Slashdot Mirror

Alright, someone is making this judgement with a paintbrush when they should be using a calculator.

Apple doesn't have enough cash to buy AMD and currently has only $9.8bn in assets. They also have $6.4bn in long and short term debts. AMD would cost about $7.3bn to buy based on today's market cap. Apple would have to pay about a 20% premium to that at least, making it about $8.8bn. To then pay off AMD's debts, $9.4bn including the latest senior note offering, Apple would need that ammount of cash in excess (or at least enough to make a dent.)

The biggest reason an AMD buyout could make sense would be: A) Apple and AMD do business with each other, and thereby can be more tightly integrated so that the pair profit more than the parts. B) Apple has the cash to pay off AMD debts so that AMD can quit getting slaughtered on interest payments ever quarter. Apple could do business with AMD, but its not likely to streamline any part of the production process for either company. There is the notion that an Apple halo could be beneficial for AMD (DAAMIT). There is the unlikely possibility that Apple management would bring new life into AMD and all the sudden AMD would get twice as much innovation done and all their chips would have white substrates that collect fingerprints and come with click-wheels.

You can see where I'm going with this. Apple doesn't have the cash to buy AMD and then turn around and pay off the debt significantly. The two combined companies would together still have so much debt that instead of just AMD being at risk of bankrupcty, Apple would be dragged in as well.

That said, if you're a level 75 venture capitalist with full merits and $18bn floating around, buying AMD isn't a bad idea. The gains in interest would instantly boost AMD's earnings by hundreds of millions per year, not to mention create a stonger DAAMIT to continue exploiting the natural tendency towards duopololy in this competitive, capital intensive industry.

Buy AMD. Make it healthy. Sell it back to the street for three times what you paid in ten years. Then go find something to do with $54bn dollars.

Meanwhile, Nintendo has announced an desire to increase production to get the installed base up.

FF13 (which will be ported, they announced it)

The royalties in question only apply to digital transmissions of music, such as through Web sites, and are paid to the performers of songs and record labels. Webcasters also pay additional royalties to the composers and publishers of music, similar to those also paid by over-the-air broadcasters.

"It's terrible," De Raadt says. "Everyone is using it, and they don't realize how bad it is. And the Linux people will just stick with it and add to it rather than stepping back and saying, 'This is garbage and we should fix it.'"

http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinfrastructure/20 05/06/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html

So it's junk until you need it Mr. De Raadt? And complaining about code theft is inhumane? What a loser.

There have been many strange articles in the media, for example in this forbes article they report that IBM may have destroyed evidence. However that evidence was what SCO used as a basis for starting the case, and so SCO "must" have had it to begin with. Forbes and other similar media outlets report large amounts of SCO material without comment.

The question has been raised: where are they getting this material and why are the reporting it as it is. The primary place where that's been raised has been Groklaw and the accusation has been that parts of the media are actively backing SCO even against all possible evidence. Now SCO and those parts of the media have started an intimidation campaign against Groklaw both in court and in the media, along side attempts to by SCO's media friends to invade her privacy. This recent posting is showing the hypocrisy which is behind this campaign and it's media backers who use as accusations in court filings things that they themselves also do.

The US tortures people. That alone should be enough reason not to extradite anybody there.

The European Commission said the focus of its antitrust inquiry into the pricing of songs on Apple Inc's iTunes online music store will be major music companies.

The emphasis on the groups was outlined by a spokesman for EU competition commissioner Neelie Kroes to reporters here.

However, he added that Apple (nasdaq: AAPL - news - people ) is also included in the investigation as the 'operator' of the service.

Interestingly, there is no support at present for searching by publisher in iTunes (wonder if they'll add that), but if you want to plan your purchases for next month, you can look at this wikipedia article for a list of EMI artists. With few exceptions (the Beatles, primarily, since they're still not available in any online format), the whole catalog will be available...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musicians_sig ned_to_EMI

My faves from the list: The Beach Boys, Bob Seger, Coldplay, David Bowie, Depeche Mode, Elvis Costello, Elvis Presley, Erasure (can't help it), Garth Brooks, J. Geils Band, James Brown (Hit Me!), Joe Cocker, Kate Bush, Norah Jones, Pet Shop Boys, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Radiohead (pre-2003), The Knack, The Decemberists. They also have a very respectable classical music inventory for folks that that swing that way.

Personally, I think that people who are contining to grouse about quality are somewhat like those that swear by vacuum tube amps. When I did my own double-blind tests of LAME-encoded MP3, I found that the sweet spot was 192Kbps, but that there where occasional passages of very unusual music (orchestral or Peter Gabriel's Passion) where I could hear a tiny difference (a slight beating oscillation) that didn't go away until 256Kbps. So I rip lossless and downconvert to 192K for actual use on most players. Would I prefer lossless? Sure, but 256K AAC not only adequate, but excellent. I will buy extensively when it becomes available, both because I like it and to encourage other labels to do the same.

Final point: cynics may say that EMI is doing this partly because they've been seriously short of sucessful acts lately and will do anything to create sales. See this Forbes article for more. Whether that's true or not, I intend to buy, buy, buy. Scr** you Sony!

Free markets may have a place, but either it is a small place or there needs to be mechanisms that deal with the concentrating of wealth that is the end product of free markets and the effect they have on small communities.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. I suggest you do some research into the economic theories of Hernando de Soto and "(poor) people's capitalism".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hernando_de_Soto_(eco nomist)

http://members.forbes.com/global/2002/1223/070.htm l

http://www.peoplescapitalism.org/PeoplesCapitalism paper_new.htm

Capitalism empowers the poor, and the fundamental reason for poverty is that there's not enough capitalism. The poor of the world have an estimated 9.3 billion in assets that they can do *nothing* with because of a lack of legal infrastructure. Ensuring that people can transfer, sell, lease, and borrow against their property is the fundamental problem of world poverty.

The funny thing in this is that you and I want the same thing - more individual liberty.

Yes, but you consider the works of artists to be "commons", and I do not. One a person writes a novel it is inherently a private creation. They don't have to share it. You believe that if they publicize it at all they must immediately, completely and forever abdicate *all* rights despite the fact that they are the ones who spend untold hours creating this work. The morality of this position seems patently flawed. You believe that artists and creators deserve no rights no whatsoever despite their hard work - their own creations must be secret or no longer belong to them.

I'm confident that not only is this not morally defensible, but that you will never convince the majority of artists that they can have *no* power over their own creations.

And why, precisely, is it incumbent upon society to make Ms. Rowling into a billionaire?

Yes, she needs to be able to pay the bills just like the rest of us, but current copyright law goes way too far!

Yes you can argue of a relationship between majority and dictatorship. A simple majority implies an active opposition. A majority of say 60% implies many people are for a particular issue. Chavez won with 68% of the vote. This is 68% of the popular vote and it is extremely difficult to get. This does imply a lack of opposition through intimidation, rampant populism, or some other ways and means.

I consider America, Canada, and most European countries as true democracies. Take a look at election results and you will rarely see a 2/3 victory. In most countries 2/3 of the vote is necessary to make constitutional changes because usually it is very very difficult to get 2/3 of the vote.

Since Chavez and his cronies have over 2/3 of the vote they can do whatever they please and do not have to ask anybody for permission. Up to this point Chavez was a populist leader, now he is becoming a populist dictator, and in four years when he suppresses the opposition he will have become an official dictator.

Here are the things Chavez is doing that can be construed as dictator:

Price Controls:

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news -11/1175232470107850.xml&coll=1

- He used to take home $930 a month from his butcher shop at the Guacaipuro Market. But that ended when the Venezuelan government cracked down on butchers and grocers who were selling products above price controls.

Nationalization:

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr00 4=o9k4jttqk2.app7b&page=NewsArticle&id=6573&news_i v_ctrl=1261

- On Jan. 8, Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez sent tremors through the international capitalist market when he announced a new wave of nationalizations. These nationalizations would eliminate foreign control over the country's largest telecommunications and electricity companies.

Freedom of the press:

http://english.eluniversal.com/2007/03/23/en_ing_a rt_press-freedom-is-det_23A848043.shtml
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/03/17/ap352649 9.html

- Venezuela is intensifying a campaign against the media criticizing President Hugo Chávez' attempts at seizing freedom of expression for his self-proclaimed socialist revolution, the Inter-American Press Association said on Monday.
- Press freedom watchdogs have accused Chavez of using the judiciary and new legislation restricting broadcast content to silence critics. Chavez denies threatening press freedoms and accuses Venezuela's privately owned media of conspiring to topple his government.

Yes Chavez is moving into dictatorship!

Actually India is ranked 44th and you've got dyslexia. Also the study measures ICT readiness, not access to toilets. You can have access to the internet, but not to a toilet.. if you've ever been to India you'll see this is true

http://www.weforum.org/pdf/gitr/rankings2007.pdf

The WEF is based in Geneva and run by the Swiss government

http://www.weforum.org/en/about/index.htm

They had a pretty big meeting in Davos in January this year at which several heads of state were present - including Tony Blair and Angela Merkel (also Sergey Brin and Larry Page, and several other industry leaders)
Read about it at that other "USA hating jack-off organization":

http://www.forbes.com/2007/01/23/world-economic-fo rum-lead-lead-citizen-davos07_cx_ag_0123davos_land .html

But don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion.

In other words, they would not be in the market for OSX or Linux.

Vista has not really increased MS revenues. MS must convince the shareholders that the $5bn spent on Vista is going to be a worthwhile investment

Microsoft, debt-free, and with quarterly revenues of $14 billion dollars can afford to take the long view - and the short-term hit from the free upgrade coupons still around for Vista.

"What's important to us from an investment standpoint is that Microsoft has entrenched one of its most important businesses for an additional few years, and that virtually every new computer sold on the planet going forward will have Vista pre-installed on it." Finding Value In Microsoft

The royalties in question only apply to digital transmissions of music, such as through Web sites, and are paid to the performers of songs and record labels. Webcasters also pay additional royalties to the composers and publishers of music, similar to those also paid by over-the-air broadcasters.

Put the research where it belongs, to university labs.

According to some figures I encountered long ago, the cash spent on PR, advertising and marketing often exceeds [oftwominds.com] the cash spent on R&D

Of course, this guy's main crime is being poor. If OTOH he was a highly paid CEO, his disability would have automatically disqualify him from legal problems just like this lady.

"I'm liable - wether I knew they uploaded it or not. "

There's more than a reasonable case made, ironically, by the DMCA that as long as YouTube follows DMCA takedown notices that there is a safe harbor in the law. Your opinion doesn't change that. Neither does mine, but what I can say is that Viacom be involved in a lot of lawsuits and seems to settle a lot:

http://www.dailyhaggis.com/2003/07/08/spike-lee-vs -spiketv-lawsuit-settled/
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/070122/0206077.html
http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/lawsuit-between -vh1-and-liza-&-david-fizzles-an-end-1785.php
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB11704750557 2997191-E8lh6c1jyY_4v0U_jLlgu4YnUQk_20070210.html
http://play.tm/wire/click/185873
http://www.acls.org/exdab.htm
http://www.forbes.com/2006/05/24/stern-cbs-sirius- cx_gl_0524autofacescan12.html

Sometimes they even commit fraud:
http://www.legalnewsfeeds.com/RssFeed/newsDetailed .php?Category=Business-Litigation&ArticleID=513

I'm suggesting that Viacom sues regardless of their real legal position. They're a "sue first and then hash it out" company. I'm guess Google wins this after a judge strongly suggests the law is on Google's side.

It is not the fact that you are not thinking about the road, so much that you are concentrating on something else, in particular with someone that is not in the car so can not themselves stop talking when it becomes 'dangerous'. Your conversation partner keeps talking even though you begin to brake, etc.

When using the hand held phone, few if any people actually take their eyes off the road during any significant time. You dial while at a stop light, or use a press to talk button. Or your wife dials the phone, talks to your mother, then hands you the phone cause "Mom wants to say 'hi'." The eyes off the road is not at all relevant, it does not endager you. When day dreaming, you are not concentrating on something else, but when talking, you often are. In fact, some people get angry at the person they are talking to.

The basic fact is that the hands free headphones do NOT reduce accidents. You can reject it because you don't think it makes any sense, but it is honest truth. If I have not explained it well enough, you should learn more about it before just denying it.

Read here for one article about one stufy or here for another article about an entirely seperate stufy or here for an article about a third study.

As far as a I know, not a single study comparing hands free cell phones has shown them to be reasonably safe. They all show them as being about as dangerous as driving while on a hand needed phone.

Considering it's basically the Chinese National Bank, and that Lenovo and Microsoft just struck a deal this "insightfulness" has the potential to be very business driven... Of course, it could be pure coincidence.

Forbes fastest growing jobs According to this article, Computer software engineers, applications is number 5 on the fastest growing jobs list.

"Broadcasters would admit to no wrongdoing under the three-year settlement, which would end an FCC investigation into payola practices."
The FCC may not have had enough evidence to forward anything beyond the broadcasters accepting the payola.

"Payola, or "pay-for-play," can be difficult to track."
So the FCC gets some *fine* money, some indie artists get some airtime (likely with the least listeners), and the public in general thinks the FCC has returned the radio waves to the public. Pft. Prince alone made almost 50mil, how much of that do you think that the broadcasters made off him? (ref link)
-
The monkey strikes three times at twilight, do you know where your bananas are?

Well, I don't have 5 billion to give away. Heck, I don't even have a billion. However, there are a boat load of billionaires in the world. Add up the money of the top 100 billionaires and see how much freaking money they have and think of what good that can do for the humans around the world.

If Billy G. donated 5 billion USD anonymously, it would not link the donation to Billy G. at all. There are a lot of people that could do that. The donation doesn't even need to be from a "person". Just spend a little bit of money (a few hundred bucks at most) to make a non-profit company. Then the donation doesn't come from Billy G., but from the "We Like to Help" corporation/LLC.

I have done it a few times, it is not hard at all. Heck, any knuckle-head can start a private LLC for chump-change. Start the LLC in your friends name and be an anonymous supporter. Then give the money to charity. It is real simple to give money to help others without being known.

Most "philanthropists" _want_ to be known. They want to be thanked and patted on the back for giving from their extreme abundance. That is my big beef with the "philanthropists" of the world.

Now that Clear Channel and 2 other media monoliths have had their hands slapped for their payola-driven playlists (anyone surprised by this?: http://www.forbes.com/digitalentertainment/2007/03 /06/cx_wt_0306varietymusic.html ), the dynamics of this have become more interesting--and stranger. The unofficial alliance between corporate labels and corporate radio was always one of financial convenience, IMHO. Will CC fight alongside indies for fair rates, or just take the hit, knowing that they will still control a huge share of the broadcast market, and thus might be able to stumble on while other netcasters get crushed (thus eliminating competition, one of their favorite motifs)? Stay tuned.

This editorial in Forbes entitled "Wireless Shootout: Suits vs. Cowboys" points out that cellular carriers and next-generation WiFi technology may be replaying the past competition between mainframes ("suits") and PCs ("cowboys"). The cellular carriers are inherently limited in their ability to adapt to modern wireless requirements because they operate under three fundamental constraints: a build-out mentality, vertical integration, and complicated pricing. The author points out that this same mindset ultimately caused mainframe suppliers to lose their dominance to the more nimble PCs in mainstream computing, and predicts that for the same reasons, more adaptable next-generation wireless technology such as WiMAX and ZigBee will ultimately prevail over cellular infrastructure in the future.

Hey, this is Forbes. They're a known SCO schill, always eager to publish puff pieces by their reporter whats-his-name (Dan's Lying? something like that) that are basically slightly revised SCO press-releases.

...thanks to the efforts of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco group that defends bloggers.

That was also my first reaction when I read that. It is obviously an attempt to marginalize the EFF by making it look like a stupid hippie organization from SF that defends kooks on the Internet. I always thought the defense of Free Speech was everybody's responsibility, and the Constitution is not exactly new technology.

This should come as no surprise as the reporter is Daniel Lyons (ugh... human resources... what a creep). PJ appears to have gotten after him in this Groklaw article (which points to this Forbes.com article). And has mentioned him in several other articles(no, I am not going to read and comment on all of them for this post -- do it yourself). He refers to PJ's criticism in today's posted article:

Jones also has criticized some journalists who cover the lawsuits, including this reporter, accusing them of being biased in favor of SCO.

As an interesting side note, the reference Groklaw and Forbes articles mention this odd little tidbit:

Another beneficiary could be John Wall, chief executive of Vista.com , a Redmond, Wash., company that last August struck a licensing arrangement with SCO.

Does anybody else find it interesting that there is a Redmond, Washington based company named, of all things Vista.com that invested in SCO at the beginning of the lawsuit? We all know that MS used Baystar as an investment front for the SCO litigation, but this makes it appear that MS had as many as three fronts set up to invest money in SCO right before the lawsuit (MS's purchase of a SCO license was the third).

Considering Windows Vista is MS's new "killer" product which incorporates hardware DRM to defend MS from Linux, could "Vista" mean a broad plan to attack FOSS in general?

I thought the devil had many names. Why is he using the same one more than once this time?

...thanks to the efforts of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco group that defends bloggers.

That was also my first reaction when I read that. It is obviously an attempt to marginalize the EFF by making it look like a stupid hippie organization from SF that defends kooks on the Internet. I always thought the defense of Free Speech was everybody's responsibility, and the Constitution is not exactly new technology.

This should come as no surprise as the reporter is Daniel Lyons (ugh... human resources... what a creep). PJ appears to have gotten after him in this Groklaw article (which points to this Forbes.com article). And has mentioned him in several other articles(no, I am not going to read and comment on all of them for this post -- do it yourself). He refers to PJ's criticism in today's posted article:

Jones also has criticized some journalists who cover the lawsuits, including this reporter, accusing them of being biased in favor of SCO.

As an interesting side note, the reference Groklaw and Forbes articles mention this odd little tidbit:

Another beneficiary could be John Wall, chief executive of Vista.com , a Redmond, Wash., company that last August struck a licensing arrangement with SCO.

Does anybody else find it interesting that there is a Redmond, Washington based company named, of all things Vista.com that invested in SCO at the beginning of the lawsuit? We all know that MS used Baystar as an investment front for the SCO litigation, but this makes it appear that MS had as many as three fronts set up to invest money in SCO right before the lawsuit (MS's purchase of a SCO license was the third).

Considering Windows Vista is MS's new "killer" product which incorporates hardware DRM to defend MS from Linux, could "Vista" mean a broad plan to attack FOSS in general?

I thought the devil had many names. Why is he using the same one more than once this time?

This is the most ambitions??? What about Markram & IBM? They must be just fooling around with that Blue Gene (actually I do think they are fooling around, but that's beside the point). What about Izhikvich? He simulated just a puny 100 billion neurons. That's *nothing* compare to this "most ambitious" million.

Another big influence in the market thinks differently. According to Microsoft: "Our view is it's our job to provide the technology and the content providers can tell us what kind of restrictions and policies they want to apply to that."

So Microsoft could choose to go a more flexible route with DRM. That might change the market. But I think we all know that's not going to happen.

On top of this, Forbes is reporting that this whole sorry episode didn't even help raise the number of people who watch the show. The good news is that the ratings haven't gone down either.

What are you talking about? I get a CD, rip it to mp3 or I buy an mp3 in digital store. Where is the difference?

There's no difference between the two in your scenario. The difference is you're buying music instead of "sharing" it from somewhere else.

What you say is not insightful, it is repeating the logical fallacy that brought us here!

Ahhh... bullshit. What I'm saying is what brought us to DRM. According to the music industry, they're not selling 90% of the music out there. The global piracy rates are anywhere from 25% to 92%.

Big Pharma doesn't want cures...

AmericaFree.TV offers a 50-50 advertising split to indy films as part of the IndyReels program; the money is already going out to ePremier's.

Of course, this is aimed at independent films, not just everyone's home video's.

Directly contradicting this story, I read the print edition of the Wall Street Journal (expensive subscription required) and it said that in point of fact - as also backed by articles in Fortune and Forbes - that Sony is losing the format war to HD-DVD, due to low adoption rates by pr0n providers, low sales of the PS3 consoles, and labels shunning the format. Perhaps if someone were prognosticating back in October 2007, such a forecast might have seemed reasonable, but the post-Christmas sales figures in the US and Japan as well as worldwide show that adoption rates are sub-par.

But, live in a dream world if you must.

Such anti-capitalist rant is pissing me off. So to argue against the parent's point, I'm going to actually counter him right here.

10 Richest people in (US according to Forbes - http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_ The-400-Richest-Americans_Rank.html)

1. Bill Gates
There is no doubt that personal computers have brought a revolution to mankind. And Bill Gates, has been instrumental in building a machine (http://www.microsoft.com) which has been instrumental in this market. (And I don't want to talk about his philanthropic efforts, because even without that his contribution has been more than anyone else I respect)

2. Warren Buffet
Investing in and cherry picking companies and industries which are worthy is an important element in market economy. It helps weed out the bad apples, and introduces an efficiency into the system. Buffet has created a legendary record in this field, and inspired a whole army of market players. This may not seem like contributing anything to the way a common man lives his life, but like the Sun is helping blossoming fruit bearing plants.

3. Sheldon Adelson
A self made man, who provides what other men need to entertain themselves. No, may not save life, but certainly makes it worthwhile.

4. Larry Ellison
What would I be using if there weren't an Oracle database (probably mysql or postgresql or even sqlite), some high cost product from IBM? Information age is based on the data flow life blood. Commoditization of databases, gives everyone cheaper infrastructure. (It also gives developers hierarchical queries :-))

5. Paul Allen
A key partner who founded Microsoft. (But living off selling Microsoft shares since?)

6. Jim Walton
Eats the fruits of his fathers efforts. But I am sure walmart has made everyones shopping affordable now?

7. Christy Walton
Hey what are these Walton kids eating so much for? I wonder how much did the frickin' government of USA eat on Walton's death?

8. Robson Walton
Three is a strike. I propose raising estate taxes to 70% excluding one decent home for the kids.

9. Michael Dell
Fourth chap in this list from the Information age. I love cheaper p.c.'s and rhyming with Hell figured out how to get them to me. Sadly I prefer AMD chips, which he never used to sell before ... But still lots of lives are saved here.

10. Alice Walton
Did Old man Walton give anything to charity at all?

So, about half the people on the list deservedly need to be respected for the way they came from humble beginnings to contribute so much. And other half are due to Sam old man Walton who might have unceremoniously departed before he could have thought about charity or some other social contribution. But hey all the bucks that even he accumulated and left for his bounty litter, must be spent and given back to the society, or invested in it to make more of it, right?

The geek's perception of the home market is dim:

The Retail Advertising and Marketing Association estimates 2.5 million people will buy new televisions before Super Sunday, an increase of 47 percent from last year... The survey did not break down what percent of new televisions purchased are expected to be HDTVs, but retailers reported double-digit increases in sales of the high-end sets in recent months. Super Snap: HDTV Sales Seen Rising

Once they've seen a football game or blockbuster movie in high def, it's tough for many to go back to their analog or digital broadcasts.
Vance Pflanz, owner of Pflanz Electronics, recalls the amazement of one customer who bought a high-def set last fall. He returned to the store a couple of days later to report that he saw a gum wrapper underneath a bench in a World Series dugout on his screen and he could actually read W-R-I-G-L-E-Y-S on the wrapper.
"I think sports probably does more for high-definition programming than any other programming source because when you're watching a football game, you can see the individual blades of grass." HDTV sales fuel demand for high-def programming

Time Warner Cable is hurrying to make sure about 1,000 Triangle customers can bask in the glow of high-definition television during this year's Super Bowl.
Unprecedented demand for high-definition service led to a shortage of set-top boxes and a waiting list of about 1,000 customers.
Since Dec. 1, Time Warner's Raleigh division fielded 11,000 orders for high-definition service, nearly three times the number received in December and January a year ago. Time Warner rushes HD boxes

Now I doubt this is going to go over will on /. but when I was in university we noted a - completely non-scientific - pattern that I'll try to sum up as succinctly as possible:

'Those who want to work for someone else go into engineering/IT; those who want others to work for them go into the arts.'

If you don't believe me go check out the Forbes 500 richest people list and see how many of them either dropped out or have liberal arts degrees. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2003/02/26/billionaire land.html

Now excuse my while I go round up some flame-retardant clothing.

S.

>Most CEOs are former SALESMEN. Check out their careers.

I agree this is the most common path for CEOs. To reach CEO you have to make a lot of alliances and sell a lot of B.S. to everyone about the company even when the compnay is in bad shape. In a perfect world, rational, clear thinking, no nonsense people would be CEOs. But to get noticed the need to have lots of face time with other "visionaries" and B.S. ers. Hence it mainly a culture problem.
Take a look at John Swainson. While CA was screwed up before John became CEO, John has taken it to new lows.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_arc hive/2006/11/27/8394334/index.htm

Notice that his background is in guess what "sales".
http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/personi nfo/FromPersonIdPersonTearsheet.jhtml?passedPerson Id=940473

What CA needs is someone who founded thier own company at some point. Someone who knows how to analize and fix real problems and not just make empty statements about how the company will grow. But hey as long as the majority stock holders are Wall Street Mutal Funds, he only has to suck up to them to get by.

Are you joking? Take Verizon, for instance. The CEO makes $11.5 million. Annual operating revenue that year was on the order of $75 billion. Or in other words, 0.015% of revenue went to pay the CEO's salary. It's a pittance compared to their income, and he's the most important damn person in the company.

Of course corporations are greedy. That's unquestioned; they're supposed to be greedy. But CEO income has practically nothing to do with it. It's a minuscule fraction of money spent.

People may not perform selfless acts just for an emotional reward, a new brain study suggests.

Instead, they may do good because they're acutely tuned into the needs and actions of others.

"Perhaps altruism did not grow out of a warm-glow feeling of doing good for others, but out of the simple recognition that that thing over there is a person that has intentions and goals. And therefore, I might want to treat them like I might want them to treat myself," explained study author Scott Huettel, an associate professor of psychology at Duke University Medical Center, in Durham, N.C. ... For decades, psychologists and neuroscientists have puzzled over the tendency of humans to engage in altruistic acts -- defined by Huettel's group as acts "that intentionally benefit another organism, incur no direct personal benefit, and sometimes bear a personal cost." [emphasis mine]

In plain English, the part of you responsible for selfish behavior is not the same as the part of you responsible for altruistic behavior. Altruistic people really are helping others to help others rather than to just feel good about themselves or get something in return. I'd recommend reading the entire Forbes article on it, it's a pretty good read.

Digital music sales are flagging? Looks to me like they're still growing.

What the linked article doesn't tell you is that they're counting all music sales - not just online store sales. Overall, music sales are still falling, and the increase in digital music sales isn't offsetting the collapse of CD sales. Record companies are looking for anyhting that will open the field up and get people to start spending money on any delivery format for music.

Of course, don't tell the astroturfers who write articles like this. You might bring them a little too close to reality.

Digital Music Sales Doubled in 2006

Digital Music sales to more than double in the next five years

I'm sure Steve's influence on the company's success is overrated. They did just fine without him, launching many successful products under the wise leadership of their brilliant interim CEOs.

Imagine if that $53,000,000 had been distributed among the employees as a company-wide bonus.

Goldman handed out $16.5 billion in total compensation to 22,000 employees worldwide. I'm pretty sure that while no one would turn down an extra $2400 (about $1500 after taxes), it's not going to matter much to them either way.

What software invention cost "billions" in R&D. I don't believe there are any.

Forbes says that:

In 2002, IBM spent $4.75 billion on research and development. That's more, in dollars, than Microsoft, Intel, Hewlett-Packard and Sun Microsystems.

Infoworld says:

IBM filed more patent applications than any other company with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in 2005 to once again lead the annual ranking put out by the U.S. Department of Commerce office.

The company filed for 2,941 patents in 2005, which is down from 3,248 applications in 2004 but still well ahead of second-ranked Canon, which filed 1,828 applications,

Assuming the figures don't change too much annually, the average cost of an IBM patent is about $1.5M per patent. And IBM is a hardware company. I'm confident if you looked at software patents alone, that figure would be a lot less.

I thought I read a statistic somewhere that the Porn Industry's revinues were as large as the Movie, Music and Videogame industries' revinues combined;

From http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/1030/104_print.h tml:

"though he styles himself as a crusader for tech "freedom," Stallman labors mightily to control how others think, speak and act, arguing, in Orwellian doublespeak, that his rules are necessary for people to be "free." He won't speak to reporters unless they agree to call the operating system "GNU/Linux," not Linux."