$3000-4000 for a light-weight two-person car with limited range (80km/50miles) and speed (below 80km/h or 50mph) is entirely possible to achieve [...] But because of the limited performance nobody is going to bother buying such a car unless it's really cheap
I would even say nobody is going to buy such a car at all - except people who are so rich that they can have one car for this and one car for that and yet another car for something else.
An everyman's car must be freeway capable. This means cruising at 75 mph max and enough power to accelerate to that speed within a reasonable time. That car also has to be large enough to carry 4-5 people even if rarely the everyman carries so many. That car also has to have some reasonable cargo space because the everyman carries packages and purchases all the time. Outside of that the everyman's car can be whatever you want - three wheels, four wheels, gas, diesel, electric, with A/C or without; the everyman will be OK with these changes. But his car must be functional, useful to the everyman, otherwise he will not even consider it - just as a typical family will not buy a Harley to carry three kids to school and then go shopping together.
If such a Volk's Wagen is developed as an electric car, it better have enough juice for heating in winter. This is essential to keep the windows clear of frost. Such heating is very power-hungry because most of the heat escapes. This is not a problem in gas/diesel designs because they produce waste heat. The power for bright headlights should also be included in the "max. range" budget, unless the car can't be driven at night.
Unskilled wage is how long one has to flip burgers to afford a car.
The unskilled wage is seriously inflated today, compared to 1925, because of minimum wage laws. This still means that modern unskilled wages are 1/3 of what they were in 1925.
It doesn't matter because Yemen had no grievances toward the guy.
The USA had a problem with Mr. Awlaki speech. As an US citizen he had the 1st Amendment protection - at least between the US government and him.
Not all speech is protected, though. There are numerous examples; incitement to riots, for example, is not legal. However those violations are crimes, not war.
What is the definition of "waging war against the country," by the way? What is the line that separates a riot from a war? Does it require uniforms? Does it require a hierarchy and discipline? Does it require state support? I don't know. As I see it, AQ is an international gang, a mafia. The only difference is that AQ has political aims in mind, not just financial. But the methods are all the same. The US mafia wasn't particularly gentle; it could mow down a few bystanders just for a good measure.
The problem of inconvenient agitators hiding abroad is not unique to the USA. Many countries have this problem. Recall Leon Trotsky who was writing a very undesirable book in Argentina. Stalin had him killed. Israel had problems with various people abroad; they were killed or kidnapped. None of that is exactly legal. If it were, we should apologize to Stalin's ghost that we thought he erred in that icepick episode.
Presumably the parent would have assassinated Hitler before the Nazi rise to power, not in 1939, on the assumption that doing so would stop WWII from happening at all.
The World War II didn't begin because of wishes of one mostly crazy man. The reasons for the war were global, political, and they went very deep. Wikipedia lists 32 references on the subject, and each of them probably lists a hundred more.
Removal of Hitler would probably result in a sane leader of NSDAP, one that would listen to his generals, one that would keep the peace with USSR (at least until he is ready to strike.) In reality there would be no good reason for Germany to attack USSR. I read an alternative history book just a couple weeks ago that explores a similar scenario. If USSR is rearmed with German weapons they'd be invincible as a unified fighting force. Germany was close to that all by themselves.
I'm not even a PE, but I'm currently walking away from a contract of such kind. The customer specifies things that he knows nothing of, and refuses to pay for the proper design. If I implement what the customer wants me to do it will not work. I wish him good luck, he will need it.
As I said, there are psychos on all sides of the debate (specifically, on the police side.) Even his colleagues aren't defending him (as reported.)
What matters far more is the larger picture. Imagine hundreds of people on one side and hundreds of people on another side. 1% of each side is unstable. 1% of one side is armed. What is likely to happen? Will there be riots after what is destined to happen? Most certainly. People will be killed and property will be destroyed.
None of that is really necessary because the protestors don't have a positive agenda. They have no plan at all - they are "against" things, but rarely "for" something. It takes a drug-free mind and some talent to come up with a good idea.
The worst part is that both sides are spoiling for the fight. Protestors believe (correctly) that the open conflict will attract attention to their cause, and the police has orders to disperse the crowd, with violence being the only weapon that they have (and that would work, actually.) They are like two competitors in a boxing ring, going in willingly and ready to fight. Peaceful citizens are just props and the arena on which the fight is occurring - and an innocent passerby can be hurt.
With regard to the violence in general, imagine a bully that walks toward your house. You ask "stop please here" and he goes forward. You ask again and he crosses the threshold. You ask again and he is in your bedroom. At some point you will have to change your tactics because asking just doesn't work. If the opponent is not willing to listen, talking is a waste of time. I don't imply that this or that specific protestor is deaf to reason - every protestor is a person; but if some aren't interested in cooperation then bring out your water cannons and guns. Otherwise you will surrender the city to the lawless crowd (like in London) and *they* will be in control. We explicitly pay the police to not permit that to occur.
As I understand, the use of Mace was pretty bizarre even for police officers who witnessed it.
My point was that "egging" is not a safe activity. LEOs are not robots; mistakes can be made -- and will be made if the encounter lasts for several days. A single psycho can become a catalyst for a large battle. That psycho can come from either side.
OMG! Naked people! Scary deviants! Won't somebody please think of the children!
Are you for it or against? A mayor has to make a binary decision, he can't just write a joke on the application. Peaceful assemblies are allowed, but is this assembly peaceful in all meanings of the word, with all participants?
If it's illegal to be naked there, it's illegal to protest naked there.
It is legal to be naked in public in San Francisco. In NYC it is legal for a woman to be topless wherever the same is legal for a man. This allows for a lot of protesting.
Because those were so well designed and so functional that they sold by the tens of millions, right?
Apple is not suing on these grounds. We should stick to the specific claim - rounded corners - that Apple waves as their own invention that wouldn't be obvious to someone skilled in the art. Yes, indeed, whenever I make something to hold in hands I make sure all the edges are razor-sharp. Yes, that's the ticket.
As matter of fact, it would be hard to find a tablet or anything else in this world that is supposed to be held in hands that doesn't have rounded corners. Except Klingon tablets, perhaps. Even Sumerian tablets have rounded corners! How about that for prior art?
News flash: tablets were around long before Apple. What would expect a "tablet" to look like? A tire iron?
To add insult to injury, Samsung had tablets before Apple made an iPhone, let alone iPad. How do I know? I own one for many years; it's a bit slow today but is more functional than the Galaxy Tab (which I also have and use.) As you can see in the photo, the Q1 had rounded corners.
"keeping people from entering my store" is a serious interference with business. This particular anarchy is 10 days old. With low margins of commodity services that electronic repair guy could be bankrupt by now.
If you don't think this is a real attack, let me surround your house with hostile hippies, so that you can't safely enter and your wife and your kid can't safely leave, for ten days. The hippies probably won't hit or stab any of you, but really you can't know that - those are all strangers to you and to each other. Some of them may be even professional provocateurs (they exist.) Other may be on drugs, not in control of their actions.
Say I own a small electronic repair store along a major street that also runs past the state capitol. People want to demonstrate against the state government, so thousands of people march down the street, clogging traffic and keeping people from entering my store.
Well, you're going to put a hell of a lot of pressure on your representatives to capitulate and get those protesters off your sidewalk, right? This is how protests work.
"That's a nice electronic business you got here. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it..."
Attacking uninvolved, peaceful civilians to further political aims is called terrorism. Attacking people or property to elicit financial gain is called racketeering. Do you seriously advocate use of these tactics?
But if the police are uncooperative, as the NYC police have been under the Bloomberg Administration, you have a right to have a peaceful demonstration without the permit.
How can you have a peaceful demonstration (with or without a permit) while being beaten by the NYPD?
This means that according to the Constitution you must cease any and all protest or other assembly when threatened with violence (that revokes your right to assemble.)
Of course the attacker would be acting unconstitutionally (you had a right to be there,) but good luck suing them. They can always say that you were preventing some street peddler from peddling. There are too many laws on the books and most of them are only useful to stick it to you when the police needs you taken out.
I am not a constitutional lawyer but It seems like you *could* require permits for assembly provided you never denied a permit as that would violate a groups right to assemble.
Well, this here group of exhibitionists wants to have a barenaked protest in front of an elementary school, right when the children are outside. You will have to approve their permit, isn't it so?
Sure - as long as the assembly is indeed peaceful. It stops being peaceful if someone objects with a good reason. If a thousand people can't get to work because you are blocking the road it is not peaceful - the complaints against you are valid. If a thousand of adherents of religion A don't like you preaching religion B in a public park - too bad, they don't have a case.
It appears that the protest, named Occupy Wall Street, is targeted at the corporate influence over politics, the imperialistic foreign policies of the US, and a demand for greater accountability in politics.
They might just as well protest Newton's laws. They are attacking the effect, not the cause.
The country is behaving exactly as it is set up to behave. If you look carefully into what makes the USA tick you will notice that all the elements of policies are falling into place. For example:
The USA is large -> people need cars -> people need oil -> Arabs have oil -> The USA wages wars in Arab lands
The USA has a large number of "disadvantaged" people who don't work and can't work -> they need handouts, otherwise they will revolt -> borrow from China and give to them
The USA has no industry -> it is insecure -> deploy US military all over the planet to compensate. As matter of fact, much of US economy (whatever remains of it) is based on the theory that the USA is "the leader of the free world." If that theory crumbles the USA will become a 3rd world country with Zimbabwean economy, confiscatory taxes and ready for a civil war. That's why the theory must be maintained at all cost.
And so on. Not a single major thing is done "just because" - everything has a reason, whether the reason is good or bad. If you want to change how the country acts you need to change its motivation and change the causes of undesirable acts.
If the authorities do something illegal, then it doesn't matter how much they were "egged on." They're supposed to be trained professionals.
It's not too late for you to buy an airsoft handgun, paint the tip black and go visit Wall Street. Brandish the said toy near an LEO and observe their reaction. I'm pretty sure they will react right by the book. I hope you don't mind that.
(I have to make it absolutely clear: this is NOT a suggestion that anyone should follow. It's a rhetorical device.)
The New York Pension Fund might own a billion shares, for instance. If there's ever a successful shareholders' revolt, they lead it.
Why would they do that?
a) This requires constant awareness of what's happening in the company. The NY Pension Fund has shares of thousands of companies. They can't hire hundreds of employees to just watch those businesses. In most cases this money will be wasted.
b) This requires a competent decision-making that is based on (a) and on other research. The fund manager may be simply not competent to instantly say that Apotheker's intent to make HP into SAP AG is good or bad. You actually have to be an insider to answer that.
c) The gain from pushing the company in correct direction is miniscule and spread over a long period of time. If the HP CEO starts driving the company into the ground right now it will be delisted in about 5 years. It's a long time, and the fund manager will notice the problem simply from the stock's performance and from opinions of analysts. Those numbers are easy to plug into Excel and have triggers on.
d) The fund manager's compensation doesn't depend on performance of any single stock. It doesn't seem to depend on anything anyway - the fund just says that the expenses are so many %% and that's it, take it or leave it.
e) But even if the manager is incentivized to maximize the return, she doesn't need to fiddle with components of her fund. She'd rather sell the stock. This offers an instant correction, does not depend on 3rd parties, does not require much effort, and allows the capital to be optimally placed at all times.
For example, XYZZY is going down due to poor management. The stock is at $10. The fund manager knows all about XYZZY's problems and sees a solution.
If he chooses to vote and to otherwise influence the company he has a risk that his actions won't work. For example, the majority vote can be unfavorable, or the proposed solution may not work. Another problem is that it will take a long time. In this example XYZZY can grow to $50 in 5 years. But the fund will be invested into XYZZY during all these years, gathering no revenue!
The other solution is simpler: sell XYZZY stock right now for $10. If you think it's going to grow in price, buy when the company is on the right track (or right before it.) While XYZZY is getting there, invest the capital into something that is growing, not languishing.
Fund managers are brokers, so they are well versed in the art of buying low and selling high. That's all they really need to know. They can't be expected to understand problems of hundreds of different companies in all areas of human expertise. They do what they do best - they buy and they sell. Their time is limited, and they can't spend much of it on any single company. Hell, even HP's CEO himself, who is working on this 100% of his time, doesn't have a solution! It makes far more sense for companies to manage themselves as they may, while the investors buy or sell depending on how good the company looks.
Most physicists say that anything that produces i in a measurable result, as opposed to some intermediate value which eventually gets squared, is probably not a reflection of the real world.
It would be a projection, not a reflection. A shadow can move as fast as you want, with no limit - and it won't interact with anything either. Does it look like a neutrino?
The unspoken "cost," of course, is that our children are growing up in a climate of fear: They spend more time sitting indoors or being hovered over by helicopter parents
Well, the "good old" method, so popular 200-300 years ago, was that a peasant family makes 5 to 10 children, and if one or two die (as they were likely to, for various reasons) then it was just God's will and nothing could be done about it, and nobody would be overly concerned.
Can you sell an idea today that a child could wander off, fall into an underground tunnel and die - and that would be just about normal? If such a thing happens lawsuits will fly and the police will arrest a bunch of people.
I don't like the @children=("cattle","pets"); approach any more than you do, but that's how it is today. The old way had other socially beneficial side effects - the Darwin's Award was issued early and often. The price for that was higher attrition.
Slashdot Mirror
same as in laptops
I hope not. Laptop batteries are usually near the end of their useful life after 2-3 years, regardless of how much you actually use them.
$3000-4000 for a light-weight two-person car with limited range (80km/50miles) and speed (below 80km/h or 50mph) is entirely possible to achieve [...] But because of the limited performance nobody is going to bother buying such a car unless it's really cheap
I would even say nobody is going to buy such a car at all - except people who are so rich that they can have one car for this and one car for that and yet another car for something else.
An everyman's car must be freeway capable. This means cruising at 75 mph max and enough power to accelerate to that speed within a reasonable time. That car also has to be large enough to carry 4-5 people even if rarely the everyman carries so many. That car also has to have some reasonable cargo space because the everyman carries packages and purchases all the time. Outside of that the everyman's car can be whatever you want - three wheels, four wheels, gas, diesel, electric, with A/C or without; the everyman will be OK with these changes. But his car must be functional, useful to the everyman, otherwise he will not even consider it - just as a typical family will not buy a Harley to carry three kids to school and then go shopping together.
If such a Volk's Wagen is developed as an electric car, it better have enough juice for heating in winter. This is essential to keep the windows clear of frost. Such heating is very power-hungry because most of the heat escapes. This is not a problem in gas/diesel designs because they produce waste heat. The power for bright headlights should also be included in the "max. range" budget, unless the car can't be driven at night.
All you guys have nothing on ZAZ-965A.
Unskilled wage is how long one has to flip burgers to afford a car.
The unskilled wage is seriously inflated today, compared to 1925, because of minimum wage laws. This still means that modern unskilled wages are 1/3 of what they were in 1925.
You are right. However the warrant is not related to US sins of the guy. Whatever. I didn't know about the warrant.
Yemen has a 1st amendment?
It doesn't matter because Yemen had no grievances toward the guy.
The USA had a problem with Mr. Awlaki speech. As an US citizen he had the 1st Amendment protection - at least between the US government and him.
Not all speech is protected, though. There are numerous examples; incitement to riots, for example, is not legal. However those violations are crimes, not war.
What is the definition of "waging war against the country," by the way? What is the line that separates a riot from a war? Does it require uniforms? Does it require a hierarchy and discipline? Does it require state support? I don't know. As I see it, AQ is an international gang, a mafia. The only difference is that AQ has political aims in mind, not just financial. But the methods are all the same. The US mafia wasn't particularly gentle; it could mow down a few bystanders just for a good measure.
The problem of inconvenient agitators hiding abroad is not unique to the USA. Many countries have this problem. Recall Leon Trotsky who was writing a very undesirable book in Argentina. Stalin had him killed. Israel had problems with various people abroad; they were killed or kidnapped. None of that is exactly legal. If it were, we should apologize to Stalin's ghost that we thought he erred in that icepick episode.
Presumably the parent would have assassinated Hitler before the Nazi rise to power, not in 1939, on the assumption that doing so would stop WWII from happening at all.
The World War II didn't begin because of wishes of one mostly crazy man. The reasons for the war were global, political, and they went very deep. Wikipedia lists 32 references on the subject, and each of them probably lists a hundred more.
Removal of Hitler would probably result in a sane leader of NSDAP, one that would listen to his generals, one that would keep the peace with USSR (at least until he is ready to strike.) In reality there would be no good reason for Germany to attack USSR. I read an alternative history book just a couple weeks ago that explores a similar scenario. If USSR is rearmed with German weapons they'd be invincible as a unified fighting force. Germany was close to that all by themselves.
I'm not even a PE, but I'm currently walking away from a contract of such kind. The customer specifies things that he knows nothing of, and refuses to pay for the proper design. If I implement what the customer wants me to do it will not work. I wish him good luck, he will need it.
As I said, there are psychos on all sides of the debate (specifically, on the police side.) Even his colleagues aren't defending him (as reported.)
What matters far more is the larger picture. Imagine hundreds of people on one side and hundreds of people on another side. 1% of each side is unstable. 1% of one side is armed. What is likely to happen? Will there be riots after what is destined to happen? Most certainly. People will be killed and property will be destroyed.
None of that is really necessary because the protestors don't have a positive agenda. They have no plan at all - they are "against" things, but rarely "for" something. It takes a drug-free mind and some talent to come up with a good idea.
The worst part is that both sides are spoiling for the fight. Protestors believe (correctly) that the open conflict will attract attention to their cause, and the police has orders to disperse the crowd, with violence being the only weapon that they have (and that would work, actually.) They are like two competitors in a boxing ring, going in willingly and ready to fight. Peaceful citizens are just props and the arena on which the fight is occurring - and an innocent passerby can be hurt.
With regard to the violence in general, imagine a bully that walks toward your house. You ask "stop please here" and he goes forward. You ask again and he crosses the threshold. You ask again and he is in your bedroom. At some point you will have to change your tactics because asking just doesn't work. If the opponent is not willing to listen, talking is a waste of time. I don't imply that this or that specific protestor is deaf to reason - every protestor is a person; but if some aren't interested in cooperation then bring out your water cannons and guns. Otherwise you will surrender the city to the lawless crowd (like in London) and *they* will be in control. We explicitly pay the police to not permit that to occur.
As I understand, the use of Mace was pretty bizarre even for police officers who witnessed it.
My point was that "egging" is not a safe activity. LEOs are not robots; mistakes can be made -- and will be made if the encounter lasts for several days. A single psycho can become a catalyst for a large battle. That psycho can come from either side.
OMG! Naked people! Scary deviants! Won't somebody please think of the children!
Are you for it or against? A mayor has to make a binary decision, he can't just write a joke on the application. Peaceful assemblies are allowed, but is this assembly peaceful in all meanings of the word, with all participants?
If it's illegal to be naked there, it's illegal to protest naked there.
It is legal to be naked in public in San Francisco. In NYC it is legal for a woman to be topless wherever the same is legal for a man. This allows for a lot of protesting.
Because those were so well designed and so functional that they sold by the tens of millions, right?
Apple is not suing on these grounds. We should stick to the specific claim - rounded corners - that Apple waves as their own invention that wouldn't be obvious to someone skilled in the art. Yes, indeed, whenever I make something to hold in hands I make sure all the edges are razor-sharp. Yes, that's the ticket.
As matter of fact, it would be hard to find a tablet or anything else in this world that is supposed to be held in hands that doesn't have rounded corners. Except Klingon tablets, perhaps. Even Sumerian tablets have rounded corners! How about that for prior art?
News flash: tablets were around long before Apple. What would expect a "tablet" to look like? A tire iron?
To add insult to injury, Samsung had tablets before Apple made an iPhone, let alone iPad. How do I know? I own one for many years; it's a bit slow today but is more functional than the Galaxy Tab (which I also have and use.) As you can see in the photo, the Q1 had rounded corners.
Who said anything about attacking?
One of earlier posters:
"keeping people from entering my store" is a serious interference with business. This particular anarchy is 10 days old. With low margins of commodity services that electronic repair guy could be bankrupt by now.
If you don't think this is a real attack, let me surround your house with hostile hippies, so that you can't safely enter and your wife and your kid can't safely leave, for ten days. The hippies probably won't hit or stab any of you, but really you can't know that - those are all strangers to you and to each other. Some of them may be even professional provocateurs (they exist.) Other may be on drugs, not in control of their actions.
Well, you're going to put a hell of a lot of pressure on your representatives to capitulate and get those protesters off your sidewalk, right? This is how protests work.
"That's a nice electronic business you got here. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it..."
Attacking uninvolved, peaceful civilians to further political aims is called terrorism. Attacking people or property to elicit financial gain is called racketeering. Do you seriously advocate use of these tactics?
But if the police are uncooperative, as the NYC police have been under the Bloomberg Administration, you have a right to have a peaceful demonstration without the permit.
How can you have a peaceful demonstration (with or without a permit) while being beaten by the NYPD?
This means that according to the Constitution you must cease any and all protest or other assembly when threatened with violence (that revokes your right to assemble.)
Of course the attacker would be acting unconstitutionally (you had a right to be there,) but good luck suing them. They can always say that you were preventing some street peddler from peddling. There are too many laws on the books and most of them are only useful to stick it to you when the police needs you taken out.
I am not a constitutional lawyer but It seems like you *could* require permits for assembly provided you never denied a permit as that would violate a groups right to assemble.
Well, this here group of exhibitionists wants to have a barenaked protest in front of an elementary school, right when the children are outside. You will have to approve their permit, isn't it so?
People can peaceably assemble
Sure - as long as the assembly is indeed peaceful. It stops being peaceful if someone objects with a good reason. If a thousand people can't get to work because you are blocking the road it is not peaceful - the complaints against you are valid. If a thousand of adherents of religion A don't like you preaching religion B in a public park - too bad, they don't have a case.
It appears that the protest, named Occupy Wall Street, is targeted at the corporate influence over politics, the imperialistic foreign policies of the US, and a demand for greater accountability in politics.
They might just as well protest Newton's laws. They are attacking the effect, not the cause.
The country is behaving exactly as it is set up to behave. If you look carefully into what makes the USA tick you will notice that all the elements of policies are falling into place. For example:
The USA is large -> people need cars -> people need oil -> Arabs have oil -> The USA wages wars in Arab lands
The USA has a large number of "disadvantaged" people who don't work and can't work -> they need handouts, otherwise they will revolt -> borrow from China and give to them
The USA has no industry -> it is insecure -> deploy US military all over the planet to compensate. As matter of fact, much of US economy (whatever remains of it) is based on the theory that the USA is "the leader of the free world." If that theory crumbles the USA will become a 3rd world country with Zimbabwean economy, confiscatory taxes and ready for a civil war. That's why the theory must be maintained at all cost.
And so on. Not a single major thing is done "just because" - everything has a reason, whether the reason is good or bad. If you want to change how the country acts you need to change its motivation and change the causes of undesirable acts.
If the authorities do something illegal, then it doesn't matter how much they were "egged on." They're supposed to be trained professionals.
It's not too late for you to buy an airsoft handgun, paint the tip black and go visit Wall Street. Brandish the said toy near an LEO and observe their reaction. I'm pretty sure they will react right by the book. I hope you don't mind that.
(I have to make it absolutely clear: this is NOT a suggestion that anyone should follow. It's a rhetorical device.)
Was it a private company? If the stock cannot be freely traded the VC has to sink or swim.
The New York Pension Fund might own a billion shares, for instance. If there's ever a successful shareholders' revolt, they lead it.
Why would they do that?
a) This requires constant awareness of what's happening in the company. The NY Pension Fund has shares of thousands of companies. They can't hire hundreds of employees to just watch those businesses. In most cases this money will be wasted.
b) This requires a competent decision-making that is based on (a) and on other research. The fund manager may be simply not competent to instantly say that Apotheker's intent to make HP into SAP AG is good or bad. You actually have to be an insider to answer that.
c) The gain from pushing the company in correct direction is miniscule and spread over a long period of time. If the HP CEO starts driving the company into the ground right now it will be delisted in about 5 years. It's a long time, and the fund manager will notice the problem simply from the stock's performance and from opinions of analysts. Those numbers are easy to plug into Excel and have triggers on.
d) The fund manager's compensation doesn't depend on performance of any single stock. It doesn't seem to depend on anything anyway - the fund just says that the expenses are so many %% and that's it, take it or leave it.
e) But even if the manager is incentivized to maximize the return, she doesn't need to fiddle with components of her fund. She'd rather sell the stock. This offers an instant correction, does not depend on 3rd parties, does not require much effort, and allows the capital to be optimally placed at all times.
For example, XYZZY is going down due to poor management. The stock is at $10. The fund manager knows all about XYZZY's problems and sees a solution.
If he chooses to vote and to otherwise influence the company he has a risk that his actions won't work. For example, the majority vote can be unfavorable, or the proposed solution may not work. Another problem is that it will take a long time. In this example XYZZY can grow to $50 in 5 years. But the fund will be invested into XYZZY during all these years, gathering no revenue!
The other solution is simpler: sell XYZZY stock right now for $10. If you think it's going to grow in price, buy when the company is on the right track (or right before it.) While XYZZY is getting there, invest the capital into something that is growing, not languishing.
Fund managers are brokers, so they are well versed in the art of buying low and selling high. That's all they really need to know. They can't be expected to understand problems of hundreds of different companies in all areas of human expertise. They do what they do best - they buy and they sell. Their time is limited, and they can't spend much of it on any single company. Hell, even HP's CEO himself, who is working on this 100% of his time, doesn't have a solution! It makes far more sense for companies to manage themselves as they may, while the investors buy or sell depending on how good the company looks.
Most physicists say that anything that produces i in a measurable result, as opposed to some intermediate value which eventually gets squared, is probably not a reflection of the real world.
It would be a projection, not a reflection. A shadow can move as fast as you want, with no limit - and it won't interact with anything either. Does it look like a neutrino?
The unspoken "cost," of course, is that our children are growing up in a climate of fear: They spend more time sitting indoors or being hovered over by helicopter parents
Well, the "good old" method, so popular 200-300 years ago, was that a peasant family makes 5 to 10 children, and if one or two die (as they were likely to, for various reasons) then it was just God's will and nothing could be done about it, and nobody would be overly concerned.
Can you sell an idea today that a child could wander off, fall into an underground tunnel and die - and that would be just about normal? If such a thing happens lawsuits will fly and the police will arrest a bunch of people.
I don't like the @children=("cattle","pets"); approach any more than you do, but that's how it is today. The old way had other socially beneficial side effects - the Darwin's Award was issued early and often. The price for that was higher attrition.
> Italy bankrupt
Aren't they already there, without your Rube Goldberg machine?