On 12/02/2011 7:28 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I remembered you had done something like that - I guess contracting/
> consulting would lead to that -

Yes it has been very interesting finding out how lots of companies work. 
Recently I've worked

 > lots of interesting experiences if you
 > can find the work, that's for sure.:-)

Yes it has been very interesting finding out how lots of companies work. 
Recently I've worked in a Shipyard, the Nuclear Industry, Coca Cola, a 
Wind Turbine company, Water Utilities, Rolls-Royce, Our National Lottery 
and so on. I’ve also worked in a few countries too. Very mind expanding.

Finding work can be stressful but that is where PovRay helps. :-D

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> And here I was thinking that the share price is just an arbitrary
> plucked out of thin air and fluctuating at random...

Err, no.  Imagine something like ebay for selling company shares on 
(remember there are a HUGE number of shares changing hand every second), 
the share price is simply the price that the shares are being sold for 
at that instant.

> So, like, if you own several million dollars worth of assets that you
> might potentially be able to sell, people aren't worried if you make a
> few thousand in losses? (Or rather, not *as* worried as if your assets
> were, say, £200...)

Exactly.

> It makes it look like all you have to do is *convince* people that if
> they invest enough money, "one day" you will start making a huge profit.

Yes, this is what happens when a company is "floated", you split 
ownership of your company up into a fixed number of shares and ask the 
public to buy them.  You obviously get money for this, but you lose 
ownership of some or all of your company.  But if subsequently the share 
price goes up, you get nothing extra (unless you are shareholder), it's 
just the shareholders making money.

The better you can convince people you're going to make a huge profit, 
the more money they will be likely to pay for a share of your company.

Post a reply to this message

> My brother (in advertising) tells of a time when the boss sent out some
> valentine calendar or some such for a test print. An hour later the
> printer comes back with a sample.
>
> Boss: "No. This is awful. It's supposed to be pink. Does this rose look
> pink to you? No! It's orange. It's not even close. Go fix it."
>
> An hour later, the printer comes back with another sample.
>
> Boss: "Ah, this is much better. Now it's pink. *This* is what you should
> have brought me in the first place." Then he hands the calendar back and
> says "Now go fix it."

Still not really seeing how having a more expensive monitor helps 
here... It's not like the quality of the monitor affects what colour the 
printer prints.

Post a reply to this message

>> And here I was thinking that the share price is just an arbitrary
>> plucked out of thin air and fluctuating at random...
>
> Err, no. Imagine something like ebay for selling company shares on
> (remember there are a HUGE number of shares changing hand every second),
> the share price is simply the price that the shares are being sold for
> at that instant.

OK. I'm still fuzzy on exactly how the shares themselves are worth 
something. The company [hopefully] makes money. What do the shares 
actually do?

>> So, like, if you own several million dollars worth of assets that you
>> might potentially be able to sell, people aren't worried if you make a
>> few thousand in losses? (Or rather, not *as* worried as if your assets
>> were, say, £200...)
>
> Exactly.

OK. Well that at least makes sense...

Post a reply to this message

>> Err, no. Imagine something like ebay for selling company shares on
>> (remember there are a HUGE number of shares changing hand every second),
>> the share price is simply the price that the shares are being sold for
>> at that instant.
>
> OK. I'm still fuzzy on exactly how the shares themselves are worth
> something. The company [hopefully] makes money. What do the shares
> actually do?

A "share" is literally owning a fixed share of the company, which you 
are free to sell on to anyone else.  Obviously if the company is 
successful the shares will become more valuable and you can make a 
profit by selling them later.  Also, because you effectively own part of 
the company, you get a (proportional) say in how the company is run, and 
get a share of the profits each year (a dividend).

Post a reply to this message

> Obviously if the company is
> successful the shares will become more valuable and you can make a
> profit by selling them later.

This is not obvious to me.

> Also, because you effectively own part of
> the company, you get a (proportional) say in how the company is run,

I can imagine some people might find that interesting, but I would think 
the majority wouldn't.

> and get a share of the profits each year (a dividend).

Now you're talking. You mean to say that you can make money simply by 
owning a share? (As opposed to trading it.)

Post a reply to this message

>> Obviously if the company is
>> successful the shares will become more valuable and you can make a
>> profit by selling them later.
>
> This is not obvious to me.

Which bit?  You own a fixed proportion of a company, if the company 
becomes hugely more successful, the value of your proportion increases.

> Now you're talking. You mean to say that you can make money simply by
> owning a share? (As opposed to trading it.)

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend

Post a reply to this message

>> This is not obvious to me.
>
> Which bit?

The bit where a piece of paper has value because the company who's name 
is printed on it has value.

>> Now you're talking. You mean to say that you can make money simply by
>> owning a share? (As opposed to trading it.)
>
> Yes.

Right. So a share has value because you can earn money from it. And the 
value varies according to how profitable the company is because that 
money comes from the company's profits.

Post a reply to this message

On 2/9/2011 10:43 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 09/02/2011 04:09 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>>> Oh man, that's expensive! ;-)
>>
>> Hopefully you realize that each of these costs probably less than a
>> week's salary of the person using it, right? :-)
>
> ...there are people who use colour-calibrated monitors?

I do... Though I can't afford one with built in calibration, I use an 
external device to calibrate my monitor. It gets close, but no exact. I 
just switched from one with a fluorescent backlight to one with an LED 
backlight, and am still getting used to the color rendering of it (I'm 
not sure, but I suspect my colorimeter may be trying to compensate for 
the fluorescent green peak when set to measure an LCD.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 2/10/2011 3:25 AM, Invisible wrote:

> I'm having a hard time believing that just because somebody is a
> "professional photographer" they can afford to blow £1k on a monitor.
> And let's face it, it isn't actually going to help them take better photos.

An individual would probably not purchase said monitor, but a marketing 
department, advertising company, photo studio or lab would definitely 
have one on hand.

I wish I could afford such a monitor, it would be nice.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message