complete failure of better than CD quality formats like SACD shows that people just aren't interested in the quality that would require bigger files
It may also be fair to blame failures like SACD and DVD-Audio on marketing, timing, usage restrictions, content and industry support.
We already know that most people don't have 5.1 surround sound in their living room (let alone bedrooms and other rooms), so it's not even really an option. This stuff probably sounds better, but if it only sounds better on the top tier systems, then it is, at the least, a timing issue.
I think that you've hit on something, but I don't know that you've hit it the right way. My girlfriend's early comments on her Nano were about sound quality directly resulting from the player itself ("Heard stuff I hadn't heard before"). She now understand why I use lossless encoding, but my system is still not up to spec.
I agree that we're many years from a push beyond CD audio and HD visuals, but audio and video often have "thresholds for the unknowing". Cable TV seems fine until you see Satellite. Satellite seems fine until you've watched a sporting event in HD. Now I'm spoiled after watching some of the NBA Finals in HD (on 42" screen). Even my buddy's 55" behemoth just isn't the same. Once you cross the threshold (live HDTV, XBox 360 on a 6' high projection screen,...) you start to notice the old failings and want to move up. Right now, the presentation tech is just moving faster than the adopters and the content distributors, but they'll catch up and HD will become "the standard".
Pardon me for reading Slashdot a week behind and replying Thanks for reading Slashdot at all, thread replies help make my day.
There's no way that Microsoft and Sony deliberately and grossly undersupplied the market during the Christmas season
I think that we're on two different wavelengths here. My point wasn't really that they did it deliberately, but I concede that it was implied.
I think that MS and Sony (and Nintendo) all made very active decisions about the available supply of consoles for the x-mas season. MS and Sony both quoted supply chain issues (ATI vid chips, Cell processors), but I'm not really going to let them "distribute blame". One aspect of excellence is the ability to accept blame for failure to deliver. When I deal with companies (and people), I treat their output as the result of their deliberate decisions and personal values.
My point is that supply chain issues cost both of these companies money and image (more money), but beyond that, I am going to say that "the companies wanted it this way". Sony decided to go with the Cell proc, despite having only one distributor (IBM) using a very new technology. One could say that they delivered a small # of units b/c "sh** happened", but they walked into sh** knowing the risks and they failed to deliver. So why coddle them? These are two of the largest companies in the world competing in one of the biggest industries in the world and they can't deliver product? Nah, they delivered exactly what they wanted to deliver (based on their own decisions).
Sounds to me like they don't that having available consoles at launch is a big deal. Unless you hear of some big-scale firings in the next year, the Sony execs are just pretending to be unhappy.
In the short term, yes, it may make sense to stick with a person doing the job. But in the long run, automation will be more profitable. For example, imagine it takes $90K to write the software to replace the job of a $30K/year worker. That will pay for itself in three years and by year four, the investment will have a positive ROI. While you're still paying that $30K worker, I'm getting the work done for free. Also, since I'm assuming this $30K worker has some intelligence, some ideas, and some skills in the marketplace, by automating his mundane job, I can now turn him lose on more interesting projects.
You've had some negative responses picking on the details, but generally your concept is accurate. As a consultant, I can tell you that you usually have to sell prospective clients on the last point (turn him loose on more interesting projects). Very few employers like to replace existing jobs with computers b/c it's very bad for morale.
In a like vein, 3 year ROI on a 90K project is generally "too much" for even mid-sized employers as they just don't have the capital to throw around on long-term gains. Many small and mid-sized businesses that I've met (up to say, 30 employees), just don't have 90K sitting around. It's easier to afford to pay the 30K generator every year (and dump him if he's unnecessary) than to be saddled with a 90K system that "may" work and will require support.
Often, I've found the usual goal is something in between. Make a multi-year, part-time plan to slowly automate and position so that the 30K employee can grow their productivity as their work load grows. This is very "Agile" in concept, you only need to help with the next bottleneck. It's also the most affordable for employers, because they're only footing small parts of the bill, so they don't wreck their cash flow.
Heck sometimes its costs the employer 120K for 90K of work, but a 3-year ROI is no good for small companies that may not exist in 3 years.
Sure the market might realize the "undervaluing", but what will the stock be worth when this happens? What if the stock starts doing worse before Wall Street notices?
And how long will it take for anyone to notice? Let's face it, the baseline for growth rate is government-issued bonds. If the markets take a year to catch up, what's my lost opportunity cost relative to these bonds?
As you noted, good and profitable companise are great for dividend investors. If I can invest in IBM, have the stock value grow at inflation and collect the dividends, then this is perfect: no losses, just marginal capital gain (highly tax) and straight cash (lowly taxed).
And what about "intrinsic value"? I mean, how can you really define this? We all have our own metrics, but that's just the point. If your intrinsic value metric is perfect, then I know some people with lots of money for you. But how can you really "intrinsically value" a stock? If you have methods, I'm listening.
Moreover, how do you know that a company is profitable? Do you have a professional accounting degree? Many people can read balance statements, but do you really know what you're reading? The GAAP is huge with tons of room for leeway. I've heard professional brokers and accountants put that "leeway" anywhere between 25-50% quarterly. This leeway can turn perceived profits into actual shortfalls.
Right now, much of the game is to meet and beat "analyst's expectations". To do this, corporations play all kinds of money games moving around declaration of certain sales or spreading declarations of large single sales, declaring earned interest only in slow quarters to pad the final numbers... Clearly, I have little faith in balance sheets and accounting practices.
BTW, why don't you engage in stuff that's overpriced? I mean if you know it's overpriced, the market will eventually go down right? If your value metrics are right on you can make money on a stock going both ways instead of just one.
So you have one reply from the guy who just states that it's a "statistical play", which is only enough evidence to prove that he is clueless.
But at least you have a clue. I think the key here is how the investing public is going to respond. If I can predict that response do I really need anything else?
I think the big problem is that we slashdotters are generally logical and rational beings. As an entity, the stock market is neither of these things. The market is a well of irrational, illogical and unpredictable behaviour. The markets are the collective will of people's emotions mixed with their pocketbooks, it's utter chaos.
I've posted this elsewhere, but the market is a zero-sum game with a consistently shifting optimal strategy. You've nailed probably the biggest failing point of such a system, if one could automate a selection system, that system would still need to adapt over time, b/c the optimal strategy(ies) would change. (unless your system can make enough money during the time it's valid)
Seems like the best strategy is to just write books about strategy and sell them.
Actually, market prediction is a black art by its very nature. Stock market trading (minus dividends) is basically a zero-sum game. If I have a strategy that makes money, it is doing so because it takes advantage of what everyone else is doing.
If I share my strategy with everyone else that strategy is no longer any good. Of course, if my strategy is good I can make vast tracts of personal wealth without making a large enough market dent to invalidate my own strategy.
However, it still can't predict things that a human can (yet). I doubt that a computer can incorporate thigns like global news, company announcements, and other such real world variables into how it makes judgments. That was the one thing that the article didn't really talk about.
Ok, you don't list your trading experience, so I'll give you a break on this one. Why does a computer need to incorporate "real world variables" in to judgements? Look, the stock market is an intricately complex game, but the simple rule to making money is that you must go against the grain.
When people sell, you need to buy; when people buy, you need to sell. Winning at the stock market means that you have to be taking the least popular decision (and be right about the outcome).
The issue of predicting things that a human can are really outside of the problem scope. If I can train a computer to predict like a human all I'll get is an average stock broker (and they're pretty bad). I need to train a computer to out-think the human.
If I want to train a computer based on chart analysis (some people do this), then why do I even need news? Technical Analysis doesn't really require news information, I mean, it may be a neat feature, but it's not like someone needs to follow news to make money on a stock. All things equal, I just need to correctly pick the direction of the stock with a better than 50% average. Don't know why I need news feeds to do this?
Why not simply buy a good profitable company?
Or a company that will be good and profitable?
How does good and profitable relate to stock price? Profits != stock price increases (or decreases). The correlation may be positive, but it's weak and sketchy. Many stocks are losing value b/c they won't meet their "profit guidance". That means that a stock value is dropping despite the fact that the company is good and profitable.
So in summary, we both chose the increased pain in order to get the benefits I mentioned. Wow, I can see that you had several difficult decisions, thank you for sharing your story.
Hey, thanks for the reply on this one, it's nice to open such a tough discussion.
I'd like to add to my six-finger question because you mentioned parental choice. I'm a supporter of parental choice, but what happens in a public healthcare scenario (or worse yet a heavily, privately-funded scenario)?
Let's say that we perform routine pre-screening and find that a child will have down syndrome. The parents decide that they want this child to be born with down syndrome. This child will incur significantly more medical expenses over their lifetime.
Will private healthcare be required to pay for these expenses? Normally, down syndrome "just happens", but now the parents actively chose to "allow for God's will" (or somesuch). How does public healthcare feel? They paid for both the screening and all of the incumbent expenses. And in public healthcare, how do we, the public, feel about this whole thing?
If we know that we can prevent Down Syndrome by pre-screening, can private healthcare now require pre-screening (under threat of coverage denial)? Can public healthcare do the same thing?
If parents choose pre-screening, find Down Syndrome and fail to fix it, is this child abuse? Is it child abuse in the 6-finger case? Where's the cutoff?
What about the social stigma on parents who don't choose pre-screening? "What your kid has Down Syndrome, why didn't you pre-screen?"
Fortunately, Telus doesn't maintain the list, we do, these guys are federally funded.
If problems come up we (the public) file complaints and the issue gets handled. Sure, we can insert comments about poor response times, red tape, etc. But that's neither here or nor there.
Point is, this is a government-sponsored list from a group with a good track record. If you don't like it, write to your local government reps and tell them about it.
Thank you for opening this dialogue with me. I wanted to reference your post, b/c one of your sentences is worthy of mention: And condoms, while quite well suited for impromptu use when I was a teenager, quickly got tiring once I got into a long-term relationship.... But you've just mentioned the problems that your wife is having as a result of taking birth control.
There's a choice here: condoms, pills or both. So you and your wife have chosen only pills. Rather than condom use, you have agreed that she should suffer more severe cramps (and likely more pain-killers)? I will admit that condom use is not a perfect substitute, but your wife is voluntarily suffering so that you can get around condom use?
Please note that I'm not trying to judge your pill vs. condoms decision. I just want you and I to agree or disagree about my statement. I don't really care about the final decision, I just want to understand the circumstances surrounding your decision.
I brought up cramps b/c they're very insidious. Fitness, diet, sleep all influence the length and severity of menstrual cramps. Yet when things go "menstrually awry" the first solution is typically birth control to regulate the cycle, reduce pain, reduce PMS, etc.
I have never heard nor met any girl (or woman) who was told that she would be required to maintain a health and fitness log for two months before being given pills. Those are all factors and we know that people lie about these things when convenient, but we're quicker to move straight to hormonal regulators rather than have someone track their own lifestyle and look for improvements.
I mention this elsewhere in the the thread, but I really think that we should just assume that pills are inherently dangerous and then take them with that in mind. The contraceptive pill may be in common use, but it is by no means non-invasive.
I'll admit that it's not 100%, but if regular exercise can drop the pain from Midol pain to Tylenol pain or from 10 pills to 3 pills, isn't that worth investigating? There is a place in the world for pills, but shouldn't pills be a last resort rather than first line of defense?
First, have you seen or are you subtly referring to Gattaca? Many of your ideas and concepts make appearances in this movie. If you haven't seen it, I'm sure that you'll be interested.
Of course, this movie involves a pre-screening genetic "defects". Of course, this concept is a very difficult debate topic, even without religious beliefs involved.
Start with the basics, what is a genetic "defect"? Could some set of combined genetic defects cause a cancellation and result in a "genetic advantage"? It's neat that we can identify certain congenital conditions (Down Syndrome), but this is far from absolute. This DNA thing is an insanely complicated machine of which we know very little.
If we harness the power of genetic modification, how successful will we be? Heck, again with the difficult words, what would be "success"?
You see the problem with this type of pre-selection lies solely in our ability to define our roles and goals (sound like a Covey book). By assuming the role of "genetic engineers", we are effectively saying that "we know what is best" or "we know what is better".
The problem is, I don't think that we do. How are we, as a society, going to agree on the genetic engineering that counts as better? We can barely agree on the definition of marriage (see same-sex laws), how are we going to agree on the definition of "better for humanity"?
Example: We've identified a child to be born with six fingers on each hand. Is this better for humanity? Should we remove the gene b/c of the social stigma this child will undergo? Should we consider 5-fingered humans to be lesser because of the advantages of 6-fingered humans? Who decides? Can the parents pick (it's their kid), or does the state have legislation rights (it's our kid)?
Even if we only want to "remove genetic defects", we're wading in a very dangerous quagmire. Our altruistic, slightly eugenic, goal is actually mired in dangers of which we know very little.
The problem with the drug industry is that it's more profitable for them to treat/mask sympthoms than to actually cure something. There are various anti-flu pills for example that only mask the sympthoms, so it will take a month or two to recover from a simple cold instead a week or two.
With that in mind, why don't we try our best to hop off the drug train? No sarcasm here. We all know the rules of healthy living: eat right, stay fit, sleep well, socialize, moderation etc. We know the basics that will keep us healthy.
So why don't just look at ALL drugs as being somewhat dangerous? And why don't we acknowledge that drug danger is (usually) directly proportional to the size of the problem it is attempting to fix? Light pain killer == smaller risk, Heavy pain killer == bigger risk, General Anesthetic == risk of death.
Now I'm OK with a little pain for gain: corrective surgery, dental work, emergency amputations... I mean some of this stuff is necessary. And if I just cut off your arm at the elbow, then help yourself to some opiates for a little while. But don't imagine that the opiates were good for you, they were just a necessary evil. We just gave you enough drugs so that you could maintain your body above the survival line. And don't ask for anti-depressants, of course you're depressed, you just lost your arm! Call up some friends, have some good laughs and start dealing with the fact that you're armless.
Drugs are rarely made to fix things, at best they usually mask the "problem" so that your body can fix things. An excess of a drug causes the body to adapt to that drug's presence. But hey, that's what your body does, it fixes things and it adapts to changes. To wreck an old adage, "Drugs don't fix people, people fix people", so let's imagine that drugs are just a dangerous tool (like nuclear power) and maybe we'll all be better for it.
Yeah, except that pain-killers are often a fix for stuff in the (a) category.
It's the old "Doctor it hurts when I..." jokes. And the doctor replies: "Well then, don't do that."
Pain is unpleasant (actually kind of the nature of pain). This unpleasantness is a signal that something is wrong. The body signals pain as a sign of distress, it's shouting "hey you something's wrong". This is an "irreducible, necessary part of living". Our body has a feedback mechanism to tell us that something is endangering the organism.
Now what happens when I pop an advil? Have I really solved the problem, is my organism no longer endangered? Unless the problem was inflammation, my body is still in distress; except that now, I'm ignoring it. The alarm is still ringing, I just hit the snooze button.
Personally, I have a very rough time taking pain-killers b/c they're very dangerous. They have their uses: surgery, recovery, palliative care and as one-shot snooze buttons, but they have to be used sparingly.
If I'm popping two advil/day to handle my headaches this is dangerous. Daily Midol on a 5-day menstrual cycle? Weekly gelcaps before a basketball game to help quell "my old knee injury"?
We've all seen cases like this, but they're all pretty crazy. If your knee is in pain whenever you play basketball, pretending the pain is gone won't make your knee any better. Hiding daily headaches won't make them go away. Sucking back Midols doesn't mean that your "cramps are gone", it just means that you don't feel them any more. Your body is still yelling at you.
I agree with your original (a) vs. (b) statement, but I'm very worried that you didn't identify pain-killers as type (a).
I think that you may be confusing Mentality with Desire. Are the "people who don't care" also the same group as the "people who lack the mentality"? In your description, they're both a "vast majority", so could it be that you're confusing the two? (unless you have two distinct "vast majorities"?)
My experience has been that people who don't care won't learn. I have yet to meet people who can't learn to use a computer, only people who don't want to learn.
Let me throw an example your way: Someone is fired losing corporate files and failing to make backups. When word gets around about someone being fired for this "backup" thing then others will start to care. You'll hear people asking about this "backup" thing and how they can avoid getting fired. I can assure that everyone would then be happy to learn the backup process. They'd be photocopying your doc and handing them around. "There are two kinds of hard disks..." they'd all be saying, now that they had an understanding of the risks.
The realization that something is important is the first step in creating the desire to learn. My example is extreme and negatively re-inforced (being fired), but the gravity is there. Without the gravity that this information is important, many people will simply read "There are two kinds of hard disks..." and then blank out. In 1990 "the vast majority" of people had no clue what "hard disk" even meant. The sentence would make no sense to them. If then sentence makes no sense and I don't need to understand it anyways, then why am I going to learn it?
All you've effectively stated is that you can't educate the unwilling and that the "vast majority" of people are unwilling to learn about computers. But that's par for the course, we knew that already.
But please don't misinterpret your results and give up. Generate an interest in the student and you'll find students who will learn.
I have been saying exactly this (minus the pics) for months now. It's good to hear it from someone else.
This concept of "console sell-out = good thing", just doesn't ring true with me. My little bro had a pre-ordered 360 for last x-mas, but didn't get it until February. B/c we knew he wouldn't have it, nobody bought him the standard set of accessory gifts (controller, Live subscription, games), so for two months MS lost this potential income as it was spent elsewhere.
I don't know where the pro MS marketers got their ideas, but most people I know, but things in small bursts. Once the console is paid off, they'll buy a controller one month then a game here and a game there. I know very few, if any, people who will hold money in some sort of "personal x-box account" waiting for their next big spend. If there's no x-box accessory, the money just gets spent elsewhere (nice dinner, night at the movies, computer accessory,...)
I'm probably a rare case, but I didn't buy an XBox 360 b/c I couldn't buy one. It was late January, I'd been interested in owning one for 3+ months, but nobody had any in stock. My local outlets were still filling pre-orders taken in November. So I took the money and spent it elsewhere (bunch of Magic cards). I still don't own a 360, but I'm not unhappy playing my Dance Dance and Karaoke Revolutions (given that penchant, I'll probably end up with a Wii).
Point is, MS lots tons of "opportunity buys". The console is the biggest barrier to entry, yet the games/accessories are the largest source of profit. If people can't buy a console (even with money in hand), then you've erected an infinite barrier to entry. Inability to buy a console bottlenecks the whole chain from the very beginning. Nintendo obviously has the right strategy here, they sound like the stock to own.
Here's a plug for the interactive story line concept: Saga of Ryzom(SoR). In particular, check out the Ryzom Ring which allows players to create their own instanced quests off the main servers.
They also run GM-coordinated events, where GMs are actually directly involved (i.e.: spawning creatures, controlling environment, etc.). In this way big events are not just happening, they're happening differently across different servers. I've not reached the levels to confirm this, but from what I understand, landscapes between servers are actually different.
Like all MMOs, Ryzom has its faults, but it's definitely a mature community and I get this feeling that they're working towards the goals in TFA.
And if you have tried to do clever stuff in VB6 to get around its limitations (like we did), you are really in trouble.
No doubt, and I feel for anyone trying to convert or refactor this.
I would sooner choose Java than.NET
As an MCP, I'm biased. Still, I have a rough time with UIs created with Java. Most businesses have no momentum away from MS, so the cross-platform issue is really null. The primary use for cross-platform functionality is on server apps, but deploying server apps (or services) in Java does not preclude rolling out.NET UIs.
If the 10-year roadmap does not favor Vista in business, then things may change. But right now, it's really tough to push back MS's momentum. Java's primary benefit over MS is cross-platform compatibility, but that's not a benefit if all of your desktops are running Windows.
At least they saw this coming. They bought out a company that specialized in VB6 to.NET conversions, so all of the tools and docs are available for free. Obv. it's not perfect as you still have to perform the actual conversion, but at least everyone was thrown a bone.
There has been a call to open source the VB6 APIs so that the community can continue to support them, but I don't see this happening.
Most companies that are making the switch are doing it one module at a time. VB6 &.NET can play together, but it does take a few hours of training. I'm not saying that the situation is perfect, but it does help that MS is doing a much better backwards compatibility job with.NET.
With side-by-side versioning and an open standard on MSIL, the required transparency is now present. Developing on VB.NET (or C#, same thing) should not leave you in lurch 10 years down the road, b/c the community has more tools. We can run.NET 1.1 and.NET 2.0 side-by-side. We can read to and from MSIL in multiple programming languages.
We're no longer programming into a giant black box. It sucks I know, but it could be worse.
Man, I know people like that with University degrees. And that takes way more hours than an MCSE.
As for MSCEs, there was a dark period where MCSEs were handed out like toilet paper, and a lot of people snuck one in when it was easy. MS noticed that MCSEs stopped getting respect and raised the bar (significantly) about 2 years ago.
Still, to this day, MCSE is the lowest paid of the high-end certs, with MCSD.NET and MCDBAs earning significantly more.
But hey, let's be gentle with the MCSE-bashing. We all know the value of certifications (whether from MS, community college or MIT). I mean, it's clear that this guy lacks some common sense, but you could have replaced MCSE with college degree to the same effect.
My University had several project courses, and they were key.
The course content should be very simple. Pick one project and assign it to the whole class. Break out the class into teams and run them through the cycle.
This means an analysis/requirements, a design doc (internal/external), coding (with source control), testing plan (with test procedures) and a team presentation.
This can be completed in one semester and closely approximates a well-managed project. Some organization (DoD projects) will require way more docs and other projects will skip entire phases. This should provide a good average.
For teaching requirements and analysis, check out Ivy Hooks at compliance automation.
Slashdot Mirror
My thoughts exactly. You beat me to it.
complete failure of better than CD quality formats like SACD shows that people just aren't interested in the quality that would require bigger files
It may also be fair to blame failures like SACD and DVD-Audio on marketing, timing, usage restrictions, content and industry support.
We already know that most people don't have 5.1 surround sound in their living room (let alone bedrooms and other rooms), so it's not even really an option. This stuff probably sounds better, but if it only sounds better on the top tier systems, then it is, at the least, a timing issue.
I think that you've hit on something, but I don't know that you've hit it the right way. My girlfriend's early comments on her Nano were about sound quality directly resulting from the player itself ("Heard stuff I hadn't heard before"). She now understand why I use lossless encoding, but my system is still not up to spec.
I agree that we're many years from a push beyond CD audio and HD visuals, but audio and video often have "thresholds for the unknowing". Cable TV seems fine until you see Satellite. Satellite seems fine until you've watched a sporting event in HD. Now I'm spoiled after watching some of the NBA Finals in HD (on 42" screen). Even my buddy's 55" behemoth just isn't the same. Once you cross the threshold (live HDTV, XBox 360 on a 6' high projection screen, ...) you start to notice the old failings and want to move up. Right now, the presentation tech is just moving faster than the adopters and the content distributors, but they'll catch up and HD will become "the standard".
Pardon me for reading Slashdot a week behind and replying
Thanks for reading Slashdot at all, thread replies help make my day.
There's no way that Microsoft and Sony deliberately and grossly undersupplied the market during the Christmas season
I think that we're on two different wavelengths here. My point wasn't really that they did it deliberately, but I concede that it was implied.
I think that MS and Sony (and Nintendo) all made very active decisions about the available supply of consoles for the x-mas season. MS and Sony both quoted supply chain issues (ATI vid chips, Cell processors), but I'm not really going to let them "distribute blame". One aspect of excellence is the ability to accept blame for failure to deliver. When I deal with companies (and people), I treat their output as the result of their deliberate decisions and personal values.
My point is that supply chain issues cost both of these companies money and image (more money), but beyond that, I am going to say that "the companies wanted it this way". Sony decided to go with the Cell proc, despite having only one distributor (IBM) using a very new technology. One could say that they delivered a small # of units b/c "sh** happened", but they walked into sh** knowing the risks and they failed to deliver. So why coddle them? These are two of the largest companies in the world competing in one of the biggest industries in the world and they can't deliver product? Nah, they delivered exactly what they wanted to deliver (based on their own decisions).
Sounds to me like they don't that having available consoles at launch is a big deal. Unless you hear of some big-scale firings in the next year, the Sony execs are just pretending to be unhappy.
In the short term, yes, it may make sense to stick with a person doing the job. But in the long run, automation will be more profitable. For example, imagine it takes $90K to write the software to replace the job of a $30K/year worker. That will pay for itself in three years and by year four, the investment will have a positive ROI. While you're still paying that $30K worker, I'm getting the work done for free. Also, since I'm assuming this $30K worker has some intelligence, some ideas, and some skills in the marketplace, by automating his mundane job, I can now turn him lose on more interesting projects.
You've had some negative responses picking on the details, but generally your concept is accurate. As a consultant, I can tell you that you usually have to sell prospective clients on the last point (turn him loose on more interesting projects). Very few employers like to replace existing jobs with computers b/c it's very bad for morale.
In a like vein, 3 year ROI on a 90K project is generally "too much" for even mid-sized employers as they just don't have the capital to throw around on long-term gains. Many small and mid-sized businesses that I've met (up to say, 30 employees), just don't have 90K sitting around. It's easier to afford to pay the 30K generator every year (and dump him if he's unnecessary) than to be saddled with a 90K system that "may" work and will require support.
Often, I've found the usual goal is something in between. Make a multi-year, part-time plan to slowly automate and position so that the 30K employee can grow their productivity as their work load grows. This is very "Agile" in concept, you only need to help with the next bottleneck. It's also the most affordable for employers, because they're only footing small parts of the bill, so they don't wreck their cash flow.
Heck sometimes its costs the employer 120K for 90K of work, but a 3-year ROI is no good for small companies that may not exist in 3 years.
Sure the market might realize the "undervaluing", but what will the stock be worth when this happens? What if the stock starts doing worse before Wall Street notices?
And how long will it take for anyone to notice? Let's face it, the baseline for growth rate is government-issued bonds. If the markets take a year to catch up, what's my lost opportunity cost relative to these bonds?
As you noted, good and profitable companise are great for dividend investors. If I can invest in IBM, have the stock value grow at inflation and collect the dividends, then this is perfect: no losses, just marginal capital gain (highly tax) and straight cash (lowly taxed).
And what about "intrinsic value"? I mean, how can you really define this? We all have our own metrics, but that's just the point. If your intrinsic value metric is perfect, then I know some people with lots of money for you. But how can you really "intrinsically value" a stock? If you have methods, I'm listening.
Moreover, how do you know that a company is profitable? Do you have a professional accounting degree? Many people can read balance statements, but do you really know what you're reading? The GAAP is huge with tons of room for leeway. I've heard professional brokers and accountants put that "leeway" anywhere between 25-50% quarterly. This leeway can turn perceived profits into actual shortfalls.
Right now, much of the game is to meet and beat "analyst's expectations". To do this, corporations play all kinds of money games moving around declaration of certain sales or spreading declarations of large single sales, declaring earned interest only in slow quarters to pad the final numbers... Clearly, I have little faith in balance sheets and accounting practices.
BTW, why don't you engage in stuff that's overpriced? I mean if you know it's overpriced, the market will eventually go down right? If your value metrics are right on you can make money on a stock going both ways instead of just one.
So you have one reply from the guy who just states that it's a "statistical play", which is only enough evidence to prove that he is clueless.
But at least you have a clue. I think the key here is how the investing public is going to respond. If I can predict that response do I really need anything else?
I think the big problem is that we slashdotters are generally logical and rational beings. As an entity, the stock market is neither of these things. The market is a well of irrational, illogical and unpredictable behaviour. The markets are the collective will of people's emotions mixed with their pocketbooks, it's utter chaos.
I've posted this elsewhere, but the market is a zero-sum game with a consistently shifting optimal strategy. You've nailed probably the biggest failing point of such a system, if one could automate a selection system, that system would still need to adapt over time, b/c the optimal strategy(ies) would change. (unless your system can make enough money during the time it's valid)
Seems like the best strategy is to just write books about strategy and sell them.
Actually, market prediction is a black art by its very nature. Stock market trading (minus dividends) is basically a zero-sum game. If I have a strategy that makes money, it is doing so because it takes advantage of what everyone else is doing.
If I share my strategy with everyone else that strategy is no longer any good. Of course, if my strategy is good I can make vast tracts of personal wealth without making a large enough market dent to invalidate my own strategy.
However, it still can't predict things that a human can (yet). I doubt that a computer can incorporate thigns like global news, company announcements, and other such real world variables into how it makes judgments. That was the one thing that the article didn't really talk about.
Ok, you don't list your trading experience, so I'll give you a break on this one. Why does a computer need to incorporate "real world variables" in to judgements? Look, the stock market is an intricately complex game, but the simple rule to making money is that you must go against the grain.
When people sell, you need to buy; when people buy, you need to sell. Winning at the stock market means that you have to be taking the least popular decision (and be right about the outcome).
The issue of predicting things that a human can are really outside of the problem scope. If I can train a computer to predict like a human all I'll get is an average stock broker (and they're pretty bad). I need to train a computer to out-think the human.
If I want to train a computer based on chart analysis (some people do this), then why do I even need news? Technical Analysis doesn't really require news information, I mean, it may be a neat feature, but it's not like someone needs to follow news to make money on a stock. All things equal, I just need to correctly pick the direction of the stock with a better than 50% average. Don't know why I need news feeds to do this?
Why not simply buy a good profitable company? Or a company that will be good and profitable?
How does good and profitable relate to stock price? Profits != stock price increases (or decreases). The correlation may be positive, but it's weak and sketchy. Many stocks are losing value b/c they won't meet their "profit guidance". That means that a stock value is dropping despite the fact that the company is good and profitable.
So in summary, we both chose the increased pain in order to get the benefits I mentioned. Wow, I can see that you had several difficult decisions, thank you for sharing your story.
Hey, thanks for the reply on this one, it's nice to open such a tough discussion.
I'd like to add to my six-finger question because you mentioned parental choice. I'm a supporter of parental choice, but what happens in a public healthcare scenario (or worse yet a heavily, privately-funded scenario)?
Let's say that we perform routine pre-screening and find that a child will have down syndrome. The parents decide that they want this child to be born with down syndrome. This child will incur significantly more medical expenses over their lifetime.
Will private healthcare be required to pay for these expenses? Normally, down syndrome "just happens", but now the parents actively chose to "allow for God's will" (or somesuch). How does public healthcare feel? They paid for both the screening and all of the incumbent expenses. And in public healthcare, how do we, the public, feel about this whole thing?
If we know that we can prevent Down Syndrome by pre-screening, can private healthcare now require pre-screening (under threat of coverage denial)? Can public healthcare do the same thing?
If parents choose pre-screening, find Down Syndrome and fail to fix it, is this child abuse? Is it child abuse in the 6-finger case? Where's the cutoff?
What about the social stigma on parents who don't choose pre-screening? "What your kid has Down Syndrome, why didn't you pre-screen?"
Fortunately, Telus doesn't maintain the list, we do, these guys are federally funded.
If problems come up we (the public) file complaints and the issue gets handled. Sure, we can insert comments about poor response times, red tape, etc. But that's neither here or nor there.
Point is, this is a government-sponsored list from a group with a good track record. If you don't like it, write to your local government reps and tell them about it.
Thank you for opening this dialogue with me. I wanted to reference your post, b/c one of your sentences is worthy of mention: And condoms, while quite well suited for impromptu use when I was a teenager, quickly got tiring once I got into a long-term relationship.... But you've just mentioned the problems that your wife is having as a result of taking birth control.
There's a choice here: condoms, pills or both. So you and your wife have chosen only pills. Rather than condom use, you have agreed that she should suffer more severe cramps (and likely more pain-killers)? I will admit that condom use is not a perfect substitute, but your wife is voluntarily suffering so that you can get around condom use?
Please note that I'm not trying to judge your pill vs. condoms decision. I just want you and I to agree or disagree about my statement. I don't really care about the final decision, I just want to understand the circumstances surrounding your decision.
I brought up cramps b/c they're very insidious. Fitness, diet, sleep all influence the length and severity of menstrual cramps. Yet when things go "menstrually awry" the first solution is typically birth control to regulate the cycle, reduce pain, reduce PMS, etc.
I have never heard nor met any girl (or woman) who was told that she would be required to maintain a health and fitness log for two months before being given pills. Those are all factors and we know that people lie about these things when convenient, but we're quicker to move straight to hormonal regulators rather than have someone track their own lifestyle and look for improvements.
I mention this elsewhere in the the thread, but I really think that we should just assume that pills are inherently dangerous and then take them with that in mind. The contraceptive pill may be in common use, but it is by no means non-invasive.
I'll admit that it's not 100%, but if regular exercise can drop the pain from Midol pain to Tylenol pain or from 10 pills to 3 pills, isn't that worth investigating? There is a place in the world for pills, but shouldn't pills be a last resort rather than first line of defense?
First, have you seen or are you subtly referring to Gattaca? Many of your ideas and concepts make appearances in this movie. If you haven't seen it, I'm sure that you'll be interested.
Of course, this movie involves a pre-screening genetic "defects". Of course, this concept is a very difficult debate topic, even without religious beliefs involved.
Start with the basics, what is a genetic "defect"? Could some set of combined genetic defects cause a cancellation and result in a "genetic advantage"? It's neat that we can identify certain congenital conditions (Down Syndrome), but this is far from absolute. This DNA thing is an insanely complicated machine of which we know very little.
If we harness the power of genetic modification, how successful will we be? Heck, again with the difficult words, what would be "success"?
You see the problem with this type of pre-selection lies solely in our ability to define our roles and goals (sound like a Covey book). By assuming the role of "genetic engineers", we are effectively saying that "we know what is best" or "we know what is better".
The problem is, I don't think that we do. How are we, as a society, going to agree on the genetic engineering that counts as better? We can barely agree on the definition of marriage (see same-sex laws), how are we going to agree on the definition of "better for humanity"?
Example: We've identified a child to be born with six fingers on each hand. Is this better for humanity? Should we remove the gene b/c of the social stigma this child will undergo? Should we consider 5-fingered humans to be lesser because of the advantages of 6-fingered humans? Who decides? Can the parents pick (it's their kid), or does the state have legislation rights (it's our kid)?
Even if we only want to "remove genetic defects", we're wading in a very dangerous quagmire. Our altruistic, slightly eugenic, goal is actually mired in dangers of which we know very little.
The problem with the drug industry is that it's more profitable for them to treat/mask sympthoms than to actually cure something. There are various anti-flu pills for example that only mask the sympthoms, so it will take a month or two to recover from a simple cold instead a week or two.
With that in mind, why don't we try our best to hop off the drug train? No sarcasm here. We all know the rules of healthy living: eat right, stay fit, sleep well, socialize, moderation etc. We know the basics that will keep us healthy.
So why don't just look at ALL drugs as being somewhat dangerous? And why don't we acknowledge that drug danger is (usually) directly proportional to the size of the problem it is attempting to fix? Light pain killer == smaller risk, Heavy pain killer == bigger risk, General Anesthetic == risk of death.
Now I'm OK with a little pain for gain: corrective surgery, dental work, emergency amputations... I mean some of this stuff is necessary. And if I just cut off your arm at the elbow, then help yourself to some opiates for a little while. But don't imagine that the opiates were good for you, they were just a necessary evil. We just gave you enough drugs so that you could maintain your body above the survival line. And don't ask for anti-depressants, of course you're depressed, you just lost your arm! Call up some friends, have some good laughs and start dealing with the fact that you're armless.
Drugs are rarely made to fix things, at best they usually mask the "problem" so that your body can fix things. An excess of a drug causes the body to adapt to that drug's presence. But hey, that's what your body does, it fixes things and it adapts to changes. To wreck an old adage, "Drugs don't fix people, people fix people", so let's imagine that drugs are just a dangerous tool (like nuclear power) and maybe we'll all be better for it.
Yeah, except that pain-killers are often a fix for stuff in the (a) category.
It's the old "Doctor it hurts when I ..." jokes. And the doctor replies: "Well then, don't do that."
Pain is unpleasant (actually kind of the nature of pain). This unpleasantness is a signal that something is wrong. The body signals pain as a sign of distress, it's shouting "hey you something's wrong". This is an "irreducible, necessary part of living". Our body has a feedback mechanism to tell us that something is endangering the organism.
Now what happens when I pop an advil? Have I really solved the problem, is my organism no longer endangered? Unless the problem was inflammation, my body is still in distress; except that now, I'm ignoring it. The alarm is still ringing, I just hit the snooze button.
Personally, I have a very rough time taking pain-killers b/c they're very dangerous. They have their uses: surgery, recovery, palliative care and as one-shot snooze buttons, but they have to be used sparingly.
If I'm popping two advil/day to handle my headaches this is dangerous. Daily Midol on a 5-day menstrual cycle? Weekly gelcaps before a basketball game to help quell "my old knee injury"?
We've all seen cases like this, but they're all pretty crazy. If your knee is in pain whenever you play basketball, pretending the pain is gone won't make your knee any better. Hiding daily headaches won't make them go away. Sucking back Midols doesn't mean that your "cramps are gone", it just means that you don't feel them any more. Your body is still yelling at you.
I agree with your original (a) vs. (b) statement, but I'm very worried that you didn't identify pain-killers as type (a).
I think that you may be confusing Mentality with Desire. Are the "people who don't care" also the same group as the "people who lack the mentality"? In your description, they're both a "vast majority", so could it be that you're confusing the two? (unless you have two distinct "vast majorities"?)
My experience has been that people who don't care won't learn. I have yet to meet people who can't learn to use a computer, only people who don't want to learn.
Let me throw an example your way: Someone is fired losing corporate files and failing to make backups. When word gets around about someone being fired for this "backup" thing then others will start to care. You'll hear people asking about this "backup" thing and how they can avoid getting fired. I can assure that everyone would then be happy to learn the backup process. They'd be photocopying your doc and handing them around. "There are two kinds of hard disks..." they'd all be saying, now that they had an understanding of the risks.
The realization that something is important is the first step in creating the desire to learn. My example is extreme and negatively re-inforced (being fired), but the gravity is there. Without the gravity that this information is important, many people will simply read "There are two kinds of hard disks..." and then blank out. In 1990 "the vast majority" of people had no clue what "hard disk" even meant. The sentence would make no sense to them. If then sentence makes no sense and I don't need to understand it anyways, then why am I going to learn it?
All you've effectively stated is that you can't educate the unwilling and that the "vast majority" of people are unwilling to learn about computers. But that's par for the course, we knew that already.
But please don't misinterpret your results and give up. Generate an interest in the student and you'll find students who will learn.
Here is the reply from the author of the originating article: Dmitri Zimine.
I have been saying exactly this (minus the pics) for months now. It's good to hear it from someone else.
This concept of "console sell-out = good thing", just doesn't ring true with me. My little bro had a pre-ordered 360 for last x-mas, but didn't get it until February. B/c we knew he wouldn't have it, nobody bought him the standard set of accessory gifts (controller, Live subscription, games), so for two months MS lost this potential income as it was spent elsewhere.
I don't know where the pro MS marketers got their ideas, but most people I know, but things in small bursts. Once the console is paid off, they'll buy a controller one month then a game here and a game there. I know very few, if any, people who will hold money in some sort of "personal x-box account" waiting for their next big spend. If there's no x-box accessory, the money just gets spent elsewhere (nice dinner, night at the movies, computer accessory,...)
I'm probably a rare case, but I didn't buy an XBox 360 b/c I couldn't buy one. It was late January, I'd been interested in owning one for 3+ months, but nobody had any in stock. My local outlets were still filling pre-orders taken in November. So I took the money and spent it elsewhere (bunch of Magic cards). I still don't own a 360, but I'm not unhappy playing my Dance Dance and Karaoke Revolutions (given that penchant, I'll probably end up with a Wii).
Point is, MS lots tons of "opportunity buys". The console is the biggest barrier to entry, yet the games/accessories are the largest source of profit. If people can't buy a console (even with money in hand), then you've erected an infinite barrier to entry. Inability to buy a console bottlenecks the whole chain from the very beginning. Nintendo obviously has the right strategy here, they sound like the stock to own.
Here's a plug for the interactive story line concept: Saga of Ryzom(SoR). In particular, check out the Ryzom Ring which allows players to create their own instanced quests off the main servers.
They also run GM-coordinated events, where GMs are actually directly involved (i.e.: spawning creatures, controlling environment, etc.). In this way big events are not just happening, they're happening differently across different servers. I've not reached the levels to confirm this, but from what I understand, landscapes between servers are actually different.
Like all MMOs, Ryzom has its faults, but it's definitely a mature community and I get this feeling that they're working towards the goals in TFA.
And if you have tried to do clever stuff in VB6 to get around its limitations (like we did), you are really in trouble.
No doubt, and I feel for anyone trying to convert or refactor this.
I would sooner choose Java than .NET
As an MCP, I'm biased. Still, I have a rough time with UIs created with Java. Most businesses have no momentum away from MS, so the cross-platform issue is really null. The primary use for cross-platform functionality is on server apps, but deploying server apps (or services) in Java does not preclude rolling out .NET UIs.
If the 10-year roadmap does not favor Vista in business, then things may change. But right now, it's really tough to push back MS's momentum. Java's primary benefit over MS is cross-platform compatibility, but that's not a benefit if all of your desktops are running Windows.
At least they saw this coming. They bought out a company that specialized in VB6 to .NET conversions, so all of the tools and docs are available for free. Obv. it's not perfect as you still have to perform the actual conversion, but at least everyone was thrown a bone.
There has been a call to open source the VB6 APIs so that the community can continue to support them, but I don't see this happening.
Most companies that are making the switch are doing it one module at a time. VB6 & .NET can play together, but it does take a few hours of training. I'm not saying that the situation is perfect, but it does help that MS is doing a much better backwards compatibility job with .NET.
With side-by-side versioning and an open standard on MSIL, the required transparency is now present. Developing on VB.NET (or C#, same thing) should not leave you in lurch 10 years down the road, b/c the community has more tools. We can run .NET 1.1 and .NET 2.0 side-by-side. We can read to and from MSIL in multiple programming languages.
We're no longer programming into a giant black box. It sucks I know, but it could be worse.
Man, I know people like that with University degrees. And that takes way more hours than an MCSE.
As for MSCEs, there was a dark period where MCSEs were handed out like toilet paper, and a lot of people snuck one in when it was easy. MS noticed that MCSEs stopped getting respect and raised the bar (significantly) about 2 years ago.
Still, to this day, MCSE is the lowest paid of the high-end certs, with MCSD.NET and MCDBAs earning significantly more.
But hey, let's be gentle with the MCSE-bashing. We all know the value of certifications (whether from MS, community college or MIT). I mean, it's clear that this guy lacks some common sense, but you could have replaced MCSE with college degree to the same effect.
My University had several project courses, and they were key.
The course content should be very simple. Pick one project and assign it to the whole class. Break out the class into teams and run them through the cycle.
This means an analysis/requirements, a design doc (internal/external), coding (with source control), testing plan (with test procedures) and a team presentation.
This can be completed in one semester and closely approximates a well-managed project. Some organization (DoD projects) will require way more docs and other projects will skip entire phases. This should provide a good average.
For teaching requirements and analysis, check out Ivy Hooks at compliance automation.