Will shrimp's eyes help create a better DVD? The answer is yes. Researchers at the University of Bristol, England, who are studying the shrimp's eye have found a way to create a better DVD.

How is this possible? Scientists discovered that the Mantis shrimp, found off the coast of Australia, can see in 12 primary colors, four times that of humans. The shrimp's eye can detect different kinds of light polarization which is the direction of oscillation in light waves.

It's not exactly a shock, but tangible confirmation is always nice. Alternative investment research firm Preqin found in a recent survey that institutional investors are happier with their hedge fund returns now than they were a year ago. But, the gaps between happy and sad aren't as wide as you might expect.

A September 2009 survey of institutional investors revealed that 62% say "hedge fund returns have met expectations," compared to 53% in October 2008, when the market was consumed by all kinds of calamity. Only 11% responded this year that "hedge funds have exceeded expectations," which is up slightly from last year's 9%. Remember, though the market hit its worst late last year, the problem was building momentum for a while. Participants who do not feel that hedge funds have hit the mark shrank from 38% last year to 27% this year. And 66% are confident or very confident that their hedge fund investments will reach their objectives.

Perhaps you will file this under things that only I find interesting, but this article details results from the Pew Research Center noting that 43% of people surveyed would rather live near McDonald's (NYSE: MCD) than Starbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX).

Interesting statistic. My guess is that the biggest reason the Golden Arches is more popular is that it offers far more food at a far cheaper price.

The choppy market conditions sometime give the impression that growth plays do not exist, but that is far from the case, with Parexel International (NASDAQ: PRXL) providing the evidence.

Parexel International is a leading contract research organization and boasts some of the world's largest drug, biotech and medical device companies among its clients.

Analysts like PRXL's operational breadth: its clinical research services unit offers clinical trial and data management, study design and recruitment, biostatistical analysis, clinical pharmacology, industry training, and publishing services.

On yesterday's Mad Money, Jim Cramer offered his "Mad Money Manual" -- a guide to how to watch the show inspired by the criticism of his stock-picking track record leveled by the press.

The show is actually a recap of an episode from May, but I missed that one so I'll opine on it now. According to TheStreet.com's recap of the show:

In a given week Cramer said he might recommend a dozen stocks, excluding the ones in the "Lightning Round." But just because Cramer says he likes a stock, doesn't mean that viewers should go out and buy it.

Nor does it mean that if people buy that stock they will absolutely, positively make lots of money, Cramer said. "That's not how this game works."

Cramer stresses the importance of doing your own homework, but here's the problem with that advice: Can the Average Joe with a 10-inch TV and Yahoo! Finance really expect to uncover something that hedge fund legend Jim Cramer has missed?

In a settlement that appears to be mutually beneficial, Technology Research Corporation (NASDAQ:TRCI) and Tower Manufacturing Corporation have agreed to bury the hatchet and all pending litigation between the two businesses has been dropped. The net result of the settlement is a cross-licensing agreement that should benefit both companies going forward, and TRC will receive $3.2 million in royalty payments, based on past sales, with payments to be made over a two-year term.

Given TRC's current stock value, which closed at $4.91 in very low volume, I see some clear potential when contrasting that closing price against TRC's previous 52-week high of $8.72, which was posted in February. TRC's 2006 annual report shows record revenues of $45.6 million, an increase of $6.2 million over the prior year, and they show consistent growth over the last four years. Currently, TRC has an EPS of 0.28 and a P/E ratio of 17.54.

Worthy of note are TRC's indications that they plan on increasing their focuses in marketing and engineering while also undertaking a program of strategically acquiring businesses or products to compliment their operating strengths without placing undue stress on the company by means of integration or funding. TRC notes several product areas in which revenue growth is already being achieved, and they have outlined a solid plan for increased net income.

If history serves as pattern, and I believe that it generally does, then Technology Research Corporation is a company worthy of attention. I get a good impression from what I have read about them and I think they have more than moderate potential. As always, do your own homework, but you may put me on record as saying: I really like this company.

The more I go on the corporate websites and review their investor information the more difficult my gastric processes become. Since when have stock values been so unattached to their respective company's performance and outlook? I'm seeing far too many instances of solid, healthy, forward-looking companies with substantial profits that have stock values mired in the muck. Conversely, I see just as many companies with red flags waving on all four corners that have stock values which are way beyond the reaches of common sense.

Worse still, I'm witnessing a growing number of large corporations that are banking a significant portion of their net worth on accounts receivable and credit debt service. In other words they are stating their value based on monies not yet in their coffers. If I went to my bank looking for a loan using IOU's as collateral, I'd expect they would laugh me out of the place. How does the stock in certain companies increase in value based on that same premise? Are investors that lazy? Are investors that gullible? Who's driving this bus anyway?

There must be something I don't understand about the proposition of real value. I mean, I understand the basic principles of market value, value projections, projected growth and historical performance, but what I don't understand is this forwarding of funds by investors to support unfounded speculation. Do we make investments based on hot air, light shows and promises? Is that the way it's done? After some of the absolute nonsensical stock value to real value comparisons I've researched as of late, I have a new-found respect for real estate investors. At least they invest in something you can look at, walk around and spit on.

It's no wonder to me now that someone like Jim "Mad Money" Cramer can swing a stock value by 3% in an hour. The man has something to say, be it right or wrong. He has the talent to make things sound like they're for real even if he's just trying to out-guess the rest of us. He's a master of the lemming principle... give 'em a leader and watch 'em run. It's just too bad that he's led more lemmings over the edge of a cliff than he has led into the next green field. I suppose anyone who is going to hang their portfolio on the word booyah deserves a bit of what they receive.

I guess my father is right when he says, "You don't call the cat when you want the dog." His meaning here is that if you're looking to make some money in the markets you had better be sure that you're looking hard for winners and not just tossing money down a well hoping that it will return to you with your answered wishes trailing close behind. The positively skewed investment picture I'm seeing is showing that a majority of investors don't really care about the actual condition of the companies they're throwing their money at. They're buying stocks that they think will go up and that's the whole plan. "Screw the company forecast, what it's actually doing means nothing..." Whatever happened to the idea of researching and investing in companies you believe are going to thrive? Given the inclination of today's investor's to throw away their cash on companies that have only promises to offer, I think Adam Smith would be ashamed.

But that's just my opinion.

When I was writing about Jones Soda Co. (NASDAQ:JSDA) and their announced switch to sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup as sweetener, I didn't read all the way to the end of the Wall Street Journal [subscription required] story. I should have, though, as it's really the big news.

PepsiCo, Inc. (NYSE:PEP) funded a study on high fructose corn syrup, which indicates that sugar and high fructose corn syrup have nearly the same effect on the body, and found no difference in the way the two substances contribute to weight gain. (The study is being written up for submission to a journal by researchers at UC Davis.) Pepsi is promoting this study heavily and said in response to Jones' move, "To say cane sugar is healthier than HFCS just isn't true. Marketing a myth for a competitive advantage is irresponsible and short-sighted."

But. But! Pepsi is working on some versions of its most popular sodas, including Sierra Mist and Pepsi itself, that contain sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup -- along with the removal of some preservatives and artificial colors. This news, reported by Beverage Digest magazine, seems at cross purposes with Pepsi's spokesman's claim.

If Pepsi is so sure high fructose corn syrup is safe -- and so interested in making sure consumers believe it -- why would it even dream of converting? Something tells me we haven't heard the end of Pepsi's evaluation of HFCS.

No doubt, SAIC Inc. (NYSE: SAI) had a stunning IPO last week. The stock increased from $15 to $18.18 per share and traded about 50 million shares.

Founded 37 years ago, SAIC helps governments solve tough problems such as building technologies for unmanned planes or designing new battlefield networks.

In fact, governments outsource billions of dollars in research projects to SAIC. So, what are some of the things the company is working on?

Well, you can find out from the company's IPO filing:

Advanced Robotics. These are individual robots as well as unmanned vehicles. For example, an unmanned vehicle uses geospatial intelligence to basically get to where it needs to go (and, yes, defeat our enemies). One application: "these robots may be used to search and map terrorist-occupied or earthquake-damaged buildings, as well as track intruders."

Wireless Sensors. These are very small wireless sensors called Smart Dust. They basically self-configure according to changes in the environment. Application: "help the U.S. military improve situational awareness, reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition capabilities in urban areas."

Biopharmaceutical and Medical Research. SAIC is developing nanotechnology technologies to treat cancer, as well as come up with vaccines for HIV, anthrax and malaria. The goal is to establish a huge database called the Biomedical Informatics Grid, which will allow research among 600 experts from over 50 cancer centers.

Tom Taulli is the author of various books, including the Complete M&A Handbook and operates InvestorOffering.com.

The Dow Jones industrial average soared today -- up 183 points on a raft of merger news, strong earnings from drugmakers and more confidence in general about the strength of the economy in the face of higher interest rates. (Or maybe it was Barron's cover story, as some fellow bloggers believe).

But those aren't the only reasons stocks perked up. Investor pessimism probably also played a role.

"huh?" you say.

Well, many professional investors have long believed that investor sentiment is a reverse indicator of stock market performance. In other words, if investors are feeling optimistic, that's a sign stocks are about to turn lower (after all, anyone who could or would buy stock probably already has). Conversely, if investors are pessimistic, that means stocks could well head higher. There is probably a lot of money on the sidelines waiting to jump back in on any signs of good news, the logic goes. (Bernie Schaeffer has built his research firm on this idea).

According to a new Gallup Poll just out today, investors are now the most pessimistic they've been all year. The last time they were this gloomy was November 2005. The optimism index is down to 55, from a recent high of 55 in May of 2006. Investors are apparently more worried about the overall economy than their personal situations. Their chief concerns are rising energy prices, the Federal budget deficit, Iraq and outsourcing of jobs (in that order).

Usually the relationship between investor pessimism and rising stocks doesn't play out on the exact same day in such a clear fashion. Nonetheless, the investor sentiment theory is good to keep in mind when you're doing your own pre-trade gut check.

Feeling the urge to buy some stock? Maybe it's a sign the market is topping out. Feeling the urge to sell? Maybe you should be buying instead.

In the midst of all the bad Microsoft news and yesterday's four-year low, it's worth asking the somewhat theoretical question: what premium does Microsoft's laudable and long-term commitment to basic research add to the long-term value of the stock? 

There's little question that MSFT has created a research establishment that's much in the mold of the early Bell Labs and Xerox PARC (more in a moment as to whether that's a good or bad thing): lots of pure academics hired from top universities who apparently have quite a bit of freedom to select research topics and to publish.  Here's a quote from a recent speech by Rick Rashid, the well-respected Microsoft head of research: "...we started investing in basic research at Microsoft 14 years ago...today we’ve grown to over 700 researchers worldwide. And to put that in perspective, that’s the equivalent of growing a major computer science department, like a Berkeley computer science faculty, a year every year for 14 years. And we’re expecting to double that rate of growth over the next two years. We believe that investing in basic research in Computer Science is critically important at this juncture."

But is it critically important to the value of the company?