Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
So, no studying PtoE, company fundamentals, etc. etc. Further proving that the Stock Market is almost entirely disconnected from the underlying companies. Basically, it's a Ponzi scheme.
This is true mostly for new or trendy companies in trendy spaces. Boring companies that have been around for a long time are often priced based on the future dividends they're expected to pay. They don't get any attention, though, because those that make money on speculating can't make any money by trading them. The speculators and brokers don't want people paying attention to fundamentals. Volumes would plummet so how would they make money? There would be no churn. And then they'd have to sell the million dollar Manhattan apartment where they keep their mistress.
It's similar to the difference between trading Beanie Babies (or whatever faddy collectible is popular now) and something like wheat.
The US government would have invested Social Security in the Stock Market, but they can't find a spokesperson from the financial industry you can advocate the scheme without drooling at the prospect.
The US government already invests that money by spending it and leaving a bond in its place.
And how did they invest it? Well, there are some big craters in Iraq and Afghanistan now. Bingo halls and casinos also seem to have profited.
I guess you only buy bug-free software, then.
I think what sphealey was saying is that, if a vendor say "you don't want to see our 'dirty laundry'" or something like that, then that vendor is an immediate no-go.
It isn't about bug-free software, it is about making sure you avoid vendors that may try to deliberately hide/ignore bugs.
He seems to have intuited this.
I had a software vendor once that had an odd bug in its telephone system: when a support person would put you on hold it would occasionally transfer you into conference with the technician's queue. You know what really, really angers a customer? Being told for the third time by second-level support that he is closing your case as "can't reproduce/no other customers reported/not a bug" and then being put into an impromptu conference call with two other customers waiting to speak to the 2nd level developer about the very same bug - each for more than the 1st time. Makes the user conference a bit uncomfortable for the support group as well.
ASK (of MANMAN fame - predecessor of 80% of the ERP products on the market today), Novell, and several of the large networking vendors of the 1990-2005 period were all organizations that openly published their bug lists to the world during their growth phases. It was the restriction of those lists that signaled to their customers and the market that it was time to be careful, not their original existence.
Yes, I know: I'm sure none of the above published 100% of their non-security bugs. But it was clear to any experienced manager of those technologies that a very large percentage were publicly acknowledged.
- - - - - What about the trolls who will say "hey this has been filed for X years and still nobody fucking fixes it!?? FAIL!!" Who needs that kind of drama in a bug db. - - - - -
Not to sound all cluetrainy, but this isn't 1995 any more. There are plenty of open uncensored forums and mailing lists where your customers are discussing your product, especially its bugs, and which prospective customers are researching prior to making a decision. Is it better to have the bug acknowledged, perhaps with a brief explanation of why it won't be scheduled for a few more years and a workaround, or your better customers knifing you in the back on mailing lists?
Whereas I have eliminated several ERP vendors from medium-dollar searches when they dropped the "dirty laundry" phrase. Clue: the software vendor's "dirty laundry" is my bug and has the potential to destroy my business.
"Conservative" means different things in different countries. It even means different things in different US states.
In the USA, "conservative" might mean an advocate of small government and reduced government power, or it might mean a pro-life social conservative looking to restrict abortion or anything in between.
If privacy is a voter's primary concern in the US, it's probably best to vote based on the individual candidate's position than on the candidate's party.
Um.... the same editorial team also runs the Cult of Android site. Bit of self-depreciating humor there I think.
Corn ethanol is ridiculously inefficient. Sugar-based biofuels, by contrast, can have a quite good return and are actively used by developing countries in South America that don't have money to waste on things that don't make economic sense (but aren't used in the US because we have relatively little land able to grow sugarcane).
In short, it's more complex than either "all bio-fuels are good" or "all bio-fuels are evil". This shouldn't be a surprise -- few things are so simple.
Good summary by Ezra Klein, who has been tracking health care reform since at least 2008:
"On the whole, though, costs are lower than expected, enrollment is higher than expected, the number of insurers participating in the exchanges is increasing, and more states are joining the Medicaid expansion. Millions of people have insurance who didn't have it before. The law is working. But a lot of the people who are convinced Obamacare is a disaster will never know that, because the voices they trust will never tell them"
But how many paiiiiiiid???
7.2 million, a higher conversion percentage than private industry expects. Call the whambulence for the hard radical right.
The ideal of contamination has few exponents more eloquent than Salman Rushdie, who has insisted that the novel that occasioned his fatwa "celebrates hybridity, impurity, intermingling, the transformation that comes of new and unexpected combinations of human beings, cultures, ideas, politics, movies, songs. It rejoices in mongrelisation and fears the absolutism of the Pure. Mélange, hotch-potch, a bit of this and a bit of that is how newness enters the world." No doubt there can be an easy and spurious utopianism of "mixture," as there is of "purity" or "authenticity." And yet the larger human truth is on the side of contamination - that endless process of imitation and revision.
A tenable global ethics has to temper a respect for difference with a respect for the freedom of actual human beings to make their own choices. That's why cosmopolitans don't insist that everyone become cosmopolitan. They know they don't have all the answers. They're humble enough to think that they might learn from strangers; not too humble to think that strangers can't learn from them. Few remember what Chremes says after his "I am human" line, but it is equally suggestive: "If you're right, I'll do what you do. If you're wrong, I'll set you straight."
Kwame Anthony Appiah, a philosopher, teaches at Princeton University. This essay is adapted from "Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers," to be published later this month by W.W. Norton.
Why promote a PhD? 75% of US professors are adjuncts and earn less than $24,000/year. Good luck with that ivory tower dream. Learn plumbing.
A non-tenured adjunct lecturer became President of the USA, so there's that, too.
Openings are rare, though.