Look, FEMA fucked up and was sloppy. I have no idea how much was the politically appointee at the top, and how much is institutional stupidity that goes back years. Some blame belongs to Bush and his appointee, on the "buck stops here" logic, but let's be realistic on some of what happened.
The Levee maintenance program has been "underfunded" for THREE decades. Every federal program is "underfunded," because people ask for the world, get something, and can now claim to have been underfunded.
It is NOT clear that if that $250m was restored to the Federal budget that the levees would have held. We have NO IDEA. But when the levees and a system designed for Category 3 Hurricanes gets hit with a slow moving Category 4, better maintenance PROBABLY WOULD NOT have mattered.
Louisiana/New Orleans have a Levee Maintenance Board that is supposed to maintain and improve the Levees. They can issue municipal bonds to pay for it (those lovely options that cities and states have that pay a lower interest rate than treasuries, because the interest is federal tax free, so the government picks up a third of the interest tab in terms of your rate being lower by a third). However, in typical Louisiana corruption, it was filled with political friends with NO INTEREST in Levees, and focused on casinos.
Further, FEMA is EXTREMELY powerful, which makes civil libertarians nervous. Here you have an executive branch department that can single-handedly declare martial law, basically suspend the constitution, etc., powers normally only available to Congress in wartime. The CHECK on government abuse is that a city or state MUST request that help. Now, in an ideal world, FEMA would ONLY be called in REAL emergencies (but when you declare an emergency, FEMA picks up 80% of the tab, so anytime you can you declare an emergency), but federal programs only work when they expand, not only act 1-4 times a decade.
The evacuation of New Orleans was the city's responsibility and the city's PLAN called for using school buses to evacuate people... why didn't this happen?
Notifying FEMA of where shelter's are is a LOCAL responsibility, because FEMA doesn't come in until AFTER there is an emergency. The Superdome is a lovely batch of embarrassment. FEMA learned through official channels 2 or 3 days in that there were people there with no food and water. The news-media was floored "don't you have a television." But as sad as this is, it kinda makes sense... You have some level of lower down FEMA officials going over their checklist, and the Superdome isn't on it, so it is ignored. The higher ups are watching the Superdome footage on TV thinking "those poor people, at least help is on the way." But a disconnect there completely makes sense, and is extremely tragic. Whoever is on the ground sees that it isn't on their list and assumes that it is someone else's. Those above that see it isn't getting help assume that it is on someone's list... More people die... I place the bame 70%-30%, 70% on local officials who didn't notify FEMA properly, and 30% Fed's, because when you see the media talking about people there being without food or medicine for 2-3 days, you call down the pipe until you find out who is responsible for it. The media attention could have made it possible to save lives, if someone thought outside the box.
Decades of mismanagement and corruption in Louisiana caused a catastrophe... Bush is apparently a COMPLETELY incompetent leader who can't get anyone good in the government... This situation sucks. But I'm sick of the partisanship on this... Plenty of stupidity goes around.
BTW: more has been spent on Levee's by the Feds in the 5 years that Bush has been in office than the 8 years that Clinton was in office. That doesn't mean anything, but this "Bush wanted to levees to break so he cut funding" doesn't match reality. I'm pretty sure that the leader of the free world wasn't personally overseeing levee maintenance... unfortunately, neither was the levee maintenance board...
The FSF was never about giving away software... To do that you just needs computers and FTP space, which RMS had through MIT anyways (that's who distributed GNU for the longest time) and sell the tapes.
The GNU license, as opposed to the MIT or BSD-w/o advertising clause, was about encouraging OTHERS to give away software. Why is GNU Readline GPL and not LGPL? Because if you want to build applications with that functionality, you need to release it under the GPL, or I suppose, something GPL-compatible and let others use a compile-time option. Either you added the viral GPL license OR you released your software in a way usable free software only people.
The goal of the FSF is to get as MUCH software as possible available for people that want to ONLY use free software.
The FSF doesn't care about Microsoft's bottom line.
The FSF doesn't care about "converting users to free software/open source software."
The FSF doesn't care about "benefits of open source development models."
The FSF is dedicated to one thing only. Getting as much Free Software available to users that share their cause.
It is, of course, reaching the absurdity point, where it has become almost religious (and not just the old belief that it is right to be able to modify your softare... and you ought to be able to share your stuff with your friends)... In writing the old GPL (v1 and v2), the goal was to make the software free for ANYONE to use, and use it as a CARROT (if you play in our sandbox, you get to use all this code for free) for development. It appears that there is now a desire to use a stick as well... (if you don't follow our rules on related items, you can't use ANY of this code for your development).
I presume that the GPL will stick to its core as a distribution license. One of the MAJOR fundamental issues that the FSF talked about was that USAGE licenses were absurd and should be ILLEGAL, copyright only covers distribution.
If the FSF turns this into a EULA... EXTREMELY unlikely, I would expect them to lose what remains of their leadership. Unfortunately for RMS, the man that STARTED the movement for free software (and therefore, open source which was originally an attempt at rebranding), he has been relatively marginalized and called a zealot and extremist. I believe that this is an attempt to retake the leadership of the "Free Software/Open Source" Camps under the FSF banner, but I believe it will cause such resistence as to cause a schism. That may be good, or it may be bad. I happen to like competition, but I'm not convinced that Open Source / Free Software compete for people anyway, as the extreme views of the FSF limit them to true believers.
Google believes that barriers to switching, or vendor lock-in, is counter productive. In many ways it is. Customers LIKE to have choices, and lock-in deters them from choosing you. They have decided that avoiding the lock-in deterrent is a worthwhile trade-off from not having the lock-in down the road.
Instead of looking for industries where they can establish barriers to entry, they have chosen to just be the best in the industry.
Google has made it their corporate culture to do what we as consumers should desire, a company that doesn't erect barriers to entry or barriers to switching.
As long as they are willing to compete whenever and where ever they are, I say, AWESOME. If only EVERY industry had players willing to do that.
NOTE: I say this as someone who owns no Google shares, engages in SEO and has been mistreated and banned by Google more than any other engine, and is generally floored by the way they run their company. OTOH, I respect an entity that is willing to play in a competitive marketplace, instead of looking for sleazy tactics to monopolize industries.
Google is in a space where anyone with a better algorithm can raise venture money, like Google did, and enter the search market.
To strengthen their position, Google has integrated the Ad business via Adwords to not be at the mercy of a third party like everyone else was. Google has done a LOT to strengthen their position.
However, the one thing Google has NOT ever done, and has made clear that they WON'T do, it lock users in. They do have a bunch of patents to try to keep a new competitor out, but they haven't tried the lock in.
The founders have made it clear that they believe handcuffs on users counter-productive and don't believe in them.
They have consistently made it clear that they believe that they are the most innovate company, and have no need to block competition, they will simply out-compete.
That's their corporate mission, identity, and culture. Don't Be Evil is a clever way of putting. However, the company has been focused on winning by being the best, and believe that the best way to fight as a tech company is to be the best, not lock consumers in.
I applaud that, and respect the company, and have no problem with them dominating ANY industry, as LONG as they don't try to create barriers to entry or customer lock-in, they aren't a monopoly, and will never be a monopoly.
If Google was the ONLY search engine, they wouldn't be a monopoly, because without barriers to entry, they can't extract "monopoly rents," they are forced to the competitive rates because with no customer lock-in or barriers to switching, they are in the competitive space, which is where Google seems to want to play. Go Google!
To develop Iridium, HUGE amounts of money was borrowed... The cost of carrying the debt was a HUGE fixed cost. This meant that high prices were needed to cover those costs.
Iridium goes bankrupt and is sold for pennies on the dollars. The debt is repaid from the proceeds at pennies on the dollars.
If you spent $5b building something, at 10% interest, you have $500m a year in interest payments.
If you go under, and firesale it for say, $1b, the new owners, at 10% interest, have a $100m a year interest payment. That is a MUCH lower fixed cost element.
That is why Iridium is able to go with cheaper rates now. It was an unviable investment, but it was better to sell at a loss then just shut down, and the new owners can make money.
Microsoft and Intel are not friends. They are two companies that seemed to have stumbled upon a huge monopoly that they have to share. With NT 3.51/4.0, Microsoft tried to kick Intel out of its position with cross-platform support, and failed. Intel doesn't have a full monopoly because of AMD.
Basically, the closer you are to a monopoly, the more excess profits you get. Intel can't extract huge profits because AMD provides competition and MS grabs a big chunk.
Competition for OSes means that the excess profits can flow back to hardware, where Intel wins.
Remember, MS moving the XBox to the PPC is HUGE, because it means that they are getting some developers at least to support Win32/PPC, and I wouldn't rule out a run at PPC computers from MS... Hell, they could do it as MS hardware, and grab all the profits.
Competition is good for consumers. This is what we've been missing during the 10 year run (Win 95 - present) where MS and Intel monopolized the computer market.
Outsourcing is applying economic theory to comparative advantage.
If I can produce 5 Apples OR 4 Oranges, and you can produce 2 Apples or 3 Oranges, then I have an absolute advantage in both.
On my own I can produce MORE apples or MORE oranges than you.
However, if I produce Apples, and you produce oranges, we can trade.
Assuming that I give you 1:1 Apple for oranges...
I produce 5 Apples, and trade you 3 for 3 oranges. I end up with 2 Apples and 3 Oranges, which is more that I could produce splitting my time (75% of Orange Production PLUS 40% of Apple production, 115% of my previous max).
You now have 3 Apples. On your own you could generate 2 Apples, so it is 50% more efficient for you to produce oranges and trade me for apples.
Both of us won in the trade, and are now wealthier, even though at first glance, trade seems silly because I'm more efficient.
Taken from Economics to the business world, I concentrate on my core competency, Apples, and you concentrate on yours, Oranges, and we trade in the marketplace.
Outsourcing (which has somehow become synonymous with offshoring) is simply doing that in services. If you are better at IT, and I am better at banking, I should focus on banking and outsource IT to you.
Further, a company is a virtual entity, not a real one. The question becomes, is it more efficient for me to hire IT people or outsource to an IT service shop?
All things being equal, hiring SHOULD be cheaper, but there are advantages to both. Perhaps I need 16 IT skillsets, but 4 at one time. I could hire an IT shop, and even if I pay 4:1 for consulting rates, I can get all 16 skills when I need them.
Outsourcing is not inherently different from GM buying parts from a supplier instead of creating them in their factory. They conclude that their management time is best applied to making cars, so they should only have employees that do that and buy the parts in the marketplace.
Outsourcing will remain, because sometimes it makes sense to focus on what you do well, instead of trying to do everything, which is a headache, and requires more managers that your senior managers need to keep an eye on.
It is also a lot of accounting nonsense. Depending on your cost allocation model, your overhead, which may be 80% of the costs (i.e. for a software company, R&D is "overhead" and the direct costs of "manufacturing" CDs is trivial)... so it is possible to misconstrue what your costs are and decide to outsource....
Stem-cell cures are probably two decades away, if proven viable.
No side of the stem-cell debate is AT all honest.
On the left... The pro-embryonic research crew is 1, telling sick people that George Bush is killing them, when in fact they have a death sentence and stem cell research may cure FUTURE patents, but not likely the current ones.
This is more about politics than anything else. A prohibition on federal funds isn't a prohibition on research. Bush was the first President to approve ANY funding, and allowed it for pre-existing lines. That may not be enough lines for major research, but it should have given a start to doing some of the basic research to determine if this is viable. Unfortunately, people would rather play politics. I expect the pro-choice crowd to be EXTREMELY upset at this research, that manages to create research lines WITHOUT destroying life, as many of the vocal members aren't focused on the research, but a believe that every embryo destroyed someone secures their agenda.
On the right... Federal funding is generally key to any EARLY stage research. Cutting off federal funds DOES slow down basic research.
This is a closet attempt to deal with their moral issues with IVF, not the activity, but the discarding of embryos.
If this discovery is confirmed then it means that Bush's compromise worked out wonderfully, whether you like him or not. He allowed the basic research to continue, and scientists found a solution.
Do you think that if every undergrad biology student could get a vial of embryos as part of a basic lab class (if you listen to the argument on the left that there is NO MORAL question), this research would have been heavily pushed or developed?
The pro-choice crowd was EXTREMELY excited about the ability to destroy more embryos as part of their "proof" that embryos aren't life. The pro-life crowd wanted to start developing embryonic rights. Somehow, Bush managed to placate the religiously motivated conservatives while allowing the research to go on, and low-and-behold, someone may have found a solution that solves the whole problem.
swilden writers, "and how many companies *aren't* smaller?"
Now that it an easy question. There are 9 companies that aren't smaller than IBM in the US alone.:)
In 2005, IBM's Fortune 500 Rank was 10, meaning 9 companies exceeded them in size. In 2004 they were number 9... they gotta watch out.
It isn't just IBM that is HUGE. HP, through merger mania is #11, and tiny little direct sales PC only Dell is even ranked #28... Note I say Tiny because Dell had under $50b in revenues, and IBM had almost $100b... IBM despite spinning off and selling division after division is twice the size of Dell. However, while Dell shot up the list, Apple is growing nicely and is up to rank 263, but with just over $8 in Revenues.
However, in reality, there are MANY companies that are larger than IBM. IBM is only #20 on the Global 500 rank...
For comparison, the almighty Microsoft, that Slashdot seems to be under the mistaken impression is the largest and most powerful company in the world, only clocks in at #41 in the Fortune 500 list (and Intel is #50), and at #127.
What does this mean? Note very much...:)
OTOH, IBM is HUGE, MASSIVE, GIANT. Despite massive spin-offs, they are a $100b company. Microsoft is a minor player in comparison at $36b, although is HUGELY profitable... But, for comparison, niche player Apple is over 1/5th the size of Microsoft, so it's not the minor player everyone treats them as.
IN THEORY, it should be a neutral event. You are "whole" after the event, and if the company deploys the capital better, you win despite the fundraising.
IN PRACTICE, you lose money because of fees/costs, in addition, each expenditure of capital is normally less efficient than the previous one, therefore, if the company does a major dilution, it is often a losing deal.
FROM THE ORIGINAL POST onward, I explained why in practice this is NORMALLY a BAD thing.
I simply pointed out that it isn't "theft" or anything else, since it is theoretically a neutral event with positive justifications.
In other words... it's not really a good things for shareholders, but it isn't a violation of fiduciary obligations because on paper it is a neutral to positive event.
I never denied dilution, I argued that it should be theoretically neutral.
You currently have 50% of $1. That's worth 50 cents.
What happens if I change that to 25% of $2? That's still worth 50 cents.
In THEORY the shares are sold at market price, therefore the dilution is compensated for by the increased value.
Assuming Value of Company = NPV(all future cash flows) + cash on hand
Company sells 10% of itself for 10% of its value.
Everyone owns 90% of what they did before, but the company is 110% the size, so it's a wash, yes I'm simplifying on the percentages each way... it's an example...
As I originally stated, as long as fair market value is obtained, it's theoretically useless... As stated elsewhere in the thread, I basically gave a textbook explanation.
You invest $1 in company X. The company is worth $100, and you own 1%, 1 share of 100 outstanding.
Company X realizes that it needs $100 to expand.
Company X sells 100 shares, and receives $100.
The company is now worth $200. Basically, this was a neutral event, no effect on income statement, and on the balance sheet, Cash (an asset) went up by $100, and Paid in Capital went up by $100.
Any analysis of the stock should figure out the value of the business (not counting cash), plus the cash on hand... P/E doesn't, but a discounting cash flow should. P/E is a simple overview and assumes that cash in a "normal amount."
You still own 1 Share, worth $1. You are EXACTLY where you were before.
However, you have half the "ownership."
Now, if the company uses that $100 to create $200 (of value), in one year, the company is now worth $400. Your one share is worth $2.
Now, without dilution, your share (1%) would be $4, but that isn't real, because without that $100 the company would still be worth $100, so you'd only have $1.
See? That increases your value, IF the cash is put to good use.
If the company screws up, and when they sold 100 shares, they only received $50 because of all the fees, then the company was worth $150 and your share 75 cents, OH NO. If they turn that $50 into $100, the company is worth $200, and you are back to $1. If they turn that $50 into $0, bought pets.com, then the company is only worth $100, and your investment is worth 50 cents.
In other words, if you believe management has a positive use of cash, this is a positive event (although I'd prefer debt given Google's high P/E and therefore high discount factor... or the market expects MASSIVE growth for YEARS without a high discount factor).
If you believe management has a crappy use of cash... well, this is a bad event. However, if they really misuse their cash, you should sell the stock while it is worth $1, before it becomes worth $0.
It doesn't... I'm not terribly interested in evaluating Google's business, just pointing out that a secondary offering in theory is a neutral event, in reality SHOULD be a positive event, but OFTEN is a negative event.
If you want real analysis, I suggest hiring a financial analyst and have them spend about 4 hours with spreadsheets... not ask for it on Slashdot...:)
But, in a nutshell, if Google has a business plan for deploying $4m that will let them extract monopoly rents for the next 5 years, then that would drastically increase their profits once the monopoly is secured and allowing them to extract monopoly rents (monopoly rents = economics term for the excess profit generated by a monopoly or partial monopoly... i.e. Internet Companies in general are in a monopolistically competitive field, where each company is differentiated... unlike say, farmers with corn... so there is a small monopoly rent, but it isn't like Microsoft that carries a monopoly on a complete market... the fewer competitors, the more "rents" extracted, and an oligopoly, like the search engine market, has each player potentially extracting large "rents")...
I mean, Google did something short of $1b last 12 months (or run rate, or something, I forget, I'm not an analyst and don't really follow Google's financials)... If you assume that with a monopoly on the market (to the point where everyone else takes what Google leaves on the table, Google's earnings go from $1b to $4b, then Google should increase 400%... except that the P/E probably drops in half as growth slows, so Google marketcap should increase 200%...
In any scenario where Google puts the money to profitable use, this SHOULD be a good deal for the shareholders.
However, in the likely scenario where Google wants to use its "overvalued" Marketcap to raise money, this is BAD for shareholders... NOTE: this isn't inherently bad... I'm not suggesting that they are being bad fiduciaries... I'm suggesting that they may want to use this small 5% dilution to increase earnings by 20% or more, making this a GOOD fiduciary action, but it is likely that the company is doing it now because they expect the price to fall, making this a bad omen, even if the right financial mood.
A high P/E stock has a HIGH discount factor of future cash flows, with an expected return on investment FAR ABOVE the worst of the junk markets... If Google didn't expect a price drop, they should fund via debt, not equity, to maximize shareholder value... That said, tech companies tend to not like debt, and not pay dividends, trying to increase their internal value.
In THEORY, a secondary offering has no impact on current shareholder...
Let us assume that Google is worth $75b (its really 77, but 75 makes easier math).
So, it's pre-money value is $76b. Pretend Google is selling $5b work of shares. Now, Google has an additional $5b in cash, making its value $80b. However, everyone has been diluted. So, your previous 1% of Google is now 15/16 of a percent, but the company is worth 16/15 what is was before.
Now, assuming that Google has a profitable use for that cash, then Google takes that $5 and turns it into $25b of value (but loses the $5b in cash). Now, the new Google is worth $100b. So while you own a smaller share, at the moment of sale you were made whole (by the cash coming in), and you benefit from the increase in value.
However, reality is NOT so kind. In reality, Google selling $4b worth of shares will probably be at a slight discount, to encourage the big funds to pony up the cash (you don't normally unload $4b of shares on the open market and hope for the best), plus the bankers get paid. So the company ends up diluting by more than the net cash position improves.
Assuming Google has a profitable use of that cash, you should still come out ahead, because Google will in theory sell $4b in stock, collect $3.8b, and as long as they turn it into at LEAST $4b of value, you're even, and at $8b-$10b, you come out ahead...
Now let's add a little more reality. Generally, companies deploy their capital in less and less valuable area, which makes sense. If you have 20 profitable investment opportunities, each of which take $1m. If you have $10m to invest, you do the top 10 of them. If you get an extra $10m, you choose the less valuable ones, and if you are stuck with investing another $10m, you either sit on cash or chase the 10 best unprofitable activities to look busy. That's part of why dividend companies with reasonable payout ratios look so good on a dividend-reinvestment basis, they only chase REALLY profitable activities.
In addition, Google is very profitable, so it should be able to chase most of its profitable investment opportunities. With a P/E of 80, the implied cost of capital is MUCH higher than a junk-bond offering, which would only expect an 8%-10% return (interest) compared to investors expecting an 80% return (no I'm not doing the math, but its a ridiculous annual return to justify paying 80 times trailing earnings, somewhere in the 40%-80% annualized range).
Therefore, the non-financial view of the situation is: profitable companies that think their stock is undervalued do stock buy-backs, which boosts EPS, and make sense if the company believes that their stock is a better investment than any other projects that they could invest in (meaning they can only get a 20% return on new projects, but a 40% return buying their shares), and tend to do secondary offerings when they think their stock price is high (meaning, they can get a better return on the money than the market, they expect the company's stock to be a -10% return and they can get a 3% (money market) or higher return on the cash).
I would consider this offering bearish, even though the fundamental financial analysis looks closer to neutral.
Generally, assets are depreciated over a set schedule. UNLIKE Tax accounting, where the IRS sets the depreciation schedule, for financial reporting and to some extent governments, can set the rules.
For example, they may have decided that we buy these machines for $1250, will get four years out of them, then have a salvage value of $50. Therefore, we take $300/year in machine costs (the depreciation) and sell them at the end.
Now, if a corp. sold them at the end for $200, then they would book $150/each. as a profit on disposed asset. But the school system has no concept, so likely sold them for the salvage value from 4 years ago... and that salvage value was probably based on previous laptop salvage pricing, ignoring that the Mac market tends to have higher salvage values.
So it likely wasn't fraud, but rather a government official confusing accounting with reality.
OPEC was 2/3s of the world's oil in the 70s. Then they decided to go on a 3 decade decadence run, which caused their production growth to stall. The rest of the world chased profits, and now OPEC is only 1/3 the market.
In addition, at $60+ a barrel, nobody is sitting on production. Everyone in OPEC but the Saudis tends to pump at full production, the quota system has been a joke for a while. Even the Saudis are at or near their max capacity... Now, if instead of building palaces they built more wells, they might get more oil, but hey. Getting Iraq back to full pumping would help tremendously... if this was a war for oil it was a sloppy war for oil...
The problems right now: Iraq is underproducing, and everyone is overbuying to build up inventory BECAUSE of the belief that some terrorist hit is going to happen and oil is going to shoot to $100/barrel. As a result, everyone is building up stocks, which causes price to rise.
Right now, we can't pump enough oil, and refineries are at over 95% capacity. The bottleneck for gas is refineries. Also, since gas demand is inelastic (a 1% increase in price causes LESS than a 1% decrease in consumption), to curb demand by a few percent, the prices SHOOT up. The refinery limitation is a REAL problem, as we want refined oil, not barrels.:)
There are a lot of warping factors in the oil market, but the Arab Cartel is only a small part of it. Environmental lunacy (the politics of environmentalism has resulted in two entrenched sides fighting for votes, NOT improving the environment -- there are lots of low hanging fruits that could be harvested with a reasonable pollution credit system... but that doesn't help fundraising... also, fundraising to BUY the credits on the open market is a lot less of a bang-for-your-buck then lobbying congress to outlaw the other side).
The oil problem will resolve itself in a few years... Sustainable $50+ barrels of oil will cause lots of production to come online, and for all its faults, the energy bill should increase refinery capacity...
The asinine thing is that we needed to increase production for a while, and people stalled the energy bill for 5 years because it had a 5-10 year payoff... well, if dealt with 5 years ago, we'd be in payoff land... on the other hand, the next President will get credit, which I'm sure the Democrats think will be one of their own.
Look, I'm a free market guy, don't get me wrong, but in this case, there is NO free market.
In theory, sports SHOULD be a free market, or RELATIVELY free. IF AND ONLY IF each team was an independent operator.
In theory, there are at least a thousand players talented enough to play at that level (including backups), and a few dozen buyers of talent including the NFL, and then the other leagues. HOWEVER, there isn't a free market at work. Remember, the NFL teams collude on things like rules, drafts etc. AS A RESULT, the league has colluded to be a monopsony, the singly buyer of a resource. While there ARE other options other than the NFL, the NFL has defacto monopolized the US market for setting football (USFL actually WON an anti-trust lawsuit against the NFL, but only $1 in damages because their own stupidity causing their fall; XFL likewise collapsed under their own stupidity). As a result, the players association functions as a union to monopolize the supply of labor.
There IS no free market in sports.
If you eliminated the draft, revenue sharing, etc., and forced each team to compete for players AND television contracts, then you would have a free market.
Instead, the NFL needs to only pay $1 more than the Canadians CAN AFFORD TO PAY and you can keep the monopoly rents.
Sports contracts aren't reasonable because of the cartel that supplies football to fans and purchases talent in a non-open market.
As a sports fan, I LIKE the market manipulating effects BECAUSE it increases parity in the league with the draft, etc. However, let's NOT pretend that there is an open market for athletic talents.
Okay, let's separate the fundamentalist Christians out for a moment... I am not a theologian, and NOT qualified to give a true explanation, so I'm INTENTIONALLY oversimplifying here. If you are really interested, speak with a theologian whose opinion and knowledge your trust.
The basic concept of "Creationism" or belief in Genesis...
Approximately 5765 lunar years ago (approximately because of quirks in the Hebrew calendar to reconcile it with the solar calendar with odd leap periods, etc.), the "universe was created and man was created. For Man was created a wife, and they lived in a world where there was no death, they named the animals, etc. Man's Wife ate from the Tree which they were forbidden, and Man and wife were cast out from paradise where they, and their descendants, would live, die, and their women would experience pain during childbirth."
Thats the 5 second rundown of this portion of Genesis. The other notion is that it was created in 7 days, and for the Seventh day creation was halted, and every 7 days thereafter we should rest in recognition of creation.
What do we know that supports this story (and its just that, a story)? Remember, according to Judaic (and Christian and Islamic) tradition, the Creator dictated this story to Moses while the Israelites were wandering the desert and he recorded it.
Note that of the five books of Moses, the beginning of the Bible, VERY little time is spent here. There is no explanation of methods, process, etc., it's to explain why we're all here.
What do we know, factually, that "supports" this story.
Mankind as we know it, is approximately 6000 years old. I don't mean physically, I mean culturally. The concepts of a city and agriculture shows its first signs of existence around then in that GENERAL area of the world.
We know that the Universe is ever-expanded, and the process is accelerating, not decelerating, which implies that the "Big Bang" was a unique event, not an oscillating universe. So up until some moment t=0, there was no universe... and then there was...
We also know that most animals on the planet seem to only exist to reproduce. Only mankind seems to have discussions about reproduction, debates about "choice vs. life," and concern about the life/health/well-being/happiness of the mother, because childbirth is an inherently dangerous event.
So everyone here can scream and yell, or realize that the Bible and Science seem to given different accounts that BOTH describe the same events... Man as intelligent (with "soul") creature making self determination happened approximately 6000 years ago in what is no the middle east.
Mankind is apparently unique in the pains of childbearing, at least to the point where it is used to make determination.
And at some point, there was nothing, and then something decided that there would be a universe, and it was.
The Bible, quite succinctly, describes the origin of the universe (there was nothing, and then there was something), and that then there was Man, and we continue.
3500+ years later, we now have spent 300 years and lots of money on research to discover the universe and we discovered... that there was in fact a moment of Creation (and we can even start to guesstimate when it was), that people should have AT LEAST ONE DAY off (and since then decided that there should be TWO), and that civilization as we know it started in the Middle East about 6000 years ago.
Both give you the same idea. The religious tradition gives you a reason, the scientific explanation gives you a methodology. Both are extremely valid, have "evidence" that supports the core portion.
The anti-relgious nihilist view that is prevalent here is truly sad, and loses site of what is going on. Creationism, at its core, explains a brief history of man and why we are unique. Evolution gives a long history of life and why mankind isn't unique, while also explaining why we are.
However, don't claim that EITHER side of the modern
The unstated assumption here is that good programmers cost substantially more then average programmers. Salary TENDS to coincide with experience and business skills (negotiating raises, etc.). While skill no doubt plays a role, he is assuming a 1:1 correlation between salary and skill. While I have no doubt that the correlation exceeds 0, it sure as hell ain't 1.
You want the best programmers, no question. A great programmer is EASILY 4 times as efficient as a mediocre one (as his numbers suggest), and isn't 4 times as expensive (the unstated part).
However, you can EASILY spend more money on mediocre programmers. Talented programmers seem to want fun environments (which is the premise he started with, then dropped) and a chance to do cool things.
A friend was working at a company building tools for IBM DB2... he HATED it because it was boring. Most of the programmers were older, had families, and were there from 9-5 working on properly documented and tested code.
They didn't need flashy brilliance, it wasn't a consumer app, they needed correctness, which requires different skills.
Interestingly, his own article contradicts a core claim: software is winner-take-all and you need the best. In reality, most markets are dominated by one player (network effects plus marginal cost = 0 implies a single major player), there are MANY viable niche companies, LIKE HIS, that earn livings and reasonable returns to investors WITHOUT dominating the overall industry.
There is an academic theory, that people vote for the candidate that most closely represents their views. In a parliamentary system, where the equivalent of the US Speaker of the House is head of state (in method of election), you tend to get more "pure" candidates running the country, because they need to win a majority of THEIR party, not the country. Therefore, a "liberal" candidate just needs to be conservative enough to get a majority of THEIR PARTY's elected leaders.
In a presidential system, the academic theory of moving to the middle is that whoever can grab enough turf to get 50% + 1 vote of the populace wins. Therefore, the system encourages centrism.
The fallacy is that we don't elect platforms, we elect people. In addition, the theory assumes that all voters are equally. In reality, the voter pool with 90% turnout is TWICE as valuable, per person, as the voter pool with 45% turnout.
The democrats keep moving to the right to win elections, but they suffer from this de-energizing their base (and with dozens of special interests groups that comprise the Democratic party's base, this is tough), which COSTS you votes MERELY by lowering their turnout from 90% to 70%... That was why the GOP LOST with moderates like George Bush and Bob Dole, and WON with conservatives like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
However, MORE than ideology is leadership. The US Republic was established where the people would choose leaders, but ideally choose wise leaders to make the decisions. The Constitution wasn't set up to support Litmus tests, you were supposed to choose leaders whose judgement you trust. Hence the masses choose the house, but the Senate was chosen by their elected leaders (double buffer), and the President chosen by electors chosen by the state. The IDEA of the system was to choose people who could make the decisions.
You should choose a candidate based on whether you trust their judgement, and that is what has been helping the GOP.
The last two Democratic Candidates, Al Gore and John Kerry, failed in that account (we can quibble as to whether Gore should have won the race, but coming down to a virtual tie in a state where your opponent's brother is the governor is screwed up, and bad strategy). People didn't trust them. Al Gore, as the moderate Technocrat that pushed Clinton's agenda when he had one should have won easily like George Bush did in 1988 on the prior leader's coattails, that fact that it was close was telling.
The "middle voters" don't have an ideology, that's why they are independents. Right-wingers vote Republican, Left-wingers vote Democratic, and the determination is TURN OUT (whose troops are more enamored) AND middle-voters, and middle voters care about individual leadership.
The Democratic Party needs to keep their academics out of strategy and choose leaders with leadership, not based upon ideology. Bill Clinton was NOT a hard-core left-winger, but he was much more left-of-center than he governed after losing the Congress. He won because of personal leadership strength, NOT ideology. George Bush ALSO won on personal leadership strength. Ronald Reagan did as well.
The secret to being a two-term president is probably personal leadership, which the modern Democratic party has abandoned... hence the view that John Kerry was electable because of a few months of battle experience.
For the Libertarian Party, which is run by extremists who aren't interested in forming a viable party. I actually think that a normal libertarian party, with libertarian ideals that campaigned on practical matters could win elections... HOWEVER, the Cato Institute, which is the libertarian think tank, has found a home in the modern GOP.
Here is the basic split: urban / rural Suburban/Exurban are 75%/25% or 25%/75% of those characteristics.
Urban Votes: extremely concerned about their neighbors This makes sense, when I was living in Boston, everyone was ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. They tend to be socially conservative, economically "authoritarian" (modern liberal), tending to want lots of regulations
Rural Voters: wanting to be left alone... somewhat "libertarian" On social issues, they tend to be personally conservative, more governmentally libertarian. This breaks down in the modern sense of "civil rights" which aren't really straight civil rights. Even anti-discrimination laws aren't straight civil rights because they take away an individual's right to discriminate in the venue of "what is right." This is what the modern liberals are missing. Argue for the rights of individuals to do what they want (gay couples forming legal relationships) and you'll win these votes, demand "marriage" and other social constructs and you freak these people out.
The modern parties, however, represent neither of those.
The GOP is an alliance between intellectual free-market libertarians and social conservatives. The votes come from the social conservatives, but most of the polciies from the libertarian wing. GOP Judicial Groups like The Federalist Society are HARDLY socially conservative the way the GOP base wants, they aren't going to push regulating personal lives... HOWEVER, they want to stop the Federal Government from interfering with the states abilities to do it, which is why the alliance holds.
The Democratic Party is a loose collection of intellectual "statists" (the so-called elites that believe that they know best), and a collection of individual special-rights cases with unusual claims. The votes come from these collection of groups. What is killing the party is that the funding comes from these groups, so they are led by their kooks. The GOP has an advantage that their libertarian wing picks up the tab while their social wing brings the votes, so each side has a balance of power.
With regard to the boomers... we're in trouble, because they learned in college that they can vote themselves money, and they are constantly voting themselves money, and are going to become worse and worse.
It will be interesting to see how Gen-X turns out as voters over time now that more and more of us (and I'm 1979, so the end of that generation) are married parents.
Idealism and Ideology are luxuries from people with time on their hands. It is extremely common among college kids (lots of free time) and single urban professionals (lots of money on their hands), but less common among the "normal" parts of the lifecycle (the period of time between 18 and whenever your first kid arrives between ages 22 and 35 is a modern invention). We'll see what happens.
But there will be NO small government while the boomers are a large voting block, because they have NEVER believed in personal responsibility and have ALWAYS as a group believed in the nanny-state. That is why both parties have gotten this bad, the largest voting block wants it. As youths they wanted free education, no responsibility for fighting the nation's wars, low taxes, tax breaks to buy expensive houses and have investment accounts, and then the next generation to pay taxes to support them, and the while deciding that things like "children" (those future tax payers that they want to support them) are optional and should be done in small doses.
Having a smaller generation than the previous one is a TERRIBLE thing that is relatively unique to that generation. When you stop being "fruitful and multiplying" then it becomes very easy to only focus on yourself and make increasingly unreasonable demands.
Alex
Would be unusual to upgrade before back-to-school.
on
New iBooks 'Any Day Now'
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Apple has "historically" (the last 2-3 years) done upgrades AFTER major buying times. Instead of getting a new model out for "back-to-school" shopping, they run "extra RAM" or other promotions for back-to-school folks to think that they are getting a good deal, sell out their existing inventory at basically full price with the shopping season (schools upgrade labs, parents buy kids computers, etc), then roll out new computers in October... It's annoying, but smart business... Most schools/universities turn over their fiscal year in either August, September, or October, to either roll the school year into one (September), or basically do that but not being trying to do year close-outs during the transition (hence August/October).
That means if they have money left in the budget to spend on the year, they buy the soon-to-be-closed out models at full price, then Apple starts a separate buying frenzy soon after.
For that reason, iPods tend NOT to get upgraded in late October (announce, ship in November) (in time for Christmas shopping, they get upgraded in January).
It's a margin maximizing move.
Now, with Apple's increased market (37% year-to-year increase in Computers, with US Marketshare at 4.5% last quarter), they may have just sold their inventory, so rather than making an old computer, they announce an upgrade and sell it... as I'd imagine as Freescale improves processors, there is no price break on the older ones, so Apple will upgrade, but we shall see.
In NT4 and earlier, those systems weren't there (WSH came out around Option Pack 2, right? It's been a while). However, up until recently, the majority of Windows Network systems were NT 4.0. The W2K+ Scripting environment is quite impressive (I've been doing my first Windows work in a while recently, although mostly Excel/VBA programming, but played with the scripting capability for fun), and it has come a long way.
When I worked a decent sized MS Partner, the MS Way was "point-and-click." They were going to do a 10,000 user migration by hand, because that was the MS Way. I grabbed the NT 4 Resource Kit and whipped up some Batch scripts to do the parsing, and the Windows guys were amazed.
Windows has some very intelligent scripting, buts its somewhat hidden because the NT 4 Days, which weren't short, but caused a problem. Older PC guys knew Batch scripting, which kinda disappeared in the NT 4 days because the tools weren't readily available (buried in the Resource Kit meant that you couldn't count on them being on the machine). The newer object-oriented programing method is cool (and absolutely preferable to parsing text streams, which as you said depends on an unchanging text output from a program, which is very constraining), but you need a new generation of Windows Geeks.
Unfortunately, hacking on Windows is about as "cool" as a Mac was 10 years ago, so your computer geeks just aren't learning it. This doesn't change the fact that good admins are critical, but there is a perception problem. Just like Novell became perceived "dead" because nobody saw it because the machines didn't crash.
The WMI/AppleScript approach (as in, thick self contained apps that are callable) is perfectly legitimate.
The other problem you have here is what happened to the MCSE in the late NT 4.0 days. When I was just finishing my MCSE, all the MCSE study guides were coming out... teaching to the test, and MS didn't upgrade the tests fast enough. Stuff that took me weeks reading the NT 4 Resource Guide was available in a condensed 4 hour book. Combine that with the MCSE Courses, that taught to the test, and the whole industry get messed up. People hired cheap "paper" MCSEs, and people got used to Admins not being able to program. Finding a Windows Admin that truly gets it is rare, because there is too much dependance on unknowledgable paper-admins, so people assume all Windows Admins suck.
The Mac Mini hits the cheap, entry level office machine price.
Build from scratch, XP Pro is approx. $200 (and I assume Longhorn will be similar).
Buy the low-end Dell that comes with XP Home, and its $119 to upgrade to XP Pro, and I have CD-RWs on my Windows machines, because my Quickbooks files are too big to email so I need to burn them and send them to my accountant for tax purposes.
Now, if I want a entry-level Unix workstation running Linux, then $500 can get your further. But if you want XP Pro/Longhorn Pro, the machines are comparable.
For a legal system, a home-built machine requires a $200 operating system, or a $120 upgrade off the base level.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, FEMA fucked up and was sloppy. I have no idea how much was the politically appointee at the top, and how much is institutional stupidity that goes back years. Some blame belongs to Bush and his appointee, on the "buck stops here" logic, but let's be realistic on some of what happened.
The Levee maintenance program has been "underfunded" for THREE decades. Every federal program is "underfunded," because people ask for the world, get something, and can now claim to have been underfunded.
It is NOT clear that if that $250m was restored to the Federal budget that the levees would have held. We have NO IDEA. But when the levees and a system designed for Category 3 Hurricanes gets hit with a slow moving Category 4, better maintenance PROBABLY WOULD NOT have mattered.
Louisiana/New Orleans have a Levee Maintenance Board that is supposed to maintain and improve the Levees. They can issue municipal bonds to pay for it (those lovely options that cities and states have that pay a lower interest rate than treasuries, because the interest is federal tax free, so the government picks up a third of the interest tab in terms of your rate being lower by a third). However, in typical Louisiana corruption, it was filled with political friends with NO INTEREST in Levees, and focused on casinos.
Further, FEMA is EXTREMELY powerful, which makes civil libertarians nervous. Here you have an executive branch department that can single-handedly declare martial law, basically suspend the constitution, etc., powers normally only available to Congress in wartime. The CHECK on government abuse is that a city or state MUST request that help. Now, in an ideal world, FEMA would ONLY be called in REAL emergencies (but when you declare an emergency, FEMA picks up 80% of the tab, so anytime you can you declare an emergency), but federal programs only work when they expand, not only act 1-4 times a decade.
The evacuation of New Orleans was the city's responsibility and the city's PLAN called for using school buses to evacuate people... why didn't this happen?
Notifying FEMA of where shelter's are is a LOCAL responsibility, because FEMA doesn't come in until AFTER there is an emergency. The Superdome is a lovely batch of embarrassment. FEMA learned through official channels 2 or 3 days in that there were people there with no food and water. The news-media was floored "don't you have a television." But as sad as this is, it kinda makes sense... You have some level of lower down FEMA officials going over their checklist, and the Superdome isn't on it, so it is ignored. The higher ups are watching the Superdome footage on TV thinking "those poor people, at least help is on the way." But a disconnect there completely makes sense, and is extremely tragic. Whoever is on the ground sees that it isn't on their list and assumes that it is someone else's. Those above that see it isn't getting help assume that it is on someone's list... More people die... I place the bame 70%-30%, 70% on local officials who didn't notify FEMA properly, and 30% Fed's, because when you see the media talking about people there being without food or medicine for 2-3 days, you call down the pipe until you find out who is responsible for it. The media attention could have made it possible to save lives, if someone thought outside the box.
Decades of mismanagement and corruption in Louisiana caused a catastrophe... Bush is apparently a COMPLETELY incompetent leader who can't get anyone good in the government... This situation sucks. But I'm sick of the partisanship on this... Plenty of stupidity goes around.
BTW: more has been spent on Levee's by the Feds in the 5 years that Bush has been in office than the 8 years that Clinton was in office. That doesn't mean anything, but this "Bush wanted to levees to break so he cut funding" doesn't match reality. I'm pretty sure that the leader of the free world wasn't personally overseeing levee maintenance... unfortunately, neither was the levee maintenance board...
Alex
The FSF was never about giving away software... To do that you just needs computers and FTP space, which RMS had through MIT anyways (that's who distributed GNU for the longest time) and sell the tapes.
The GNU license, as opposed to the MIT or BSD-w/o advertising clause, was about encouraging OTHERS to give away software. Why is GNU Readline GPL and not LGPL? Because if you want to build applications with that functionality, you need to release it under the GPL, or I suppose, something GPL-compatible and let others use a compile-time option. Either you added the viral GPL license OR you released your software in a way usable free software only people.
The goal of the FSF is to get as MUCH software as possible available for people that want to ONLY use free software.
The FSF doesn't care about Microsoft's bottom line.
The FSF doesn't care about "converting users to free software/open source software."
The FSF doesn't care about "benefits of open source development models."
The FSF is dedicated to one thing only. Getting as much Free Software available to users that share their cause.
It is, of course, reaching the absurdity point, where it has become almost religious (and not just the old belief that it is right to be able to modify your softare... and you ought to be able to share your stuff with your friends)... In writing the old GPL (v1 and v2), the goal was to make the software free for ANYONE to use, and use it as a CARROT (if you play in our sandbox, you get to use all this code for free) for development. It appears that there is now a desire to use a stick as well... (if you don't follow our rules on related items, you can't use ANY of this code for your development).
I presume that the GPL will stick to its core as a distribution license. One of the MAJOR fundamental issues that the FSF talked about was that USAGE licenses were absurd and should be ILLEGAL, copyright only covers distribution.
If the FSF turns this into a EULA... EXTREMELY unlikely, I would expect them to lose what remains of their leadership. Unfortunately for RMS, the man that STARTED the movement for free software (and therefore, open source which was originally an attempt at rebranding), he has been relatively marginalized and called a zealot and extremist. I believe that this is an attempt to retake the leadership of the "Free Software/Open Source" Camps under the FSF banner, but I believe it will cause such resistence as to cause a schism. That may be good, or it may be bad. I happen to like competition, but I'm not convinced that Open Source / Free Software compete for people anyway, as the extreme views of the FSF limit them to true believers.
Alex
Google believes that barriers to switching, or vendor lock-in, is counter productive. In many ways it is. Customers LIKE to have choices, and lock-in deters them from choosing you. They have decided that avoiding the lock-in deterrent is a worthwhile trade-off from not having the lock-in down the road.
Instead of looking for industries where they can establish barriers to entry, they have chosen to just be the best in the industry.
Google has made it their corporate culture to do what we as consumers should desire, a company that doesn't erect barriers to entry or barriers to switching.
As long as they are willing to compete whenever and where ever they are, I say, AWESOME. If only EVERY industry had players willing to do that.
NOTE: I say this as someone who owns no Google shares, engages in SEO and has been mistreated and banned by Google more than any other engine, and is generally floored by the way they run their company. OTOH, I respect an entity that is willing to play in a competitive marketplace, instead of looking for sleazy tactics to monopolize industries.
Alex
Google is in a space where anyone with a better algorithm can raise venture money, like Google did, and enter the search market.
To strengthen their position, Google has integrated the Ad business via Adwords to not be at the mercy of a third party like everyone else was. Google has done a LOT to strengthen their position.
However, the one thing Google has NOT ever done, and has made clear that they WON'T do, it lock users in. They do have a bunch of patents to try to keep a new competitor out, but they haven't tried the lock in.
The founders have made it clear that they believe handcuffs on users counter-productive and don't believe in them.
They have consistently made it clear that they believe that they are the most innovate company, and have no need to block competition, they will simply out-compete.
That's their corporate mission, identity, and culture. Don't Be Evil is a clever way of putting. However, the company has been focused on winning by being the best, and believe that the best way to fight as a tech company is to be the best, not lock consumers in.
I applaud that, and respect the company, and have no problem with them dominating ANY industry, as LONG as they don't try to create barriers to entry or customer lock-in, they aren't a monopoly, and will never be a monopoly.
If Google was the ONLY search engine, they wouldn't be a monopoly, because without barriers to entry, they can't extract "monopoly rents," they are forced to the competitive rates because with no customer lock-in or barriers to switching, they are in the competitive space, which is where Google seems to want to play. Go Google!
Alex
To develop Iridium, HUGE amounts of money was borrowed... The cost of carrying the debt was a HUGE fixed cost. This meant that high prices were needed to cover those costs.
Iridium goes bankrupt and is sold for pennies on the dollars. The debt is repaid from the proceeds at pennies on the dollars.
If you spent $5b building something, at 10% interest, you have $500m a year in interest payments.
If you go under, and firesale it for say, $1b, the new owners, at 10% interest, have a $100m a year interest payment. That is a MUCH lower fixed cost element.
That is why Iridium is able to go with cheaper rates now. It was an unviable investment, but it was better to sell at a loss then just shut down, and the new owners can make money.
Microsoft and Intel are not friends. They are two companies that seemed to have stumbled upon a huge monopoly that they have to share. With NT 3.51/4.0, Microsoft tried to kick Intel out of its position with cross-platform support, and failed. Intel doesn't have a full monopoly because of AMD.
Basically, the closer you are to a monopoly, the more excess profits you get. Intel can't extract huge profits because AMD provides competition and MS grabs a big chunk.
Competition for OSes means that the excess profits can flow back to hardware, where Intel wins.
Remember, MS moving the XBox to the PPC is HUGE, because it means that they are getting some developers at least to support Win32/PPC, and I wouldn't rule out a run at PPC computers from MS... Hell, they could do it as MS hardware, and grab all the profits.
Competition is good for consumers. This is what we've been missing during the 10 year run (Win 95 - present) where MS and Intel monopolized the computer market.
Alex
Outsourcing is applying economic theory to comparative advantage.
If I can produce 5 Apples OR 4 Oranges, and you can produce 2 Apples or 3 Oranges, then I have an absolute advantage in both.
On my own I can produce MORE apples or MORE oranges than you.
However, if I produce Apples, and you produce oranges, we can trade.
Assuming that I give you 1:1 Apple for oranges...
I produce 5 Apples, and trade you 3 for 3 oranges. I end up with 2 Apples and 3 Oranges, which is more that I could produce splitting my time (75% of Orange Production PLUS 40% of Apple production, 115% of my previous max).
You now have 3 Apples. On your own you could generate 2 Apples, so it is 50% more efficient for you to produce oranges and trade me for apples.
Both of us won in the trade, and are now wealthier, even though at first glance, trade seems silly because I'm more efficient.
Taken from Economics to the business world, I concentrate on my core competency, Apples, and you concentrate on yours, Oranges, and we trade in the marketplace.
Outsourcing (which has somehow become synonymous with offshoring) is simply doing that in services. If you are better at IT, and I am better at banking, I should focus on banking and outsource IT to you.
Further, a company is a virtual entity, not a real one. The question becomes, is it more efficient for me to hire IT people or outsource to an IT service shop?
All things being equal, hiring SHOULD be cheaper, but there are advantages to both. Perhaps I need 16 IT skillsets, but 4 at one time. I could hire an IT shop, and even if I pay 4:1 for consulting rates, I can get all 16 skills when I need them.
Outsourcing is not inherently different from GM buying parts from a supplier instead of creating them in their factory. They conclude that their management time is best applied to making cars, so they should only have employees that do that and buy the parts in the marketplace.
Outsourcing will remain, because sometimes it makes sense to focus on what you do well, instead of trying to do everything, which is a headache, and requires more managers that your senior managers need to keep an eye on.
It is also a lot of accounting nonsense. Depending on your cost allocation model, your overhead, which may be 80% of the costs (i.e. for a software company, R&D is "overhead" and the direct costs of "manufacturing" CDs is trivial)... so it is possible to misconstrue what your costs are and decide to outsource....
Alex
Stem-cell cures are probably two decades away, if proven viable.
No side of the stem-cell debate is AT all honest.
On the left...
The pro-embryonic research crew is 1, telling sick people that George Bush is killing them, when in fact they have a death sentence and stem cell research may cure FUTURE patents, but not likely the current ones.
This is more about politics than anything else. A prohibition on federal funds isn't a prohibition on research. Bush was the first President to approve ANY funding, and allowed it for pre-existing lines. That may not be enough lines for major research, but it should have given a start to doing some of the basic research to determine if this is viable. Unfortunately, people would rather play politics. I expect the pro-choice crowd to be EXTREMELY upset at this research, that manages to create research lines WITHOUT destroying life, as many of the vocal members aren't focused on the research, but a believe that every embryo destroyed someone secures their agenda.
On the right...
Federal funding is generally key to any EARLY stage research. Cutting off federal funds DOES slow down basic research.
This is a closet attempt to deal with their moral issues with IVF, not the activity, but the discarding of embryos.
If this discovery is confirmed then it means that Bush's compromise worked out wonderfully, whether you like him or not. He allowed the basic research to continue, and scientists found a solution.
Do you think that if every undergrad biology student could get a vial of embryos as part of a basic lab class (if you listen to the argument on the left that there is NO MORAL question), this research would have been heavily pushed or developed?
The pro-choice crowd was EXTREMELY excited about the ability to destroy more embryos as part of their "proof" that embryos aren't life. The pro-life crowd wanted to start developing embryonic rights. Somehow, Bush managed to placate the religiously motivated conservatives while allowing the research to go on, and low-and-behold, someone may have found a solution that solves the whole problem.
Alex
swilden writers, "and how many companies *aren't* smaller?"
:)
:)
Now that it an easy question. There are 9 companies that aren't smaller than IBM in the US alone.
In 2005, IBM's Fortune 500 Rank was 10, meaning 9 companies exceeded them in size. In 2004 they were number 9... they gotta watch out.
It isn't just IBM that is HUGE. HP, through merger mania is #11, and tiny little direct sales PC only Dell is even ranked #28... Note I say Tiny because Dell had under $50b in revenues, and IBM had almost $100b... IBM despite spinning off and selling division after division is twice the size of Dell. However, while Dell shot up the list, Apple is growing nicely and is up to rank 263, but with just over $8 in Revenues.
However, in reality, there are MANY companies that are larger than IBM. IBM is only #20 on the Global 500 rank...
For comparison, the almighty Microsoft, that Slashdot seems to be under the mistaken impression is the largest and most powerful company in the world, only clocks in at #41 in the Fortune 500 list (and Intel is #50), and at #127.
What does this mean? Note very much...
OTOH, IBM is HUGE, MASSIVE, GIANT. Despite massive spin-offs, they are a $100b company. Microsoft is a minor player in comparison at $36b, although is HUGELY profitable... But, for comparison, niche player Apple is over 1/5th the size of Microsoft, so it's not the minor player everyone treats them as.
Alex
IN THEORY, it should be a neutral event. You are "whole" after the event, and if the company deploys the capital better, you win despite the fundraising.
IN PRACTICE, you lose money because of fees/costs, in addition, each expenditure of capital is normally less efficient than the previous one, therefore, if the company does a major dilution, it is often a losing deal.
FROM THE ORIGINAL POST onward, I explained why in practice this is NORMALLY a BAD thing.
I simply pointed out that it isn't "theft" or anything else, since it is theoretically a neutral event with positive justifications.
In other words... it's not really a good things for shareholders, but it isn't a violation of fiduciary obligations because on paper it is a neutral to positive event.
I never denied dilution, I argued that it should be theoretically neutral.
You currently have 50% of $1. That's worth 50 cents.
What happens if I change that to 25% of $2? That's still worth 50 cents.
In THEORY the shares are sold at market price, therefore the dilution is compensated for by the increased value.
Assuming Value of Company = NPV(all future cash flows) + cash on hand
Company sells 10% of itself for 10% of its value.
Everyone owns 90% of what they did before, but the company is 110% the size, so it's a wash, yes I'm simplifying on the percentages each way... it's an example...
As I originally stated, as long as fair market value is obtained, it's theoretically useless... As stated elsewhere in the thread, I basically gave a textbook explanation.
You invest $1 in company X.
The company is worth $100, and you own 1%, 1 share of 100 outstanding.
Company X realizes that it needs $100 to expand.
Company X sells 100 shares, and receives $100.
The company is now worth $200. Basically, this was a neutral event, no effect on income statement, and on the balance sheet, Cash (an asset) went up by $100, and Paid in Capital went up by $100.
Any analysis of the stock should figure out the value of the business (not counting cash), plus the cash on hand... P/E doesn't, but a discounting cash flow should. P/E is a simple overview and assumes that cash in a "normal amount."
You still own 1 Share, worth $1. You are EXACTLY where you were before.
However, you have half the "ownership."
Now, if the company uses that $100 to create $200 (of value), in one year, the company is now worth $400. Your one share is worth $2.
Now, without dilution, your share (1%) would be $4, but that isn't real, because without that $100 the company would still be worth $100, so you'd only have $1.
See? That increases your value, IF the cash is put to good use.
If the company screws up, and when they sold 100 shares, they only received $50 because of all the fees, then the company was worth $150 and your share 75 cents, OH NO. If they turn that $50 into $100, the company is worth $200, and you are back to $1. If they turn that $50 into $0, bought pets.com, then the company is only worth $100, and your investment is worth 50 cents.
In other words, if you believe management has a positive use of cash, this is a positive event (although I'd prefer debt given Google's high P/E and therefore high discount factor... or the market expects MASSIVE growth for YEARS without a high discount factor).
If you believe management has a crappy use of cash... well, this is a bad event. However, if they really misuse their cash, you should sell the stock while it is worth $1, before it becomes worth $0.
Alex
It doesn't... I'm not terribly interested in evaluating Google's business, just pointing out that a secondary offering in theory is a neutral event, in reality SHOULD be a positive event, but OFTEN is a negative event.
:)
If you want real analysis, I suggest hiring a financial analyst and have them spend about 4 hours with spreadsheets... not ask for it on Slashdot...
But, in a nutshell, if Google has a business plan for deploying $4m that will let them extract monopoly rents for the next 5 years, then that would drastically increase their profits once the monopoly is secured and allowing them to extract monopoly rents (monopoly rents = economics term for the excess profit generated by a monopoly or partial monopoly... i.e. Internet Companies in general are in a monopolistically competitive field, where each company is differentiated... unlike say, farmers with corn... so there is a small monopoly rent, but it isn't like Microsoft that carries a monopoly on a complete market... the fewer competitors, the more "rents" extracted, and an oligopoly, like the search engine market, has each player potentially extracting large "rents")...
I mean, Google did something short of $1b last 12 months (or run rate, or something, I forget, I'm not an analyst and don't really follow Google's financials)... If you assume that with a monopoly on the market (to the point where everyone else takes what Google leaves on the table, Google's earnings go from $1b to $4b, then Google should increase 400%... except that the P/E probably drops in half as growth slows, so Google marketcap should increase 200%...
In any scenario where Google puts the money to profitable use, this SHOULD be a good deal for the shareholders.
However, in the likely scenario where Google wants to use its "overvalued" Marketcap to raise money, this is BAD for shareholders... NOTE: this isn't inherently bad... I'm not suggesting that they are being bad fiduciaries... I'm suggesting that they may want to use this small 5% dilution to increase earnings by 20% or more, making this a GOOD fiduciary action, but it is likely that the company is doing it now because they expect the price to fall, making this a bad omen, even if the right financial mood.
A high P/E stock has a HIGH discount factor of future cash flows, with an expected return on investment FAR ABOVE the worst of the junk markets... If Google didn't expect a price drop, they should fund via debt, not equity, to maximize shareholder value... That said, tech companies tend to not like debt, and not pay dividends, trying to increase their internal value.
Alex
In THEORY, a secondary offering has no impact on current shareholder...
Let us assume that Google is worth $75b (its really 77, but 75 makes easier math).
So, it's pre-money value is $76b. Pretend Google is selling $5b work of shares. Now, Google has an additional $5b in cash, making its value $80b. However, everyone has been diluted. So, your previous 1% of Google is now 15/16 of a percent, but the company is worth 16/15 what is was before.
Now, assuming that Google has a profitable use for that cash, then Google takes that $5 and turns it into $25b of value (but loses the $5b in cash). Now, the new Google is worth $100b. So while you own a smaller share, at the moment of sale you were made whole (by the cash coming in), and you benefit from the increase in value.
However, reality is NOT so kind. In reality, Google selling $4b worth of shares will probably be at a slight discount, to encourage the big funds to pony up the cash (you don't normally unload $4b of shares on the open market and hope for the best), plus the bankers get paid. So the company ends up diluting by more than the net cash position improves.
Assuming Google has a profitable use of that cash, you should still come out ahead, because Google will in theory sell $4b in stock, collect $3.8b, and as long as they turn it into at LEAST $4b of value, you're even, and at $8b-$10b, you come out ahead...
Now let's add a little more reality. Generally, companies deploy their capital in less and less valuable area, which makes sense. If you have 20 profitable investment opportunities, each of which take $1m. If you have $10m to invest, you do the top 10 of them. If you get an extra $10m, you choose the less valuable ones, and if you are stuck with investing another $10m, you either sit on cash or chase the 10 best unprofitable activities to look busy. That's part of why dividend companies with reasonable payout ratios look so good on a dividend-reinvestment basis, they only chase REALLY profitable activities.
In addition, Google is very profitable, so it should be able to chase most of its profitable investment opportunities. With a P/E of 80, the implied cost of capital is MUCH higher than a junk-bond offering, which would only expect an 8%-10% return (interest) compared to investors expecting an 80% return (no I'm not doing the math, but its a ridiculous annual return to justify paying 80 times trailing earnings, somewhere in the 40%-80% annualized range).
Therefore, the non-financial view of the situation is: profitable companies that think their stock is undervalued do stock buy-backs, which boosts EPS, and make sense if the company believes that their stock is a better investment than any other projects that they could invest in (meaning they can only get a 20% return on new projects, but a 40% return buying their shares), and tend to do secondary offerings when they think their stock price is high (meaning, they can get a better return on the money than the market, they expect the company's stock to be a -10% return and they can get a 3% (money market) or higher return on the cash).
I would consider this offering bearish, even though the fundamental financial analysis looks closer to neutral.
Alex
Generally, assets are depreciated over a set schedule. UNLIKE Tax accounting, where the IRS sets the depreciation schedule, for financial reporting and to some extent governments, can set the rules.
For example, they may have decided that we buy these machines for $1250, will get four years out of them, then have a salvage value of $50. Therefore, we take $300/year in machine costs (the depreciation) and sell them at the end.
Now, if a corp. sold them at the end for $200, then they would book $150/each. as a profit on disposed asset. But the school system has no concept, so likely sold them for the salvage value from 4 years ago... and that salvage value was probably based on previous laptop salvage pricing, ignoring that the Mac market tends to have higher salvage values.
So it likely wasn't fraud, but rather a government official confusing accounting with reality.
OPEC was 2/3s of the world's oil in the 70s. Then they decided to go on a 3 decade decadence run, which caused their production growth to stall. The rest of the world chased profits, and now OPEC is only 1/3 the market.
:)
In addition, at $60+ a barrel, nobody is sitting on production. Everyone in OPEC but the Saudis tends to pump at full production, the quota system has been a joke for a while. Even the Saudis are at or near their max capacity... Now, if instead of building palaces they built more wells, they might get more oil, but hey. Getting Iraq back to full pumping would help tremendously... if this was a war for oil it was a sloppy war for oil...
The problems right now: Iraq is underproducing, and everyone is overbuying to build up inventory BECAUSE of the belief that some terrorist hit is going to happen and oil is going to shoot to $100/barrel. As a result, everyone is building up stocks, which causes price to rise.
Right now, we can't pump enough oil, and refineries are at over 95% capacity. The bottleneck for gas is refineries. Also, since gas demand is inelastic (a 1% increase in price causes LESS than a 1% decrease in consumption), to curb demand by a few percent, the prices SHOOT up. The refinery limitation is a REAL problem, as we want refined oil, not barrels.
There are a lot of warping factors in the oil market, but the Arab Cartel is only a small part of it. Environmental lunacy (the politics of environmentalism has resulted in two entrenched sides fighting for votes, NOT improving the environment -- there are lots of low hanging fruits that could be harvested with a reasonable pollution credit system... but that doesn't help fundraising... also, fundraising to BUY the credits on the open market is a lot less of a bang-for-your-buck then lobbying congress to outlaw the other side).
The oil problem will resolve itself in a few years... Sustainable $50+ barrels of oil will cause lots of production to come online, and for all its faults, the energy bill should increase refinery capacity...
The asinine thing is that we needed to increase production for a while, and people stalled the energy bill for 5 years because it had a 5-10 year payoff... well, if dealt with 5 years ago, we'd be in payoff land... on the other hand, the next President will get credit, which I'm sure the Democrats think will be one of their own.
Alex
Look, I'm a free market guy, don't get me wrong, but in this case, there is NO free market.
In theory, sports SHOULD be a free market, or RELATIVELY free. IF AND ONLY IF each team was an independent operator.
In theory, there are at least a thousand players talented enough to play at that level (including backups), and a few dozen buyers of talent including the NFL, and then the other leagues. HOWEVER, there isn't a free market at work. Remember, the NFL teams collude on things like rules, drafts etc. AS A RESULT, the league has colluded to be a monopsony, the singly buyer of a resource. While there ARE other options other than the NFL, the NFL has defacto monopolized the US market for setting football (USFL actually WON an anti-trust lawsuit against the NFL, but only $1 in damages because their own stupidity causing their fall; XFL likewise collapsed under their own stupidity). As a result, the players association functions as a union to monopolize the supply of labor.
There IS no free market in sports.
If you eliminated the draft, revenue sharing, etc., and forced each team to compete for players AND television contracts, then you would have a free market.
Instead, the NFL needs to only pay $1 more than the Canadians CAN AFFORD TO PAY and you can keep the monopoly rents.
Sports contracts aren't reasonable because of the cartel that supplies football to fans and purchases talent in a non-open market.
As a sports fan, I LIKE the market manipulating effects BECAUSE it increases parity in the league with the draft, etc. However, let's NOT pretend that there is an open market for athletic talents.
Alex
Okay, let's separate the fundamentalist Christians out for a moment... I am not a theologian, and NOT qualified to give a true explanation, so I'm INTENTIONALLY oversimplifying here. If you are really interested, speak with a theologian whose opinion and knowledge your trust.
The basic concept of "Creationism" or belief in Genesis...
Approximately 5765 lunar years ago (approximately because of quirks in the Hebrew calendar to reconcile it with the solar calendar with odd leap periods, etc.), the "universe was created and man was created. For Man was created a wife, and they lived in a world where there was no death, they named the animals, etc. Man's Wife ate from the Tree which they were forbidden, and Man and wife were cast out from paradise where they, and their descendants, would live, die, and their women would experience pain during childbirth."
Thats the 5 second rundown of this portion of Genesis. The other notion is that it was created in 7 days, and for the Seventh day creation was halted, and every 7 days thereafter we should rest in recognition of creation.
What do we know that supports this story (and its just that, a story)? Remember, according to Judaic (and Christian and Islamic) tradition, the Creator dictated this story to Moses while the Israelites were wandering the desert and he recorded it.
Note that of the five books of Moses, the beginning of the Bible, VERY little time is spent here. There is no explanation of methods, process, etc., it's to explain why we're all here.
What do we know, factually, that "supports" this story.
Mankind as we know it, is approximately 6000 years old. I don't mean physically, I mean culturally. The concepts of a city and agriculture shows its first signs of existence around then in that GENERAL area of the world.
We know that the Universe is ever-expanded, and the process is accelerating, not decelerating, which implies that the "Big Bang" was a unique event, not an oscillating universe. So up until some moment t=0, there was no universe... and then there was...
We also know that most animals on the planet seem to only exist to reproduce. Only mankind seems to have discussions about reproduction, debates about "choice vs. life," and concern about the life/health/well-being/happiness of the mother, because childbirth is an inherently dangerous event.
So everyone here can scream and yell, or realize that the Bible and Science seem to given different accounts that BOTH describe the same events... Man as intelligent (with "soul") creature making self determination happened approximately 6000 years ago in what is no the middle east.
Mankind is apparently unique in the pains of childbearing, at least to the point where it is used to make determination.
And at some point, there was nothing, and then something decided that there would be a universe, and it was.
The Bible, quite succinctly, describes the origin of the universe (there was nothing, and then there was something), and that then there was Man, and we continue.
3500+ years later, we now have spent 300 years and lots of money on research to discover the universe and we discovered... that there was in fact a moment of Creation (and we can even start to guesstimate when it was), that people should have AT LEAST ONE DAY off (and since then decided that there should be TWO), and that civilization as we know it started in the Middle East about 6000 years ago.
Both give you the same idea. The religious tradition gives you a reason, the scientific explanation gives you a methodology. Both are extremely valid, have "evidence" that supports the core portion.
The anti-relgious nihilist view that is prevalent here is truly sad, and loses site of what is going on. Creationism, at its core, explains a brief history of man and why we are unique. Evolution gives a long history of life and why mankind isn't unique, while also explaining why we are.
However, don't claim that EITHER side of the modern
The unstated assumption here is that good programmers cost substantially more then average programmers. Salary TENDS to coincide with experience and business skills (negotiating raises, etc.). While skill no doubt plays a role, he is assuming a 1:1 correlation between salary and skill. While I have no doubt that the correlation exceeds 0, it sure as hell ain't 1.
You want the best programmers, no question. A great programmer is EASILY 4 times as efficient as a mediocre one (as his numbers suggest), and isn't 4 times as expensive (the unstated part).
However, you can EASILY spend more money on mediocre programmers. Talented programmers seem to want fun environments (which is the premise he started with, then dropped) and a chance to do cool things.
A friend was working at a company building tools for IBM DB2... he HATED it because it was boring. Most of the programmers were older, had families, and were there from 9-5 working on properly documented and tested code.
They didn't need flashy brilliance, it wasn't a consumer app, they needed correctness, which requires different skills.
Interestingly, his own article contradicts a core claim: software is winner-take-all and you need the best. In reality, most markets are dominated by one player (network effects plus marginal cost = 0 implies a single major player), there are MANY viable niche companies, LIKE HIS, that earn livings and reasonable returns to investors WITHOUT dominating the overall industry.
Fun read, no useful advice, total crap.
Alex
Engineers that got partial credit build bridges that collapse.
There is an academic theory, that people vote for the candidate that most closely represents their views. In a parliamentary system, where the equivalent of the US Speaker of the House is head of state (in method of election), you tend to get more "pure" candidates running the country, because they need to win a majority of THEIR party, not the country. Therefore, a "liberal" candidate just needs to be conservative enough to get a majority of THEIR PARTY's elected leaders.
In a presidential system, the academic theory of moving to the middle is that whoever can grab enough turf to get 50% + 1 vote of the populace wins. Therefore, the system encourages centrism.
The fallacy is that we don't elect platforms, we elect people. In addition, the theory assumes that all voters are equally. In reality, the voter pool with 90% turnout is TWICE as valuable, per person, as the voter pool with 45% turnout.
The democrats keep moving to the right to win elections, but they suffer from this de-energizing their base (and with dozens of special interests groups that comprise the Democratic party's base, this is tough), which COSTS you votes MERELY by lowering their turnout from 90% to 70%... That was why the GOP LOST with moderates like George Bush and Bob Dole, and WON with conservatives like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
However, MORE than ideology is leadership. The US Republic was established where the people would choose leaders, but ideally choose wise leaders to make the decisions. The Constitution wasn't set up to support Litmus tests, you were supposed to choose leaders whose judgement you trust. Hence the masses choose the house, but the Senate was chosen by their elected leaders (double buffer), and the President chosen by electors chosen by the state. The IDEA of the system was to choose people who could make the decisions.
You should choose a candidate based on whether you trust their judgement, and that is what has been helping the GOP.
The last two Democratic Candidates, Al Gore and John Kerry, failed in that account (we can quibble as to whether Gore should have won the race, but coming down to a virtual tie in a state where your opponent's brother is the governor is screwed up, and bad strategy). People didn't trust them. Al Gore, as the moderate Technocrat that pushed Clinton's agenda when he had one should have won easily like George Bush did in 1988 on the prior leader's coattails, that fact that it was close was telling.
The "middle voters" don't have an ideology, that's why they are independents. Right-wingers vote Republican, Left-wingers vote Democratic, and the determination is TURN OUT (whose troops are more enamored) AND middle-voters, and middle voters care about individual leadership.
The Democratic Party needs to keep their academics out of strategy and choose leaders with leadership, not based upon ideology. Bill Clinton was NOT a hard-core left-winger, but he was much more left-of-center than he governed after losing the Congress. He won because of personal leadership strength, NOT ideology. George Bush ALSO won on personal leadership strength. Ronald Reagan did as well.
The secret to being a two-term president is probably personal leadership, which the modern Democratic party has abandoned... hence the view that John Kerry was electable because of a few months of battle experience.
Alex
For the Libertarian Party, which is run by extremists who aren't interested in forming a viable party. I actually think that a normal libertarian party, with libertarian ideals that campaigned on practical matters could win elections... HOWEVER, the Cato Institute, which is the libertarian think tank, has found a home in the modern GOP.
Here is the basic split: urban / rural
Suburban/Exurban are 75%/25% or 25%/75% of those characteristics.
Urban Votes: extremely concerned about their neighbors
This makes sense, when I was living in Boston, everyone was ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. They tend to be socially conservative, economically "authoritarian" (modern liberal), tending to want lots of regulations
Rural Voters: wanting to be left alone... somewhat "libertarian"
On social issues, they tend to be personally conservative, more governmentally libertarian.
This breaks down in the modern sense of "civil rights" which aren't really straight civil rights. Even anti-discrimination laws aren't straight civil rights because they take away an individual's right to discriminate in the venue of "what is right." This is what the modern liberals are missing. Argue for the rights of individuals to do what they want (gay couples forming legal relationships) and you'll win these votes, demand "marriage" and other social constructs and you freak these people out.
The modern parties, however, represent neither of those.
The GOP is an alliance between intellectual free-market libertarians and social conservatives. The votes come from the social conservatives, but most of the polciies from the libertarian wing. GOP Judicial Groups like The Federalist Society are HARDLY socially conservative the way the GOP base wants, they aren't going to push regulating personal lives... HOWEVER, they want to stop the Federal Government from interfering with the states abilities to do it, which is why the alliance holds.
The Democratic Party is a loose collection of intellectual "statists" (the so-called elites that believe that they know best), and a collection of individual special-rights cases with unusual claims. The votes come from these collection of groups. What is killing the party is that the funding comes from these groups, so they are led by their kooks. The GOP has an advantage that their libertarian wing picks up the tab while their social wing brings the votes, so each side has a balance of power.
With regard to the boomers... we're in trouble, because they learned in college that they can vote themselves money, and they are constantly voting themselves money, and are going to become worse and worse.
It will be interesting to see how Gen-X turns out as voters over time now that more and more of us (and I'm 1979, so the end of that generation) are married parents.
Idealism and Ideology are luxuries from people with time on their hands. It is extremely common among college kids (lots of free time) and single urban professionals (lots of money on their hands), but less common among the "normal" parts of the lifecycle (the period of time between 18 and whenever your first kid arrives between ages 22 and 35 is a modern invention). We'll see what happens.
But there will be NO small government while the boomers are a large voting block, because they have NEVER believed in personal responsibility and have ALWAYS as a group believed in the nanny-state. That is why both parties have gotten this bad, the largest voting block wants it. As youths they wanted free education, no responsibility for fighting the nation's wars, low taxes, tax breaks to buy expensive houses and have investment accounts, and then the next generation to pay taxes to support them, and the while deciding that things like "children" (those future tax payers that they want to support them) are optional and should be done in small doses.
Having a smaller generation than the previous one is a TERRIBLE thing that is relatively unique to that generation. When you stop being "fruitful and multiplying" then it becomes very easy to only focus on yourself and make increasingly unreasonable demands.
Alex
Apple has "historically" (the last 2-3 years) done upgrades AFTER major buying times. Instead of getting a new model out for "back-to-school" shopping, they run "extra RAM" or other promotions for back-to-school folks to think that they are getting a good deal, sell out their existing inventory at basically full price with the shopping season (schools upgrade labs, parents buy kids computers, etc), then roll out new computers in October... It's annoying, but smart business... Most schools/universities turn over their fiscal year in either August, September, or October, to either roll the school year into one (September), or basically do that but not being trying to do year close-outs during the transition (hence August/October).
That means if they have money left in the budget to spend on the year, they buy the soon-to-be-closed out models at full price, then Apple starts a separate buying frenzy soon after.
For that reason, iPods tend NOT to get upgraded in late October (announce, ship in November) (in time for Christmas shopping, they get upgraded in January).
It's a margin maximizing move.
Now, with Apple's increased market (37% year-to-year increase in Computers, with US Marketshare at 4.5% last quarter), they may have just sold their inventory, so rather than making an old computer, they announce an upgrade and sell it... as I'd imagine as Freescale improves processors, there is no price break on the older ones, so Apple will upgrade, but we shall see.
Alex
In NT4 and earlier, those systems weren't there (WSH came out around Option Pack 2, right? It's been a while). However, up until recently, the majority of Windows Network systems were NT 4.0. The W2K+ Scripting environment is quite impressive (I've been doing my first Windows work in a while recently, although mostly Excel/VBA programming, but played with the scripting capability for fun), and it has come a long way.
When I worked a decent sized MS Partner, the MS Way was "point-and-click." They were going to do a 10,000 user migration by hand, because that was the MS Way. I grabbed the NT 4 Resource Kit and whipped up some Batch scripts to do the parsing, and the Windows guys were amazed.
Windows has some very intelligent scripting, buts its somewhat hidden because the NT 4 Days, which weren't short, but caused a problem. Older PC guys knew Batch scripting, which kinda disappeared in the NT 4 days because the tools weren't readily available (buried in the Resource Kit meant that you couldn't count on them being on the machine). The newer object-oriented programing method is cool (and absolutely preferable to parsing text streams, which as you said depends on an unchanging text output from a program, which is very constraining), but you need a new generation of Windows Geeks.
Unfortunately, hacking on Windows is about as "cool" as a Mac was 10 years ago, so your computer geeks just aren't learning it. This doesn't change the fact that good admins are critical, but there is a perception problem. Just like Novell became perceived "dead" because nobody saw it because the machines didn't crash.
The WMI/AppleScript approach (as in, thick self contained apps that are callable) is perfectly legitimate.
The other problem you have here is what happened to the MCSE in the late NT 4.0 days. When I was just finishing my MCSE, all the MCSE study guides were coming out... teaching to the test, and MS didn't upgrade the tests fast enough. Stuff that took me weeks reading the NT 4 Resource Guide was available in a condensed 4 hour book. Combine that with the MCSE Courses, that taught to the test, and the whole industry get messed up. People hired cheap "paper" MCSEs, and people got used to Admins not being able to program. Finding a Windows Admin that truly gets it is rare, because there is too much dependance on unknowledgable paper-admins, so people assume all Windows Admins suck.
Alex
The Mac Mini hits the cheap, entry level office machine price.
Build from scratch, XP Pro is approx. $200 (and I assume Longhorn will be similar).
Buy the low-end Dell that comes with XP Home, and its $119 to upgrade to XP Pro, and I have CD-RWs on my Windows machines, because my Quickbooks files are too big to email so I need to burn them and send them to my accountant for tax purposes.
Now, if I want a entry-level Unix workstation running Linux, then $500 can get your further. But if you want XP Pro/Longhorn Pro, the machines are comparable.
For a legal system, a home-built machine requires a $200 operating system, or a $120 upgrade off the base level.
Alex