I love my MacBook Pro. I'm a Unix lover who get a Mac to play with OS X, loved it, and now have 15 of them for my company. They make great gear, and while I have frustations with aspects of the OS, it is pretty easy to administer and its a good machine.
That said, I have a Windows machine next to my Mac at the office, on it I run Quickbooks... While Quickbooks for Macintosh does exist now (it didn't when we started the business), I don't have a guarantee of migrating all my years of data, my payroll information (I use Intuit's integrated Payroll), but more than that, all my custom QB SDK Excel/VBA code might not come over, and third party addons like QODBC won't exist. In other words, I have a Windows machine around for 1 application.
When I go out of town, I used to use VPC to run Quickbooks if needed, I have also played with GoToMyPC, but that scares me on a computer with sensitive information.
Why does this matter?
Well, we're upgrading the home office, and there is a decision to make. Do we get a Windows machine, making it easier for my wife to work from home and we can both play games on there if we want (she's a Roller Coaster Tycoon nut), and I bring home my laptop to work from home, or do we get an OS X machine making it easier on me to have all my work applications. Do we have both and the cabling/setup nightmare? We were considering the latter... which meant a decent Windows machine for gaming, and a Mac Mini if I need to work from home to conserve space... I would have spent a decent amount on hardware, but not with Apple.
However, that decision is gone now. Assuming I hold out for the Mac Pro Towers, I can buy a beefy Apple computer and we can boot into Windows as needed. Otherwise, I can buy an iMac now and get something decent, but one monitor just seems too limiting.
So, instead of $1500 on Windows Computer + $750 on Apple Computer stuff, we'll probably spend $2000 on Apple Computer stuff
We know Apple's margins are higher as you move up the food chain, so getting 4 times the revenue from me may be 8 times the gross margins.
Forget selling Apple computers to Windows users, while it will happen, it won't be huge... OTOH, if they grab 2% of the computer market from upper-income Windows users that like Apple hardware, that would increase their computer business 50%. My Mom wants a Mac and has for years, but her billing software is Windows only, so she gets Windows computers that she hates. I wouldn't be shocked to see an iMac in her home office within the next 6 months.
So, if Mac Faithful = 2.5% of the market, recent switchers are 1% of the market, Windows users wanting Apple hardware are 2% of the market, Apple has doubled their marketshare over 8 years. On top of that, they make more money selling beefier machines to people that no longer need two, and there you go.
Dumping OS X for Windows is stupid, OS X is a competitive advantage, it lets them charge premium prices for a premium machine. However, if the customers want to buy something... sell it to them.
Gay men are statistically more likely to have AIDS than straight men. Okay, call it 45% of the cases are gay, and call the gay community 4.5% of the population. HIV and AIDS remain much more prevalent in the gay community, in part because of transmission rates.
My point was that statistically speaking there are people MORE likely to encounter HIV, and people that are LESS likely to encounter HIV.
With a high cost of prevention, you will get more bang for your buck in areas with higher concentrations of usage.
I have no idea if the minor genetic differences between blacks and whites make transmission more likely (i.e. is there a genetic combination that disproportionately comes up either community that makes transmission easier/harder), or the more likely a matter of social factors where slightly higher rates of risky behavior cause a skew in the distribution.
How is that bigotted? A small percentage of the population, the percentage that engages in gay sex, forms a LARGE block of the cases, and my suggestion that segments of that population are higher risk?
Are you suggestion that the "urban gay partier" is not a demographic? I don't suggest that it is a majority of the gay demographic, but is likely a minority that is high risk. The "urban heterosexual partier" is also a demographic, and a minority of the heterosexual demographic, but remains low risk.
The distribution of HIV in America is NOT at all evenly distributed, which suggests that some combination of biological and social factors (perhaps 0% and 100%, but nonetheless there are factors) causes the distribution to skew.
To stop a communicable disease, targetting the high risk factor groupings makes more sense.
Suggesting that every American pop AIDS pills to prevent the spread is a non-starter, but certain communities may make sense to subsidize to stop the spread.
Look, it was a big deal a few years ago when straight people hit the 50% make of HIV infections in the US, hit as high in the upper 50s, and then saw a rise in the gay community. Some speculated that while the 50% mark made it easier to sell AIDS as a problem for everyone, not just the gay community, it also caused the gay community to take their eye off the ball.
Regardless, say 50% of the AIDS cases are in the male gay community. The male gay community is between 1.5% and 3.5% of the US population. That means that 2.5% of the population is responsible for 50% of the cases, and 97.5% is responsible for the other 50%.
AIDS remains a GAY problem, because you are 40x more likely to contract AIDS in the gay community. A single, moderate income gay man in an urban area may be more than happy to spend $1,000/mo. from his disposable income to engage in this behavior. In urban areas, the heterosexual community is rarely focused on future financial planning and preparing for children, I can't imagine that the gay community is MORE focused away from hedonism then their straight neighbors.
That said, can you get AIDS from heterosexual sex? Of course, but not likely. The transmission rate from a man to a woman via vaginal sex is a fraction of the rate from anal sex... less than half. And the transmission rate from a woman to a man via vaginal sex is EXTREMELY low.
What does this mean? A man having sex on occaision with a prostitute is mathematically unlikely to catch HIV, but if he does, it is more likely that he passes it to his wife than it was that he got it. However, that same prostitute has a decent chance of getting HIV if a few of her customers have it.
In addition, a man having sex with a prostitute no doubt will add 1-3 additional sexual partners. A woman working as a prostitute will have from 2-12 partners/DAY.
The fact is, there are areas where the return from the drugs may play a benefit to society. Keeping prostitutes from getting HIV could have a HUGE impact on the culture at large. While a VERY small percentage of men go to prostitutes, if you figure that each prostitute has sex with 25 men/week (a low figure) and a 4% transmission rate, then each HIV-postiive prostitute infects one straight male each week. If half of those men are married or otherwise having sex with a partner regularly, then they WILL infect their wife/partner over time, as the transmission rate is around 20%-30%.
So an HIV positive prostitute will cause 1.5 additional infections per week, MINIMUM, assuming that the client and their spouse/partner DOESN'T commit any additional infidelities.
At under $1000/mo./prositute, I bet it is a positive return to give the drug away. When an infected Prostitute causes 75 infections, even if we assume that each case only bleeds the government for $10k (the rest borne by private insurance), avoiding an infected prostitute saves you 750,000/year. At less than $12,000/year for the prevention, if we assume that 1/60 prostitutes is invected, then we spend less than $720,000 to save $750,000 in treatment.... Each saved life is a bonus!
My point is, normal single straight person that has 1-4 partners a year probably won't cough up $1k/month to reduce their already low risk. Extremely sexually active gay male with 4+ partners a month probably will. Gay man in monogamous relationship or in a normal dating patter, 1-3 partners/year probably will. Woman working as a prostitute SHOULD do so, but can't afford it, but might be targetted by a government that wants to stop the spread.
There are people that will cough up the money, or at least should, and areas where society would benefit from doing so, but no, the general population need not be on permenant AIDS treatment.
It isn't a 501(c)3, so it isn't going to get "donations." And I'm thrilled that you give $50/year, I buy 2-4 CDs whenever I am doing an OpenBSD project, every 6-18 months. And guess what, your $50 didn't determine the continuation of the project in 1999, and wouldn't today. $50 just doesn't go that far.
I donate to charity, and purchase goods and services from busiensses. Which is OpenBSD? In fact, I don't see how a company would sue you because they purchased a "commercial license" under the BSD and more than they now could sue you for "selling" them "free" software.
There is no fraud, they can buy the good or service, or not.
Theo wants to have it both ways. He doesn't want to run a business and offer a good or service, and he doesn't want to run a charity. He wants to code what he wants and answer to nobody and get checks made out to him. Good for him if it works, but I don't have a moral obligation to support Theo.
I pay RedHat a per-server fee, and they run a massive system of updates. OpenBSD won't ever provide binary patches against the last known version of the OS. There is a lot lacking in the service department that someone connected to OpenBSD could roll-up and easily collect the same $300/server that RedHat does.
However, Theo's approach ISN'T working, or this article wouldn't happen, and to expect the projects that fundraise better to give him money is a bit absurd.
I hope this works out for him, as his software is great, but the customer service blows, and he doesn't offer a service that I know that I would pay more for, and others likely would as well. You can frame this however you want, but I don't cut checks out of my corporate account without a receipt to back them up, and I can't imagine that I'm the only one.
Ya know what would be nice? Making it easy for businesses AND individuals to contribute. If they don't want to be a business, fine, get the 501(c)3 status in the US and let people make tax deductable donations. Writing a check to Theo's personal account doesn't get considered as part of my charitable giving. I also by a few CDs with each release or two, whenever I'm ready to do another OpenBSD project...
And guess what, the project makes me feel like a sucker... because usually whoever is shipping CDs is out of town, and they don't go out for 2-3 weeks, meanwhile, people have been downloading for free and I'm waitting for my CDs...
You want businesses to pay more that use it? How about selling a business "OpenBSD license" that provides us X copies for some price on a per-server (or per-CPU license) under the BSD. Is it a joke, sure, because given 1 personal copy, I have a license to use it however I want. But if you sell me 5 $299 licenses, I can write it off as $1500 in software purchases. Alternatively, I could donate $1500, but then I can't write it off... This is rough on me as a small business owner, for no reason. A receipt for the purchase would help...
However, asking for non-tax deductable donations is a non-starter. If I was an IT grunt in the field, knowing that I could buy a CD for the $20 or $30 and use it without effort (or download), but if I want to contribute, I could generate an online invoice and bring it to A/P.
In that case, the geeks LOVE that they start the project immediately, and maybe the "invoice" gets paid, and maybe it doesn't. There is no loser in this scenario, but it would require the OpenBSD project to understand the people that they want money from and find a way to make it easy on us to give it to them.
When dealing with a computer problem, I look for 8 solutions. When my wife wants my help with housework, she's learned that the trick is to give me "explicit" instructions, without multiple paths. Likewise, when she is doing something on the computer, once she learns an approach, she normally keeps doing it without considering other options.
It's not about being old or slow, it's about "do you care about this?"
She likes to cook, she'll work on 10 different ways to make a chicken and rice meal. I can make rice, only because she told me what to do once. BTW: while I'm sure there is a way to make rice in the microwave, I've never explored it, and in fact, I use the same pot each time.
If you don't care to "learn" how something works, you develop a process. I have no interest in learning how to cook, so I don't learn options, I just learn what to do.
You are interested in computers, therefore, you find a path. I bet when it comes to laundry, someone taught you how to wash your shirts once, and you've never experimented with different combinations of hanging the clothes to dry or running the dryer, have you? My mom could teach you all the ways to make different types of shirts require more/less ironing and different levels of softness, but I don't care. In college, I memorized settings for each shirt type, and never experimented.
Stocks grow faster than real estate, but with more volitility, and depending on your views of CAPM, that explains it or doesn't...
That said, when you buy real estate, going 500% long (putting 20% down) is EXTREMELY conservative, and 1000% long is extremely common, even in business settings.
In the stock market, you can at MOST go 200% long.
In addition, the cost of capital (borrowing the money) is MUCH higher for stocks... You might be paying 7% or 8% of Margin Interest, vs. 6.5% on mortgage interest.
Basically, the stock market DOES outperform real estate significantly... but it doesn't...
In the long run, the "risk-free rate" is something like 4.5% with inflation of 3% (there are the gold standard years or 0%, plus hyper inflation, but whatever)...
Long run rates:
Inflation: 3% Risk Free: 1.5% over inflation Real Estate:.5% over inflation Stock Market: 8% over inflation (depending on time periods viewed of course)
So while the stock market looks good...
$1 invested in the stock market makes 8 cents in year 1 after inflation, or 11 cents if we went 200% long and paid our margin rate...
$1 invested in real estate BOUGHT $10 of real estate, each of which grow by 3.5% before inflation, so we made 35 cents, lost 3 of them to inflation, and ended up 32 cents, so we made a 32% return. This requires ONE HUGE assumption, we were able to collect in rent enough from the real estate to cover the "holding costs" taxes + interest. If we don't, our return goes WAY down.
Real Estate does out perform the stock market, because it is lower risk and people give you money at lower rates...
Without going too math heavy, there is a reason Wall Street hates volatility. While its true that 15 years ago, Wall Street made money from brokerage commissions, the main money maker is now asset management fees, etc... It used to be a fortune to do a trade on the street, now its $19.95 (or $7 with some deep discount brokerages).... that's not where the money is.
If they manage an account and collect 1% as a fee, then the larger that account gets, they better they do. Now they could outperform the market to make extra money, but with only 1%, that's too much work. Market growth is the easiest way to grow.
Also, there are two ways to grow a companies's stock (assuming you believe that earnings matter in the long run), increase the underlying company's earnings (but that's work), or increase the P/E ratio (or FCF, or whatever ratio you like).
The assumption is that the price of the stock today is the NPV of all future cash flows (or dividends, which is theoretically the same but a harder model in the real world)...
So to increase the value of the stock, you can increase future cash flows (work), or decrease the discount factor...
Well, since most models of stock valuation demonstrate that Beta is a decent indicator of the "risk premium" (basically, discount factor = risk free rate (treasury bills) + Beta * (market premium)), so if we want to decrease the discount factor, we can decrease the rate of the treasury bill (out of our control), decrease the market premium, (out of our control), or decrease the Beta.
If Wall Street convinces Google to disclose more which reduces volitility (an interesting assumption, but let's pretend), then Beta goes down, discount factor goes down, and Google's stock price goes up...
With Magic, we've created value, our asset holding fees go up, we get a huge bonus, and most importantly, nobody had to do any ACTUALY work (like increase earnings) to get it done!
Radio Shack still cells things for tinkerers, but it moved from the entire back wall to a small chest... Things like transistors, buzzers, etc... They used to sell manuals, kits, and the parts, now just the parts... Sure the Internet made stuff available, but my dad and I did the kits together, and bread-boarded a few fun projects... they could sell projects...
Those are high margin products, have you ever bought a little item there, it is something like $4-$5... a small do-it-yourself crystal radio would cost $40-$50 in parts... that's not low margin, it's low volume.
Instead they went into mediocre markets... They either should have withdrawn from malls to focus on projects, or focused on things that would sell in malls... Computer games, RC cars, etc., all should sell in a mall. Satellite systems and cel phones? I guess cell phones, but the kiosk in the hallway competes with you!
Also, being a Sprint store was stupid once Sprint entered the market, they used to be THE store for Sprint, then Sprint opened their own stores. Radio Shack SHOULD be the neutral providers, but only carrying Sprint (and now Sprint/Cingular) and only carrying Dish (instead of DirecTV/Dish) they aren't the "we got answers" people...
If they carried all providers and were open about the minor differences, they'd have a niche... but they don't.
Good luck, you were a terrific company, I loved the 150-in-one and 200-in-one kits. My cousin worked for you for 15 years... I hope the company finds its roots and grows profitability.
Basically, Bush's proposal, while horribly explained, wasn't what you described at all. It WASN'T supported by Wall Street, Wall Street HATED the idea of being forced into managing accounts for a government program managing $1000-$5000 accounts. Wall Street "fat cats" don't like to handle less than $100,000, although recently they seem more willing to handle 10k-25k to get people in the door. A government regulated investment program basically allowing them to offer low-fee balanced mutual funds isn't terribly interesting to them.
Bush's proposal was straight out, we cut social security to a realistic figure. The personal savings accounts that he pushed HAD nothing to do with solvency.
The idea, hatched from think tanks was: 1) cut future benefits to bring the program to solvency. 2) offer people something in return for accepting the bitter medicine, and 3) keep the government from owning private industry and becoming a fascist regime...:)
Clinton proposed investing Social Security in the market, and the Republicans justifiably screamed from an ideological point. The notion of the government taking tax money and investing in private enterprise would make the government "pick winners and losers" in the market, warping the capital markets. The idea of the better rate of return seems to make sense, instead of realizing that buying shares in companies gives you a say in how they run... and even if the government didn't vote their shares, it would warp capital markets. More capital chasing the same amount of business (and pulling it out of the economy via taxes and shoving into a government account is a straight transfer), would increase demand for stock through government policy, which would increase prices, which by definition lowers the expected rate of future returns. Essentially, any government backed investment program does, to some extent, create a government required economic advantage to being an American publicly traded company (cheaper access to capital), which warps markets.
Also, the program ISN'T solvent... Sure the "trust fund" is there, but it basically is a transfer payment. When the government stops taking the social security surplus and has a social security deficit (paying back the debt as it is redeemed), then the government needs to either raise revenues (taxes) or cut spending, or increase borrowing to cover that short fall. Since the government deficit ignores the surplus taken from social security, there isn't even political pressure to not expect that money. The change from 16 workers/retiree to 2.4 works/retiree is problematic, and will require a MASSIVE change in how the program works, or else a revolt of younger workers who can't outvote the retirees/near-retirees... it'll be a disaster.
The private accounts were always meant to be optional, and would HAVE to be. Making them mandatory (although, eventually you could have a mandatory investment into treasury bonds, which would be effectively the same thing as social security but without letting the government play accounting games) would defeat the purpose because of the objection to warping markets.
The idea was, cut benefits, but let workers opt out. Assuming that they earn a better return, matching historical market returns, then they will end up with "about as much money," maybe a bit more, than the current system calls for while eliminating the current problem of social security going into the red. Basically, private accounts were not part of solvency, but would improve the government balance sheet (not actually kept or reported) by reducing future liabilities. The whole idea of retirement accounts was for every dollar you put in, you would lose the future value of the dollar in benefits down the road. So in the long-term, it was a balance sheet neutral operation, but hurt government cash flows (more borrowing now because cash flow from social security would drop) in the short term.
It was terribly confusing, but most neo-conservative economic ideas are...
It's not as simple as you say, and disregarding all those that oppose you as fundamentalist or that it is "so simple" is insulting and prevents you from understanding other people. For example, one could oppose abortion on pragmatic grounds. For example, one could accept that fewer unwanted children should be born, but believes that legal abortion increases the unintended pregnancy rate by lowering the perceived cost of unprotected sex. One could also oppose abortion because they feel that the social costs of legalized abortion outway the social benefits. One could also oppose abortion because from a truly Lockean Social Contract (Declaration of Independence has many rip-offs from Locke's Second Tristise), believe in a limited state (your rights end where mine begin), and believe that once formed as a human being, the unborn human has a right to life that cannot be "choiced" away.
Notice I made three arguments without invoking G-d that would all allow one to have a completely secular opposition to abortion.
Yet you stated, "There's no position, secular or religious, that can argue a woman's rights to her body are less important than a microscopic drop of unconscious, totipotent DNA. No way around it. You can only win this argument by invoking God."
One of the biggest risks to civil discourse in this country, on both sides, has been watch SO MANY major issues devolve into name calling.
I'm not going to get into an abortion debate, and my views on the criminalization of abortion or a constitutional choice to privacy in the affairs on ones body are none of your business. However, your assertion that there are no views on the opposing side other than your strawman is dangerous. There is a reason that support for abortion has dropped in recent polls from 67% to around 55% in the past 8 years... and I'll give you a hint, it isn't 33% of America being fundamentalist Christians growing to 45%... but the sheer shrillness of abortion rights supporters in their demonization of their opponents have certainly helped increase it.
Once upon a time, in the late 90s, the voices defending abortion were reasonable and the voices opposing them were religious nut-jobs. Well, 8 years later, the voices on the left scream about abortion as though it was the ONLY thing that mattered to Americans, pro-choice rallies involve increasingly nutty people with T-shirts that say "it's a nice day, I think I'll have an abortion," and pretty soon, people say a pox on both your houses.
Hilary Clinton seems to be the only pro-choice politician that realizes that celebrating abortions (as certain NARAL spokespeople have, suggesting that each abortion brings 1-2 voters permanently into their camp for having their life saved) makes people uncomfortable. Sure there is a "pro-abortion" group that celebrates abortions, but I assume that they are 5% of the population. There is also the militant "anti-abortion" crew that believes abortion = murder and supports clinic bombing, etc... but I assume that they are also small.
But there is a LARGE middle group that realizes that banning abortions would be problematic to say the least, is sympathetic to a single, poor woman that became pregnant and can't afford motherhood, but isn't thrilled with either the glamorization of abortion OR some of the comments. For example, look at your description of a future human life... To any parent or expecting parent, they remember those ultra-sound pictures, and you just characterized their child (or future child) as having been "a microscopic drop of unconscious, totipotent DNA," which isn't very nice.
There are legit arguments on both sides, and it isn't a comfortable issue for people on ANY side... but the more those on the "Pro-Life" crowd seem like reasonable church-going people, and those on the "Pro-choice" side seem like raving lunatics, the more the public will turn against abortion rights... And once the anti-abortion wing becomes the majority, the litmus test on judges will become even less tenable than before, and you'll see right-wing court appointees that make Roberts and Alito seem light communist hippies...
Are you kidding, the current disarray in the Democratic Party STEMS from the illegitimate President thing. In 2000, it was a STRANGE election... not the first split in the popular/electoral vote, but the first one in a hundred years. The media went bonkers because everyone nominally remembers how elections work from high school, but never really thought about it.
However, the GOP benefited from this because Bush held all the levers of power, and "legitimacy" isn't terribly relevant when it comes to Presidential powers when your own party controls Congress. Bush basically spent two years rolling the Democrats on the Hill because they decided that instead of being a constructive opposition party, they would spend two years talking about the election.
The GOP base was (and remains) convinced that Bush won the election and the Democrats were trying to steal it. The Democrats maintain that they won and the Supreme Court stole it... What happened on election day 2000? Who the hell knows, it was a tie, within the margin of error of the counting apparatus in Florida... and the Florida legislature was going to send their own slate of electors... If that happens, the House and Senate vote on which slate to accept. The House (under GOP control) votes for Bush's slate, the Senate votes on party lines 50-50 and Al Gore as VP casts the tie-breaker for the Gore slate (that's legitimate... not a neutral VP in ANY sense), and the tie-breaker? Whichever slate was signed by the Governor of the state, Jeb Bush... In the end, ALL the Supreme Court did was prevent the US from looking like a total Banana Republic with the President-Elect being decided by a tie-breaker coming down to his brother...
However, when the Democrats spent two years complaining about a fluke election result, the GOP trounced them in 2002 (opposition is supposed to win mid-term elections), and you see the current situation.
So remind us WHY the GOP cares about the illegit Pres. issue?
I have a MacBook on order. My 3.5 year old Powerbook has been needing an upgrade for about 9 months, but its been hard to justify $3k + 1 week configuring a new machine for only a 50% speed up. So there I was in limbo. Is this the PERFECT Mac laptop? Absolutely not, but its a shipping Intel laptop, "6 months early."
Look at the Intel line-up. They offer an iMac and a MacBook on Intel, AND EVERYTHING on PowerPC. The video guys have been howling that the MacBook isn't perfect for them without FW800... Well guess what, Rev A isn't for you.
The pro-graphics/pro-video crowd isn't going to migrate until software has native support... Rosetta won't cut it for them, even Steve Jobs SAID SO in the KEYNOTE... that's an anti-sell.
However, they needed to get Intel machines out the door. Dev machines are great for big partners who wanted to get an early start, but until hardware ships, you can't QA your product. Your developers COULD have ported the code as needed over the past 6 months, but how do you QA a product without the release version.
This is a KEY release... 1) developers now have to get their asses in gear and finish the migration, because Intel gear is here. 2) development houses have shipping hardware to test against, and 3) developers have real gear to work with.
So many Mac developers carry Powerbooks. Having the iMac and MacBook gives developers machines to work on and QA teams machines to test on. The PowerMac hasn't been upgrades and won't for a while... Why? Until Adobe/Macromedia, Quark, and Apple's pro-divisions upgrade their software, there is no reason for pros to migrate. Also, the dual-dual G5s are REALLY REALLY fast, and compete with the top end of the Intel world. Until Intel ships their 64-bit versions of these chips, there isn't a reason to switch.
I wouldn't be overly shocked if FW800 goes away (with addon cards for those with the gear), but until a USB 3 can provide the bandwidth, the video guys aren't going to be happy. However, I also wouldn't be shocked at a MacBook rev in 6 months, introducing the MacBook and MacBook Pro lines, with the former being mostly stock Intel to replace the iBook, and the latter having the high end gear that the video guys need.
However, I need a MacBook NOW. All my internal applications are currently PPC only, and we need to start the transition. As our apps are for internal use, it didn't seem important to rush the job with the dev machines, we figured Rev A gets us going, and with Rev B of the Intel machines, we'll switch. We already migrated our internal machines from iMacs (in the G4 era) to Mac Minis w/ Apple Monitors, so that if we decide to NOT support dual-platforms, we can cheaply forklift each station at $500/station.
But no shipping Intel hardware means nobody doing the ports and QAs that you video guys want done BEFORE YOUR hardware is released.
Remember, those of us that program for OS X need to get our machines BEFORE YOU, or there is NO SOFTWARE for you to run on your new video machines.:)
Michael Dell is a HUGE figure in B-school, because he turned supply-chain management on its head. He took a business that was becoming a commodity, COMPLETELY commoditized it, and makes money while squeezing everyone else out.
He gets LOTS of coverage... in the business press.
Apple is arguably the most innovative company in consumer computer technology. The CORE focus on the mainstream "technology" press is the consumer computer technology. Therefore, Apple gets covered.
Note: celebrities get lots of coverage in lifestyle, but not the business section.
Very few companies play in the consumer tech space, Apple is one of them, Apple gets coverage. Other players, Sony, Symantec, anti-spyware company of the week, etc. Apple is a $6b company, which isn't small. I don't understand how on Slashdot a multi-billion dollar company in the top 200 of the Fortune 500 list gets treated like its a 5 man company in their garage, while treating random $5m tech company like a global dominating force.
I suppose you don't keep Kosher or no anybody that does. I can travel to any country that has a large enough Jewish population to support financially viable Kosher supervision, and can eat food knowing that it is up to my standards. In the US, most dry foods are up to Kosher standards and thus supervised. We have our own network of butchers that follow Jewish law.
The point of this comment?
The Jewish community in America is well less than 2% of the population, and the percentage of American Jews that keep Kosher is less than 25% of that population. So if.5% of the American population can maintain a private standards certification system, why can't the other 99.5%? Should be sufficiently large market to support 5-10 such organizations without trouble. In fact, the extremely small organic market had third party supervision, until the FDA got into the act and created garbage standards supported by agri-business that more or less shut down the organic food market.
Government run solutions aren't the only possible ones, but once the government gets involved, it tends to crowd out all other players, lowering the standards.
How do you get food from anywhere in the Kosher world? Reciprocity and web of trusts. Each Orthodox synagogue has a list of "approved" Kosher symbols, that means that the Rav of the Shul, or someone that they trust, has verified the standards of that supervising organization.
In fact, it would be even EASIER in the rest of the marketplace, because Kashrut in Judaism has been taken into the province of the Rabbis, who can avoid scrutiny because of religious credentials. A neutral third-party supervisory organization wouldn't have that shield, and people could choose the level of safety (and therefore price) desired.
8 Years ago, Microsoft made a groupware/mail client for Exchange Server called, Exchange Client. With Office 95, they decided to add limited POP3 support (and IMAP at the time, or IMAP in Outlook 97 or 98, I forget) and bundle it with office. Outlook was a result of a turf war between the Office people, wanting to get control of contact information to make their bundle of applications more powerful, and the Exchange people that wanted their MAPI client to be exchange specific.
Meanwhile, the Internet team that did IE wanted a free mail client, and didn't seem able to get along with the other groups. Given that the Internet got HOT and they were the hot division, even without making money, it makes sense that the Exchange group wasn't thrilled at their crown jewels being used for free stuff, and the Office Group didn't want to play nice either.
So they bought someone's basic email system, hacked it to look more like Outlook, bundled more COM components (making it mostly scripting-compatible with Outlook) and called it Outlook Express?
Why? Because people that used Outlook knew that it was the BEST office email application (because of the calendar/address book and other support), so they extended the Outlook "brand" by borrowing the name, not borrowing the code.
What happened to Outlook? Well, just as the Exchange team feared, more focus was on the IMAP/standards approach and less focus was on the MAPI side... You can now replace most of the Exchange functionality with open standard solutions.
Great for users... greats for Office sales (upgrading Office becomes a part of the reason to upgrade Office... lots of NICE collaboration features), and Exchange needs to compete on the server side.
When your client was MUCH better than anyone else's, you could put functionality in the client to sell the server piece. When everyone can use YOUR client, you have to compete on the server side. As a result, Exchange's BIGGEST selling point is the integration with AD and SQL Server (through AD), etc.
If Sony gets movies out in Blu-Ray quickly, then Blu-Ray will take off. Enough PS3/HDTV owners will buy a few discs, which will give them an "investment" in the platform, and avoid HD-DVD unless multi-format players happen...
Microsoft's support would mean something... if they shipped the XBO 360 with the devices, but they didn't... Microsoft's support is meaningless, because they don't ship hardware. Short of them making their software refuse to play Blu-Ray, which seams unlikely with the EU/US DOJ still keeping an eye on them.
Apple however, is ironically a player in this space... because they ship Hardware AND Software. Apple support means that future machines from them will play the discs, because they will make the software work.
The biggest player in making this happen will be Sony, followed by Apple...
However, if Sony doesn't get Blue-Ray DVDs out there, then forget it, it'll die like Laserdisc... honestly, I LOVE my HDTV, and watching DVDs is often painful compared to a beautiful HDTV signal, but at the same time, I look at this as Laserdisc... not enough of a step up to get customers to replace old DVDs, which is ALL the studio cares for, and not enough of a step up to get a large chunk of the market to buy them instead.
If BR DVDs cost the same (or slightly more) than DVDs, sure, it would uptake, but what incentive do the studios have to master both sets in that case...
It'll be like DVD-Audio, SA CD, and Laserdisc... improvements that the market ignores because they aren't a MAJOR step up.
VHS was MUCH better than nothing. DVD was MUCH more convenient than VHS... BR... well, I think it will die on the vine... it will only succeed if there isn't a significant price differential, which will cause the studios to lose interest...
It's a shame, too.
That said, Sony putting out BR DVDs @ $19.99 from day one and "free" players in the PS3 and you have a market.
For the non-poker players, pot odds is (and this is over simplified so don't jump on me poker nuts) the concept that as the pot gets bigger, it is more likely worth calling.
For example, based upon betting and the cards I've seen, I have a 10% chance of winning. If I estimate that seeing the hand to completion will cost me $100, if the expected pot is $250, I should fold, but if it is $2500, I should call.
It is the reason that in fixed rate games (only a $3 raise, for example), folding is less common then in a "pot limit" or "no limit" game... In the former, after a few rounds of better, even a poor hand should stay in, because a hand that expects to lose (Long Tail people would disagree, and argue that the value of those minor entries are actually more valuable, which means competing goals...
I bought Keynote 1,0, despite not doing a huge number of presentations. For some presentations, it is MUCH better than PowerPoint, but for others, I use Powerpoint. It was $100, which isn't a major expenditure for my small company ( 10 employees). I then bought iWork to get the updated Keynote. Against, at $80, not a huge amount if it saves me 2-3 hours over the course of a year, and is a worthwhile tool.
In addition, I got to play with Pages, and while it isn't currently "there yet" it has some neat features. I played with it to see if it was viable, because I'm looking for an affordable solution for people that don't NEED Office, but it would be nice to have something better than TextEdit. So for a few bucks, I determined that it is one release from being usable, and I can use that to plan my roadmap. Instead of waiting on Open Office, or playing with Abiword, I decided that for most of my people, we'll limp along with TextEdit for now (limited Office installations) and adopted iWork. Those of us that need Excel/Word will have Office + iWork, but iWork 2.0 will likely be part of our standard office setup.
However, by releasing Keynote 1.0, I was able to buy it and decide if this was the direction I wanted to take. Then when the "better version" comes out in a year, I can decide if I am ready to buy 10 copies or not... same-thing with essentially bundling Pages 1.0 with Keynote 2.0 as a preview.
It is no secret that the 1.0 versions are a bit rough, but sometimes it is worth evaluating if switching software takes you a year to decide on. In the end, we get to preview where the App is going, and Apple gets us to cover the development costs. For me, it's often a win/win. For others, it isn't, so they shouldn't buy the 1.0 version.
A viable review should be able to determine 1) if the App in its current state is worthwhile, and 2) if it is moving in that direction, is it worth keeping an eye on. Software purchases aren't about "moral justice" (are they entitled to my money), but rather, does the current value of the software + my ability to see where it is going warrant the expenditure of my money. For some, the decision is yes, for others no, and for a third group it is, go play with it at the Apple store and then buy 2.0... all of which is enhanced by Apple choosing to release early, release often.
From 10-20 years ago, my folks bought hundreds of dollars of Legos for my brother and me. However, more were bought for me than him, because he had MY Legos, so he didn't need basic blocks, he needed specialized blocks. My wife and I are on the Lego mailing list, because we got nostalgic and can't wait to be playing with Legos with our children. However, I don't see us buying large numbers of generic pieces, I expect to grab the TUBS of Legos in my parent's attic for my children. Sure we'll buy new sets, but not the quantity that was bought for us.
Basically, the market for plastic basic blocks isn't a growing market, because the initial demand was huge, but later generations of fans will get their parent's stuff. So they need more stuff to upsell.
Your VP in charge of developing your next generation comes to you with to options: Option A) be a player in the EXTREMELY competitive market with Microsoft and Sony. Sony is one of the leading manufacturers of consumer electronics and can bring costs down EXTREMELY well. Microsoft seems to have a bumbling idiot running their home entertainment division, but has a CEO that decided that $1b-$2b/year in losses is a small price to pay to make an effort... Sony's manufacturing and distribution might makes them the lowest cost player, guaranteeing them the only profit IF the market is perfectly competitive (it isn't, but it's pretty damned competitive), and Microsoft is the highest cost player guaranteeing them a loss as the market becomes competitive, which should indicate that they will exit, but they have made it VERY clear that they won't.
Option B) play in a related market where the only competition is your hand held toys (the youth/family market), price matters heavily (so you need to cut your costs down), but there is effectively no competition so you don't need to sell at a loss.
Which market do YOU choose?
If you chose Option A, you should run Pets.com. If you chose Option B, then you effectively cornered a near-monopoly is a lucrative niche.
Remember, Nintendo is an ALL GAMES company. They aren't a small company (number 708 on Forbes's Global 2000) with almost $5b in sales and $300m in profits. However, Microsoft ranks at 47 with almost $40b in sales and $10b in profits. Sony ranks at #123 with over $70b in sales and $850 in profits.
What does this mean? Nintendo, last year during the Console R&D year (remember, GAAP and International Accounting Standards require R&D to be expenses as incurred, so the R&D year should be MUCH worse because all the sunk costs for the generation happen then), only made $350m. Sony, only $850m...
The market that Nintendo plays in is smaller than Sony or Microsoft, but it is profitable, they make decent margins (non obscene like Microsoft, but few companies do), and continue to make money with each generation. Marketshare matters less than profits... Microsoft made NO money in games, Sony and Nintendo did similarly profitwise in games (supposedly half of Sony's profits are Playstation related, meaning $425m)...
So let's rank the companies from last year... Sony Playstation Division: +$425m Nintendo (all divisions are games): $350m Microsoft Gaming Division: -$400m
Now, if Microsoft wasn't bleeding Sony's profits my selling at a loss, perhaps Sony would have made another $400m - $500m...
Being a monopolist is good. Being in a duopoly where the other player has decided that drain you of profits at all costs... not so good.
Generally, keep the data put into schemas for the areas that they function in... instead of 1 DB/app, you have 1 DB, and 1 schema/app. Doesn't seem like much of a difference, but you don't have lots of connections to different DBs, and your app's data can talk to each other WHEN stuff needs to trigger around.
Then, if you are getting hairy, create schemas for app-specific stuff. You can start by wrapping the main calls if needed (a SQL store-procedure that just calls the parent with SECURITY DEFINER) can help keep stuff clean. In this case, you may have app-specific optimizations, but they are all in one place, and talk to the "parent schema" which is still generic.
I am using PostgreSQL 7.4, although one machine in production is still 7.3. We don't have the resources to test and deploy a 8.1 migration at this time, but we are keeping an eye on it.
The 8.x series shows tremendous progress, but the 7.4 branch is stable and not undergoing major changes. When 8.x stabilizes, we'll consider a modernization project.
We moved from MySQL to PostgreSQL a few years ago, and couldn't be happier. The secret is to do it intelligently...
First, just do a straight port, get PostgreSQL running your MySQL data.
Buy a beefier server, because at this stage, PostgreSQL WILL be slower. For raw reading of simple databases (the old joke that MySQL isn't a real database isn't AS true anymore, but is in the ideas), MySQL is faster. PostgreSQL shines as you build more complicated system.
Second, use explain and start optimizing your system. MySQL develop tends to do series of queries, because the MySQL protocol is nearly "free." Doing 5 queries and doing the joins in the software in MySQL tends to be fast, but is REALLY slow in PostgreSQL. So start building more complicated queries using joins server side. At this stage, PostgreSQL catches up (or nearly so) with MySQL.
Third, learn PL/pgSQL. This lets you do a LOT of optimizations with triggers and functions. For example, if you need to look things up in 3 tables to get the Primary Keys, then query a third table, in MySQL you do 3 SELECTS, store the values in variables, then the final SELECT to get the data. In PostgreSQL that would be painfully slow (the connection costs kill you), so you do a massive join, which is okay if you have enough RAM and configure PostgreSQL to use it, but it sucks up memory. Then you build the PL/pgSQL function. This lets you do it the "old way" grabbing the data, keeping it in variables INSIDE the database, then doing the query. This is REALLY REALLY REALLY fast in PostgreSQL, keeps the RAM usage reasonable, etc. Sure you can throw 4-8 GBs at RAM cheaply, but when you start doing a bunch of really big JOINs and SORTs, you can't always get PostgreSQL to use it smartly.
Fourth, at triggers whereever possible. If you ever run a COUNT or other aggregate, re-think. For example, in a forum (trivial case, but fun), you may want to display the number of threads in a topic. Well, running a SELECT COUNT(*) on the threads JOIN topics will BE BALLS slow on PostgreSQL... HOWEVER, you instead do a trigger that keeps a count in the TOPIC called threads. You would do this in MySQL by having a second INSERT when you do a thread, but in PostgreSQL, you let the database handle it. ON INSERT to THREADS, find the topic and thread_count:= thread_count + 1; ON DELETE to THREADS, find the topic and thread_count:= thread_count - 1; It's trivial when you get the hang of it, but then your system is lightning fast.
Also, optimize your INSERTs. In areas where you currently check IF "is this already here" THEN UPDATE ELSE INSERT, you do that in stored Functions. function insert_or_update (values) that does an UPDATE and if it fails, INSERT, or otherwise does the logic server side.
Once you learn to do real database programming, even at the rudimentary level I described, PostgreSQL SCREAMS. If you are building web sites/web applications, they SCREAM. However, if you treat PostgreSQL the way most treat MySQL, as a data dump, you'll be miserable at the performance.
Final neat idea that we never implemented... but will one day. We were planning to use PL/php (there is a PL/perl) for a performance hack. For each major script that does a bunch of queries, even with optimizations, there is a final hack you COULD THEORETICALLY do... this is a hack, admittedly. Basically, instead of doing queries, define an associated array with all the data you want. In development, do a bunch of queries and put the data into the array, then process it. For optimization, move those queries to the server. Then you build the array in PL/php, serialize it, and return it as text. Now you call the PL/php function (SELECT get_FooPage_Info(page_identifier) that returns a text value, the serialized array. Now you have one database connection, it does ALL the work INSIDE the database process, and in PHP land, you just work off the array).
PostgreSQL is EXTREMELY powerful for areas where most people use
Sun working with BSD makes sense from a historical perspective as well. The original Sun OS was build on BSD, as Bill Joy, the technical founder was a big guy in the BSD world, and left to start Sun on BSD technology. Sun migrated from BSD to AT&T Unix after several releases.
As a result, their are probably elements of a BSD culture in Sun.
In addition, the GPL space makes it harder for a traditional software player to compete. The GPL makes sense for PURE hardware players (of which Sun is not, and in x86 space, it is REALLY tough to be a hardware player, only a few have done it, because Intel grabs the bulk of the profits leaving profits only for the most efficient manufacturers, and Dell dominates supply-chain management), as it elements the costs of software development... Dell wins in a GPL game, as costs come down from not paying for an OS, some of the savings get passed on to customers, some comes out as profits. Other players that don't dominate in supply chain issues aren't as well off.
In addition, the corporate GPL'd OS game is a services game. There is no real money in the OS license, so you have to sell support contracts. Now support contracts are high margin... IF YOU ARE REALLY GOOD. You have to be good enough that you don't have to do much on the support end... as each time support is used, your margins get eaten... it's an insurance model, and its a tough game to play.
The BSDs are more "corporate friendly," as the company can work with the BSD-core group to push up changes (otherwise you have to maintain forks, which is expensive, which doesn't really get you a competitive edge. So you have a financial incentive to push fixes upstream, but build add-ons or enhancements that you keep proprietary. In PostgreSQL and Apache, this works fine, as people develop these add-ons, they either release them to the world at large, in which case they are incorporated, or they keep them to themselves, and the core team has gotten a demo of what "can be done" for free... As Linux demonstrated, redoing known technology is SUBSTANTIALLY easier than building new technology.
Sun playing in BSD land makes a LOT of economic and cultural sense.
Slashdot Mirror
I love my MacBook Pro. I'm a Unix lover who get a Mac to play with OS X, loved it, and now have 15 of them for my company. They make great gear, and while I have frustations with aspects of the OS, it is pretty easy to administer and its a good machine.
That said, I have a Windows machine next to my Mac at the office, on it I run Quickbooks... While Quickbooks for Macintosh does exist now (it didn't when we started the business), I don't have a guarantee of migrating all my years of data, my payroll information (I use Intuit's integrated Payroll), but more than that, all my custom QB SDK Excel/VBA code might not come over, and third party addons like QODBC won't exist. In other words, I have a Windows machine around for 1 application.
When I go out of town, I used to use VPC to run Quickbooks if needed, I have also played with GoToMyPC, but that scares me on a computer with sensitive information.
Why does this matter?
Well, we're upgrading the home office, and there is a decision to make. Do we get a Windows machine, making it easier for my wife to work from home and we can both play games on there if we want (she's a Roller Coaster Tycoon nut), and I bring home my laptop to work from home, or do we get an OS X machine making it easier on me to have all my work applications. Do we have both and the cabling/setup nightmare? We were considering the latter... which meant a decent Windows machine for gaming, and a Mac Mini if I need to work from home to conserve space... I would have spent a decent amount on hardware, but not with Apple.
However, that decision is gone now. Assuming I hold out for the Mac Pro Towers, I can buy a beefy Apple computer and we can boot into Windows as needed. Otherwise, I can buy an iMac now and get something decent, but one monitor just seems too limiting.
So, instead of $1500 on Windows Computer + $750 on Apple Computer stuff, we'll probably spend $2000 on Apple Computer stuff
We know Apple's margins are higher as you move up the food chain, so getting 4 times the revenue from me may be 8 times the gross margins.
Forget selling Apple computers to Windows users, while it will happen, it won't be huge... OTOH, if they grab 2% of the computer market from upper-income Windows users that like Apple hardware, that would increase their computer business 50%. My Mom wants a Mac and has for years, but her billing software is Windows only, so she gets Windows computers that she hates. I wouldn't be shocked to see an iMac in her home office within the next 6 months.
So, if Mac Faithful = 2.5% of the market, recent switchers are 1% of the market, Windows users wanting Apple hardware are 2% of the market, Apple has doubled their marketshare over 8 years. On top of that, they make more money selling beefier machines to people that no longer need two, and there you go.
Dumping OS X for Windows is stupid, OS X is a competitive advantage, it lets them charge premium prices for a premium machine. However, if the customers want to buy something... sell it to them.
Gay men are statistically more likely to have AIDS than straight men. Okay, call it 45% of the cases are gay, and call the gay community 4.5% of the population. HIV and AIDS remain much more prevalent in the gay community, in part because of transmission rates.
My point was that statistically speaking there are people MORE likely to encounter HIV, and people that are LESS likely to encounter HIV.
With a high cost of prevention, you will get more bang for your buck in areas with higher concentrations of usage.
I have no idea if the minor genetic differences between blacks and whites make transmission more likely (i.e. is there a genetic combination that disproportionately comes up either community that makes transmission easier/harder), or the more likely a matter of social factors where slightly higher rates of risky behavior cause a skew in the distribution.
How is that bigotted? A small percentage of the population, the percentage that engages in gay sex, forms a LARGE block of the cases, and my suggestion that segments of that population are higher risk?
Are you suggestion that the "urban gay partier" is not a demographic? I don't suggest that it is a majority of the gay demographic, but is likely a minority that is high risk. The "urban heterosexual partier" is also a demographic, and a minority of the heterosexual demographic, but remains low risk.
The distribution of HIV in America is NOT at all evenly distributed, which suggests that some combination of biological and social factors (perhaps 0% and 100%, but nonetheless there are factors) causes the distribution to skew.
To stop a communicable disease, targetting the high risk factor groupings makes more sense.
Suggesting that every American pop AIDS pills to prevent the spread is a non-starter, but certain communities may make sense to subsidize to stop the spread.
Alex
Look, it was a big deal a few years ago when straight people hit the 50% make of HIV infections in the US, hit as high in the upper 50s, and then saw a rise in the gay community. Some speculated that while the 50% mark made it easier to sell AIDS as a problem for everyone, not just the gay community, it also caused the gay community to take their eye off the ball.
Regardless, say 50% of the AIDS cases are in the male gay community. The male gay community is between 1.5% and 3.5% of the US population. That means that 2.5% of the population is responsible for 50% of the cases, and 97.5% is responsible for the other 50%.
AIDS remains a GAY problem, because you are 40x more likely to contract AIDS in the gay community. A single, moderate income gay man in an urban area may be more than happy to spend $1,000/mo. from his disposable income to engage in this behavior. In urban areas, the heterosexual community is rarely focused on future financial planning and preparing for children, I can't imagine that the gay community is MORE focused away from hedonism then their straight neighbors.
That said, can you get AIDS from heterosexual sex? Of course, but not likely. The transmission rate from a man to a woman via vaginal sex is a fraction of the rate from anal sex... less than half. And the transmission rate from a woman to a man via vaginal sex is EXTREMELY low.
What does this mean? A man having sex on occaision with a prostitute is mathematically unlikely to catch HIV, but if he does, it is more likely that he passes it to his wife than it was that he got it. However, that same prostitute has a decent chance of getting HIV if a few of her customers have it.
In addition, a man having sex with a prostitute no doubt will add 1-3 additional sexual partners. A woman working as a prostitute will have from 2-12 partners/DAY.
The fact is, there are areas where the return from the drugs may play a benefit to society. Keeping prostitutes from getting HIV could have a HUGE impact on the culture at large. While a VERY small percentage of men go to prostitutes, if you figure that each prostitute has sex with 25 men/week (a low figure) and a 4% transmission rate, then each HIV-postiive prostitute infects one straight male each week. If half of those men are married or otherwise having sex with a partner regularly, then they WILL infect their wife/partner over time, as the transmission rate is around 20%-30%.
So an HIV positive prostitute will cause 1.5 additional infections per week, MINIMUM, assuming that the client and their spouse/partner DOESN'T commit any additional infidelities.
At under $1000/mo./prositute, I bet it is a positive return to give the drug away. When an infected Prostitute causes 75 infections, even if we assume that each case only bleeds the government for $10k (the rest borne by private insurance), avoiding an infected prostitute saves you 750,000/year. At less than $12,000/year for the prevention, if we assume that 1/60 prostitutes is invected, then we spend less than $720,000 to save $750,000 in treatment.... Each saved life is a bonus!
My point is, normal single straight person that has 1-4 partners a year probably won't cough up $1k/month to reduce their already low risk. Extremely sexually active gay male with 4+ partners a month probably will. Gay man in monogamous relationship or in a normal dating patter, 1-3 partners/year probably will. Woman working as a prostitute SHOULD do so, but can't afford it, but might be targetted by a government that wants to stop the spread.
There are people that will cough up the money, or at least should, and areas where society would benefit from doing so, but no, the general population need not be on permenant AIDS treatment.
It isn't a 501(c)3, so it isn't going to get "donations." And I'm thrilled that you give $50/year, I buy 2-4 CDs whenever I am doing an OpenBSD project, every 6-18 months. And guess what, your $50 didn't determine the continuation of the project in 1999, and wouldn't today. $50 just doesn't go that far.
I donate to charity, and purchase goods and services from busiensses. Which is OpenBSD? In fact, I don't see how a company would sue you because they purchased a "commercial license" under the BSD and more than they now could sue you for "selling" them "free" software.
There is no fraud, they can buy the good or service, or not.
Theo wants to have it both ways. He doesn't want to run a business and offer a good or service, and he doesn't want to run a charity. He wants to code what he wants and answer to nobody and get checks made out to him. Good for him if it works, but I don't have a moral obligation to support Theo.
I pay RedHat a per-server fee, and they run a massive system of updates. OpenBSD won't ever provide binary patches against the last known version of the OS. There is a lot lacking in the service department that someone connected to OpenBSD could roll-up and easily collect the same $300/server that RedHat does.
However, Theo's approach ISN'T working, or this article wouldn't happen, and to expect the projects that fundraise better to give him money is a bit absurd.
I hope this works out for him, as his software is great, but the customer service blows, and he doesn't offer a service that I know that I would pay more for, and others likely would as well. You can frame this however you want, but I don't cut checks out of my corporate account without a receipt to back them up, and I can't imagine that I'm the only one.
Alex
Ya know what would be nice? Making it easy for businesses AND individuals to contribute. If they don't want to be a business, fine, get the 501(c)3 status in the US and let people make tax deductable donations. Writing a check to Theo's personal account doesn't get considered as part of my charitable giving. I also by a few CDs with each release or two, whenever I'm ready to do another OpenBSD project...
And guess what, the project makes me feel like a sucker... because usually whoever is shipping CDs is out of town, and they don't go out for 2-3 weeks, meanwhile, people have been downloading for free and I'm waitting for my CDs...
You want businesses to pay more that use it? How about selling a business "OpenBSD license" that provides us X copies for some price on a per-server (or per-CPU license) under the BSD. Is it a joke, sure, because given 1 personal copy, I have a license to use it however I want. But if you sell me 5 $299 licenses, I can write it off as $1500 in software purchases. Alternatively, I could donate $1500, but then I can't write it off... This is rough on me as a small business owner, for no reason. A receipt for the purchase would help...
However, asking for non-tax deductable donations is a non-starter. If I was an IT grunt in the field, knowing that I could buy a CD for the $20 or $30 and use it without effort (or download), but if I want to contribute, I could generate an online invoice and bring it to A/P.
In that case, the geeks LOVE that they start the project immediately, and maybe the "invoice" gets paid, and maybe it doesn't. There is no loser in this scenario, but it would require the OpenBSD project to understand the people that they want money from and find a way to make it easy on us to give it to them.
Alex
When dealing with a computer problem, I look for 8 solutions. When my wife wants my help with housework, she's learned that the trick is to give me "explicit" instructions, without multiple paths. Likewise, when she is doing something on the computer, once she learns an approach, she normally keeps doing it without considering other options.
It's not about being old or slow, it's about "do you care about this?"
She likes to cook, she'll work on 10 different ways to make a chicken and rice meal. I can make rice, only because she told me what to do once. BTW: while I'm sure there is a way to make rice in the microwave, I've never explored it, and in fact, I use the same pot each time.
If you don't care to "learn" how something works, you develop a process. I have no interest in learning how to cook, so I don't learn options, I just learn what to do.
You are interested in computers, therefore, you find a path. I bet when it comes to laundry, someone taught you how to wash your shirts once, and you've never experimented with different combinations of hanging the clothes to dry or running the dryer, have you? My mom could teach you all the ways to make different types of shirts require more/less ironing and different levels of softness, but I don't care. In college, I memorized settings for each shirt type, and never experimented.
Alex
Stocks grow faster than real estate, but with more volitility, and depending on your views of CAPM, that explains it or doesn't...
.5% over inflation
That said, when you buy real estate, going 500% long (putting 20% down) is EXTREMELY conservative, and 1000% long is extremely common, even in business settings.
In the stock market, you can at MOST go 200% long.
In addition, the cost of capital (borrowing the money) is MUCH higher for stocks... You might be paying 7% or 8% of Margin Interest, vs. 6.5% on mortgage interest.
Basically, the stock market DOES outperform real estate significantly... but it doesn't...
In the long run, the "risk-free rate" is something like 4.5% with inflation of 3% (there are the gold standard years or 0%, plus hyper inflation, but whatever)...
Long run rates:
Inflation: 3%
Risk Free: 1.5% over inflation
Real Estate:
Stock Market: 8% over inflation (depending on time periods viewed of course)
So while the stock market looks good...
$1 invested in the stock market makes 8 cents in year 1 after inflation, or 11 cents if we went 200% long and paid our margin rate...
$1 invested in real estate BOUGHT $10 of real estate, each of which grow by 3.5% before inflation, so we made 35 cents, lost 3 of them to inflation, and ended up 32 cents, so we made a 32% return. This requires ONE HUGE assumption, we were able to collect in rent enough from the real estate to cover the "holding costs" taxes + interest. If we don't, our return goes WAY down.
Real Estate does out perform the stock market, because it is lower risk and people give you money at lower rates...
Alex
Without going too math heavy, there is a reason Wall Street hates volatility. While its true that 15 years ago, Wall Street made money from brokerage commissions, the main money maker is now asset management fees, etc... It used to be a fortune to do a trade on the street, now its $19.95 (or $7 with some deep discount brokerages).... that's not where the money is.
If they manage an account and collect 1% as a fee, then the larger that account gets, they better they do. Now they could outperform the market to make extra money, but with only 1%, that's too much work. Market growth is the easiest way to grow.
Also, there are two ways to grow a companies's stock (assuming you believe that earnings matter in the long run), increase the underlying company's earnings (but that's work), or increase the P/E ratio (or FCF, or whatever ratio you like).
The assumption is that the price of the stock today is the NPV of all future cash flows (or dividends, which is theoretically the same but a harder model in the real world)...
So to increase the value of the stock, you can increase future cash flows (work), or decrease the discount factor...
Well, since most models of stock valuation demonstrate that Beta is a decent indicator of the "risk premium" (basically, discount factor = risk free rate (treasury bills) + Beta * (market premium)), so if we want to decrease the discount factor, we can decrease the rate of the treasury bill (out of our control), decrease the market premium, (out of our control), or decrease the Beta.
If Wall Street convinces Google to disclose more which reduces volitility (an interesting assumption, but let's pretend), then Beta goes down, discount factor goes down, and Google's stock price goes up...
With Magic, we've created value, our asset holding fees go up, we get a huge bonus, and most importantly, nobody had to do any ACTUALY work (like increase earnings) to get it done!
Alex
Radio Shack still cells things for tinkerers, but it moved from the entire back wall to a small chest... Things like transistors, buzzers, etc... They used to sell manuals, kits, and the parts, now just the parts... Sure the Internet made stuff available, but my dad and I did the kits together, and bread-boarded a few fun projects... they could sell projects...
Those are high margin products, have you ever bought a little item there, it is something like $4-$5... a small do-it-yourself crystal radio would cost $40-$50 in parts... that's not low margin, it's low volume.
Instead they went into mediocre markets... They either should have withdrawn from malls to focus on projects, or focused on things that would sell in malls... Computer games, RC cars, etc., all should sell in a mall. Satellite systems and cel phones? I guess cell phones, but the kiosk in the hallway competes with you!
Also, being a Sprint store was stupid once Sprint entered the market, they used to be THE store for Sprint, then Sprint opened their own stores. Radio Shack SHOULD be the neutral providers, but only carrying Sprint (and now Sprint/Cingular) and only carrying Dish (instead of DirecTV/Dish) they aren't the "we got answers" people...
If they carried all providers and were open about the minor differences, they'd have a niche... but they don't.
Good luck, you were a terrific company, I loved the 150-in-one and 200-in-one kits. My cousin worked for you for 15 years... I hope the company finds its roots and grows profitability.
Alex
Basically, Bush's proposal, while horribly explained, wasn't what you described at all. It WASN'T supported by Wall Street, Wall Street HATED the idea of being forced into managing accounts for a government program managing $1000-$5000 accounts. Wall Street "fat cats" don't like to handle less than $100,000, although recently they seem more willing to handle 10k-25k to get people in the door. A government regulated investment program basically allowing them to offer low-fee balanced mutual funds isn't terribly interesting to them.
:)
Bush's proposal was straight out, we cut social security to a realistic figure. The personal savings accounts that he pushed HAD nothing to do with solvency.
The idea, hatched from think tanks was: 1) cut future benefits to bring the program to solvency. 2) offer people something in return for accepting the bitter medicine, and 3) keep the government from owning private industry and becoming a fascist regime...
Clinton proposed investing Social Security in the market, and the Republicans justifiably screamed from an ideological point. The notion of the government taking tax money and investing in private enterprise would make the government "pick winners and losers" in the market, warping the capital markets. The idea of the better rate of return seems to make sense, instead of realizing that buying shares in companies gives you a say in how they run... and even if the government didn't vote their shares, it would warp capital markets. More capital chasing the same amount of business (and pulling it out of the economy via taxes and shoving into a government account is a straight transfer), would increase demand for stock through government policy, which would increase prices, which by definition lowers the expected rate of future returns. Essentially, any government backed investment program does, to some extent, create a government required economic advantage to being an American publicly traded company (cheaper access to capital), which warps markets.
Also, the program ISN'T solvent... Sure the "trust fund" is there, but it basically is a transfer payment. When the government stops taking the social security surplus and has a social security deficit (paying back the debt as it is redeemed), then the government needs to either raise revenues (taxes) or cut spending, or increase borrowing to cover that short fall. Since the government deficit ignores the surplus taken from social security, there isn't even political pressure to not expect that money. The change from 16 workers/retiree to 2.4 works/retiree is problematic, and will require a MASSIVE change in how the program works, or else a revolt of younger workers who can't outvote the retirees/near-retirees... it'll be a disaster.
The private accounts were always meant to be optional, and would HAVE to be. Making them mandatory (although, eventually you could have a mandatory investment into treasury bonds, which would be effectively the same thing as social security but without letting the government play accounting games) would defeat the purpose because of the objection to warping markets.
The idea was, cut benefits, but let workers opt out. Assuming that they earn a better return, matching historical market returns, then they will end up with "about as much money," maybe a bit more, than the current system calls for while eliminating the current problem of social security going into the red. Basically, private accounts were not part of solvency, but would improve the government balance sheet (not actually kept or reported) by reducing future liabilities. The whole idea of retirement accounts was for every dollar you put in, you would lose the future value of the dollar in benefits down the road. So in the long-term, it was a balance sheet neutral operation, but hurt government cash flows (more borrowing now because cash flow from social security would drop) in the short term.
It was terribly confusing, but most neo-conservative economic ideas are...
It's not as simple as you say, and disregarding all those that oppose you as fundamentalist or that it is "so simple" is insulting and prevents you from understanding other people. For example, one could oppose abortion on pragmatic grounds. For example, one could accept that fewer unwanted children should be born, but believes that legal abortion increases the unintended pregnancy rate by lowering the perceived cost of unprotected sex. One could also oppose abortion because they feel that the social costs of legalized abortion outway the social benefits. One could also oppose abortion because from a truly Lockean Social Contract (Declaration of Independence has many rip-offs from Locke's Second Tristise), believe in a limited state (your rights end where mine begin), and believe that once formed as a human being, the unborn human has a right to life that cannot be "choiced" away.
Notice I made three arguments without invoking G-d that would all allow one to have a completely secular opposition to abortion.
Yet you stated, "There's no position, secular or religious, that can argue a woman's rights to her body are less important than a microscopic drop of unconscious, totipotent DNA. No way around it. You can only win this argument by invoking God."
One of the biggest risks to civil discourse in this country, on both sides, has been watch SO MANY major issues devolve into name calling.
I'm not going to get into an abortion debate, and my views on the criminalization of abortion or a constitutional choice to privacy in the affairs on ones body are none of your business. However, your assertion that there are no views on the opposing side other than your strawman is dangerous. There is a reason that support for abortion has dropped in recent polls from 67% to around 55% in the past 8 years... and I'll give you a hint, it isn't 33% of America being fundamentalist Christians growing to 45%... but the sheer shrillness of abortion rights supporters in their demonization of their opponents have certainly helped increase it.
Once upon a time, in the late 90s, the voices defending abortion were reasonable and the voices opposing them were religious nut-jobs. Well, 8 years later, the voices on the left scream about abortion as though it was the ONLY thing that mattered to Americans, pro-choice rallies involve increasingly nutty people with T-shirts that say "it's a nice day, I think I'll have an abortion," and pretty soon, people say a pox on both your houses.
Hilary Clinton seems to be the only pro-choice politician that realizes that celebrating abortions (as certain NARAL spokespeople have, suggesting that each abortion brings 1-2 voters permanently into their camp for having their life saved) makes people uncomfortable. Sure there is a "pro-abortion" group that celebrates abortions, but I assume that they are 5% of the population. There is also the militant "anti-abortion" crew that believes abortion = murder and supports clinic bombing, etc... but I assume that they are also small.
But there is a LARGE middle group that realizes that banning abortions would be problematic to say the least, is sympathetic to a single, poor woman that became pregnant and can't afford motherhood, but isn't thrilled with either the glamorization of abortion OR some of the comments. For example, look at your description of a future human life... To any parent or expecting parent, they remember those ultra-sound pictures, and you just characterized their child (or future child) as having been "a microscopic drop of unconscious, totipotent DNA," which isn't very nice.
There are legit arguments on both sides, and it isn't a comfortable issue for people on ANY side... but the more those on the "Pro-Life" crowd seem like reasonable church-going people, and those on the "Pro-choice" side seem like raving lunatics, the more the public will turn against abortion rights... And once the anti-abortion wing becomes the majority, the litmus test on judges will become even less tenable than before, and you'll see right-wing court appointees that make Roberts and Alito seem light communist hippies...
Are you kidding, the current disarray in the Democratic Party STEMS from the illegitimate President thing. In 2000, it was a STRANGE election... not the first split in the popular/electoral vote, but the first one in a hundred years. The media went bonkers because everyone nominally remembers how elections work from high school, but never really thought about it.
However, the GOP benefited from this because Bush held all the levers of power, and "legitimacy" isn't terribly relevant when it comes to Presidential powers when your own party controls Congress. Bush basically spent two years rolling the Democrats on the Hill because they decided that instead of being a constructive opposition party, they would spend two years talking about the election.
The GOP base was (and remains) convinced that Bush won the election and the Democrats were trying to steal it. The Democrats maintain that they won and the Supreme Court stole it... What happened on election day 2000? Who the hell knows, it was a tie, within the margin of error of the counting apparatus in Florida... and the Florida legislature was going to send their own slate of electors... If that happens, the House and Senate vote on which slate to accept. The House (under GOP control) votes for Bush's slate, the Senate votes on party lines 50-50 and Al Gore as VP casts the tie-breaker for the Gore slate (that's legitimate... not a neutral VP in ANY sense), and the tie-breaker? Whichever slate was signed by the Governor of the state, Jeb Bush... In the end, ALL the Supreme Court did was prevent the US from looking like a total Banana Republic with the President-Elect being decided by a tie-breaker coming down to his brother...
However, when the Democrats spent two years complaining about a fluke election result, the GOP trounced them in 2002 (opposition is supposed to win mid-term elections), and you see the current situation.
So remind us WHY the GOP cares about the illegit Pres. issue?
I have a MacBook on order. My 3.5 year old Powerbook has been needing an upgrade for about 9 months, but its been hard to justify $3k + 1 week configuring a new machine for only a 50% speed up. So there I was in limbo. Is this the PERFECT Mac laptop? Absolutely not, but its a shipping Intel laptop, "6 months early."
:)
Look at the Intel line-up. They offer an iMac and a MacBook on Intel, AND EVERYTHING on PowerPC. The video guys have been howling that the MacBook isn't perfect for them without FW800... Well guess what, Rev A isn't for you.
The pro-graphics/pro-video crowd isn't going to migrate until software has native support... Rosetta won't cut it for them, even Steve Jobs SAID SO in the KEYNOTE... that's an anti-sell.
However, they needed to get Intel machines out the door. Dev machines are great for big partners who wanted to get an early start, but until hardware ships, you can't QA your product. Your developers COULD have ported the code as needed over the past 6 months, but how do you QA a product without the release version.
This is a KEY release... 1) developers now have to get their asses in gear and finish the migration, because Intel gear is here. 2) development houses have shipping hardware to test against, and 3) developers have real gear to work with.
So many Mac developers carry Powerbooks. Having the iMac and MacBook gives developers machines to work on and QA teams machines to test on. The PowerMac hasn't been upgrades and won't for a while... Why? Until Adobe/Macromedia, Quark, and Apple's pro-divisions upgrade their software, there is no reason for pros to migrate. Also, the dual-dual G5s are REALLY REALLY fast, and compete with the top end of the Intel world. Until Intel ships their 64-bit versions of these chips, there isn't a reason to switch.
I wouldn't be overly shocked if FW800 goes away (with addon cards for those with the gear), but until a USB 3 can provide the bandwidth, the video guys aren't going to be happy. However, I also wouldn't be shocked at a MacBook rev in 6 months, introducing the MacBook and MacBook Pro lines, with the former being mostly stock Intel to replace the iBook, and the latter having the high end gear that the video guys need.
However, I need a MacBook NOW. All my internal applications are currently PPC only, and we need to start the transition. As our apps are for internal use, it didn't seem important to rush the job with the dev machines, we figured Rev A gets us going, and with Rev B of the Intel machines, we'll switch. We already migrated our internal machines from iMacs (in the G4 era) to Mac Minis w/ Apple Monitors, so that if we decide to NOT support dual-platforms, we can cheaply forklift each station at $500/station.
But no shipping Intel hardware means nobody doing the ports and QAs that you video guys want done BEFORE YOUR hardware is released.
Remember, those of us that program for OS X need to get our machines BEFORE YOU, or there is NO SOFTWARE for you to run on your new video machines.
Alex
Michael Dell is a HUGE figure in B-school, because he turned supply-chain management on its head. He took a business that was becoming a commodity, COMPLETELY commoditized it, and makes money while squeezing everyone else out.
He gets LOTS of coverage... in the business press.
Apple is arguably the most innovative company in consumer computer technology. The CORE focus on the mainstream "technology" press is the consumer computer technology. Therefore, Apple gets covered.
Note: celebrities get lots of coverage in lifestyle, but not the business section.
Very few companies play in the consumer tech space, Apple is one of them, Apple gets coverage. Other players, Sony, Symantec, anti-spyware company of the week, etc. Apple is a $6b company, which isn't small. I don't understand how on Slashdot a multi-billion dollar company in the top 200 of the Fortune 500 list gets treated like its a 5 man company in their garage, while treating random $5m tech company like a global dominating force.
Alex
I suppose you don't keep Kosher or no anybody that does. I can travel to any country that has a large enough Jewish population to support financially viable Kosher supervision, and can eat food knowing that it is up to my standards. In the US, most dry foods are up to Kosher standards and thus supervised. We have our own network of butchers that follow Jewish law.
.5% of the American population can maintain a private standards certification system, why can't the other 99.5%? Should be sufficiently large market to support 5-10 such organizations without trouble. In fact, the extremely small organic market had third party supervision, until the FDA got into the act and created garbage standards supported by agri-business that more or less shut down the organic food market.
The point of this comment?
The Jewish community in America is well less than 2% of the population, and the percentage of American Jews that keep Kosher is less than 25% of that population. So if
Government run solutions aren't the only possible ones, but once the government gets involved, it tends to crowd out all other players, lowering the standards.
How do you get food from anywhere in the Kosher world? Reciprocity and web of trusts. Each Orthodox synagogue has a list of "approved" Kosher symbols, that means that the Rav of the Shul, or someone that they trust, has verified the standards of that supervising organization.
In fact, it would be even EASIER in the rest of the marketplace, because Kashrut in Judaism has been taken into the province of the Rabbis, who can avoid scrutiny because of religious credentials. A neutral third-party supervisory organization wouldn't have that shield, and people could choose the level of safety (and therefore price) desired.
8 Years ago, Microsoft made a groupware/mail client for Exchange Server called, Exchange Client. With Office 95, they decided to add limited POP3 support (and IMAP at the time, or IMAP in Outlook 97 or 98, I forget) and bundle it with office. Outlook was a result of a turf war between the Office people, wanting to get control of contact information to make their bundle of applications more powerful, and the Exchange people that wanted their MAPI client to be exchange specific.
Meanwhile, the Internet team that did IE wanted a free mail client, and didn't seem able to get along with the other groups. Given that the Internet got HOT and they were the hot division, even without making money, it makes sense that the Exchange group wasn't thrilled at their crown jewels being used for free stuff, and the Office Group didn't want to play nice either.
So they bought someone's basic email system, hacked it to look more like Outlook, bundled more COM components (making it mostly scripting-compatible with Outlook) and called it Outlook Express?
Why? Because people that used Outlook knew that it was the BEST office email application (because of the calendar/address book and other support), so they extended the Outlook "brand" by borrowing the name, not borrowing the code.
What happened to Outlook? Well, just as the Exchange team feared, more focus was on the IMAP/standards approach and less focus was on the MAPI side... You can now replace most of the Exchange functionality with open standard solutions.
Great for users... greats for Office sales (upgrading Office becomes a part of the reason to upgrade Office... lots of NICE collaboration features), and Exchange needs to compete on the server side.
When your client was MUCH better than anyone else's, you could put functionality in the client to sell the server piece. When everyone can use YOUR client, you have to compete on the server side. As a result, Exchange's BIGGEST selling point is the integration with AD and SQL Server (through AD), etc.
Alex
If Sony gets movies out in Blu-Ray quickly, then Blu-Ray will take off. Enough PS3/HDTV owners will buy a few discs, which will give them an "investment" in the platform, and avoid HD-DVD unless multi-format players happen...
Microsoft's support would mean something... if they shipped the XBO 360 with the devices, but they didn't... Microsoft's support is meaningless, because they don't ship hardware. Short of them making their software refuse to play Blu-Ray, which seams unlikely with the EU/US DOJ still keeping an eye on them.
Apple however, is ironically a player in this space... because they ship Hardware AND Software. Apple support means that future machines from them will play the discs, because they will make the software work.
The biggest player in making this happen will be Sony, followed by Apple...
However, if Sony doesn't get Blue-Ray DVDs out there, then forget it, it'll die like Laserdisc... honestly, I LOVE my HDTV, and watching DVDs is often painful compared to a beautiful HDTV signal, but at the same time, I look at this as Laserdisc... not enough of a step up to get customers to replace old DVDs, which is ALL the studio cares for, and not enough of a step up to get a large chunk of the market to buy them instead.
If BR DVDs cost the same (or slightly more) than DVDs, sure, it would uptake, but what incentive do the studios have to master both sets in that case...
It'll be like DVD-Audio, SA CD, and Laserdisc... improvements that the market ignores because they aren't a MAJOR step up.
VHS was MUCH better than nothing. DVD was MUCH more convenient than VHS... BR... well, I think it will die on the vine... it will only succeed if there isn't a significant price differential, which will cause the studios to lose interest...
It's a shame, too.
That said, Sony putting out BR DVDs @ $19.99 from day one and "free" players in the PS3 and you have a market.
Alex
For the non-poker players, pot odds is (and this is over simplified so don't jump on me poker nuts) the concept that as the pot gets bigger, it is more likely worth calling.
For example, based upon betting and the cards I've seen, I have a 10% chance of winning. If I estimate that seeing the hand to completion will cost me $100, if the expected pot is $250, I should fold, but if it is $2500, I should call.
It is the reason that in fixed rate games (only a $3 raise, for example), folding is less common then in a "pot limit" or "no limit" game... In the former, after a few rounds of better, even a poor hand should stay in, because a hand that expects to lose (Long Tail people would disagree, and argue that the value of those minor entries are actually more valuable, which means competing goals...
Alex
I bought Keynote 1,0, despite not doing a huge number of presentations. For some presentations, it is MUCH better than PowerPoint, but for others, I use Powerpoint. It was $100, which isn't a major expenditure for my small company ( 10 employees). I then bought iWork to get the updated Keynote. Against, at $80, not a huge amount if it saves me 2-3 hours over the course of a year, and is a worthwhile tool.
In addition, I got to play with Pages, and while it isn't currently "there yet" it has some neat features. I played with it to see if it was viable, because I'm looking for an affordable solution for people that don't NEED Office, but it would be nice to have something better than TextEdit. So for a few bucks, I determined that it is one release from being usable, and I can use that to plan my roadmap. Instead of waiting on Open Office, or playing with Abiword, I decided that for most of my people, we'll limp along with TextEdit for now (limited Office installations) and adopted iWork. Those of us that need Excel/Word will have Office + iWork, but iWork 2.0 will likely be part of our standard office setup.
However, by releasing Keynote 1.0, I was able to buy it and decide if this was the direction I wanted to take. Then when the "better version" comes out in a year, I can decide if I am ready to buy 10 copies or not... same-thing with essentially bundling Pages 1.0 with Keynote 2.0 as a preview.
It is no secret that the 1.0 versions are a bit rough, but sometimes it is worth evaluating if switching software takes you a year to decide on. In the end, we get to preview where the App is going, and Apple gets us to cover the development costs. For me, it's often a win/win. For others, it isn't, so they shouldn't buy the 1.0 version.
A viable review should be able to determine 1) if the App in its current state is worthwhile, and 2) if it is moving in that direction, is it worth keeping an eye on. Software purchases aren't about "moral justice" (are they entitled to my money), but rather, does the current value of the software + my ability to see where it is going warrant the expenditure of my money. For some, the decision is yes, for others no, and for a third group it is, go play with it at the Apple store and then buy 2.0... all of which is enhanced by Apple choosing to release early, release often.
Alex
From 10-20 years ago, my folks bought hundreds of dollars of Legos for my brother and me. However, more were bought for me than him, because he had MY Legos, so he didn't need basic blocks, he needed specialized blocks. My wife and I are on the Lego mailing list, because we got nostalgic and can't wait to be playing with Legos with our children. However, I don't see us buying large numbers of generic pieces, I expect to grab the TUBS of Legos in my parent's attic for my children. Sure we'll buy new sets, but not the quantity that was bought for us.
Basically, the market for plastic basic blocks isn't a growing market, because the initial demand was huge, but later generations of fans will get their parent's stuff. So they need more stuff to upsell.
Alex
Let's play, "You're the CEO."
Your VP in charge of developing your next generation comes to you with to options:
Option A) be a player in the EXTREMELY competitive market with Microsoft and Sony. Sony is one of the leading manufacturers of consumer electronics and can bring costs down EXTREMELY well. Microsoft seems to have a bumbling idiot running their home entertainment division, but has a CEO that decided that $1b-$2b/year in losses is a small price to pay to make an effort... Sony's manufacturing and distribution might makes them the lowest cost player, guaranteeing them the only profit IF the market is perfectly competitive (it isn't, but it's pretty damned competitive), and Microsoft is the highest cost player guaranteeing them a loss as the market becomes competitive, which should indicate that they will exit, but they have made it VERY clear that they won't.
Option B) play in a related market where the only competition is your hand held toys (the youth/family market), price matters heavily (so you need to cut your costs down), but there is effectively no competition so you don't need to sell at a loss.
Which market do YOU choose?
If you chose Option A, you should run Pets.com. If you chose Option B, then you effectively cornered a near-monopoly is a lucrative niche.
Remember, Nintendo is an ALL GAMES company. They aren't a small company (number 708 on Forbes's Global 2000) with almost $5b in sales and $300m in profits. However, Microsoft ranks at 47 with almost $40b in sales and $10b in profits. Sony ranks at #123 with over $70b in sales and $850 in profits.
What does this mean? Nintendo, last year during the Console R&D year (remember, GAAP and International Accounting Standards require R&D to be expenses as incurred, so the R&D year should be MUCH worse because all the sunk costs for the generation happen then), only made $350m. Sony, only $850m...
The market that Nintendo plays in is smaller than Sony or Microsoft, but it is profitable, they make decent margins (non obscene like Microsoft, but few companies do), and continue to make money with each generation. Marketshare matters less than profits... Microsoft made NO money in games, Sony and Nintendo did similarly profitwise in games (supposedly half of Sony's profits are Playstation related, meaning $425m)...
So let's rank the companies from last year...
Sony Playstation Division: +$425m
Nintendo (all divisions are games): $350m
Microsoft Gaming Division: -$400m
Now, if Microsoft wasn't bleeding Sony's profits my selling at a loss, perhaps Sony would have made another $400m - $500m...
Being a monopolist is good. Being in a duopoly where the other player has decided that drain you of profits at all costs... not so good.
Alex
Generally, keep the data put into schemas for the areas that they function in... instead of 1 DB/app, you have 1 DB, and 1 schema/app. Doesn't seem like much of a difference, but you don't have lots of connections to different DBs, and your app's data can talk to each other WHEN stuff needs to trigger around.
:)
Then, if you are getting hairy, create schemas for app-specific stuff. You can start by wrapping the main calls if needed (a SQL store-procedure that just calls the parent with SECURITY DEFINER) can help keep stuff clean. In this case, you may have app-specific optimizations, but they are all in one place, and talk to the "parent schema" which is still generic.
Latency = lost money... end of story...
Alex
I am using PostgreSQL 7.4, although one machine in production is still 7.3. We don't have the resources to test and deploy a 8.1 migration at this time, but we are keeping an eye on it.
The 8.x series shows tremendous progress, but the 7.4 branch is stable and not undergoing major changes. When 8.x stabilizes, we'll consider a modernization project.
Alex
We moved from MySQL to PostgreSQL a few years ago, and couldn't be happier. The secret is to do it intelligently...
:= thread_count + 1; ON DELETE to THREADS, find the topic and thread_count := thread_count - 1; It's trivial when you get the hang of it, but then your system is lightning fast.
First, just do a straight port, get PostgreSQL running your MySQL data.
Buy a beefier server, because at this stage, PostgreSQL WILL be slower. For raw reading of simple databases (the old joke that MySQL isn't a real database isn't AS true anymore, but is in the ideas), MySQL is faster. PostgreSQL shines as you build more complicated system.
Second, use explain and start optimizing your system. MySQL develop tends to do series of queries, because the MySQL protocol is nearly "free." Doing 5 queries and doing the joins in the software in MySQL tends to be fast, but is REALLY slow in PostgreSQL. So start building more complicated queries using joins server side. At this stage, PostgreSQL catches up (or nearly so) with MySQL.
Third, learn PL/pgSQL. This lets you do a LOT of optimizations with triggers and functions. For example, if you need to look things up in 3 tables to get the Primary Keys, then query a third table, in MySQL you do 3 SELECTS, store the values in variables, then the final SELECT to get the data. In PostgreSQL that would be painfully slow (the connection costs kill you), so you do a massive join, which is okay if you have enough RAM and configure PostgreSQL to use it, but it sucks up memory. Then you build the PL/pgSQL function. This lets you do it the "old way" grabbing the data, keeping it in variables INSIDE the database, then doing the query. This is REALLY REALLY REALLY fast in PostgreSQL, keeps the RAM usage reasonable, etc. Sure you can throw 4-8 GBs at RAM cheaply, but when you start doing a bunch of really big JOINs and SORTs, you can't always get PostgreSQL to use it smartly.
Fourth, at triggers whereever possible. If you ever run a COUNT or other aggregate, re-think. For example, in a forum (trivial case, but fun), you may want to display the number of threads in a topic. Well, running a SELECT COUNT(*) on the threads JOIN topics will BE BALLS slow on PostgreSQL... HOWEVER, you instead do a trigger that keeps a count in the TOPIC called threads. You would do this in MySQL by having a second INSERT when you do a thread, but in PostgreSQL, you let the database handle it. ON INSERT to THREADS, find the topic and thread_count
Also, optimize your INSERTs. In areas where you currently check IF "is this already here" THEN UPDATE ELSE INSERT, you do that in stored Functions. function insert_or_update (values) that does an UPDATE and if it fails, INSERT, or otherwise does the logic server side.
Once you learn to do real database programming, even at the rudimentary level I described, PostgreSQL SCREAMS. If you are building web sites/web applications, they SCREAM. However, if you treat PostgreSQL the way most treat MySQL, as a data dump, you'll be miserable at the performance.
Final neat idea that we never implemented... but will one day. We were planning to use PL/php (there is a PL/perl) for a performance hack. For each major script that does a bunch of queries, even with optimizations, there is a final hack you COULD THEORETICALLY do... this is a hack, admittedly. Basically, instead of doing queries, define an associated array with all the data you want. In development, do a bunch of queries and put the data into the array, then process it. For optimization, move those queries to the server. Then you build the array in PL/php, serialize it, and return it as text. Now you call the PL/php function (SELECT get_FooPage_Info(page_identifier) that returns a text value, the serialized array. Now you have one database connection, it does ALL the work INSIDE the database process, and in PHP land, you just work off the array).
PostgreSQL is EXTREMELY powerful for areas where most people use
Sun working with BSD makes sense from a historical perspective as well. The original Sun OS was build on BSD, as Bill Joy, the technical founder was a big guy in the BSD world, and left to start Sun on BSD technology. Sun migrated from BSD to AT&T Unix after several releases.
As a result, their are probably elements of a BSD culture in Sun.
In addition, the GPL space makes it harder for a traditional software player to compete. The GPL makes sense for PURE hardware players (of which Sun is not, and in x86 space, it is REALLY tough to be a hardware player, only a few have done it, because Intel grabs the bulk of the profits leaving profits only for the most efficient manufacturers, and Dell dominates supply-chain management), as it elements the costs of software development... Dell wins in a GPL game, as costs come down from not paying for an OS, some of the savings get passed on to customers, some comes out as profits. Other players that don't dominate in supply chain issues aren't as well off.
In addition, the corporate GPL'd OS game is a services game. There is no real money in the OS license, so you have to sell support contracts. Now support contracts are high margin... IF YOU ARE REALLY GOOD. You have to be good enough that you don't have to do much on the support end... as each time support is used, your margins get eaten... it's an insurance model, and its a tough game to play.
The BSDs are more "corporate friendly," as the company can work with the BSD-core group to push up changes (otherwise you have to maintain forks, which is expensive, which doesn't really get you a competitive edge. So you have a financial incentive to push fixes upstream, but build add-ons or enhancements that you keep proprietary. In PostgreSQL and Apache, this works fine, as people develop these add-ons, they either release them to the world at large, in which case they are incorporated, or they keep them to themselves, and the core team has gotten a demo of what "can be done" for free... As Linux demonstrated, redoing known technology is SUBSTANTIALLY easier than building new technology.
Sun playing in BSD land makes a LOT of economic and cultural sense.
Alex