Doesn't it sound pretty close to following the Microsoft business techniques?
It should. It's called being a second mover. Being first to market with something sometimes provides a market advantage but often being second is more valuable because you can learn from the mistakes of the other guy. Furthermore you don't have the risk and expense of discovering or establishing a marketplace for the product. It's basically a part of the free rider problem. Being a second mover carries risks (you might not be able to follow fast or well enough) but it is a time tested and successful business strategy.
GE wanted to shut down american ligth bulb plants so they can sell light bulbs with higher prices and higher margins made overseas.
Look, I'm an accountant in my day job. Lightbulb production is HIGHLY automated. Shipping it overseas would gain little from a cost perspective. The equipment was probably mostly depreciated, labor costs are a small percentage of the total cost thanks to the automation and the margins likely were as good as ever.
But demand for incandescents (which are still quite legal in most circumstances) has fallen off a cliff. Home Depot, Walmart and Lowes are selling CFLs by the truckload for no reason more sinister than consumer demand. The growth is in CFLs and in time will be in LEDs. Why would GE want to remain in a business that has shrinking demand and a technologically inferior product?
If US companies have failed to invest in the replacement technologies (CFL manufacturing) that is a separate issue altogether.
Buggy whips became obsolete and hence manufacturers went out of business.
And the same will happen in time with most makers of incandescent lightbulbs. It is a products which has already seen its market share radically diminish and that trend is not going to stop. CFLs and LEDs are technically and in many cases economically superior products.
The bulbs in question have become too expensive to make in US -- the demand, as I understand it is quite alive.
I'm a certified accountant. Have you ever seen a lightbulb factory? I have. They are HIGHLY automated. Labor cost really isn't a big issue in their manufacture. The volumes are so high and the equipment so long lasting that fixed costs are extremely low. They have about 200 employees at that plant which is a very low number for a high unit volume plant. GE could easily keep the factory going IF the volume demanded for the product wasn't dropping rapidly.
Cost isn't the issue. The demand IN THE US is dropping rapidly for that product. Incandescent lightbulbs are a business with NO growth potential in the US. None. Why would GE want to stay in a business that is absolutely certain to continue to shrink?
Why? No I mean really, why is the technology at it's end? Did GE shut down the plant because it wasn't making money?
GE has been getting out of the incandescent lightbulb business for some time because it is a product with rapidly shrinking marketshare that has been surpassed by for most applications by technologically and economically superior products.
Or did they shut it down because the government decided to ban a product that millions of Americans use and still buy on a daily basis?
GE is not even close to the only maker of incandescent lightbulbs and fewer people are using them every day. It's a shrinking market with a technologically inferior product. Why the hell would GE want to remain in that business? Furthermore, incandescent bulbs are still 100% legal in most places including where I live. I don't buy them because they cost more, have shorter lives, kick off a lot of wasteful heat, and frankly I have better things to do with my life than replace lightbulbs. I'm not the only person who thinks that either.
Obsolescence is the state of being which occurs when an object, service or practice is no longer wanted even though it may still be in good working order.
Buggy whips can still be purchased but they are clearly obsolete. If you read further into the wikipedia article you copied from (and didn't cite) you'll note that obsolescence is typically proceeded by a gradual decline in popularity. While technically incandescent bulbs might not be obsolete yet, they WILL become so.
Sorry but the incandescent bulb was FAR from obsolete. This is not a product that is no longer wanted,
Oh there is still demand but it's shrinking rapidly. Home Depot isn't devoting an ever smaller amount of space to incandescents because of any law. They're simply being phased out byt the alternatives.
(Can you source for me a light that is perfectly suitable for colour matching applications that costs less than $10 and isn't incandescent?).
Actually yes I can. There are full spectrum florescent lights available for less than $10. I've used them myself for photography applications.
It's a government meddling with a free market for no other reason than to promote itself as green without actually thinking about what they are doing.
I'm pretty sure the government knew exactly what they were doing.
Sorry but this IS sad news!
No, it really isn't. It is happy news if anything. I'm GLAD incandescents are going away. It's a neat technology that had a good run. Time for something better.
Except that buggy whips went away because of consumer choice, not government mandate.
So are incandescent lightbulbs. They aren't banned where I live but people are buying fewer and fewer because there are economically and technologically superior alternatives available.
I already do have the right to burn as much energy unnecessarily as I want, though.
Really? Where is that "right" codified into law? Point out the part of the federal, state or local code please.
The government didn't even ban most of the bigger ones; they banned a really tiny one that seems to be mostly out of image and spite.
SOME elected officials banned what is legislatively possible. Nothing more, nothing less. Furthermore, incandescent bulbs aren't actually banned in most places. They simply are being phased out because there are economically and technologically superior substitutes available. Home Depot isn't devoting an increasing percentage of their lighting aisle to CFLs and LEDs due to any reason other than customer demand.
Plus in my particular case, incandescent bulbs are around 100% efficient. I
I'm pretty sure I have an engineering diploma around here somewhere and I'm equally sure that incandescent bulbs are nowhere close to 100% efficient even if you use all the waste heat (which isn't possible either). Using an incandescent bulb is not only thermodynamically inefficient, it is economically inefficient. Your furnace consumes measurably fewer watts per unit of heat produced and costs less doing it. If you're going to talk bullshit, do it with someone who doesn't have a minor in applied physics.
Of course, you could ban electrical heaters, too.;-)
No need. Economics will take care of that better than any law. There is an actual need for electric heating. There is really no need for incandescent lighting except in extremely rare circumstances.
And one of its greatest thinkers believed that reason and faith were both equally valid ways to truth and not in conflict at all.
That doesn't mean he was right. One thing Aquinas is famous for is by claiming to prove god's existence by what god is not. I'm supposed to believe this "great thinker" when he couldn't grasp the logic that he couldn't possibly know what god is or isn't. Every one of his famous five statements about the nature of god is an assumption on his part. There is no foundation to his argument.
The very link you post claims that Aquinas "viewed theology as a science" which it by definition cannot be because theology makes no testable predictions. Scripture is rarely evidence and certainly not any sort of unvarnished truth. Faith is not a "path to truth" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) because faith has nothing inherently to do with facts. There is no truth without facts no matter how much one might wish otherwise.
But by all means mock the fringe dimwits who don't actually negatively impact society.
What makes you think these people don't negatively impact society? I'm pretty sure they do even if in only a smallish way. They can vote, influence others, etc. Hell morons in Kansas keeps trying to declare creationism as a valid scientific viewpoint.
...And assuming that they aren't working in astronomy, there really is no loss.
The problem is that they do work somewhere and if they are THAT stupid they are highly likely to cause problems somehow in some capacity. These are people who seriously lack critical thinking skills let alone common sense.
You wouldn't dare take seriously a scientists that was also an astrologist, or one that claimed aliens visited him daily
I agree with your larger point (religion is a mental disorder, etc) but a scientist believing in nonsense theories like astrology wouldn't automatically disqualify his scientific work as worthy of consideration. While I might raise an eyebrow, the nice thing about scientific research is that we can test and validate the results. If he has the evidence to support his scientific work, I don't really care if he is a raving lunatic otherwise and neither should anyone else. Genius often comes with a certain amount of crazy. He might have more trouble getting people to take him seriously but fortunately for everyone good science is good science, regardless of the source.
Ah, the good old US government, not only reducing US jobs but also reducing consumer choice in something as simple as choosing what type of light bulb you want.
Because god damn it I should have a RIGHT to burn as much energy unnecessarily as I want. I have a RIGHT to be an irresponsible, planet destroying, jackass who clings to obsolete and inefficient technologies. How DARE the government force me to utilize a less polluting, longer lasting technology. [/sarcasm]
Choice has costs that go much beyond your consumption preferences. I like old cars but there are reasons modern cars have modern pollution controls. If you can't behave responsibly, eventually others are going to get annoyed at your selfish behavior and you might not like their solution. Incandescent bulbs consume more power than available substitutes and that has national energy policy implications that are much more serious than your annoyance that you have to use a different type of light bulb.
marking a small, sad exit for a product and company that can trace their roots to Thomas Alva Edison's innovations in the 1870s.
In other news GE has sold their buggy whip division...
This is not sad news except maybe for the employees who work there. Incandescent bulbs are a technology which has seen its day but it's day is pretty much at an end. They'll continue to be manufactured for some time but not by GE. Anyone who would expect GE to continue to manufacture an obsolete product with rapidly dwindling market share is a moron. The growth opportunities in lighting are with newer technology such as CFL and LED lighting. This is not something to shed a single tear over. Sentimentality in a situation like this is just bizarre.
But what if I own a copy of said movie and I can't find it in my house so I download it instead?
The old quote "possession is 9/10ths of the law" comes to mind. In most cases if you don't have it, you don't own it. Just because you lost something doesn't entitle you to any further property or license rights. That's your problem. Keep better track of your possessions or insure them for replacement value.
My experience in academia taught me that there was no such thing as the "authoritative" source.
Strictly speaking you are correct in general. However there are real world cases where a small group of leading experts are effectively an authoritative source until sufficient research can be done to affirm or contradict their findings. This is usually the case where not enough data is available. The fellow who knows the most is considered an authoritative source. This doesn't mean that person is necessarily right, just that they are held to be temporarily authoritative in the sense of a best available working hypothesis.
For example certain medical diagnosis (like melanoma) are still poorly understood and others are extremely rare with only a few cases ever seen. The closest thing to an authoritative source is the most experienced person with the most information on that particular disease process. There is no single definitive test that proves or disproves melanoma in many cases. The diagnosis is made by assembling information and little details. The more cases one has seen, the more "definitive" the diagnosis. My wife once diagnosed a sarcoma that has only been seen about 20 times ever. She is effectively as close to an authoritative source on the subject of this particular sarcoma as there is.
If one scholar thought one thing about a particular subject, there was always at least one other scholar who disagreed with him/her.
That's not evidence against the existence of an authoritative source. At best it's evidence that authoritative sources are rare which is exactly what we would expect. That is simply evidence that a smart (and not so smart) people can disagree, especially in cases where mathematical proofs are impossible. Just because two people are "scholars" (a vague term if there ever was one) doesn't mean they are both correct, both equally smart, both equally informed, or both equally right. In every field there are some crackpots that disagree with the consensus and there are occasionally those who prove that the consensus is wrong and overturn it. Disagreement and discussion is the root of academic progress. Science can't happen if people aren't constantly trying to disprove existing models.
I agree with your assesment, but is it correct to compare GE to Dell?
For the point I'm making (that top line growth is very difficult for large companies) sure it's a valid point. Keeping a consistent percentage growth becomes harder the larger a company gets. This is true irrespective of the specific industry a company is involved in.
GE is a conglomerate.
Which carries it's own set of burdens. GE is run amazingly well but it's very common for the component companies of conglomerates to be worth more as independent companies. More than once the question has been asked if GE would be more valuable in pieces than as a whole. The question comes up with any large diversified company. In recent years GE is really a finance company that has an industrial arm. During Jack Welch's tenure most of the profits came from GE Capital.
Dell is an IT company. While IT is vast, it comes down to selling computer hardware, network hardware, and the services to support it. Hardly as diverse and vast as GE who can scan your body, microwave it, fly it across the world, and tie it to a wind turbine.
I could have used Berkshire Hathaway or Tyco or any other conglomerate to make my point. Top line growth is hard for ANY company. Doesn't matter if they specialize or not.
How much do they make on a $400 laptop? Why do that to themselves?
Low margins can be fine if you have the volume to support them. Dell has annual revenue of $50 billion and net income of about $1.5 billion. That's about a 3% profit margin which is pretty good for a manufacturing company. Their gross margins are about 17% which is in the range of normal for a large manufacturing concern. Walmart does just fine with low margins but they have no illusions about moving into higher revenue products. Dell has been very good at being a low cost manufacturer and they should be comfortable with that.
There is a very large market for low margin products but (as you noted) it's very hard to simultaneously compete in low margin and high margin at the same time. People who shop at Nieman Marcus are very different customers with different expectations from those who shop at Walmart. Both strategies work and both serve a niche but you can't do them both at the same time.
To create new products and innovate in markets you need Research and Development.
You don't have to have in house R&D but if you don't you do need the cash to buy companies that do R&D. Cisco is actually a good example. They do some internal R&D but they acquire a lot of companies specifically for the products they develop. R&D doesn't have to be in house but if it isn't the company will have to acquire it. Dell has $10 billion in cash so they should be able to acquire technology. However Dell doesn't have a ton of in house expertise in M&A activity either (mergers are HARD to do successfully - most fail) so they're kind of in a tough spot.
You can't be a me-to follow on that wins with low manufacturing costs.
Sure you can if the market is for a commodity product or if your price point is low enough to outweigh the advantages of differentiation. Dell built a $50 billion / year company competing primarily (though not exclusively) on price. BUT there can only be one winner in a market where they are competing solely on cost. Few markets compete solely on cost but it is a huge factor nonetheless even in markets with significant differentiation.
They're making billions as box pushers, isn't that good enough?
No. Every publicly traded company is expected to grow. If the Dell's market is saturated and there are limited growth opportunities there then Dell will have to find new sources of revenue outside their traditional business. This becomes VERY hard to do when a company gets as big as Dell. It gets absurdly hard when a company is as big as GE. Dell made about $50 billion in revenue last year. To grow the business by even 5% (which would be considered low) Dell would have to find $2.5 billion in new revenue EACH YEAR. For perspective that means creating a Fortune 500 company from scratch every two years and that is considered underachieving.
If Dell can't do it the markets are not especially forgiving. Dell's stock price has fallen to 25% of its value in 2005.
And took a writeoff on the investment of $1.4 billion making their investment worth considerably less.
To be honest I think $2.6 billion would be too high a price even now. Skype reported net income of $13.2 million on about $400 million in revenue. It's growing but $5B would be a very high price. A typical "fair" price is between 1-2X revenue to use the simplest possible analysis. (5-7X EBITDA is also used but profits aren't high enough here to make that useful). M&A folks typically use some multiple to arrive at a ballpark price. $5B would be hard to justify even with skype growing as fast as it apparently is.
I think Cisco is probably the right fit for Skype. (eBay never made a damn bit of sense) Cisco has been pushing to get into the VOIP market. They'll have to be careful however because they'll be competing with some of their biggest customers, namely the telecom companies (AT&T, Verizon, etc).
ROI? How about space tourism? $20B goes a long way towards getting people there and would only be 2% of that $1Tn.
Are you aware that ROI stands for RETURN On Investment? $20B might get some neat technology but it's no guarantee that whatever is developed will RETURN a profit. Space tourism is an industry with huge fixed costs, unknown demand, and finicky technology. Add in the risk of a significant drop in business when the first tourist dies in an accident (which will happen sooner or later) and the return on that $20B better be pretty high to justify the risk.
Copper is copper. Doesn't matter if it comes from an asteroid or a mine on earth. The chemical composition is the same. Furthermore you have to consider the cost of substitutes. There is no "new market". Mining an asteroid is no different economically speaking than discovering a new vein of ore here on earth. The only question (which isn't actually much of a debate) is which is more economical to access. For the foreseeable future, asteroid mining is an economic fantasy. It CANNOT be done profitably and that is not likely to change in our lifetimes.
People were talking about asteroids being worth many many many billions of dollars given current markets. That would make them so competitive that they are effectively in a separate market.
No it wouldn't because you are assuming there is no cost to retrieving whatever is in the asteroid. Even if it is technologically possible, mining an asteroid will be EXTREMELY expensive. There is trillions of dollars of hydrogen in the ocean but that doesn't mean we have an economic way of processing it into useful products. We can do it but we can't make a profit with current technology. It's just too expensive right now.
The ability to get a mineral at 1/50th the cost means that your competition does not exist.
Only true if it can actually be done. There is ZERO evidence that asteroids can be mined for any commodity cheaper than here on Earth. The technology to do it doesn't exist and will cost billions if not trillions of dollars to develop. That doesn't include the costs of exploration, insurance, transport, operation, or even the cost of capital which would be incredibly high on such a risky venture.
The OP mentioned gold which is perhaps to be treated differently because gold is held because it is gold and known to be rare and (therefore) worth hanging onto.
Gold is a commodity asset like any other. Yes it's relatively rare but supply and demand affect it like any other asset.
The Governments who like to hold gold will decide that something else will likely be a better bet for the foreseeable future and dump their gold reserves for whatever the something else
Governments do not use the gold standard anymore. Bullion reserves have their uses but currency hasn't been based on gold or any other tangible good since the 1970s. There is no particularly compelling reason for governments to hold large reserves of gold anymore than there is for them to hold large reserves of copper or zinc or silver.
Ah, here's where it goes wrong - you don't bring it back to Earth, you park it in orbit.
Unless we are in the process of colonizing another planet or moon you still have to bring the products home to have production in space be economically useful. If you just leave everything in space there is no means of economic payback to those who finance the venture. At the end of the day you have to have something to sell or else you are quite literally blasting money into space never to be seen again. It would be no different than sending a bunch of robots to a remote island in the pacific and having them build but never sending anything back. There is no economic return possible.
Anything where it's cheaper to do that than to lift it from Earth.
I note that you have provided no specific example of any such product.
So, the OP's answer is probably "figure out how to process asteroids in space". Aluminum might be a good place to start.
Think so? Aluminum is the most common metallic element in the earth's crust though much of it cannot be processed economically even here. Have you ever seen aluminum processed? I have. Doing it entirely via robots in outer space is well beyond our current technology even presuming we can find a good source of ore. Have you examined the power requirements? It takes 46 megajoules per kilogram to process bauxite. You also need other materials like carbon and oxygen and you have to process it at 2000 degrees Fahrenheit. Possible in space? Maybe but not anytime soon and certainly not by anyone seeking a return on their investment.
--certain types of medicine can only be made in zero G
Name one. Just one.
--special semiconductors that are extremely difficulty to build on earth due to gravity
Such as? Frankly if this were true we'd probably see Intel sponsoring experiments on the international space station.
--carbon nanotubes (you will need carbonaceous asteroids for this)
Carbon is carbon. Doesn't matter the source and there is plenty here on earth. Carbon nanotubes have been produced here on earth.
--molecular perfect glass sheets(that are as strong as steel)
Glass is already that strong. The problem with glass is that it is fragile, not that it is weak. What is your evidence that gravity is what is preventing this?
--guilt free minerals (not having to rape the biosphere is nice)
You think there is no environmental consequence to getting into space or using materials once they are brought back? There is no free lunch.
--aerogels (a form of insulation that makes fiberglass look pathetic)
Which are regularly made here on earth. No need for space to make aerogels.
--nuclear fuels (nuclear processing is alot easier when you don't have to worry about security, worker health, or gravity mucking up the process)
??? Exactly how are you going to USE the nuclear fuels without bringing them in proximity to humans? And exactly where do you think you will find a rich vein of uranium? Do you have the foggiest idea how much equipment and energy it takes to process nuclear fuel?
get an asteroid parked in a stable near earth orbit, and you won't be able to beat the companies off with a stick
Even if that were true (which you haven't proven) bringing an asteroid into earth orbit carries ENORMOUS risk. Screw up and you've just nuked a population center.
From a pure economic perspective there is ENORMOUS cost to getting into orbit/beyond. Having an asteroid up there doesn't save you the cost of getting all the equipment to mine it into space. Nor does it save you the cost of returning the finished goods safely. Nor does it save you the costs of the exploration equipment, transport equipment, fuel, R&D, insurance, staff, or the cost of capital. The only group that would or could conceivably finance such a speculative and risky venture given the current state of technology is the government. All for a bunch of products we can already get on earth produced by a bunch of technology that doesn't exist yet.
In other words, you don't have the foggiest idea what you are talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't it sound pretty close to following the Microsoft business techniques?
It should. It's called being a second mover. Being first to market with something sometimes provides a market advantage but often being second is more valuable because you can learn from the mistakes of the other guy. Furthermore you don't have the risk and expense of discovering or establishing a marketplace for the product. It's basically a part of the free rider problem. Being a second mover carries risks (you might not be able to follow fast or well enough) but it is a time tested and successful business strategy.
GE wanted to shut down american ligth bulb plants so they can sell light bulbs with higher prices and higher margins made overseas.
Look, I'm an accountant in my day job. Lightbulb production is HIGHLY automated. Shipping it overseas would gain little from a cost perspective. The equipment was probably mostly depreciated, labor costs are a small percentage of the total cost thanks to the automation and the margins likely were as good as ever.
But demand for incandescents (which are still quite legal in most circumstances) has fallen off a cliff. Home Depot, Walmart and Lowes are selling CFLs by the truckload for no reason more sinister than consumer demand. The growth is in CFLs and in time will be in LEDs. Why would GE want to remain in a business that has shrinking demand and a technologically inferior product?
If US companies have failed to invest in the replacement technologies (CFL manufacturing) that is a separate issue altogether.
Buggy whips became obsolete and hence manufacturers went out of business.
And the same will happen in time with most makers of incandescent lightbulbs. It is a products which has already seen its market share radically diminish and that trend is not going to stop. CFLs and LEDs are technically and in many cases economically superior products.
The bulbs in question have become too expensive to make in US -- the demand, as I understand it is quite alive.
I'm a certified accountant. Have you ever seen a lightbulb factory? I have. They are HIGHLY automated. Labor cost really isn't a big issue in their manufacture. The volumes are so high and the equipment so long lasting that fixed costs are extremely low. They have about 200 employees at that plant which is a very low number for a high unit volume plant. GE could easily keep the factory going IF the volume demanded for the product wasn't dropping rapidly.
Cost isn't the issue. The demand IN THE US is dropping rapidly for that product. Incandescent lightbulbs are a business with NO growth potential in the US. None. Why would GE want to stay in a business that is absolutely certain to continue to shrink?
Why? No I mean really, why is the technology at it's end? Did GE shut down the plant because it wasn't making money?
GE has been getting out of the incandescent lightbulb business for some time because it is a product with rapidly shrinking marketshare that has been surpassed by for most applications by technologically and economically superior products.
Or did they shut it down because the government decided to ban a product that millions of Americans use and still buy on a daily basis?
GE is not even close to the only maker of incandescent lightbulbs and fewer people are using them every day. It's a shrinking market with a technologically inferior product. Why the hell would GE want to remain in that business? Furthermore, incandescent bulbs are still 100% legal in most places including where I live. I don't buy them because they cost more, have shorter lives, kick off a lot of wasteful heat, and frankly I have better things to do with my life than replace lightbulbs. I'm not the only person who thinks that either.
Obsolescence is the state of being which occurs when an object, service or practice is no longer wanted even though it may still be in good working order.
Buggy whips can still be purchased but they are clearly obsolete. If you read further into the wikipedia article you copied from (and didn't cite) you'll note that obsolescence is typically proceeded by a gradual decline in popularity. While technically incandescent bulbs might not be obsolete yet, they WILL become so.
Sorry but the incandescent bulb was FAR from obsolete. This is not a product that is no longer wanted,
Oh there is still demand but it's shrinking rapidly. Home Depot isn't devoting an ever smaller amount of space to incandescents because of any law. They're simply being phased out byt the alternatives.
(Can you source for me a light that is perfectly suitable for colour matching applications that costs less than $10 and isn't incandescent?).
Actually yes I can. There are full spectrum florescent lights available for less than $10. I've used them myself for photography applications.
It's a government meddling with a free market for no other reason than to promote itself as green without actually thinking about what they are doing.
I'm pretty sure the government knew exactly what they were doing.
Sorry but this IS sad news!
No, it really isn't. It is happy news if anything. I'm GLAD incandescents are going away. It's a neat technology that had a good run. Time for something better.
Except that buggy whips went away because of consumer choice, not government mandate.
So are incandescent lightbulbs. They aren't banned where I live but people are buying fewer and fewer because there are economically and technologically superior alternatives available.
I already do have the right to burn as much energy unnecessarily as I want, though.
Really? Where is that "right" codified into law? Point out the part of the federal, state or local code please.
The government didn't even ban most of the bigger ones; they banned a really tiny one that seems to be mostly out of image and spite.
SOME elected officials banned what is legislatively possible. Nothing more, nothing less. Furthermore, incandescent bulbs aren't actually banned in most places. They simply are being phased out because there are economically and technologically superior substitutes available. Home Depot isn't devoting an increasing percentage of their lighting aisle to CFLs and LEDs due to any reason other than customer demand.
Plus in my particular case, incandescent bulbs are around 100% efficient. I
I'm pretty sure I have an engineering diploma around here somewhere and I'm equally sure that incandescent bulbs are nowhere close to 100% efficient even if you use all the waste heat (which isn't possible either). Using an incandescent bulb is not only thermodynamically inefficient, it is economically inefficient. Your furnace consumes measurably fewer watts per unit of heat produced and costs less doing it. If you're going to talk bullshit, do it with someone who doesn't have a minor in applied physics.
Of course, you could ban electrical heaters, too. ;-)
No need. Economics will take care of that better than any law. There is an actual need for electric heating. There is really no need for incandescent lighting except in extremely rare circumstances.
And one of its greatest thinkers believed that reason and faith were both equally valid ways to truth and not in conflict at all.
That doesn't mean he was right. One thing Aquinas is famous for is by claiming to prove god's existence by what god is not. I'm supposed to believe this "great thinker" when he couldn't grasp the logic that he couldn't possibly know what god is or isn't. Every one of his famous five statements about the nature of god is an assumption on his part. There is no foundation to his argument.
The very link you post claims that Aquinas "viewed theology as a science" which it by definition cannot be because theology makes no testable predictions. Scripture is rarely evidence and certainly not any sort of unvarnished truth. Faith is not a "path to truth" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) because faith has nothing inherently to do with facts. There is no truth without facts no matter how much one might wish otherwise.
But by all means mock the fringe dimwits who don't actually negatively impact society.
What makes you think these people don't negatively impact society? I'm pretty sure they do even if in only a smallish way. They can vote, influence others, etc. Hell morons in Kansas keeps trying to declare creationism as a valid scientific viewpoint.
...And assuming that they aren't working in astronomy, there really is no loss.
The problem is that they do work somewhere and if they are THAT stupid they are highly likely to cause problems somehow in some capacity. These are people who seriously lack critical thinking skills let alone common sense.
You wouldn't dare take seriously a scientists that was also an astrologist, or one that claimed aliens visited him daily
I agree with your larger point (religion is a mental disorder, etc) but a scientist believing in nonsense theories like astrology wouldn't automatically disqualify his scientific work as worthy of consideration. While I might raise an eyebrow, the nice thing about scientific research is that we can test and validate the results. If he has the evidence to support his scientific work, I don't really care if he is a raving lunatic otherwise and neither should anyone else. Genius often comes with a certain amount of crazy. He might have more trouble getting people to take him seriously but fortunately for everyone good science is good science, regardless of the source.
Ah, the good old US government, not only reducing US jobs but also reducing consumer choice in something as simple as choosing what type of light bulb you want.
Because god damn it I should have a RIGHT to burn as much energy unnecessarily as I want. I have a RIGHT to be an irresponsible, planet destroying, jackass who clings to obsolete and inefficient technologies. How DARE the government force me to utilize a less polluting, longer lasting technology. [/sarcasm]
Choice has costs that go much beyond your consumption preferences. I like old cars but there are reasons modern cars have modern pollution controls. If you can't behave responsibly, eventually others are going to get annoyed at your selfish behavior and you might not like their solution. Incandescent bulbs consume more power than available substitutes and that has national energy policy implications that are much more serious than your annoyance that you have to use a different type of light bulb.
marking a small, sad exit for a product and company that can trace their roots to Thomas Alva Edison's innovations in the 1870s.
In other news GE has sold their buggy whip division...
This is not sad news except maybe for the employees who work there. Incandescent bulbs are a technology which has seen its day but it's day is pretty much at an end. They'll continue to be manufactured for some time but not by GE. Anyone who would expect GE to continue to manufacture an obsolete product with rapidly dwindling market share is a moron. The growth opportunities in lighting are with newer technology such as CFL and LED lighting. This is not something to shed a single tear over. Sentimentality in a situation like this is just bizarre.
But what if I own a copy of said movie and I can't find it in my house so I download it instead?
The old quote "possession is 9/10ths of the law" comes to mind. In most cases if you don't have it, you don't own it. Just because you lost something doesn't entitle you to any further property or license rights. That's your problem. Keep better track of your possessions or insure them for replacement value.
My experience in academia taught me that there was no such thing as the "authoritative" source.
Strictly speaking you are correct in general. However there are real world cases where a small group of leading experts are effectively an authoritative source until sufficient research can be done to affirm or contradict their findings. This is usually the case where not enough data is available. The fellow who knows the most is considered an authoritative source. This doesn't mean that person is necessarily right, just that they are held to be temporarily authoritative in the sense of a best available working hypothesis.
For example certain medical diagnosis (like melanoma) are still poorly understood and others are extremely rare with only a few cases ever seen. The closest thing to an authoritative source is the most experienced person with the most information on that particular disease process. There is no single definitive test that proves or disproves melanoma in many cases. The diagnosis is made by assembling information and little details. The more cases one has seen, the more "definitive" the diagnosis. My wife once diagnosed a sarcoma that has only been seen about 20 times ever. She is effectively as close to an authoritative source on the subject of this particular sarcoma as there is.
If one scholar thought one thing about a particular subject, there was always at least one other scholar who disagreed with him/her.
That's not evidence against the existence of an authoritative source. At best it's evidence that authoritative sources are rare which is exactly what we would expect. That is simply evidence that a smart (and not so smart) people can disagree, especially in cases where mathematical proofs are impossible. Just because two people are "scholars" (a vague term if there ever was one) doesn't mean they are both correct, both equally smart, both equally informed, or both equally right. In every field there are some crackpots that disagree with the consensus and there are occasionally those who prove that the consensus is wrong and overturn it. Disagreement and discussion is the root of academic progress. Science can't happen if people aren't constantly trying to disprove existing models.
Most people WANT to do something useful and if freed from economic necessity, will do so.
You have clearly never managed employees. What you say is true of some people but it is demonstrably not true of a great multitude.
I agree with your assesment, but is it correct to compare GE to Dell?
For the point I'm making (that top line growth is very difficult for large companies) sure it's a valid point. Keeping a consistent percentage growth becomes harder the larger a company gets. This is true irrespective of the specific industry a company is involved in.
GE is a conglomerate.
Which carries it's own set of burdens. GE is run amazingly well but it's very common for the component companies of conglomerates to be worth more as independent companies. More than once the question has been asked if GE would be more valuable in pieces than as a whole. The question comes up with any large diversified company. In recent years GE is really a finance company that has an industrial arm. During Jack Welch's tenure most of the profits came from GE Capital.
Dell is an IT company. While IT is vast, it comes down to selling computer hardware, network hardware, and the services to support it. Hardly as diverse and vast as GE who can scan your body, microwave it, fly it across the world, and tie it to a wind turbine.
I could have used Berkshire Hathaway or Tyco or any other conglomerate to make my point. Top line growth is hard for ANY company. Doesn't matter if they specialize or not.
How much do they make on a $400 laptop? Why do that to themselves?
Low margins can be fine if you have the volume to support them. Dell has annual revenue of $50 billion and net income of about $1.5 billion. That's about a 3% profit margin which is pretty good for a manufacturing company. Their gross margins are about 17% which is in the range of normal for a large manufacturing concern. Walmart does just fine with low margins but they have no illusions about moving into higher revenue products. Dell has been very good at being a low cost manufacturer and they should be comfortable with that.
There is a very large market for low margin products but (as you noted) it's very hard to simultaneously compete in low margin and high margin at the same time. People who shop at Nieman Marcus are very different customers with different expectations from those who shop at Walmart. Both strategies work and both serve a niche but you can't do them both at the same time.
To create new products and innovate in markets you need Research and Development.
You don't have to have in house R&D but if you don't you do need the cash to buy companies that do R&D. Cisco is actually a good example. They do some internal R&D but they acquire a lot of companies specifically for the products they develop. R&D doesn't have to be in house but if it isn't the company will have to acquire it. Dell has $10 billion in cash so they should be able to acquire technology. However Dell doesn't have a ton of in house expertise in M&A activity either (mergers are HARD to do successfully - most fail) so they're kind of in a tough spot.
You can't be a me-to follow on that wins with low manufacturing costs.
Sure you can if the market is for a commodity product or if your price point is low enough to outweigh the advantages of differentiation. Dell built a $50 billion / year company competing primarily (though not exclusively) on price. BUT there can only be one winner in a market where they are competing solely on cost. Few markets compete solely on cost but it is a huge factor nonetheless even in markets with significant differentiation.
They're making billions as box pushers, isn't that good enough?
No. Every publicly traded company is expected to grow. If the Dell's market is saturated and there are limited growth opportunities there then Dell will have to find new sources of revenue outside their traditional business. This becomes VERY hard to do when a company gets as big as Dell. It gets absurdly hard when a company is as big as GE. Dell made about $50 billion in revenue last year. To grow the business by even 5% (which would be considered low) Dell would have to find $2.5 billion in new revenue EACH YEAR. For perspective that means creating a Fortune 500 company from scratch every two years and that is considered underachieving.
If Dell can't do it the markets are not especially forgiving. Dell's stock price has fallen to 25% of its value in 2005.
eBay bought Skype for $2.6 billion...
And took a writeoff on the investment of $1.4 billion making their investment worth considerably less.
To be honest I think $2.6 billion would be too high a price even now. Skype reported net income of $13.2 million on about $400 million in revenue. It's growing but $5B would be a very high price. A typical "fair" price is between 1-2X revenue to use the simplest possible analysis. (5-7X EBITDA is also used but profits aren't high enough here to make that useful). M&A folks typically use some multiple to arrive at a ballpark price. $5B would be hard to justify even with skype growing as fast as it apparently is.
I think Cisco is probably the right fit for Skype. (eBay never made a damn bit of sense) Cisco has been pushing to get into the VOIP market. They'll have to be careful however because they'll be competing with some of their biggest customers, namely the telecom companies (AT&T, Verizon, etc).
ROI? How about space tourism? $20B goes a long way towards getting people there and would only be 2% of that $1Tn.
Are you aware that ROI stands for RETURN On Investment? $20B might get some neat technology but it's no guarantee that whatever is developed will RETURN a profit. Space tourism is an industry with huge fixed costs, unknown demand, and finicky technology. Add in the risk of a significant drop in business when the first tourist dies in an accident (which will happen sooner or later) and the return on that $20B better be pretty high to justify the risk.
Ok, not a true new market but close enough.
Copper is copper. Doesn't matter if it comes from an asteroid or a mine on earth. The chemical composition is the same. Furthermore you have to consider the cost of substitutes. There is no "new market". Mining an asteroid is no different economically speaking than discovering a new vein of ore here on earth. The only question (which isn't actually much of a debate) is which is more economical to access. For the foreseeable future, asteroid mining is an economic fantasy. It CANNOT be done profitably and that is not likely to change in our lifetimes.
People were talking about asteroids being worth many many many billions of dollars given current markets. That would make them so competitive that they are effectively in a separate market.
No it wouldn't because you are assuming there is no cost to retrieving whatever is in the asteroid. Even if it is technologically possible, mining an asteroid will be EXTREMELY expensive. There is trillions of dollars of hydrogen in the ocean but that doesn't mean we have an economic way of processing it into useful products. We can do it but we can't make a profit with current technology. It's just too expensive right now.
Mines here on earth are worth many many many billions of dollars and they are much easier to reach. BHP Billiton has revenues of nearly $50billion per year and it's just a single company.
The ability to get a mineral at 1/50th the cost means that your competition does not exist.
Only true if it can actually be done. There is ZERO evidence that asteroids can be mined for any commodity cheaper than here on Earth. The technology to do it doesn't exist and will cost billions if not trillions of dollars to develop. That doesn't include the costs of exploration, insurance, transport, operation, or even the cost of capital which would be incredibly high on such a risky venture.
The OP mentioned gold which is perhaps to be treated differently because gold is held because it is gold and known to be rare and (therefore) worth hanging onto.
Gold is a commodity asset like any other. Yes it's relatively rare but supply and demand affect it like any other asset.
The Governments who like to hold gold will decide that something else will likely be a better bet for the foreseeable future and dump their gold reserves for whatever the something else
Governments do not use the gold standard anymore. Bullion reserves have their uses but currency hasn't been based on gold or any other tangible good since the 1970s. There is no particularly compelling reason for governments to hold large reserves of gold anymore than there is for them to hold large reserves of copper or zinc or silver.
Ah, here's where it goes wrong - you don't bring it back to Earth, you park it in orbit.
Unless we are in the process of colonizing another planet or moon you still have to bring the products home to have production in space be economically useful. If you just leave everything in space there is no means of economic payback to those who finance the venture. At the end of the day you have to have something to sell or else you are quite literally blasting money into space never to be seen again. It would be no different than sending a bunch of robots to a remote island in the pacific and having them build but never sending anything back. There is no economic return possible.
Anything where it's cheaper to do that than to lift it from Earth.
I note that you have provided no specific example of any such product.
So, the OP's answer is probably "figure out how to process asteroids in space". Aluminum might be a good place to start.
Think so? Aluminum is the most common metallic element in the earth's crust though much of it cannot be processed economically even here. Have you ever seen aluminum processed? I have. Doing it entirely via robots in outer space is well beyond our current technology even presuming we can find a good source of ore. Have you examined the power requirements? It takes 46 megajoules per kilogram to process bauxite. You also need other materials like carbon and oxygen and you have to process it at 2000 degrees Fahrenheit. Possible in space? Maybe but not anytime soon and certainly not by anyone seeking a return on their investment.
--certain types of medicine can only be made in zero G
Name one. Just one.
--special semiconductors that are extremely difficulty to build on earth due to gravity
Such as? Frankly if this were true we'd probably see Intel sponsoring experiments on the international space station.
--carbon nanotubes (you will need carbonaceous asteroids for this)
Carbon is carbon. Doesn't matter the source and there is plenty here on earth. Carbon nanotubes have been produced here on earth.
--molecular perfect glass sheets(that are as strong as steel)
Glass is already that strong. The problem with glass is that it is fragile, not that it is weak. What is your evidence that gravity is what is preventing this?
--guilt free minerals (not having to rape the biosphere is nice)
You think there is no environmental consequence to getting into space or using materials once they are brought back? There is no free lunch.
--aerogels (a form of insulation that makes fiberglass look pathetic)
Which are regularly made here on earth. No need for space to make aerogels.
--nuclear fuels (nuclear processing is alot easier when you don't have to worry about security, worker health, or gravity mucking up the process)
??? Exactly how are you going to USE the nuclear fuels without bringing them in proximity to humans? And exactly where do you think you will find a rich vein of uranium? Do you have the foggiest idea how much equipment and energy it takes to process nuclear fuel?
get an asteroid parked in a stable near earth orbit, and you won't be able to beat the companies off with a stick
Even if that were true (which you haven't proven) bringing an asteroid into earth orbit carries ENORMOUS risk. Screw up and you've just nuked a population center.
From a pure economic perspective there is ENORMOUS cost to getting into orbit/beyond. Having an asteroid up there doesn't save you the cost of getting all the equipment to mine it into space. Nor does it save you the cost of returning the finished goods safely. Nor does it save you the costs of the exploration equipment, transport equipment, fuel, R&D, insurance, staff, or the cost of capital. The only group that would or could conceivably finance such a speculative and risky venture given the current state of technology is the government. All for a bunch of products we can already get on earth produced by a bunch of technology that doesn't exist yet.
In other words, you don't have the foggiest idea what you are talking about.