unless you want to sell the idea that more stuff is better than jobs to folks. Our econ is tilted toward stuff over jobs.
As far as animation, some South Korean animators are known to be quite good in part because S. Koreans culturally show emotions more so than Japanese and thus are more skilled (familiar) with human expression. It's not just cost.
But the rest of Japan has been in recession... for 20 or 30 years since their bubble burst in the 90s.
That's because it was an unsustainable bubble, not unlike the dot-com bubble. It's true their GDP has been flat for many years, but they have low unemployment. They can't buy more over time, but at least they have jobs. Busy and stable and plenty of sake; life is good. We got financial roller-coasters and 9/11 panic.
I knew it was bad when they started outsourcing animation to South Korea to save money.
USA co's do that in both good times and bad. How does that make it a "recession"?
Eventually you need a "live" space test to know for sure. If ground tests keeping proving to be difficult due to darned gravity and nearby crap with static forces etc., then it may be more cost effective to test in space.
But they are also risking a penalty for denying. They also denied the original discovery at first. If you keep denying parts of your crime, you deserve a far bigger penalty than if you fess up all, at the start, and get it over with. It's a double crime: cheating AND lying. But maybe German courts work different, or they know how to bribe well, or at least think they do.
Testing it in space may be the only way to know for sure. There's too many things on the ground to muck up tests when dealing with such a minute force.
He's become more of a tool for propagandists than a propagandist himself. I agree his documentaries have spin, but if a politician produced something that did NOT have spin, I would be completely shocked. (It would be like a doctor with clear handwriting. I'd become suspicious.)
The bottom line is don't get your news from politicians on either side of any issue. Follow that guideline and Gore would and should be a non-factor in the broader debate.
You realize the U.S. is ~4.5% of the population... right? Even if we went completely arboreal...
Two wrongs don't make a right. We should do our part even if others flake. Otherwise, nobody does anything because they use the bad apples as an excuse to slack off. That's 2nd-grader logic.
We could use threats of tariffs to encourage other countries to clean up their act, but that's also politically difficult to pull off. Enough of our voters and/or lobbyists/bribers have to be interested before anything like that is done in the USA, which brings us back to the original topic.
I've worked for a wide variety of organizations and org sizes as both a contractor and employee. And I do notice a few general patterns.
First, almost all large organizations are poorly managed, gov't or private, relative to smaller ones.
Second, in the private sector you do have the pressure of competition to be a little more efficient and practical, BUT that pressure also creates more incentive to cheat and lie, which often offsets the competition-driven efficiency (if you don't measure on superficial things).
Most of us know that the difficultly of managing software projects is not linear with feature quantity. The "network effect" makes coordinating bunches of interactions more difficult relative to the feature "node count". This also applies to organizations.
Referring to Graph Theory models, you cannot count just the feature nodes to estimate complexity, but also the relevant interactions between all the nodes. You have to count both the nodes and the interactions between them (often called "edges", "arcs", "lines", or "links"), and link count usually does not scale linearly with the node count, but some higher order. (Not all nodes are typically connected, but it's still a whole lot of connections.)
I believe there's a single general term for this affect regarding complexity management, but the name escapes me right now.
Slashdot Mirror
That gets back to predicting the future of VW rather than general stock techniques.
It looks like other auto makers have similar problems. We've only seen the start. The other co's study their competitors' smog systems. Why wouldn't they rat on VW? Why let your competitor cheat.
They probably considered ratting, but thought if they did that, they'd invite scrutiny to their own cars. So instead, they probably added and/or increased their cheating to match VW's.
If all car makers will be in the same boat, then it doesn't hurt VW's sales as much because people still need cars. They'll all get slapped by penalties eventually and their stocks will take turns diving.
Perhaps the smarter stock advice is to keep your VW stock but bail on other car stocks. VW will recover sooner and perhaps have a sales boom as the other car markers go thru the same investigative cycle.
Here's proof:
https://www.facebook.com/moron
One story [here] just answered another on
That's true, but if a hacker figures out how to crack one system in the host's server farm, they can probably crack many of the rest because the hoster probably uses the same equipment, setups, and conventions.
Whether that factor outweighs the extra expertise is hard to say.
No wonder I saw Linus beating a dead horse.
"Buy low sell high" is still sound advice. Selling a downward-trending stock is not necessarily the most rational move. For example, Toyota had a rough patch with their breaks and are back on top again. You calculate your odds based on what you can control now, not how much you already lost.
Does it run analog Linux?
Not knowing is different than "you are wrong, we are right" repeatedly.
If smog cheating happens under their noses then court shenanigans probably do also.
Hogwash. Non-STEM generally pay more attention to social cues and "people issues". Us geeks have an "attention span" problem with regard to people. We often are not aware of this because, well, we are not aware of this.
Watch the faces of clothing shoppers; some are very attentive to their shopping task. They are weighing many issues in their mind.
The bottom line is the "regular" people are more interested in people issues and STEM people are more interested in machines, puzzles, and symbols. Each is bored by different things. (Yes, there are exceptions to the rule.)
Thanks!
So far it works; don't knock it unless you want to sell the idea that more stuff is better than jobs to folks. Our econ is tilted toward stuff over jobs.
As far as animation, some South Korean animators are known to be quite good in part because S. Koreans culturally show emotions more so than Japanese and thus are more skilled (familiar) with human expression. It's not just cost.
That's because it was an unsustainable bubble, not unlike the dot-com bubble. It's true their GDP has been flat for many years, but they have low unemployment. They can't buy more over time, but at least they have jobs. Busy and stable and plenty of sake; life is good. We got financial roller-coasters and 9/11 panic.
USA co's do that in both good times and bad. How does that make it a "recession"?
Hey, you have to finish the story. What did the driver do when you couldn't cover?
They may have the last laugh as their overseas competitors are hacked and vandalized into bankruptcy.
When the electricity is out, the dude with the candle is a god-send, not a "Luddite".
Eventually you need a "live" space test to know for sure. If ground tests keeping proving to be difficult due to darned gravity and nearby crap with static forces etc., then it may be more cost effective to test in space.
But they are also risking a penalty for denying. They also denied the original discovery at first. If you keep denying parts of your crime, you deserve a far bigger penalty than if you fess up all, at the start, and get it over with. It's a double crime: cheating AND lying. But maybe German courts work different, or they know how to bribe well, or at least think they do.
Here ya go:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap12...
Testing it in space may be the only way to know for sure. There's too many things on the ground to muck up tests when dealing with such a minute force.
Hold on, I'm inventing the Placebo Drive. It works simply because you think it works. For once, marketers will be useful.
Dummies, if you want to influence Washington, you don't put up radio stations, you bribe politicians directly. The Supreme Court made doing so legal.
Oh great, now their hat sewing pattern is all over Interwebs. Thanks alot.
Shoot the heat, brilliant!
He's become more of a tool for propagandists than a propagandist himself. I agree his documentaries have spin, but if a politician produced something that did NOT have spin, I would be completely shocked. (It would be like a doctor with clear handwriting. I'd become suspicious.)
The bottom line is don't get your news from politicians on either side of any issue. Follow that guideline and Gore would and should be a non-factor in the broader debate.
Two wrongs don't make a right. We should do our part even if others flake. Otherwise, nobody does anything because they use the bad apples as an excuse to slack off. That's 2nd-grader logic.
We could use threats of tariffs to encourage other countries to clean up their act, but that's also politically difficult to pull off. Enough of our voters and/or lobbyists/bribers have to be interested before anything like that is done in the USA, which brings us back to the original topic.
I've worked for a wide variety of organizations and org sizes as both a contractor and employee. And I do notice a few general patterns.
First, almost all large organizations are poorly managed, gov't or private, relative to smaller ones.
Second, in the private sector you do have the pressure of competition to be a little more efficient and practical, BUT that pressure also creates more incentive to cheat and lie, which often offsets the competition-driven efficiency (if you don't measure on superficial things).
Most of us know that the difficultly of managing software projects is not linear with feature quantity. The "network effect" makes coordinating bunches of interactions more difficult relative to the feature "node count". This also applies to organizations.
Referring to Graph Theory models, you cannot count just the feature nodes to estimate complexity, but also the relevant interactions between all the nodes. You have to count both the nodes and the interactions between them (often called "edges", "arcs", "lines", or "links"), and link count usually does not scale linearly with the node count, but some higher order. (Not all nodes are typically connected, but it's still a whole lot of connections.)
I believe there's a single general term for this affect regarding complexity management, but the name escapes me right now.