Enron lied their way to success. Apple created products which were successful. By lying, you normally mean that Apple didn't sell what they claim they sold, or a product doesn't have an advertised functionality that Apple claimed. As far as I can tell, those were real customers who bought real products, and aside from a few minor glitches, the products generally do what they are advertised to do. Apple certainly isn't any worse than other tech companies on failing to deliver advertised functionality.
If you don't like Apple's products don't buy them and stop worrying about all the lemmings.
I rode aapl from less than $100 to $200 in 2007 and stuck with aapl all through the crash to $89 in 2008, and even used it as an opportunity to load up. It was a great ride, but the time has come to reduce my exposure. I am not a smart investor, I just got lucky. It's finally time to cash in the chips and walk out of the casino. Apple may continue to rise, but a wise investor once said, "a dollar not made is still a lot better than a dollar lost."
My two cents analysis that Apple has a lot of potential, but Apple carries a lot of risk. I am not sure if the market can sustain an Apple valued as highly as Exxon for example. Apple is a very difficult company to value because it is very difficult to predict future earnings. A lot of it depends on the public's reception of Apple's latest gadget. If the gadget is a new type of device, it is very difficult to accurately predict its acceptance. I had doubts about the iPad, but am glad it is selling like gang busters.
I am neither a fan boy nor an Apple hater. I am just an ordinary guy trying to get a good return on his savings after the banks cut interest rates to nil. Apple seemed like a good investment at the time. Which brings to mind another risk. If interest rates on savings rise again, expect people like me to take money out of the market, which will reduce share prices. I will keep an eye on Apple though. If it has another sharp drop in the next couple of years, I may use it as an opportunity to load up again.
It will be difficult for Apple after Steve Jobs is gone, but it doesn't mean Apple will fail. Both Ford and Disney were run by charismatic founders, but they both managed to make a good transition over time. I think HP might be an example of a company that was less successful in making the transition. But in Apple's case, Steve Jobs is aware of his own limited life expectancy and he has put some very capable managers in place to run the company following his departure. Steve Jobs primarily focuses on product development and allows his managers to run Apple's operations. The question is will the management team retain Steve's commitment to good design. It will be interesting to see.
Your point is valid. But there is a way to enforce that profiling isn't occurring. It's basically by keeping statistics on passengers searched by whom. So if dog handler A has a lot of false positives with a certain type of passenger it could be addressed. I am not a police officer, but I would expect that a lot of police departments keep statistics on their officers to prevent profiling from occurring.
But the current TSA search method is a visual scan. So somewhere a TSA operator is looking at an image of a person. This operator could also single out certain profiles or passengers for a more detailed search. The only difference is there would probably be an image somewhere of the passenger that could be used to show that he or she was unjustifiably searched. That is provided of course the passenger could get the image to make the case.
The most effective detector for hidden explosives is the bomb-sniffing dog. My unit used dogs to great effect in Iraq, and yes we did find bombs and hidden explosives on people, in cars, buried in the ground or in houses. Dogs can even sniff explosives from several meters away. So all the passengers would have to do is walk by a bomb dog and his handler on the way to the airplane. If the dog signals a positive, then that passenger could be taken aside for a more detailed search. An indication from a trained working dog is legal grounds for probable cause to search a person.
Dogs are so effective that DARPA even has a challenge to come up with a machine detector that could match a dog's nose. So far, no one has won the prize. I admit that dogs do have limitations such as needing rest, food, water and play time. But those limitations can be easily overcome with a little careful planning and cycling dogs in and out. The DEA and the US Customs services already use dogs at airports to screen luggage for drugs or illegal animal trade. So many airports probably already have the infrastructure to attend and care for working dogs. I honestly do not know why the TSA hasn't even openly considered bomb dogs as an acceptable alternative to full-body scanners. The TSA is obviously aware that the military and police have been using dogs effectively for many years.
The question is who writes the laws and for what interests they are working for. Copying copyrighted works is against the law, as is downloading them. I agree with you on this point. Where I disagree is do we shut down a web site which provides links to torrents, some of which are illegal. Under this logic, I could argue shutting down a hardware store because they sell tools which could be used to break into a house and steal the DVD collection. So in my opinion, the government is working in the interests of the copyright holders and not in the interest of the greater society at large.
I'm sorry my statement is ignorant, and gets people riled up. You are right, I am ignorant. I haven't the slightest idea how the U.S. government actually works. So all I have to go on are my opinions. If you have more knowledge, please elaborate how this isn't related to money.
For all their shouting matches, the thing both parties have in common is both offer their legislative services to the highest bidder. The voters only matter on election day if at all. Actual elections are tolerated as a necessary evil. Where I originally come from, the one thing both Republicans and Democrats actually agree on is gerrymandering themselves safe districts to prevent elections from actually deciding anything.
Unless you've been living behind Jupiter, you probably have figured out that the government is for sale to the highest bidder. You can bet that the RIAA, MPA, etc. have all made their political donations and now are cashing in. Most legislation in America is written by lobbyists anyway. But it's nice that the DHS is keeping us safe not just in the skies, but online as well.
We had bomb dogs in Iraq. They were much cheaper, quicker and more effective than scanners for detecting hidden explosives. DARPA even has a challenge to come up with a better scanner than a dog's nose. But the DHS and TSA aren't concerned about effectiveness. They have taken the money from the companies that produce the scanners.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/nation/2010/11/naked-scanners-lobbyists-join-war-terror
This has everything to do with $$$ and nothing to do with actual threats. No one got rich off of breeding and training bomb dogs.
The US and Russian Navies both had Nuclear-powered heavy cruisers. The American Cruisers were the USS Bainbridge, Truxtun, California and Virginia. They were powered by the D2G Nuclear reactor which produced about 150 megawatts of power. These ships have all been decommissioned in the '90s. The US Navy has considered using nuclear propulsion for its next generation of Guided Missile Cruiser but estimates between 600 to 800 million in added acquisition cost, not counting higher recurring costs and cost of eventual disposal. (source: globalsecurity.org) One downside of a nuclear-powered vessel is it is basically always on, so has to be continually manned, even after being decommissioned. Also, there are still no permanent nuclear waste disposal sites in the US for spent fuel and reactor cores. Nuclear waste is dangerous for over 100,000 years, which is longer than humans have been walking upright and talking.
I served in Iraq twice and found many of the documents I wrote on Wikileaks, just check for Haditha from August 2006 to April 2007 or Karmah from Jan 2008 to August 2008. I wrote most of those. The funny thing is that all of these documents already actually available in unclassified form from the Marine Corps Historical Society in Quantico Virginia. The unclassified version from the Historical Society have the names, places, and weapons capabilities redacted. Which are the exact same redactions made by Wikileaks. So my question to the media is why haven't you been taking advantage of these documents from the archive? Why is this news when Wikileaks releases them? I think most journalists simply are too lazy to go through archives and just latch on to a story when it has some entertainment value. For all of the low-level documents Mr. Assange released, he has broken very little new ground. That is probably because most of it was already available from the military.
The Redstone I was a liquid fuel design based loosely on the V-2. It was fueled by ethanol and liquid oxygen. Dr. von Braun was the project leader and the Redstone I. The Redstone was intended to carry a small tactical nuclear warhead, much like the Russian Scud missiles which came along a few years later. It was adapted for the Mercury program because of its availability and good reliability compared to other rockets of the era.
Yes China is completely capable of coming up with its own ideas. But because the US has already set a precedent, it will be impossible for the US to exert any meaningful diplomatic pressure on China to modify their behavior.
Targeting people with UAVs is a tactic. As with all tactics, there are second and third-order effects. The second-order effects include collateral damage, accidentally targeting the wrong persons, or the killed "bad guys" that are replaced by more capable ones. The third order effects include loss of international prestige and loss of diplomatic influence. I doubt the tactical gain is great enough to offset the price paid by the second and third order effects. That was what I was trying to point out in my last reply.
You can take it for what it is worth and choose to believe me or not. I used to operate UAVs in Iraq, so I do know what I am talking about in this regard.
One unintended consequence of the CIA's armed UAV air strikes is the US has basically said it is legal to target persons in third countries with UAVs. Sooner or later the Chinese will do the same. The US will protest, and China will remind them that they are only doing what the CIA has been doing for years.
Thank you for your post. You are the only person here so far with an open mind around here. Let's wait to see how the evidence plays out before jumping to conclusions. Sad that everyone else already has made up their minds.
I once read how German and Japanese companies were required to partner with Chinese companies in order to bid on high-speed rail contracts. Once the Chinese "partners" had the designs, they severed their partnerships and are now building all of their rail systems in house. So it was basically a scam to gain access to technology, and the promises of long-term contracts never materialized. I suspect something similar will happen this time around with aerospace. I doubt that the Aerospace companies are any more savvy on protecting their technology than the rail companies.
Before you fan boys go falling over yourselves to buy the Apple I, be aware that Steve Jobs won't support the Flash Plugin on it. According to Steve Jobs, "Flash is a resource killer, and in order to deliver the best computing experience possible while running Integer BASIC on the 6502, we have dropped Flash." That being said, it should be possible to install Flash from a third-party cassette tape.
On paper, nice concept. But just one minor problem: the power grid's most likely down, or was never built. I served in Iraq in 2006-2007 and again in 2008-2009. Even six years after invading the place, the central grid worked only sporadically. Most Iraqis had portable gasoline-powered generators. Other countries such as Afghanistan or Somalia probably never had a functioning electrical power system (outside of a few capitol cities). I was with the Marines in Iraq. We got by fine with batteries and some small utility generators. The only reason for tapping local power would be to run air conditioning, without which the Air Force is probably out of the fight. Second point is if US soldiers were to tap the local grid for power, guess who would be blamed for every power outage? It would drive unit commanders insane paying damages for spoiled milk every time the power went down. And we would pay to avoid controversy.
I own both stocks. They are two fundamentally different businesses. IBM's an established business with established customers. No one is expecting IBM to come out with the next must-have consumer product. But IBM is a well-run computer science company that consistently makes a profit and does a lot of low-level innovation that winds up in other's products. IBM profits from the royalties and component sales from such innovation. In the 1970s and 1980s, IBM was valued much higher because at the time IBM was a growth stock.
Apple is currently valued higher (P/E) than IBM because Apple has consistently shown the ability to make / change markets to their advantage. Apple on the other hand is a higher-risk investment because of Apple's narrow product line and their reliance on the vision and wisdom of their cofounder. If Apple makes a small misstep (even rumored), it is instantly reflected in the stock price.
There are a lot of valid investments that don't pay a dividend. Precious metals, commodities, real estate, and growth stocks come to mind. As long as Apple is able to pioneer new markets, they will remain a growth stock and probably won't pay a dividend.
As for their server/enterprise business, I cannot comment. But that's why I also invest in IBM because that is one of IBM's core competencies.
Investing is not about emotion. It is about finding the best return on investment for the level of risk you are willing to accept. If you don't like Apple, fine. But that shouldn't be the deciding criteria for where you put or don't your money. Conversely, you may love Apple to death, but if it's not a good investment for you, then don't invest in Apple.
Now that the Queen of England is on FaceBook, will FaceBook be adopting the Royal Seal as the "Official Social Networking Site" of the Royal Court? I think its on Twinings Tea and Hoover Vacuum Cleaners use the seal.
Before the Iraq war, I was in South Korea. As a soldier, I obviously couldn't actually enter NK, but I have been on the DMZ. The first thing I noticed about NK is that there are no trees. South Korea has forests, but NK appears to be clear cut as far as the eye can see. The NK Guards have soviet-style costumes. If NK weren't so dangerous, the DMZ could pass for a set in a Steven Spielberg film. But the three things NK seems to have in abundance (at least as seen from the DMZ) are oversized flags, martialistic music and Guard Towers. From the DMZ, North Korea looks like the biggest prison in the world. I am glad someone is sneaking cameras into the country and recruiting journalists, because the world seems to be willfully ignorant about how bad the situation is in NK. Hopefully NK will eventually peacefully implode, like East Germany, but the Kim family and his Cronies are enriching themselves at the expense of the Korean People, so they probably won't go without a fight. Maybe we'll get lucky and the North Koreans will deal with the Kim family the same way the Romanians took care of the Ceauescu family.
Slashdot Mirror
Enron lied their way to success. Apple created products which were successful. By lying, you normally mean that Apple didn't sell what they claim they sold, or a product doesn't have an advertised functionality that Apple claimed. As far as I can tell, those were real customers who bought real products, and aside from a few minor glitches, the products generally do what they are advertised to do. Apple certainly isn't any worse than other tech companies on failing to deliver advertised functionality.
If you don't like Apple's products don't buy them and stop worrying about all the lemmings.
I rode aapl from less than $100 to $200 in 2007 and stuck with aapl all through the crash to $89 in 2008, and even used it as an opportunity to load up. It was a great ride, but the time has come to reduce my exposure. I am not a smart investor, I just got lucky. It's finally time to cash in the chips and walk out of the casino. Apple may continue to rise, but a wise investor once said, "a dollar not made is still a lot better than a dollar lost."
My two cents analysis that Apple has a lot of potential, but Apple carries a lot of risk. I am not sure if the market can sustain an Apple valued as highly as Exxon for example. Apple is a very difficult company to value because it is very difficult to predict future earnings. A lot of it depends on the public's reception of Apple's latest gadget. If the gadget is a new type of device, it is very difficult to accurately predict its acceptance. I had doubts about the iPad, but am glad it is selling like gang busters.
I am neither a fan boy nor an Apple hater. I am just an ordinary guy trying to get a good return on his savings after the banks cut interest rates to nil. Apple seemed like a good investment at the time. Which brings to mind another risk. If interest rates on savings rise again, expect people like me to take money out of the market, which will reduce share prices. I will keep an eye on Apple though. If it has another sharp drop in the next couple of years, I may use it as an opportunity to load up again.
It will be difficult for Apple after Steve Jobs is gone, but it doesn't mean Apple will fail. Both Ford and Disney were run by charismatic founders, but they both managed to make a good transition over time. I think HP might be an example of a company that was less successful in making the transition. But in Apple's case, Steve Jobs is aware of his own limited life expectancy and he has put some very capable managers in place to run the company following his departure. Steve Jobs primarily focuses on product development and allows his managers to run Apple's operations. The question is will the management team retain Steve's commitment to good design. It will be interesting to see.
This latest leak is probably the reason the US has been debating about having some kind of "internet kill switch."
Your point is valid. But there is a way to enforce that profiling isn't occurring. It's basically by keeping statistics on passengers searched by whom. So if dog handler A has a lot of false positives with a certain type of passenger it could be addressed. I am not a police officer, but I would expect that a lot of police departments keep statistics on their officers to prevent profiling from occurring.
But the current TSA search method is a visual scan. So somewhere a TSA operator is looking at an image of a person. This operator could also single out certain profiles or passengers for a more detailed search. The only difference is there would probably be an image somewhere of the passenger that could be used to show that he or she was unjustifiably searched. That is provided of course the passenger could get the image to make the case.
The most effective detector for hidden explosives is the bomb-sniffing dog. My unit used dogs to great effect in Iraq, and yes we did find bombs and hidden explosives on people, in cars, buried in the ground or in houses. Dogs can even sniff explosives from several meters away. So all the passengers would have to do is walk by a bomb dog and his handler on the way to the airplane. If the dog signals a positive, then that passenger could be taken aside for a more detailed search. An indication from a trained working dog is legal grounds for probable cause to search a person.
Dogs are so effective that DARPA even has a challenge to come up with a machine detector that could match a dog's nose. So far, no one has won the prize. I admit that dogs do have limitations such as needing rest, food, water and play time. But those limitations can be easily overcome with a little careful planning and cycling dogs in and out. The DEA and the US Customs services already use dogs at airports to screen luggage for drugs or illegal animal trade. So many airports probably already have the infrastructure to attend and care for working dogs. I honestly do not know why the TSA hasn't even openly considered bomb dogs as an acceptable alternative to full-body scanners. The TSA is obviously aware that the military and police have been using dogs effectively for many years.
The question is who writes the laws and for what interests they are working for. Copying copyrighted works is against the law, as is downloading them. I agree with you on this point. Where I disagree is do we shut down a web site which provides links to torrents, some of which are illegal. Under this logic, I could argue shutting down a hardware store because they sell tools which could be used to break into a house and steal the DVD collection. So in my opinion, the government is working in the interests of the copyright holders and not in the interest of the greater society at large.
I'm sorry my statement is ignorant, and gets people riled up. You are right, I am ignorant. I haven't the slightest idea how the U.S. government actually works. So all I have to go on are my opinions. If you have more knowledge, please elaborate how this isn't related to money.
For all their shouting matches, the thing both parties have in common is both offer their legislative services to the highest bidder. The voters only matter on election day if at all. Actual elections are tolerated as a necessary evil. Where I originally come from, the one thing both Republicans and Democrats actually agree on is gerrymandering themselves safe districts to prevent elections from actually deciding anything.
They won't block google because google has made political donations and has some lawyers, probably not as many as Oracle, but enough.
Unless you've been living behind Jupiter, you probably have figured out that the government is for sale to the highest bidder. You can bet that the RIAA, MPA, etc. have all made their political donations and now are cashing in. Most legislation in America is written by lobbyists anyway. But it's nice that the DHS is keeping us safe not just in the skies, but online as well.
We had bomb dogs in Iraq. They were much cheaper, quicker and more effective than scanners for detecting hidden explosives. DARPA even has a challenge to come up with a better scanner than a dog's nose. But the DHS and TSA aren't concerned about effectiveness. They have taken the money from the companies that produce the scanners. http://washingtonexaminer.com/nation/2010/11/naked-scanners-lobbyists-join-war-terror This has everything to do with $$$ and nothing to do with actual threats. No one got rich off of breeding and training bomb dogs.
The US and Russian Navies both had Nuclear-powered heavy cruisers. The American Cruisers were the USS Bainbridge, Truxtun, California and Virginia. They were powered by the D2G Nuclear reactor which produced about 150 megawatts of power. These ships have all been decommissioned in the '90s. The US Navy has considered using nuclear propulsion for its next generation of Guided Missile Cruiser but estimates between 600 to 800 million in added acquisition cost, not counting higher recurring costs and cost of eventual disposal. (source: globalsecurity.org) One downside of a nuclear-powered vessel is it is basically always on, so has to be continually manned, even after being decommissioned. Also, there are still no permanent nuclear waste disposal sites in the US for spent fuel and reactor cores. Nuclear waste is dangerous for over 100,000 years, which is longer than humans have been walking upright and talking.
Where do we put the waste?
I served in Iraq twice and found many of the documents I wrote on Wikileaks, just check for Haditha from August 2006 to April 2007 or Karmah from Jan 2008 to August 2008. I wrote most of those. The funny thing is that all of these documents already actually available in unclassified form from the Marine Corps Historical Society in Quantico Virginia. The unclassified version from the Historical Society have the names, places, and weapons capabilities redacted. Which are the exact same redactions made by Wikileaks. So my question to the media is why haven't you been taking advantage of these documents from the archive? Why is this news when Wikileaks releases them? I think most journalists simply are too lazy to go through archives and just latch on to a story when it has some entertainment value. For all of the low-level documents Mr. Assange released, he has broken very little new ground. That is probably because most of it was already available from the military.
The Redstone I was a liquid fuel design based loosely on the V-2. It was fueled by ethanol and liquid oxygen. Dr. von Braun was the project leader and the Redstone I. The Redstone was intended to carry a small tactical nuclear warhead, much like the Russian Scud missiles which came along a few years later. It was adapted for the Mercury program because of its availability and good reliability compared to other rockets of the era.
Yes China is completely capable of coming up with its own ideas. But because the US has already set a precedent, it will be impossible for the US to exert any meaningful diplomatic pressure on China to modify their behavior. Targeting people with UAVs is a tactic. As with all tactics, there are second and third-order effects. The second-order effects include collateral damage, accidentally targeting the wrong persons, or the killed "bad guys" that are replaced by more capable ones. The third order effects include loss of international prestige and loss of diplomatic influence. I doubt the tactical gain is great enough to offset the price paid by the second and third order effects. That was what I was trying to point out in my last reply. You can take it for what it is worth and choose to believe me or not. I used to operate UAVs in Iraq, so I do know what I am talking about in this regard.
One unintended consequence of the CIA's armed UAV air strikes is the US has basically said it is legal to target persons in third countries with UAVs. Sooner or later the Chinese will do the same. The US will protest, and China will remind them that they are only doing what the CIA has been doing for years.
Thank you for your post. You are the only person here so far with an open mind around here. Let's wait to see how the evidence plays out before jumping to conclusions. Sad that everyone else already has made up their minds.
I once read how German and Japanese companies were required to partner with Chinese companies in order to bid on high-speed rail contracts. Once the Chinese "partners" had the designs, they severed their partnerships and are now building all of their rail systems in house. So it was basically a scam to gain access to technology, and the promises of long-term contracts never materialized. I suspect something similar will happen this time around with aerospace. I doubt that the Aerospace companies are any more savvy on protecting their technology than the rail companies.
Why are mineral wealth and cultural wealth inversely proportional?
Before you fan boys go falling over yourselves to buy the Apple I, be aware that Steve Jobs won't support the Flash Plugin on it. According to Steve Jobs, "Flash is a resource killer, and in order to deliver the best computing experience possible while running Integer BASIC on the 6502, we have dropped Flash." That being said, it should be possible to install Flash from a third-party cassette tape.
On paper, nice concept. But just one minor problem: the power grid's most likely down, or was never built. I served in Iraq in 2006-2007 and again in 2008-2009. Even six years after invading the place, the central grid worked only sporadically. Most Iraqis had portable gasoline-powered generators. Other countries such as Afghanistan or Somalia probably never had a functioning electrical power system (outside of a few capitol cities). I was with the Marines in Iraq. We got by fine with batteries and some small utility generators. The only reason for tapping local power would be to run air conditioning, without which the Air Force is probably out of the fight. Second point is if US soldiers were to tap the local grid for power, guess who would be blamed for every power outage? It would drive unit commanders insane paying damages for spoiled milk every time the power went down. And we would pay to avoid controversy.
I own both stocks. They are two fundamentally different businesses. IBM's an established business with established customers. No one is expecting IBM to come out with the next must-have consumer product. But IBM is a well-run computer science company that consistently makes a profit and does a lot of low-level innovation that winds up in other's products. IBM profits from the royalties and component sales from such innovation. In the 1970s and 1980s, IBM was valued much higher because at the time IBM was a growth stock. Apple is currently valued higher (P/E) than IBM because Apple has consistently shown the ability to make / change markets to their advantage. Apple on the other hand is a higher-risk investment because of Apple's narrow product line and their reliance on the vision and wisdom of their cofounder. If Apple makes a small misstep (even rumored), it is instantly reflected in the stock price. There are a lot of valid investments that don't pay a dividend. Precious metals, commodities, real estate, and growth stocks come to mind. As long as Apple is able to pioneer new markets, they will remain a growth stock and probably won't pay a dividend. As for their server/enterprise business, I cannot comment. But that's why I also invest in IBM because that is one of IBM's core competencies. Investing is not about emotion. It is about finding the best return on investment for the level of risk you are willing to accept. If you don't like Apple, fine. But that shouldn't be the deciding criteria for where you put or don't your money. Conversely, you may love Apple to death, but if it's not a good investment for you, then don't invest in Apple.
Now that the Queen of England is on FaceBook, will FaceBook be adopting the Royal Seal as the "Official Social Networking Site" of the Royal Court? I think its on Twinings Tea and Hoover Vacuum Cleaners use the seal.
Before the Iraq war, I was in South Korea. As a soldier, I obviously couldn't actually enter NK, but I have been on the DMZ. The first thing I noticed about NK is that there are no trees. South Korea has forests, but NK appears to be clear cut as far as the eye can see. The NK Guards have soviet-style costumes. If NK weren't so dangerous, the DMZ could pass for a set in a Steven Spielberg film. But the three things NK seems to have in abundance (at least as seen from the DMZ) are oversized flags, martialistic music and Guard Towers. From the DMZ, North Korea looks like the biggest prison in the world. I am glad someone is sneaking cameras into the country and recruiting journalists, because the world seems to be willfully ignorant about how bad the situation is in NK. Hopefully NK will eventually peacefully implode, like East Germany, but the Kim family and his Cronies are enriching themselves at the expense of the Korean People, so they probably won't go without a fight. Maybe we'll get lucky and the North Koreans will deal with the Kim family the same way the Romanians took care of the Ceauescu family.