The intrinsic value of stock is the value of all dividends the company will ever pay, discounted using the time value of money (I'm simplifying of course). You would hold the stock in order to collect those future dividends. This of course requires a very long-term approach to investing, and with a penalized secondary market, makes it more difficult to move capital from a bad company (that has very slim prospects of producing a future dividend) to a good one.

Fair enough. Now can we stop arguing about the first part of my original post, and move on to the second part, where I provided a different example that debunks your assertion that anything divided by 0 is 0?

The example I provided didn't cover the case you used by design. You said the answer to dividing by zero in the real world is zero. I provided a different example where it is not.

That was an example to demonstrate the fallacy of your question. You can't use anything other than positive natural numbers (i.e. {1,2,3,4,...}) to enumerate a number of something like a "number of parts". Zero "parts" doesn't make any sense. You haven't shown anything generally wrong with dividing by zero in the real world, you've just shown a problem with your own question.

Did you read the rest of the post?

Nah, you've got a couple problems in your example.

First, your exact real-world problem doesn't make sense with a divisor that is less than one, which is how you get close to zero. Five dollars divided into 0.5 parts? What does that even mean?

Now let's flip around your real world example to something that makes sense. Five dollars divided into how many parts, where each part gets $0.50? 5/0.50 = 10 parts. Five dollars divided into how many parts, where each part gets 0.0000001? 50000000. Five dollars divided into how many parts, where each part gets 0? Infinity.

I think setting the dynamic range of 0-100 based on human extremes (see below) is fine, but I don't think this is an important point really. Both scales have to have finer granularity than "cold, medium, and hot" and they do.

One comment on this before we get to your examples. You can't look at averages, because they aren't meaningful - you have to look at the range, so mean+variance+std deviations. Basically, you look at what the likely numbers that people are going to use.

As a matter of fact, yes. 0 is not moving and numbers near it are slow, 100 mph is "really fast" (using the terminology from the original picture I linked). If you're measuring in km/h, you have the same problem as Celsius where the scale isn't nicely correlated to normal human activity :) I think it's merely a happy coincidence that 0-100 mph works out this way (as opposed to Fahrenheit, see below), but it sure did work out nicely.

Human height doesn't change all that much, and really only changes for about 20 years out of a lifespan of ~80. (Hey, notice how lifespans are also good with 0-100? 0 is really young, 100 is really old)

I guess I have to concede your point though. The scale can be arbitrary and people will get used to it. That doesn't mean that one scale itself is superior or inferior.

That's exactly my point (no one figured out why Fahrenheit works out this way until you said it just now). Human body temperature being 100 on the scale sets the scale to something that humans have intrinsic experience with. Obviously not human body temperature directly, but outside weather temperature which is related to human body temperature by virtue of evolution giving us a body temperature that tolerates those outside temperatures. On the low end, Fahrenheit used a freezing point of something lower than water, probably something he considered "really cold". My point being, he set the 0-100 range of his scale to extremes that humanes were reasonably likely to encounter. Just judging by that for human use (ignoring all the other SI benefits), I think this makes it a superior scale to Celsius.

Most people do.

If converting units is so trivial (as many, many people on this thread point out), you should have no trouble communicating with anyone using Fahrenheit.

0-100 allows for finer granularity of temperature representation without resorting to fractions or decimals, which, while simple enough, are more cumbersome than integers for the average person to deal with. 0-100 also is a natural measure of "low" and "high", not the least of which is because we use percentages all the time which are based on a 0-100 scale. For people who have experience rebasing their definitions of low and high (like math-oriented people), it doesn't matter. For the average person, it does.

No. 8ths are harder to deal with than 100ths.

I definitely agree with you there. I'm used to Fahrenheit temperature so I know that 70 degrees F is comfortable and 90 degrees F is hot. If I were used to Celsius then I'd be comfortable with its numbers, sure.

I hope you realize that your same argument applies to Celsius as well.

The 0-100 degreen range of Farenheit better represents the range of temperatures that humans encounter. http://imgur.com/gallery/ucOQh

In this particular instance, you're probably right.

My general point stands though. If the Indian government wants to provide access to modern pharmaceuticals at prices that Indians can afford, time for their government to issue some big-money loans to start an Indian pharmaceutical research group. India doesn't have that kind of money? Sell some debt and pay interest on it, just like the U.S. has been forced to do for years. If all these countries had to do their own original research, maybe the U.S. debt situation wouldn't look so terrible in comparison.

Except that they didn't do that when developing these drugs. They paid first-world salaries for research, development, testing, more testing, still more testing, even more testing, and then regulation compliance. Without those first-world costs, there's no drug that you want to sell for third-world prices.

The world wants the US to foot the bill for their drug research, and then once that hard part is done, sell the drugs for materials and menial labor cost? I don't think so. If the prices are so far out of balance, why don't they start their own drug research institute with third-world salaries, testing, and regulations?

Your tax dollars are being used to subsidize security for the games, not live video coverage of the games. Live video coverage of the games is provided by private industry.

You are looking only at one side of the link. There's two sides.

Netflix pays Verizon for 100Gbps upstream links at various peering points in the country for whatever Verizon wants to charge. If Verizon doesn't provide 100Gbps from those links because of a bottleneck on Verizon's own network, Netflix sues them for breach of contract. It's Verizon's job to guarantee Netflix that 100Gbps throughout Verizon's network. Repeat for Netflix on AT&T, Google fiber, TimeWarner/Comcast/whatever cable network.

If Netflix doesn't want to do this, then their Verizon-based subscribers will have shitty service. At that point they will either deal with it, or cancel Netflix, or cancel Verizon and switch to an ISP that Netflix does have a traffic contract with.

How does Net Neutrality play a role? Verizon can't refuse to offer Netflix access to their network, or artificially slow down Netflix's traffic on their own network once there is an agreement between Netflix and Verizon. I'm not sure if net neutrality also specifies that Verizon can't charge arbitrarily high prices for network bandwidth to certain companies. That is a good question.

Except that 64-bit ARM (AArch64) doesn't have Thumb. Source.So in 64-bit mode (which is what these server processors will be running in), x86-64 again has a code density advantage over AArch64.