You remind me of my public sector economics teacher. I remember he once said
"And just to take this to its logical, and far more important end, IN OUR MODEL, WHICH ANALYZES A SMALL CLOSED ECONOMY WITHOUT A GOVERNMENT, the consumers who WOULD support this kind of business by voting in droves with their wallets WOULD BE the singularly most important party turning "a blind eye". This WOULD applicable across all retail. The conditions under which the goods we buy are prepared, be it Nike shoes or a Big Mac or an iPhone, WOULD ultimately BE the responsibility of the individuals who are purchasing those goods. They WOULD hold all the power and therefore virtually all of the responsibility.
ON THE OTHER HAND, IN THE REAL WORLD..."
That depends.
Is the company more concerned about securing a $2B per quarter revenues from its technology or about the $5k court settlement that it'll ultimately be required to pay somewhere in Asia?
I am from Brazil, and my personal opinion is that this is not going to happen, for a couple of reasons. We have an overprotective Constitution, which tries to foster every civil right one could think of. So, it doesn't matter if hundreds of people are getting shot daily in our cities' ghettos, as long as shooting people remains illegal. Most of our laws is not only unenforceable, but also lack the political will to get enforced. Most of the time spent in the Congress is dedicated to discussing useless theory while millions are seriously considering shooting a fellow man for a piece of bread. Meanwhile, all of those who suffer in famine watch billionaire government scandals in the TV. We'll be in the next ice age by the time this bill passes, for our legislative process allows for hundreds of procedimental enjoinments, congressional discussions, stuff like that.
That's nothing but a political move to get some international recognition, by touching an issue that concerns the IT community worldwide. The digital economy, in central nations, may be a leading indicator of social trends and ideology, but in developing countries it's just a mirror of our pathologies. A good example of political cybermoves in Brazil is to hunt down Orkut users who are trafficking drugs, or violating the law in some way. Rather than a strong and innovative vector for crime, Orkut drug dealers are just plain criminals, showing their face through new tools. And a dozen of cybercops arresting middle-class pseudocriminals are useless to handle an army of tens of millions of orphans.
Well, but isn't feasibility of imports a mitigating factor when looking for collusion evidence? I mean, is it possible to fix prices for SRAM, given its low degree of differentiation? Is the distribution channels and contracts with OEMs such a bottleneck in the downstream?
On the "first" DotCom bubble, I don't like the *speculative* label. By the end of the 90s, the productivity of capital goods had been amazingly enhanced by IT, and no single person on the planet could forecast to which extent that could happen, and probably still can't. The people involved are not always the world-infamous technical traders pressing F5 and F8 to buy and sell, we're talking also about insightful analysts, respectful economists and thinkers that devoted some serious time to that matter, without reaching a consensus. Some of those could be long some stock at the time. So what?
Technology jumps that cause even slight increases in margins might significantly alter decade-long investment policies by those who fight fiercely for a place in their markets. We're not talking about Google, Microsoft, Cisco, but about all corporations that need IT (all of them, from Exxon to Albertsons).
As a professional of the financial markets, and in the M&A business, more specifically, my opinion is that if your cost of equity (future earnings) beats the market, you pay for acquisitions in cash, as interest expense will be lower than future earnings, there'll be no need to dilute shareholders profits. I always tremble when I see incredibly skyrocketing overperformers making decisions that market prices reveal to be irrational. Bingo. Maybe market is mispricing.
But the paper's title reads: "DOES TELEVISION CAUSE AUTISM?"
By finding a correlation, he makes everyone think the question is answered, for this will sell more papers. I am pretty sure that's the point he's trying to make when he says (p. 2) "while our cable tests indicate that approximately seventeen percent of the growth in autism in California and Pennsylvania during the 1970s and 1980s is due to the growth of cable television".
When someone tried to teach me some Econometrics, I was said that (1) we should find data for the related variables, to make sure we're properly specifying the model - autism can be a proxy for other relevant data, (2) causation is a relationship that spans over time, so in cross-sectional static data, spurious correlation, endogeneity and reverse causation might appear, which can be corrected through some procedures with the help of time series samples.
As there is no index for autism like S&P 500 Autism, SPX-AU Index |GO|, no consistent causation analysis can be done, so I will keep my opinion that this work is not scientific, and ultemately agreeing with the karma whores, thank you.
edusmoreira Corp. ("edu" or "the one who sucks at WoW") was incorporated in Brazil to develop entertainment activities, namely to play WoW. We discontinued our operations due to incredible lack of skill in the course of the aforementioned activities. We are also seeking to redeploy our existing resources to identify and acquire one or more players with existing or prospective taxable earnings that can be offset by use of our net operating loss carry-forwards (NOLs).
I really don't see that as an issue. Societies of control, as Michel Foucault treated them, have been part of our daily space for a long time, with is embodied nowadays by increasingly omnipresent speed radars; RFID devices; surveillance cameras in commercial, residential and industrial establishments; phone tappings and e-mail screening by corporations, just to name a few.
The question is whether we engage in collective madness - begin to treat that as Big Brother - or we choose to understand that all this paraphernalia was self-imposed, to guarantee that we'll be biologically alive tomorrow.
Ironically, in those times of uneasiness with control, we promote insurrections, insisting that the reason for life, the universe and everything is freedom, whatever the implied cost. And one day it ceases to produce the expected results. And so on and so forth. Historical perpetuum mobile.
I disagree.
Perhaps this is nonsense, so excuse me in advance. I am not american. I've been hostilized in airports when I needed to visit some relatives in the US. I don't endorse the so-called "war on terror", nor the suppresion of civil rights and liberties that I believe is happening there.
But if paranoia is now the standard, one should understand that the government is being at least coherent. Better than having bad rules, is to have no rule at all, as this would be institutional schizophrenia.
The last thing you want is to undertake thorough investigations that violate your privacy, to have your phonecalls tapped, to board a plane with your essential belongings in a plastic bag, and all that to have in the end a "rocketeer" blowing up your kid's school bus.
Indeed. But that's a free rider problem on its purest form./.ers mentioned the hysterical phone would be great if everyone owned it, but terrible to own in the individual basis, for false positives will occur in your board meeting or your final exams, subjecting you to a huge embarassment. Collective benefits, individual harm. No one will buy it. The market for this product is DOA, unless the government buys it for everyone.
"So fucking what, so does half of my pay go to rent and food."
I'm sure it does. But we're talking about different levels of housing and food. Even then, if you think twice, it's great to be able to spend just half your pay with basic needs. Because they don't include having to treat melioidosis or any other lethal endemic disease on your own expenses. Or spending 20% of your pay in private health care (the other option is facing certain death in the queue of a public hospital). You don't have to worry about buying an armoured car to avoid being shot at in a traffic light for your watch.
"International organizations can't define a minimum standard of life, so I'll live mine and pretend everyone else's is equivalent". Yeah, right. That is called ethnocentrism, and if I remember well, we used to dislike it some time ago.
It's easy to use percentages and fractions.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm, but even then, how would one know that it wasn't put there afterwards? Only the accelerometer log will tell!!
You remind me of my public sector economics teacher. I remember he once said "And just to take this to its logical, and far more important end, IN OUR MODEL, WHICH ANALYZES A SMALL CLOSED ECONOMY WITHOUT A GOVERNMENT, the consumers who WOULD support this kind of business by voting in droves with their wallets WOULD BE the singularly most important party turning "a blind eye". This WOULD applicable across all retail. The conditions under which the goods we buy are prepared, be it Nike shoes or a Big Mac or an iPhone, WOULD ultimately BE the responsibility of the individuals who are purchasing those goods. They WOULD hold all the power and therefore virtually all of the responsibility. ON THE OTHER HAND, IN THE REAL WORLD..."
That depends. Is the company more concerned about securing a $2B per quarter revenues from its technology or about the $5k court settlement that it'll ultimately be required to pay somewhere in Asia?
That's nothing but a political move to get some international recognition, by touching an issue that concerns the IT community worldwide. The digital economy, in central nations, may be a leading indicator of social trends and ideology, but in developing countries it's just a mirror of our pathologies. A good example of political cybermoves in Brazil is to hunt down Orkut users who are trafficking drugs, or violating the law in some way. Rather than a strong and innovative vector for crime, Orkut drug dealers are just plain criminals, showing their face through new tools. And a dozen of cybercops arresting middle-class pseudocriminals are useless to handle an army of tens of millions of orphans.
Well, but isn't feasibility of imports a mitigating factor when looking for collusion evidence? I mean, is it possible to fix prices for SRAM, given its low degree of differentiation? Is the distribution channels and contracts with OEMs such a bottleneck in the downstream?
On the "first" DotCom bubble, I don't like the *speculative* label. By the end of the 90s, the productivity of capital goods had been amazingly enhanced by IT, and no single person on the planet could forecast to which extent that could happen, and probably still can't. The people involved are not always the world-infamous technical traders pressing F5 and F8 to buy and sell, we're talking also about insightful analysts, respectful economists and thinkers that devoted some serious time to that matter, without reaching a consensus. Some of those could be long some stock at the time. So what?
Technology jumps that cause even slight increases in margins might significantly alter decade-long investment policies by those who fight fiercely for a place in their markets. We're not talking about Google, Microsoft, Cisco, but about all corporations that need IT (all of them, from Exxon to Albertsons).
As a professional of the financial markets, and in the M&A business, more specifically, my opinion is that if your cost of equity (future earnings) beats the market, you pay for acquisitions in cash, as interest expense will be lower than future earnings, there'll be no need to dilute shareholders profits. I always tremble when I see incredibly skyrocketing overperformers making decisions that market prices reveal to be irrational. Bingo. Maybe market is mispricing.
Ok, I agree.
But the paper's title reads: "DOES TELEVISION CAUSE AUTISM?"
By finding a correlation, he makes everyone think the question is answered, for this will sell more papers. I am pretty sure that's the point he's trying to make when he says (p. 2) "while our cable tests indicate that approximately seventeen percent of the growth in autism in California and Pennsylvania during the 1970s and 1980s is due to the growth of cable television".
When someone tried to teach me some Econometrics, I was said that (1) we should find data for the related variables, to make sure we're properly specifying the model - autism can be a proxy for other relevant data, (2) causation is a relationship that spans over time, so in cross-sectional static data, spurious correlation, endogeneity and reverse causation might appear, which can be corrected through some procedures with the help of time series samples.
As there is no index for autism like S&P 500 Autism, SPX-AU Index |GO|, no consistent causation analysis can be done, so I will keep my opinion that this work is not scientific, and ultemately agreeing with the karma whores, thank you.Et cetera. Let me know if you are interested.
The question is whether we engage in collective madness - begin to treat that as Big Brother - or we choose to understand that all this paraphernalia was self-imposed, to guarantee that we'll be biologically alive tomorrow.
Ironically, in those times of uneasiness with control, we promote insurrections, insisting that the reason for life, the universe and everything is freedom, whatever the implied cost. And one day it ceases to produce the expected results. And so on and so forth. Historical perpetuum mobile.
I disagree. Perhaps this is nonsense, so excuse me in advance. I am not american. I've been hostilized in airports when I needed to visit some relatives in the US. I don't endorse the so-called "war on terror", nor the suppresion of civil rights and liberties that I believe is happening there. But if paranoia is now the standard, one should understand that the government is being at least coherent. Better than having bad rules, is to have no rule at all, as this would be institutional schizophrenia. The last thing you want is to undertake thorough investigations that violate your privacy, to have your phonecalls tapped, to board a plane with your essential belongings in a plastic bag, and all that to have in the end a "rocketeer" blowing up your kid's school bus.
Eating their own dogfood: Rochelle said that "Everybody in [Google] is using the tool" already.
Now I understand why the CFO paid 1.6bn for GooTube!
In Soviet Russia, snail eats YOU!!!
Indeed. /.ers mentioned the hysterical phone would be great if everyone owned it, but terrible to own in the individual basis, for false positives will occur in your board meeting or your final exams, subjecting you to a huge embarassment.
But that's a free rider problem on its purest form.
Collective benefits, individual harm.
No one will buy it.
The market for this product is DOA, unless the government buys it for everyone.
Sure. CNET also reported that the country's rise in adultery is due to the increasing sales of state-of-the-art warm and cozy sofas. Give me a break.
I'm sure it does. But we're talking about different levels of housing and food. Even then, if you think twice, it's great to be able to spend just half your pay with basic needs. Because they don't include having to treat melioidosis or any other lethal endemic disease on your own expenses. Or spending 20% of your pay in private health care (the other option is facing certain death in the queue of a public hospital). You don't have to worry about buying an armoured car to avoid being shot at in a traffic light for your watch.
"International organizations can't define a minimum standard of life, so I'll live mine and pretend everyone else's is equivalent". Yeah, right. That is called ethnocentrism, and if I remember well, we used to dislike it some time ago. It's easy to use percentages and fractions.