Yep, it's why I sold my 22 shares at $110.

them see me trollin': Impaler, how long did you hold your 22 shares for? I guess you made around 4 hundred bucks, not too bad for an afternoon

About 2 hours.

20% ROI every day, I figure I should be a millionaire in a month.

/that's how trading works y'all, what could possibly go wrong.

E.S.Q.: We'll monetize Fark in a new diaga-form!

Don't give Drew ideas!

impaler: 20% ROI every day, I figure I should be a millionaire in a month.

Did you get a bulk discount on wedding cake? ;)

Monday's New Yorker talks about how farked up it is to have your IPO double on day 1, but that's from an article in the future.

Big Al: DJanomaly 2011-05-22 08:36:36 PM

Or you're just an idiot day-trader with no sense of the bigger picture. Either way, investing isn't for you.


I think you mean anyone who buys and holds onto stocks for months at a time in this new tech bubble is stupid. But the past 2 yrs it was pretty difficult to lose money while the government was doing QE and QE2. Now the market is volatile again and everything is up in the air. But money is still to be made day trading and "investing" in the stock market long term was out of style in 1991

Remember when stocks would give out dividend payments? When owning a stock meant getting paid a certain amount of money for every share?

The current paradigm were stock holds value solely on the actual value of the stock, has made trading stocks literally gambling.

Klasik: Has anyone here used LinkedIn with any success? Is it a waste of time?

\Looking

I've briefly toyed with it, and I haven't found too great of a reason to adapt (I'm also a bit of an anti-social Luddite, so take my advice with a grain of salt).

The general theory is one where qualified people can post how qualified they are to potential employers and try to cash in on the "friend of a friend" good ol' boy network (See also, giving resumes to your father's golfing buddies). LinkedIn is growing, but only because lots of people think it will help.

The problem is threefold: more people = greater user base = diminishing quality, mass commercialization, and the lack of user interactivity.

For the first problem to be fixed, the site would have to actively eliminate the fraudulant entries as well as the poor quality people (non-professionals) to remain effective, which would allow the site to gain fame as a source for top 10% talent. Since no such restrictions exist, the growth of users represents a diminished perception of "elite" (assuming a large enough population is statistically similar to the general population) and the loss of quality as quantity of profiles soar. Recruiters would have to search far longer to get past the thousands of average workers.

As for the commercialization, a big problem with anything "free" on the internet is the money comes from advertisements or morons. Eventually, spambots and trolls get involved with the site and coders start actively attacking the site. The need for revenue is balanced against the need of the community and a compromise is struck for the owner(s). See Phil (politics tab troll) not getting banned by the mods; he drives pageviews (profits) for an example.

The last bit is self-explanatory, simply because people are lazy and short-sighted. Once the initial account is setup, there is no compelling reason to return other than to update one's credentials. Some members do things like post interests/recent books read/political leanings and treat the site like a Facebook-lite. The move is risky, because any information posted is public domain and could be used against you if a recruiter doesn't like your philosophy. And, in reality, most people are swayed by a personal recommendation than an atypical social "link". The personal touch lets the employer indirectly associate the virtues of the reference on the candidate. An internet setup does not and may require a bit more from a candidate to warrant employment.

My opinion is that LinkedIn is one of the new shiny things. I figure the current tech bubble (social media) has about 3-5 years left on it before a MASSIVE correction kills off the small players (or merges them into one of the remaining giants) while seriously crippling the big ones. I think Facebook will be a ghosttown and Twitter completely dead as the masses move on to the next shiny thing. Fark, in my opinion, MAY survive, because the following is niched, but it would be a rough ride.

Hope that helps. Sorry about the wall of text.

I use linkedin as another posting for my resume and background. If a potential employer punches my name into google, two relevant websites pop up: Linkedin and Academia.edu. Both mainly restate my resume and give a little bit more detail. The "recommendation" function is pretty good but overall its just another place to throw up your resume. You cannot hope someone finds you as most HR people don't go looking for anything but C levels, but it can be effectively used as an additional tool.

But on topic now, I do not believe that people visit the site as frequently as Facebook or anything so a effective monetization of the site is beyond me. I wouldn't pay a tenner for the site.

'For some investors, that makes no difference; they don't worry about inflating the bubble so long as they are not holding it when things explode.'

Quick! To the RomeroCopter!!!''

Knowing your broker can help you understand his choices. Just sayin....

Gobobo:

I've briefly toyed with it, and I haven't found too great of a reason to adapt (I'm also a bit of an anti-social Luddite, so take my advice with a grain of salt).

Expound, Oh Great One!!!

Anti-social

Luddite

If you couldn't comprehend my previous response, nothing I write will satisfy you. I never said I was an expert.

Gobobo:
humor

Fark

Ditto


My apologies for misinterpreting you. I've been having a case of the stupids and Times New Roman is a terrible medium for sarcasm.