-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
factotum
In addition, for a tidally locked moon, there would be many places on the surface where you would spend the entire day with Jupiter on the opposite side of the moon from you, so those places would not see a solar eclipse in the way you're thinking. Of course, that would vary according to the time of year, so some parts would get eclipses in summer, some in winter.
For a tidally locked moon, the hemisphere facing away from Jupiter would always face away from Jupiter. That's what "tidally locked" means. The only parts of the moon that would witness a solar eclipse (when Jupiter blocks the sun) would be on the subjovian hemispere. The antijovian hemisphere would have day and night as the moon rotates relative to the sun, but it would never see Jupiter no matter what time of year it was.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xuc Xac
For a tidally locked moon, the hemisphere facing away from Jupiter would always face away from Jupiter. That's what "tidally locked" means. The only parts of the moon that would witness a solar eclipse (when Jupiter blocks the sun) would be on the subjovian hemispere. The antijovian hemisphere would have day and night as the moon rotates relative to the sun, but it would never see Jupiter no matter what time of year it was.
Somehow, subjovian and antijovian do not seem like the words you were looking for.
Maybe...
We'd be looking for the prefixes that mean facing and facing away from...
Not below and against.
Unfortunately... My mind refuses to think of them.
Does anyone have any clue as to what they are?
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Elemental
Somehow, subjovian and antijovian do not seem like the words you were looking for.
They are the exact words.
Per Wikipedia:
"The side of Io that always faces Jupiter is known as the subjovian hemisphere, while the side that always faces away is known as the antijovian hemisphere. The side of Io that always faces in the direction that the moon travels in its orbit is known as the leading hemisphere, while the side that always faces in the opposite direction is known as the trailing hemisphere."
The subjovian surface is "below Jupiter" because Jupiter is always in its sky. The antijovian surface is "opposite Jupiter" because it's... opposite Jupiter.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xuc Xac
They are the exact words.
Per Wikipedia:
"The side of Io that always faces Jupiter is known as the subjovian hemisphere, while the side that always faces away is known as the antijovian hemisphere. The side of Io that always faces in the direction that the moon travels in its orbit is known as the leading hemisphere, while the side that always faces in the opposite direction is known as the trailing hemisphere."
The subjovian surface is "below Jupiter" because Jupiter is always in its sky. The antijovian surface is "opposite Jupiter" because it's... opposite Jupiter.
I suppose that makes sense.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xuc Xac
For a tidally locked moon, the hemisphere facing away from Jupiter would always face away from Jupiter.
Yes, I realised that myself on re-reading my post this morning--I am fully aware of what "tidally locked" means, really I am! :smallwink:
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Can someone explain to me the numbers thrown around in regard to the facebook stocks?
38$ per share times about 420 million shares gets a total of 104 billion. That number I understand.
Also, they are giving out the shares at a price that is higher than their current value. So after the sale all the stock combined are worth 18,4 billion $ more than before the sale. That's normal, that's what selling shares is all about: Getting more money for the company.
Now to the interesting parts. The german news sites I've been reading use the word "Erlös", which appears to be a translation of revenue. But they are not economy news sites and I have a hunch their use of the word is a bit fuzzy and they are not actually meaning revenue. And I'm also not completely sure what either terms specifically means.
So:
How much money does facebook has as income per year?
How much money remains, when you substract the bills they have to pay?
How much cash does the company have on bank accounts and stored away in bills and coins?
Since they want people to buy stocks, these numbers must be available somewhere to company outsiders.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
I just typed "Facebook figures (Kennzahlen)" into google, here's what it gave me:
2011 they made about 3.711 billion dollar, of which 1 billion is actual profit (before taxes)
Look here: http://www.thomashutter.com/index.ph...-als-timeline/
I don't know how valid that is, however.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
So with "total costs and expsenses" of 1,95 billion and "income from opperations" of 1,75 billion, that's a profit of 200 million. How do they get to a net income of 1 billion?
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
3,711 - 1,955 = 1,756
1,756 - 0,756 (taxes etc.) = 1
It's like a substraction going downwards, not individual numbers
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Note that a profit of $1 billion, while it seems a lot, is actually pretty pathetic for a company that's valuing itself at more than $100 billion, which is the main worry people have about the Facebook IPO--e.g. that either Facebook is going to have to change its business model to get more income to shareholders, or that it's going to tank big-time and lots of investors are going to lose money!
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
The main issue is, that in this case they don't start selling stocks to raise capital for investments in infrastructure or product research, or anything like that. They already have more than enough money to do that.
So why would people who run and own a company by themselves want other people to buy parts of the company? This means they will have to share all the profits the company will make in the future. If they wouldn't sell stocks, they could keep the profits all to themselves.
The only explaination is: The people in charge want to transform their company shares and future profits into cash right now.
Why would anyone, especially people who run the company, want to do that, unless they are expecting that there won't be any profits in the future and the company itself will lose worth.
In short: People are trying to get rid of their shares and have found a way to make it sound as if it is a good thing.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
I personally stay away from economics as I find them difficult to understand and am not rich enough to need to worry about them.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
I was looking long and hard at the Facebook IPO as a short term play.
I'm kind of glad I didn't. Yes, it is selling, but the early trade numbers are not enthusiastic. And the IP pricing means that Day 1 profit will be difficult to come by.
I really hope that I'm not eating these words in a week. Or tomorrow.
But I will be honest, I don't see Facebook as a good long term play. It is only one big tech change and a fickle userbase away from being greatly diminished.
Yes I am a Facebook user, heck, I actually like Timeline, but a change like Timeline could impact them in big ways, where that wasn't such a big deal when they were a private company instead of a public one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Elemental
I personally stay away from economics as I find them difficult to understand and am not rich enough to need to worry about them.
You may not think yourself rich enough to worry about them, but trust me when I say that everyone is poor enough to worry about them.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
As far as I can tell with my limited understanding of economics, as a big company (meaning really big) you just don't get the cash from anywhere else. So by selling stocks, they can raise a huge amount of money in relatively short time.
Quote:
So why would people who run and own a company by themselves want other people to buy parts of the company? This means they will have to share all the profits the company will make in the future. If they wouldn't sell stocks, they could keep the profits all to themselves.
I guess few leaders of big stock market registered companies depend on their companies profit for income. I'd say the owners of Facebook can expect to get paid handsomely even if they sell stocks. Also, as owners, they get to keep the majority of stocks for themselves, I'd say, so that they maintain their influence.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Karoht
You may not think yourself rich enough to worry about them, but trust me when I say that everyone is poor enough to worry about them.
I should clarify that I'm not rich enough to be concerned with share-markets.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Even if facebook would be a sustainable long-term business model and will have 15% of the worlds population as customers for the next 50 years, all these assests would still not be worth 104 billion dollars (which may well grow to 138 billion in the next days).
If you buy stocks, you don't get your moneys worth. You assume to get your moneys worth at some time in the future. And I really don't think this is ever going to happen.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Elemental
I should clarify that I'm not rich enough to be concerned with share-markets.
If you have a job, you want to be at least moderately informed with them.
If you have a car, knowing that oil stocks declined or rose is rather important.
If you have a house, knowing that the Real Estate Income Trusts (REIT's) are in trouble is rather useful knowledge.
If you work in a trade, knowing the connection to the bank performance of last quarter is quite good info.
If you have a bank account at a publically traded bank, yes, you will want to know what is going on.
But watch gold stocks. They telegraph all kinds of boom and bust. Even though gold is not connected to currency anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yora
Even if facebook would be a sustainable long-term business model and will have 15% of the worlds population as customers for the next 50 years, all these assests would still not be worth 104 billion dollars (which may well grow to 138 billion in the next days).
I would say to never underestimate the power of market share. But I agree, this company doesn't appear to be worth 104B right now. Savvy investors are going to figure that out.
Quote:
If you buy stocks, you don't get your moneys worth. You assume to get your moneys worth at some time in the future. And I really don't think this is ever going to happen.
In the instance of Facebook, I agree with this.
That bolded part though? Well, if you didn't get your moneys worth buying them, you would never get your moneys worth selling. And if that were to happen, guys like me wouldn't make money trading from time to time.
Though I'm probably reading to far into that statement, so take that with a grain of salt.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Karoht
If you have a job, you want to be at least moderately informed with them.
If you have a car, knowing that oil stocks declined or rose is rather important.
If you have a house, knowing that the Real Estate Income Trusts (REIT's) are in trouble is rather useful knowledge.
If you work in a trade, knowing the connection to the bank performance of last quarter is quite good info.
If you have a bank account at a publically traded bank, yes, you will want to know what is going on.
But watch gold stocks. They telegraph all kinds of boom and bust. Even though gold is not connected to currency anymore.
How to say this without sounding really pathetic...
I'm unemployed, can't drive, live with my parents, don't have trade qualifications, Australian banks are relatively stable and own less than an ounce of gold (but I still like to keep apprised of gold prices as a matter of personal interest).
But I'm nineteen and suffer from anxiety, so it's nothing too terrible.
And now, to steer the conversation completely away from a discussion of finance...
How is it that a severed arm from certain varieties of starfish is capable of growing a whole new starfish?
It doesn't seem like it should make sense...
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GolemsVoice
As far as I can tell with my limited understanding of economics, as a big company (meaning really big) you just don't get the cash from anywhere else. So by selling stocks, they can raise a huge amount of money in relatively short time.
In theory: Yes. That's what stocks are for. Instead of taking a massive loan from a bank, companies can invite other people to join the company and add part of their personal wealth to the companies assets in exchange for a proportional share of the profits.
However, this does not seem to be the case.
1.) Why does facebook need money? I think the estimated wealth before the IPO was about $86 billion (104 minus the 18 they want to raise in new money). Why does a company with annual expenses of $1,95 billion and $86 billion in assets need $18 billion for?
2.) On some economic news sites, I've read that the new $18 billions are not actually added to the company. Instead the previous owners take those $18 billion and leave. (Or actually 57% of those 18 billion, I think.) They don't leave completely and many keep a large part of their shares, but this money is now out of danger. It sits in a bank account and whatever happens to the company, nobody will touch it. At the same time, these previous owners now get a smaller share of the companies profits.
Selling stocks is a reasonable and often smart way to raise capital for a company that needs to expand its infrastructure or invent new technologies, but can't cover the expenses with the cash it currently has. That's simply an investment: Pay some money now to make additional profits in the long run.
But from what I can tell (which admitedly is not that very much), Facebook is not going to invest any of the raised money at all. It's just a couple of people cashing out and jumping ship. And those people are also the people who run the company, so they know how things are right now and how the company is expected to do in the future.
It's all very fishy, to the point of some people calling it a scam or a heist.
So why is anyone buying these stocks if all sigsn say the rats are leaving the sinking ship? On the one side, it's assumed that lots of small buyers have no idea what they are buying at all, they only know that Facebook is really big and there's been a great hype about everyone wanting those stocks. Who has generated the hype? The people who will recieve the money. On the other side, you have these huge evil investment banks. They don't buy stocks to keep them for themselves, but instead they buy stocks for people who told them "I don't have a clue about stocks. Buy some for me which you think will be good and I give you some money for your service of taking care of these things for me". How much they get paid for their service depends on how expensive each stock is. So they are interested that the price goes really high, so they get more money from their clients. And facebook is dealing with all of these big banks. Which also happen to be the primary "judges" how much the stocks are actually worth. But then you would wonder "If their clients lose all their money, won't they lose all their clients?". Yes they would. In which case the government comes in and bails them out with tax money.
And third, there are probably many people who think "I buy the stocks now, wait three days for them to grow, and then sell them all again quickly". Before everyone realizes these stocks aren't worth anything and want to get rid of them as well.
Again, I am no expert and I've been searching for articles written by experts specifically for those that have a negative view.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Karoht
In the instance of Facebook, I agree with this.
That bolded part though? Well, if you didn't get your moneys worth buying them, you would never get your moneys worth selling.
Okay, that's obviously true. You almost never get your moneys worth immediately when buying stocks. The basic idea is that people sell when they think they get more cash now than payouts in the future, and that people buy when they think they will get more payouts in the future than they are paying right now.
There's nothing special about Facebook in this regard.
Only that the people who are selling have much deeper knowledge about the company than the people who are buying. And the expectations of future payouts buyers must have is waaaaay.... above what they are currently paying. And as I would argue, even way above any best case scenario.
If I am not mistaken (quoting a german site here), you get a certain factor when coparing the price of a stock with the share of the annual profits the stock provides you. The average factor of the most important companies is 13, which I assume means that your share of the profits over 13 years will be as high as the price you pay if you buy a share right now. For Facebook, that factor is over 100!
Sure, if you have enough shares, that's still a lot of money you make on the long time. But there are other stocks out there which would get you ten times that much money.
That is of course, unless you buy the stock with the expectation to sell it again for a profit long before the share paid for itself. Or you expect the company to be much more profitable in the future than it is right now. However, there is no indication of that happen. Instead the opposite is the case so you probably won't get your investment back in 100 years but even later.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Elemental
How to say this without sounding really pathetic...
I'm unemployed, can't drive, live with my parents, don't have trade qualifications, Australian banks are relatively stable and own less than an ounce of gold (but I still like to keep apprised of gold prices as a matter of personal interest).
But I'm nineteen and suffer from anxiety, so it's nothing too terrible.
That sounds suspiciously like me. Except for the relatively stable Australian banks. Dutch economy is worse than hell right now.
Quote:
And now, to steer the conversation completely away from a discussion of finance...
How is it that a severed arm from certain varieties of starfish is capable of growing a whole new starfish?
It doesn't seem like it should make sense...
Let's see... Every cell has the full DNA and starfish don't really have organs. They're arms with a mouth in the middle, but... Without a mouth they can't eat, they don't get energy to grow... Yeah, it doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm sure there is someone here better qualified to explain it, though.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Apparently, nutrients are stored throughout the entire body of a starfish. These can be enough to regrow enough of the body to be able to eat again before it starves. The bigger the fragment is, the higher it's chance to do that.
Some species of starfish even split themselves to reproduce in that way.
However, mortality rates for severed arms are extremely high, I think I saw a number way over 80%, and that was under controlled circumstances in captivity. In the wild, it's probably much worse, as single arms are probably very easy prey.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
I guess in a way, Starfish are much like Hydra(the plankton-esque organism, not the mythological cryptid) and Annelids(Earthworms). Providing you have enough nutrients, and a simple enough structure. Earthworms are essentially an alimentary canal(mouth to anus), surrounded by a tube of muscles. Earthworms can regenerate, but only if the "saddle" part is unbroken, and whichever half has it will regrow, while the other dies. I might be mistaken about this, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that starfish have multiple hearts, which could also help.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Some also have a stomach in each arm as well if I am reading Wikipedia right.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
From reading the same article: they have several stomachs, one central stomach, from where the food is then transported to a second stomach in the arms.
THey also don't really seem to have a heart, just a system of tubes.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Why does rain smell? And what does it actually smell of?
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
:smalleek: It actually has a name!? That's pretty awesome...
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Matthias2207
:smalleek: It actually has a name!? That's pretty awesome...
Sounds almost as lovely as it is; I love the smell of rain. Another smell I love is after it has rained, and especially if a lot of flowers are blooming, there is an intense, almost sugary sweetness to the air.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
And the translation is interesting.
I just imagine going out after a storm, now, taking a deep breath, and saying:
"Aaaah, the stones are bleeding the humours of the gods. I love that smell."