Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:But do you want it? (Score 1) 30

by mysidia (#46793213) Attached to: Bookies Predict the Future of Tech

you don't "help" a company or technology by buying their stock since the said stock is owned by some other dude and the sale does not bring a single more dollar to the company

This is not quite true. Most companies dilute their stock regularly, to compensate management and founders with stock or option grants.

The collection of buyers of those shares set the price for the stock -- which is ultimately being used to provide the company's equity financing.

Now it's true if you bought a share of stock for $1000.... well it's not $1000 that goes directly or indirectly to the company.

But you are trading places with someone who ultimately up the chain bought into their offering.

In the event the buying volume ran out... the stock price could easily fall by a few %. Even a $0.01 price decrease is significant.

So it's not that you aren' "giving" to the company --- it's just that the relative proportions of what you are giving are probably very very small, for a multi-billion$$ company.

Comment: Re:But do you want it? (Score 1) 30

by mysidia (#46793193) Attached to: Bookies Predict the Future of Tech

What is very disappointing is the heavyhanded regulators have blocked this kind of market in the US, the supposed "land of the free"? What happened to our economic freedom??

Indeed. If you stand to lose financially -- in case the technology DOES succeed, then you could make a Bet that it will succeed, in order to offset your losses.

If the technology succeeds, you win your bet, AND your winnings offset the financial harm. If the technology doesn't succeed, then you lose your bet, BUT you are not financially harmed.

Investing would help finance its success, which you definitely don't want.

Instead... in the US you are banned from placing the bet. So you can't protect yourself --- except from a narrow band of risks by purchasing insurance :-(

Comment: Re:Step 2. (Score 1) 206

by mysidia (#46792915) Attached to: MIT Designs Tsunami Proof Floating Nuclear Reactor

"Naah...How about we build a huge floating light water reactor out in the ocean?"

So say the government and the regulators who only recognize the existence of one kind of reactor operation.

So say the companies that produce power from coal, whose vitality would be threatened by a cheaper abundant power source. So say the companies heavily fested in uranium-fed solid-fuel water-cooled reactors.... and manufacturers that also are in the business of manufacturing the uranium fuels for traditional nuclear reactors.

Comment: This is what you call an arrogant analysis (Score 1) 145

by mysidia (#46790965) Attached to: Investors Value Yahoo's Core Business At Less Than $0

What the market is essentially saying is they don't agree with Bloomberg analyst's or others' evaluation of the value of these other companies. The natural conclusion is the market says THE ANALYSTS ARE WRONG in their estimates of the worth of Yahoo Japan/Alibaba.

It is the analysts, not the public that assume it is the US portion of Yahoo's operations that are being valued at $0.

By the way.... just because some Alibaba stock or some Yahoo Japan stock is available on other exchanges at a certain price; does not mean the entire company is valued at the current marginal price of stock trades. That is a form of extrapolation which is subject to large errors. The market valuation of Yahoo US based on price of individual shares is also an extrapolation.

One should not assume that all the outstanding shares in Yahoo are available for the same price, to an investor possessing current marginal trading price in $ per share times number of shares, in cash.

That doesn't really tell you what the market will value the company at, perhaps as a rough estimate with errors between 10x and 100x.

It is just the analyst/reporter's underhanded way of saying -- since we're infallible about the proper valuation of these quickly growing portions, and nobody else could possibly ever see any differently ----- any difference in US stock price must be attributed to negative value from the slower growing portion of the business.

Maybe it's just that their other non-US operations are being assigned a discount, for various reasons, below what the analyst wants to value them at.

Comment: Re:Step 2. (Score 1) 206

by mysidia (#46786341) Attached to: MIT Designs Tsunami Proof Floating Nuclear Reactor

melt downs like Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island — would be virtually impossible at sea."

And the Titanic was an unsinkable ship.

Fundamental inescapable facts:

(1) Anything fragile can break, no matter how many backup systems and safeties you install, because

(2) Everything that can fail will eventually fail, and,

(3) When you have multiple things that can fail, eventually, they will all fail at the same time or the least opportune moment, and

(4) At sea, there is no such thing as a large man-made structure or boat that is not fragile.

Comment: Re:Are you still partying like its 1999, or what? (Score 1) 283

by mysidia (#46777957) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: System Administrator Vs Change Advisory Board

That particular outage cost several million given what the server did.

The problem is not the admin actions it's "what the server did"

The application the business was dependant on to generate millions of dollars was designed in such a fragile way, that it could fail as a result of whatever happened to just one server....

You see... this is bad architecture. Servers are prone to failure, even when designed with redundant components.

It is improper for a business application that generates revenue to be sensitive to a single or double server failure. Critical applications should be architected with a level of robustness that reflects their level of importance.

Comment: Re:Nonsense (Score 3, Insightful) 283

by mysidia (#46777871) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: System Administrator Vs Change Advisory Board

like this will just make you look stupid and change averse to your employer.

No... it's obviously just aversity to excessive, unnecessary and crippling micromanagement. It's obviously some idiots in suits who are change averse and feel they need to justify their existence by "approving" or "disapproving" of each and every required security update or patch or system admin action.

Which involves real costs. With this kind of bullshit, they need to hire additional system admins for systems to approach proper management just to deal with the reduced time efficiency and increased waste caused by bureaucracy.

Comment: Re:I must be in the minority. (Score 1) 453

by mysidia (#46776207) Attached to: Survey: 56 Percent of US Developers Expect To Become Millionaires

No one can do that reliably. It's luck.

That's not true. There are people who can do that. You need enough money to be allowed to freely invest in private firms and such though.

And you need to have not so much money, as well. Too little money OR too much money, and you cannot make good returns. It is not as if your potential return is independent from the amount of money you have, there, so it is a bit meaningless to throw around numbers such as 18%.

If you have too little money -- then you don't get access to investments (except ones that have already become public companies, which suck) ---- if you have too much money, then you actually exhaust what good options are available.

Comment: I can see this (Score 3, Insightful) 318

which is stopping people feel sympathy towards people living on the street as it's easier to have 'less feelings when you're typing something' than looking at them in the eye"

If you are not looking them in the eye, then you are not experiencing the Identifiable Victim effect.

Comment: Re:I must be in the minority. (Score 2, Insightful) 453

by mysidia (#46773821) Attached to: Survey: 56 Percent of US Developers Expect To Become Millionaires

It looks like you skipped over the part, "that doesn't rely primarily on luck".

It doesn't depend primarily on luck. It depends on your ability to select a sequence of investments that will have an average payout of more than twice what they cost. You don't know the outcome of any one investment (success or failure), but your ability to pick a sequence of investments that are expected to offset each other's random risks and have sufficient average payout when taken together (expected total gain minus loss averaged more than twice cost), is one of skill, and it relies on decision making abilities.

Good luck is when the average payout turns out to be twice as much as expected and happens less than 1% of the time. Bad luck is when the payout is half or less, and happens less than 1% of the time.

This is assuming a skilled selection.

When we say "high risk"; we do not mean visiting a casino and placing bets, where you have an expected loss of 10% due to the house edge, (assuming you had infinite cash and placed bets forever).

Comment: Re:I must be in the minority. (Score 1) 453

by mysidia (#46773385) Attached to: Survey: 56 Percent of US Developers Expect To Become Millionaires

Sure becoming a multimillionaire is (theoretically) easy. But nothing I do will make me a billionaire that doesn't rely primarily on luck

You just need to become a millionaire and then double your money 10 times.

Once you have the millions, there are plenty of high-risk investments to pick from that are likely to do just that.

The more cordial the buyer's secretary, the greater the odds that the competition already has the order.

Working...