The death of PC



  • Here is a screen capture of three Bloomberg analysts talking about the death of PC.



    Sent from my PC


  • The PC industry dies every few years or so, but no-one ever mentions it to Microsoft or Intel, so they carry on making them and people keep buying them.

    It makes the whole thing very embarassing for everyone involved.



  • They're just trying to stir things up, to make way for the new Bloomberg brand laptops.



  • @eViLegion said:

    The PC industry dies every few years or so, but no-one ever mentions it to Microsoft or Intel, so they carry on making them and people keep buying them.

    It makes the whole thing very embarassing for everyone involved.

    Yeah, Micorosoft never got the memo that they were on the verge of going out of business so they went out and earned record profits.

    A quick search says that last year HP sold 58 million PCs.  Lenovo was #2 with 52 million.  That's 110 million PCs sold in one year from just those two companies.  Regardless of how that compares to previous years, or how it compares to the sales of other gadgets (tablets, whatever) 110 Million is a very large number that cannot be dismissed as "the PC industry is dyng".  Although HP frequently acts as if they are trying to put themselves out of business.



  • I would hate to be one of those people in the background, knowing that your every action on the computer is being broadcast into millions (well, in this case, hundreds) of homes. Even if you aren't doing anything NSFW, it's creepy. And what if you have to get up to take a piss? Do you have to get permission so you're not walking behind the anchors while they're talking? Why the fuck do news networks do this?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I would hate to be one of those people in the background, knowing that your every action on the computer is being broadcast into millions (well, in this case, hundreds) of homes. Even if you aren't doing anything NSFW, it's creepy. And what if you have to get up to take a piss? Do you have to get permission so you're not walking behind the anchors while they're talking? Why the fuck do news networks do this?

    To make it seem like the anchors are actually doing something.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @eViLegion said:

    The PC industry dies every few years or so, but no-one ever mentions it to Microsoft or Intel, so they carry on making them and people keep buying them.

    It makes the whole thing very embarassing for everyone involved.

    Yeah, Micorosoft never got the memo that they were on the verge of going out of business so they went out and earned record profits.

    A quick search says that last year HP sold 58 million PCs.  Lenovo was #2 with 52 million.  That's 110 million PCs sold in one year from just those two companies.  Regardless of how that compares to previous years, or how it compares to the sales of other gadgets (tablets, whatever) 110 Million is a very large number that cannot be dismissed as "the PC industry is dyng".  Although HP frequently acts as if they are trying to put themselves out of business.

    Stay tuned for today after the market close, Dell will be announcing their latest results. They moved up this event which is unusual; everybody is expecting lousy results and that the stock will go further down, allowing an easier grab for the buy-out. But lately everyone has been wrong about IT companies results; yesterday afternoon I was watching another Bloomberg video where two analysts were talking about the best way to short Cisco who was about to announce "flat" results. Turns out Cisco dit a lot better than expected and blew everybody out of the water.



    EMC is up, VMW is up, SAP is up, Microsoft is up, Oracle is up, IBM is up, Google is up, even Nokia is ramping up... Only suckers are Apple and maybe Dell but the jury is still out on that one.



    I think the financial analysts always need a black sheep; used to be the car industry but Ford is up, GM is up, Tesla is exploding... so nowadays it's the PC industry who is dying (says them).



  • @Ronald said:

    I think the financial analysts always need a black sheep...

    Financial analysts are usually just retarded.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I would hate to be one of those people in the background, knowing that your every action on the computer is being broadcast into millions (well, in this case, hundreds) of homes. Even if you aren't doing anything NSFW, it's creepy. And what if you have to get up to take a piss? Do you have to get permission so you're not walking behind the anchors while they're talking? Why the fuck do news networks do this?
     

    No idea why. But you'd likely get used to it. A lot of people have. There was that one guy who got so comfortable with it that he forgot his porn on screen, which ended up in the background of the evening news. 

    And then there was the politician with porn on his tablet in a parliament meeting. Got photographed by the reporters on the balconies.

    But some are just comfortable with themselves from the beginning. Back when I was in high-school I heard that someone got caught masturbating in the computer lab. Presumably to something he'd found on the internets, but who knows; he might have been just excited for  all the hardware. The amazing thing is, I seem to remember the only computer lab in that school having two glass walls.



  • @OldCrow said:

    Back when I was in high-school I heard that someone got caught masturbating in the computer lab.

    Dude, it was one time. One time! Mrs. Jenkins left nude pictures on the network drive, what was I supposed to do? Why did you have to go and drag that story up again? I'm sorry. What more do you want me to say? I'm sorry, dammit! Now everyone on the internet knows. Thanks a lot.



  • @mikeTheLiar said:

    Dude, it was one time.  ... Now everyone on the internet knows. Thanks a lot.
     

    Not you. I meant the time before they installed blinds on those glass walls.  Sorry though. Got your cover blown for nothing. So sorry.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    A quick search says that last year HP sold 58 million PCs.  Lenovo was #2 with 52 million.  That's 110 million PCs sold in one year from just those two companies.  Regardless of how that compares to previous years, or how it compares to the sales of other gadgets (tablets, whatever) 110 Million is a very large number that cannot be dismissed as "the PC industry is dyng".  Although HP frequently acts as if they are trying to put themselves out of business.
    Are there any good numbers for the total PCs in use round the world, including those not connected to the internet? I think the internet-connected figure is ~1.5 billion, so if there's, say, another half billion in various places around the world the internet hasn't yet reached properly, we're looking at an installed base of at least 2 billion PCs. Something tells me that'll take a while to die.



  • @Ronald said:

    I think the financial analysts always need a black sheep
    My theory is that the computer and the internet became such a crucial part in our lives while half the world hated the technology and thought Computer/The Internet enthuists were overreacting about what computers/The Internet will be able to do, and how big a role they will play in our lives. People don't like being proved wrong, and they were.

    So now, they keep wanting to be 'edgey' and ahead of the curb on the technology to make up for their previous short-sightedness and ironically do so by being even more short-sighted (For example, most of the people I know who bought a tablet during the tablet craze don't use it as a tablet at all).

    They don't want to be wrong again, and just keep making shit up to reinforce their beliefs.



  • @Adanine said:

    My theory is that the computer and the internet became such a crucial part in our lives while half the world hated the technology and thought Computer/The Internet enthuists were overreacting about what computers/The Internet will be able to do, and how big a role they will play in our lives. People don't like being proved wrong, and they were.

    I think you have it a bit backwards. These are the people who helped create the frenzy of the dot-com bubble. And after that had cratered and destroyed a trillion dollars in wealth, they started it again.

    So now we're in a second tech bubble and these idiots insist that Apple must be under-valued because iPhone. Of course, they're always looking for someone to build up and for someone to dump on, because it reinforces their false sense of omniscience and power. But even still, it's stock market a-go-go with valuations that have lost any relation to reality.

    Bad jobs report? Stocks go higher!

    GDP growth is far less than anticipated? Stocks go higher!

    Another Eurozone member's banks are "discovered" to be insolvent; a hastily-constructed bailout is attempted; imminent collapse of the EU is briefly averted, with rioting and record-high unemployment taking its place? Stocks go higher!

    Stocks go lower? Stocks go higher!



  • @Adanine said:

    For example, most of the people I know who bought a tablet during the tablet craze don't use it as a tablet at all

     

    Then what do they use it as? A hammer? A cutting plate? A shovel? A static SSH terminal? ... Paperweight?

     



  • Yeah, I remember Larry Ellison telling us all about 17 years ago how the PC was dead and we'd all be using thin clients.

    The three people in the photo were all probably at school at the time so probably didn't notice the first death-of-the-pc.

    Old hacks like me (46) have been there, done it, got the T-shirt



  • Stocks are going up for lots of different reasons. The primary one is that bonds and government debt yields are tiny, and these are no longer seen as low-risk investments, whereas company stock is actually returning decent yields and is no more risky.

    Put money into Greece, or Microsoft? MS is yielding about 2.5% and has oodles of cash. Greek bonds have a higher yield, but higher risk



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Ronald said:
    I think the financial analysts always need a black sheep...

    Financial analysts are usually just retarded.

    There is something inherently amusing about television "experts", like these financial analysts.


    You're left wondering, if they're so bloody good at market analysis, how come this TV company can afford to pay (not just one but three of) them for their time, which is presumably worth tens of thousands of dollars an hour. Anyone who's actually any good at what they do should be raking in the cash making their own personal investments. Also, rule number one for anyone who's good at this stuff is "don't tell anyone about it for fucks sake, you'll ruin the profits you tard!".



    Much of this also applies to many politicians, academics and teachers.



  • @eViLegion said:

    You're left wondering, if they're so bloody good at market analysis, how come this TV company can afford to pay (not just one but three of) them for their time, which is presumably worth tens of thousands of dollars an hour.
    Years ago, my dad used to make similar appearances on the BBC etc. I don't think the pay even covered the cost of getting a taxi to the studio. The benefit to him was the surge in business he'd see afterwards.

    @eViLegion said:

    Anyone who's actually any good at what they do should be raking in the cash making their own personal investments.
    Nothing to stop them doing both at once, unless we're talking about minute-to-minute trading or some such nonsense. But 'raking in the cash' is a bit misleading, because no-one trustworthy is going to be claiming returns more than a few percent above inflation. Compounded annually, that's a nice return over time. 'Raking it in' such that the commission on other people's money isn't worth having? No.

    @eViLegion said:

    Also, rule number one for anyone who's good at this stuff is "don't tell anyone about it for fucks sake, you'll ruin the profits you tard!".
    No, only if they're shysters. If the advice is actually good, then the more publicity the better. If I buy BigCorp stock because I think it's undervalued, I'll make my profit if everyone agrees with me and the price increases. In more general terms, the benefits of correctly predicting economic changes are only realised once the market reflects those changes.



  • @TDWTF123 said:

    @eViLegion said:
    You're left wondering, if they're so bloody good at market analysis, how come this TV company can afford to pay (not just one but three of) them for their time, which is presumably worth tens of thousands of dollars an hour.
    Years ago, my dad used to make similar appearances on the BBC etc. I don't think the pay even covered the cost of getting a taxi to the studio. The benefit to him was the surge in business he'd see afterwards.

    So, you're agreeing with me then... they're not being paid that kind of money, because they're not worth that kind of money, because they're really there to get some free advertising rather than provide any useful advice to anyone.

    @TDWTF123 said:

    @eViLegion said:
    Anyone who's actually any good at what they do should be raking in the cash making their own personal investments.
    Nothing to stop them doing both at once, unless we're talking about minute-to-minute trading or some such nonsense. But 'raking in the cash' is a bit misleading, because no-one trustworthy is going to be claiming returns more than a few percent above inflation. Compounded annually, that's a nice return over time. 'Raking it in' such that the commission on other people's money isn't worth having? No.

    My point is, that anyone who's any good doesn't need the paltry commission on other peoples cash. They will have so much money of their own that its not worth their time considering anyone else stuff. They're not 'claiming returns' of anything; they're simply making lots of money quietly. There is no issue of trust here... they're not trying to claim to be experts in anything, and they're not trying to get swathes of sheep to invest to bump up values; they don't need to do any of that.

    @TDWTF123 said:

    @eViLegion said:
    Also, rule number one for anyone who's good at this stuff is "don't tell anyone about it for fucks sake, you'll ruin the profits you tard!".
    No, only if they're shysters. If the advice is actually good, then the more publicity the better. If I buy BigCorp stock because I think it's undervalued, I'll make my profit if everyone agrees with me and the price increases. In more general terms, the benefits of correctly predicting economic changes are only realised once the market reflects those changes.

    So, in your view, the guy who hands out advice in order to get other people to pay money to increase the price of some stock he owns.... ISN'T a shyster? Sorry, but I trust the guy who's honestly making profit for himself based on research he's done himself and kept quiet about, FAR more than the guy who's trying to manipulate markets by broadcasting advice, of spurious quality, to people who don't know anything.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @morbiuswilters said:

    And what if you have to get up to take a piss? Do you have to get permission so you're not walking behind the anchors while they're talking?
    BBC newsroom criticised by staff over health and safety concerns:
    In early April a paramedic went into the newsroom after a staff member was taken ill but was stopped by security who had concerns about the medic's high visibility jacket being seen on-screen. Three weeks later another news employee was taken ill and was asked if he could walk and was taken out of the newsroom so the ambulance team's high visibility jackets could not be seen.



  • @OldCrow said:

    Not you. I meant the time before they installed blinds on those glass walls.  Sorry though. Got your cover blown for nothing. So sorry.

    No, that was me too. Okay, it was two times.



  • Wow, what a lost opportunity for doing live news and actually being the first on scene.



  • @eViLegion said:

    @TDWTF123 said:
    Years ago, my dad used to make similar appearances on the BBC etc. I don't think the pay even covered the cost of getting a taxi to the studio. The benefit to him was the surge in business he'd see afterwards.

    So, you're agreeing with me then... they're not being paid that kind of money, because they're not worth that kind of money, because they're really there to get some free advertising rather than provide any useful advice to anyone.

    Er, if you've now reversed your position, then yes. The point isn't that the guys aren't getting paid what they're worth (in your opinion), but that they are, only indirectly. The benefits to them aren't an appearance fee, and that's how the TV companies can afford to pay them.

    @eViLegion said:

    My point is, that anyone who's any good doesn't need the paltry commission on other peoples cash. They will have so much money of their own that its not worth their time considering anyone else stuff. They're not 'claiming returns' of anything; they're simply making lots of money quietly. There is no issue of trust here... they're not trying to claim to be experts in anything, and they're not trying to get swathes of sheep to invest to bump up values; they don't need to do any of that.
    Well, your point is just plain wrong. Returns of more than a few percent above inflation are not realistically sustainable in general investing. Unless you start off rich, you're not going to make enough from your investments to live off, let alone not to want extra money from commission.

    My dad was a very highly regarded investment adviser at one point. He managed his clients' money much the same way he managed his own: conservatively. His own investments did fairly well, and so did his clients'. The client funds were of the order of a hundred times his total net worth, though, let alone his much smaller amount of investment capital. He made far more from commissions on their profits than on his own investments. Giving good advice will usually be more lucrative than investing your own money, but more than that it rarely harms a good investment to share the advice. Unless your own investment is large enough to be significant on the market, increasing the total take-up of an opportunity won't harm you.

    @eViLegion said:

    So, in your view, the guy who hands out advice in order to get other people to pay money to increase the price of some stock he owns.... ISN'T a shyster?
    Not if the advice is correct, he isn't. If he's lying or hyping something, then obviously that's just stock-pumping.


    In almost all cases, reputable, sensible investments do not rely on secrecy.



  • @Zecc said:

    Wow, what a lost opportunity for doing live news and actually being the first on scene.

    A guy getting sick at work badly enough to require an ambulance? A corporation so inconsiderate it postponed medical assistance until the camera was turned off? Health and safety violations? Not newsworthy.

    OMG A MIDDLE AGED SOCCER PLAYER IS RETIRING! QUICK AIR ON EVERY CHANNEL BREAKING NEW BREAKING NEWS: RICH SOCCER PLAYER RETIRING BREAKING NEWS!



  • @TDWTF123 said:

    @eViLegion said:
    @TDWTF123 said:
    Years ago, my dad used to make similar appearances on the BBC etc. I don't think the pay even covered the cost of getting a taxi to the studio. The benefit to him was the surge in business he'd see afterwards.

    So, you're agreeing with me then... they're not being paid that kind of money, because they're not worth that kind of money, because they're really there to get some free advertising rather than provide any useful advice to anyone.

    Er, if you've now reversed your position, then yes. The point isn't that the guys aren't getting paid what they're worth (in your opinion), but that they are, only indirectly. The benefits to them aren't an appearance fee, and that's how the TV companies can afford to pay them.

    @eViLegion said:

    My point is, that anyone who's any good doesn't need the paltry commission on other peoples cash. They will have so much money of their own that its not worth their time considering anyone else stuff. They're not 'claiming returns' of anything; they're simply making lots of money quietly. There is no issue of trust here... they're not trying to claim to be experts in anything, and they're not trying to get swathes of sheep to invest to bump up values; they don't need to do any of that.
    Well, your point is just plain wrong. Returns of more than a few percent above inflation are not realistically sustainable in general investing. Unless you start off rich, you're not going to make enough from your investments to live off, let alone not to want extra money from commission.

    My dad was a very highly regarded investment adviser at one point. He managed his clients' money much the same way he managed his own: conservatively. His own investments did fairly well, and so did his clients'. The client funds were of the order of a hundred times his total net worth, though, let alone his much smaller amount of investment capital. He made far more from commissions on their profits than on his own investments. Giving good advice will usually be more lucrative than investing your own money, but more than that it rarely harms a good investment to share the advice. Unless your own investment is large enough to be significant on the market, increasing the total take-up of an opportunity won't harm you.

    @eViLegion said:

    So, in your view, the guy who hands out advice in order to get other people to pay money to increase the price of some stock he owns.... ISN'T a shyster?
    Not if the advice is correct, he isn't. If he's lying or hyping something, then obviously that's just stock-pumping.


    In almost all cases, reputable, sensible investments do not rely on secrecy.

    No, no, no, no... at no point have I reversed my position.



    The point I've been making all along is: IF they're such "experts" they would have to be paid a huge amount of money to both waste their time on some shitty news show being patronized by fucking news-readers AND they'd be losing money by not capitalizing on the good market knowledge they have and instead dishing it out for free. IF. Since they're not paid that money we can safely conclude they're either not experts on capitalism, or they're the kind of experts who've managed to make their money by giving stuff away for free (you know... the kind of experts that don't exist, and if they do, cannot logically be said to be experts).



    Anyway... I think what I classify as an expert is someone in the top 0.1%. Evidently your classification is anyone in the top 25%. I don't know your dad, but I expect he isn't in regular attendance at Bilderberg events, right?
    Incidentally, I mean no disrespect to your Dad - I'm sure he was very good at his job, and a lovely man as well... my Dad was a very good accountant. But to be a genuine expert, worthy of being wheeled out on national TV, I think you really ought to be more than just competent; you should be spectacular, otherwise what's the point? These 3 experts are not spectacular.



  • @eViLegion said:

    The point I've been making all along is: IF they're such "experts" they would have to be paid a huge amount of money to both waste their time on some shitty news show being patronized by fucking news-readers AND they'd be losing money by not capitalizing on the good market knowledge they have and instead dishing it out for free. IF. Since they're not paid that money we can safely conclude they're either not experts on capitalism, or they're the kind of experts who've managed to make their money by giving stuff away for free (you know... the kind of experts that don't exist, and if they do, cannot logically be said to be experts).

    Their payment is advertising their service. How much would they have to pay to make them look like they know what they're doing to so many people?

    @eViLegion said:

    Anyway... I think what I classify as an expert is someone in the top 0.1%. Evidently your classification is anyone in the top 25%. I don't know your dad, but I expect he isn't in regular attendance at Bilderberg events, right?

    Neither group is constant in the real world. You really have no clue about this sort of thing, do you?



  • @eViLegion said:

    Anyway... I think what I classify as an expert is someone in the top 0.1%. Evidently your classification is anyone in the top 25%. I don't know your dad, but I expect he isn't in regular attendance at Bilderberg events, right?
    Incidentally, I mean no disrespect to your Dad - I'm sure he was very good at his job, and a lovely man as well... my Dad was a very good accountant. But to be a genuine expert, worthy of being wheeled out on national TV, I think you really ought to be more than just competent; you should be spectacular, otherwise what's the point? These 3 experts are not spectacular.
    Oh, I see what you're getting at. As it happens, my dad used to get interviewed precisely because he was one of the top people in the country in his (fairly narrow) field, so he was a genuine expert - though not a particularly lovely man, I'm afraid. These chaps from Bloomberg aren't 'experts' in the same sense at all. Does it matter? Not really. Investment isn't rocket science. The kind of advice we're talking about - general sector stuff - is often relatively simple to provide. Should you base your investment decisions solely on what three analysts on some tv show said? No. If you're thinking along the same lines yourself, and find their opinions interesting or well-informed, though, you might well decide to investigate them or their company.


    In this specific case, I wouldn't agree with anything the 'experts' had to say: I'd judge them to be idiots. In general, though, it's perfectly possible to find people who know what they're talking about and are happy to be interviewed for the exposure.

    @eViLegion said:

    IF they're such "experts" they would have to be paid a huge amount of money to both waste their time on some shitty news show being patronized by fucking news-readers AND they'd be losing money by not capitalizing on the good market knowledge they have and instead dishing it out for free.
    Those two things are both still wrong, I'm afraid. They're not wasting their time, but being extremely well-rewarded with free publicity. There is no reason to think that publicising knowledge will harm your ability to capitalise on it, as long as you invested first.



  • I never understood why they claimed the PC industry was dying.


    I mean, I get it when they say, "The PC industry is dying because Smartphones and Tablets!" Ok, sure, I have both a Smartphone, which I love, and a Tablet, with which I have a somewhat more rocky relationship. Tablets have their places, of course, and when it's used as a media consumption device it works great. When you try to do productivity stuff on it, though, it becomes somewhat less great. Almost abysmal, actually.


    In my honest opinion, the two (Tablets/Smartphones and PCs) are two sides of the same coin. They can do the same things, but certain things are done better on one than the other. For example, I would never, ever, want to develop on a tablet. I just don't see one 'killing' the other, ever. Remember back in the 90s when 'WebTV' came out, and the hype was that it'd kill the PC? Yeaaaaah... not so much.



  • @boomzilla said:

    How much would they have to pay to make them look like they know what they're doing to so many people?

    Exactly. They're trying to look like they know what they're doing. Real experts don't need to try.

    @boomzilla said:

    Neither group is constant in the real world. You really have no clue about this sort of thing, do you?

    What does remaining constant have to do with it?



    The temperatures in both the Sahara desert and the Arctic circle are not constant in the real world. I can still safely say that those in the former are in the top 10%, and therefore extremely hot, and those in the latter are in the bottom 10%, therefore not very hot at all. (Taking in account local time of course... comparing mid day in Siberia with midnight in Morocco isn't a fair test)



  • @eViLegion said:

    @boomzilla said:
    How much would they have to pay to make them look like they know what they're doing to so many people?

    Exactly. They're trying to look like they know what they're doing. Real experts don't need to try.

    Really? How do so many people get to see them being experts without trying to be seen? You're really not getting this.

    @eViLegion said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Neither group is constant in the real world. You really have no clue about this sort of thing, do you?

    What does remaining constant have to do with it?

    Hey, you were the one making up statistics. Top x%. And you seem to think that the top guys would be filthy rich because of their investment skill. Which pretty much says that they would need to be in the top for a while. But that's not generally how this sort of thing works.

    @eViLegion said:

    The temperatures in both the Sahara desert and the Arctic circle are not constant in the real world. I can still safely say that those in the former are in the top 10% and those in the latter are in the bottom 10%.

    So, bad analogy is bad?



  • @CodeNinja said:

    I mean, I get it when they say, "The PC industry is dying because Smartphones and Tablets!" Ok, sure, I have both a Smartphone, which I love, and a Tablet, with which I have a somewhat more rocky relationship. Tablets have their places, of course, and when it's used as a media consumption device it works great. When you try to do productivity stuff on it, though, it becomes somewhat less great. Almost abysmal, actually.

    I think it's largely the fallacy of assuming that current trends will continue indefinitely. Hmm...5% of people started using a tablet / phone as their primary computer. That's up from 2% last year. Soon, 354% of people will be using tablets!

    @CodeNinja said:
    In my honest opinion, the two (Tablets/Smartphones and PCs) are two sides of the same coin. They can do the same things, but certain things are done better on one than the other. For example, I would never, ever, want to develop on a tablet. I just don't see one 'killing' the other, ever. Remember back in the 90s when 'WebTV' came out, and the hype was that it'd kill the PC? Yeaaaaah... not so much.

    There's still no good way to create and edit documents, which is probably the biggest reason why PCs aren't going anywhere. Still, the other form factors are good for other applications, or in markets where people can't afford a PC. The people in Syria or Egypt who used facebook to organize weren't doing that on PCs.



  • @CodeNinja said:

    I never understood why they claimed the PC industry was dying.
    That one's easy - they're either stupid or lying.



  • Not to mention that Android and iOS are both legitimately bad platforms to develop for, between Android's fragmentation issues and Apple's greed in the App Store, whereas any 12-year-old with Visual Basic can make PC software.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @eViLegion said:
    @boomzilla said:
    How much would they have to pay to make them look like they know what they're doing to so many people?

    Exactly. They're trying to look like they know what they're doing. Real experts don't need to try.

    Really? How do so many people get to see them being experts without trying to be seen? You're really not getting this.

    @eViLegion said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Neither group is constant in the real world. You really have no clue about this sort of thing, do you?

    What does remaining constant have to do with it?

    Hey, you were the one making up statistics. Top x%. And you seem to think that the top guys would be filthy rich because of their investment skill. Which pretty much says that they would need to be in the top for a while. But that's not generally how this sort of thing works.

    @eViLegion said:

    The temperatures in both the Sahara desert and the Arctic circle are not constant in the real world. I can still safely say that those in the former are in the top 10% and those in the latter are in the bottom 10%.

    So, bad analogy is bad?

    Observation that you're an expert doesn't make you an expert; expertise does. A person is an expert, or not, regardless of their level of TV exposure. Why should an expert need to be seen to be an expert? Why do you correlate a persons fame in relation to a skill with their ability at that skill? You seem to be trying to leverage both argumentum-ad-populum and argumentum-ad-auctoritatem to make your case... but it doesn't work. Just because millions of people watch and believe Fox when it says "here's Jack, he's an expert on X" doesn't make those people, or Fox, or Jack correct.

    And no - thats not a bad analogy. You made no point at all, you simply stated that I have no clue at "this sort of thing" (an inherently fallacious argument - but then the standard fallback of someone unable to logically challenge a point made is to directly challenge they that made it), while trying to point out that my statistics are not valid because they change. I directly challenged the only logical assertion that you made, by providing a very simple example that a transition in raw data over time doesn't necessarily change valid conclusions drawn from that data.

    You're not very good at debating things are you (see, two people can make stupid unsupported pejorative statements), but I wish you the best of luck in the future since you're evidently trying very hard to improve.



  • Being an expert doesn't pay the bills. Being paid for your expertise does. The more people know of your expertise, the more demand there will be for your services. Since the supply is constant (unless you're an expert in cloning), the price will increase.


    I don't know if you're doing it on purpose, but you seem to have entirely missed every single point that's been made in response to you. In case you're not doing it on purpose, go back and read everything again. Boomzilla's point about inconstancy is supported by your 'counter-examples' since you're demonstrating the variation he pointed out exists.



  • @eViLegion said:

    Observation that you're an expert doesn't make you an expert; expertise does. A person is an expert, or not, regardless of their level of TV exposure. Why should an expert need to be seen to be an expert?

    Because simply "being an expert" doesn't bring in clients with capital to have you invest. Is this really that hard to understand? Have you been taking reading comprehension lessons from blakey or something?

    @eViLegion said:

    And no - thats not a bad analogy. You made no point at all, you simply stated that I have no clue at "this sort of thing" (an inherently fallacious argument - but then the standard fallback of someone unable to logically challenge a point made is to directly challenge they that made it), while trying to point out that my statistics are not valid because they change. I directly challenged the only logical assertion that you made, by providing a very simple example that a transition in raw data over time doesn't necessarily change valid conclusions drawn from that data.

    I was pointing out that your statistics wouldn't back up your conclusions. It was in part because you seemed to have a profound lack of understanding how financial investments work and how the managers of capital make their money.

    @eViLegion said:

    You're not very good at debating things are you (see, two people can make stupid unsupported pejorative statements), but I wish you the best of luck in the future since you're evidently trying very hard to improve.

    Yes, it's very hard to debate people who don't pay attention to what you say, and can't make logical inferences from a collection of statements.



  • Why is it, when I fully comprehend exactly what your point is, and explain, in simple terms, why you're incorrect, that you think I must have "entirely missed your points"?

    Has it ever occurred to you that there are quite a lot of people in the world, who are quite intelligent, and who don't actually agree with you?



    Yeah... variation exists. I never said it didn't, I just pointed out that you can still make valid points about variable data. You haven't managed to refute that, but instead have told me that I don't understand you.



    I do not disagree that such people are on the telly, like you have said, to make themselves LOOK like experts, in order to get people to pay them for their PERCEIVED expertise, and thereby make themselves more money. Where I do disagree, is the assertion that you guys have made that these guys ARE experts. Just because you're trying to convince someone you're an expert, and just because some TV executive who knows no better believes you, doesn't make you an expert. Now, I think I've made that pretty clear. I don't know any collection of English words that can make that any simpler, and please don't make me try, because I'll probably just swear at you then commiserate your aforementioned father.




    (Tell you what, I'm a pretty fickle type of guy, so how about tomorrow we revisit this debate, but I'll be on your side this time, and show you how you SHOULD have worded the arguments you've been trying to make? Sound fair?)



  • @eViLegion said:

    Yeah... variation exists. I never said it didn't, I just pointed out that you can still make valid points about variable data. You haven't managed to refute that, but instead have told me that I don't understand you.

    I agree that there are valid points to be made with variable data. I never said otherwise. I just said that your point wasn't valid. Your argument was something like:

    1. Be an expert investor
    2. ???
    3. Be filthy rich!

    I filled in #2 for you and pointed out a few reasons why these are don't really follow each other. You defended your assertion by talking about types of data that are always in the top or bottom of their population, which is exactly the opposite of what I said about your original point, which is why I pointed out that you gave a bad analogy.

    @eViLegion said:
    Where I do disagree, is the assertion that you guys have made that these guys ARE experts.

    I don't recall ever having asserted that. I couldn't find that in a quick skim of this thread, either. But this clears a lot up about what you kept writing. The point of this sub-thread was that you assumed that since the TV channel couldn't afford to pay them what you assume a "true expert" must be worth for a TV appearance, this must mean they are not experts.They may or may not be experts, but your assumption about what a true expert should demand for a TV appearance was wrong, because they're getting paid in non-monetary compensation. Which is valuable to the "true expert" and the "fake expert" alike. What I wrote applies to both the "true expert" and the poseur alike.

    @eViLegion said:

    Tell you what, I'm a pretty fickle type of guy, so how about tomorrow we revisit this debate, but I'll be on your side this time, and show you how you SHOULD have worded the arguments you've been trying to make? Sound fair?

    We can try, but I suspect you'll continue to respond to what your shoulder aliens told you I wrote than what I actually wrote.



  • @eViLegion said:

    Has it ever occurred to you that there are quite a lot of people in the world, who are quite intelligent, and who don't actually agree with you?
     

    Hey, thanks for mentioning me.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I would hate to be one of those people in the background, knowing that your every action on the computer is being broadcast into millions (well, in this case, hundreds) of homes. Even if you aren't doing anything NSFW, it's creepy.

    And when you are doing something NSFW, it's hilarious! (watch the dude in the background fiddling around on his computer).



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @Zecc said:
    Wow, what a lost opportunity for doing live news and actually being the first on scene.

    A guy getting sick at work badly enough to require an ambulance? A corporation so inconsiderate it postponed medical assistance until the camera was turned off? Health and safety violations? Not newsworthy.

    OMG A MIDDLE AGED SOCCER PLAYER IS RETIRING! QUICK AIR ON EVERY CHANNEL BREAKING NEW BREAKING NEWS: RICH SOCCER PLAYER RETIRING BREAKING NEWS!

    This. The news is just another outlet for our culture's sick celebrity worship. It's been a joke for a very, very long time.



  • @Douglasac said:

    And when you are doing something NSFW, it's hilarious! (watch the dude in the background fiddling around on his computer).
     

    I love that not only is he looking at nudies, but he's carrying on a conversation with Grey Bob while he does so.

    And that conversation had to have been about the nudies, because [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=v1m8a4Jl4ZI#t=90s"]right at the end[/url] they both look at the camera with the "oh shit does that say on air?!?!" look.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.