This will just become the next attack vector hackers use to compromise the systems.
Next? Um, that would be the FIRST one used to do this.
Where we have demonstrated a lot of hacks are possible on such systems, extremely few (as in I don't remember one) has actually happened during an election where it was suspected that the votes counts where altered.
There has been provable vote fraud, but not electronic voting machine hacks of any import.
You don't need a government program to fix everything, private donations and effort can actually work to fix problems like the rising cost of tuition.
So instead of a government program with some measure of accountability, you prefer hand outs from wealthy donors with no accountability? Nothing wrong with private donations but depending on fickle handouts from rich people who may have ulterior motives isn't a very sensible way to run a society.
And forcible confiscations of taxes from the poor, middle class and rich alike to support such programs IS sensible?
To each their own I guess.
You used government and accountable in the same sentence, implying that one gives you the other. Somehow I don't think you understand what "accountable" means because one doesn't give you the other. Besides, if doctors are getting trained and are able to meet the certification standards to get their licenses, what more accountability do you need in this case?
Why not? Rich people are capable of understanding society's need for these things, are they not?
Why yes they are able to understand. In fact, such endowments exist now for the fields of study you outline. They are just not ballyhooed in the press.
Maybe the problem here is the lack of interest by the press and then the public? Hmmm. Why isn't such philanthropic activity held in high esteem? Seems to me we spend more time engaged in class warfare than encouraging such giving.
This is great, but not what we really need. We really need to have a "follow the money" tool from Google.
We need two things for politicians. 1. Who gave or loaned them what and when. Every penny they received or was spent on their behalf needs to be traceable to *exactly* who gave it. 2. What did the candidate *spend* this money on? Every penny they spend needs to be traceable to it's destination, all the way down to who catered the buffet at the election night party.
IF we had this, it would immediately become really clear who's really in control.
Rockets are like aircraft in that they go fast and above the water & sea, they are like sailing ships because they can take years to get anywhere & there are brief periods of excitement with long boring parts.
I think it makes sense to have a Space Force, but the way Trump trumpets it, it behoves Russia & China to get in on the act for their self preservation.
Trump comes across as a spoilt child who says mine!, Mine!!, MINE!!! - as they don't want to play with other children, unless they always get their own way!
So you agree with the idea, you just don't like the style of the one pushing it. Fair enough.
I don't give out style points to politicians anyway because I'm concerned with what they do and why they do it and not what or how they say what they say. I'm after results, not flowery talk. What have you actually DONE concerns me more than how you talk about things.
The *only* limitations about the use of space are from a couple of treaties over 40 years old, but they do not keep the military or weapons out of space. You cannot deploy nuclear weapons and you cannot claim space or parts of it as your sovereign territory by the traditional means of military occupation, but you can fly conventional weapons and operate defensive and offensive weapon systems in space all you like So no building a military installation on the moon and claiming it as your own, and no putting nuclear weapons in space, but the rest is allowed. The rest of the treaties regulate liability for accidents, and who's responsible for hardware in space and any damage it may do to other's hardware or territory.
So you CAN militarize your use of space within limits (no nuclear weapons, but conventional ones are OK).
Again, your example is totally out of proportion to what we are discussing.
Sputnik was obvious a provocative act, overflying another country with a new technology, demonstrating a capability that could be obviously used for less than peaceful purposes. Yea, that was provocative, clearly so.
WE are discussing an organizational change of the DOD, which is a far cry from demonstrating some new level of technology like Sputnik did. Yet, here we are, comparing this move to the launch of Sputnik. You are really overstating your argument there, which betrays how weak it really is. A reorganization of the Air Force into two parts is not even close to the provocation of Sputnik, not by a country mile.
So, based on a news paper report, you are ready to bash Apple for being cheap? We have jumped into this process in the very beginning, not at the end, Apple has gotten away with nothing yet.
It's like you blasting a car dealer for daring to publish the MSRP as their asking price or bashing the buyer for offering the dealer $100 for that new car. Everybody knows that the actual price is someplace in-between and negotiations are just getting started. Why did the news paper inject itself in this story? To bash Apple as the big money evil corporation trying to skip out on paying it's fair share. The truth here is Apple is trying to reduce it's tax liability, nothing wrong with that. What's going to HAPPEN here is the tax office will hear Apple's appeal, justify their idea of what the buildings are worth and Apple will pay taxes on that. Why drag them though the mud on this, except to bash the evil corporation as a tax cheat, even when it's not.
From my perspective this is why news papers shouldn't be involved. Taxable values should NOT be argued in the court of public opinion, but by people who actually know how to appraise the actual values of buildings.
Apple can go piss off a wind-swept roof, facing the wind, and pay their property tax bill just like I do.
So you just blindly pay your taxes on the assessed value? I don't. I review my assessed value verses market conditions when they send me their proposed valuation every year and IF I felt the value they had was out of line, I'd be objecting. I suggest all property owners do the same thing.
So all this really is, is Apple contesting their assessed value. $1B seems a bit steep, and $200 seems very low, but this is just a negotiation in the starting phases. They will reach a value that's in-between the two extremes eventually.
All we have here is somebody trying to make Apple look bad by releasing their bargaining position so it gets tried in the press, which may be fair, but unfortunate that things get decided like this in the press. The appeals process should run it's course, unhindered by such interference by the likes of the local news paper.
So the assessors who collect taxes are able to determine the value w/o any process to appeal if they are wrong? I don't think so. The truth is someplace between $200 and $1B, the question is where that is.
Apple has their view, the tax collector theirs and what the poster was asking for was independent analysis of the building's true worth for the purposes of the property taxes.
How much C02 does the "process" of producing this material create and how much CO2 does it consume? The article doesn't say. Just being able to fix carbon doesn't mean it's a good thing.
Often the total CO2 being emitted from the total lifecycle is not being considered and we get things like raising corn to make ethanol to burn in our cars which produces more CO2 than it saves when you look at the whole process, end to end, including the growing, transportation, processing and waste removal. Such things need to be carefully considered, or we are spitting into the wind.
I think you are hyperventilating about nearly nothing. Just like they went off on Reagan about his Star Wars thing, but for a whole lot less actual reason. It's not like there was an announced weapon system with specific capabilities that eclipse anything anybody else has, we are talking about reorganizing the department of defense to provide some additional focus into military force in space, there isn't some new revelation of some new weapons system or some huge R&D project that would catch them flat footed or unaware of our capabilities.
If you think the Russians or the Chinese are provoked by such talk, I'm only going to laugh at you. They are provoked by our very presence in space, by our navigation assets in orbit, communications ability and the like, because they KNOW they are behind. They are provoked by what they know we can already do that they can't. Busting out half the Air Force and calling it by another name isn't going to change that or provoke them any further.
But to hear you talk, it's like they are going to be incensed and be all that closer to entering a shooting war with us, JUST because we broke up the Air Force and created some "Space Force" from the pieces.
LOL.. I seriously don't think Russia or China will be in any way deterred from their current research, nor will the realignment of the Air Force to split out a "Space Force" would spur them on to additional activities or fielding additional weapons... Unless you are claiming that the development of a "Space Force" would actually advance the arms race, because it would actually produce additional capabilities and expertise on our part.
IF you really think the latter, then I've got to ask, shouldn't we be doing all this stuff anyway? Shouldn't we be developing our space defense capability as best we can anyway? Are we not already provoking by doing this, regardless of how the DOD is organized? Should we not be building a bigger stick so we can speak softly and keep the peace?
Seem to me that if you find this to be provocative, you are really saying that it's going to be effective at development of the technology we need to be developing and you are making my argument for me. Yep, if China and Russia think this will advance the state of the art and they'd have to step up their game to keep up, then this is a good thing. We need to focus and be a head of the pack.
The "It's a clean division" argument is simply to dispel the "It makes no sense" line of debate. It is a logical precondition of being able to split anything with as many moving parts as the Air Force to have a easy to define line to decide with. So the dividing line is easy to define and understand. This is but a pre-condition of the next step in the debate.
You are correct, it must also make operational sense. I believe it does make sense. Here is way.
There are two clear parts of the Air Force and the skills you must have to be effective when managing and flying aircraft are quite a bit different than management and launching of space vehicles. They are vastly different from maintenance all the way up through command and once you start down one path or the other, your skills and experience will drive your career more than your desire to change tracks can. We have a pile of missile officers who have no place to go, they will not be released to pursue other tracks and are seemingly stuck sitting in holes for days at a time with no way up, you can only sit at a rank so long before it's time to get out. So for these guys and gals the 'Space Force" they'd be apart of would have more opportunity for them to advance.
Also, the logistics of Space are quite different than Aircraft as are the physical facilities required for both. Space doesn't need to forward spares around the world and can get by with only a few large launch sites, Air needs to have a logistics pipeline that reaches to the battle field, places to land to refuel and house repair facilities around the world. The reasons for separating them make obvious sense. Separating the personnel also makes obvious sense, for both the ability to train the necessary skills and provide rewarding career opportunities for those with unique skills and knowledge.
Why is being provocative a problem? And is this really provocative?
We often project force forward and have done so for more than 100 years now. It's what the Navy was initially for and what the Air Force and Navy do now. What do you think the point of deploying aircraft carrier task forces into the middle east is if not provocative? Sometimes all one has to do is display the ability of applying overwhelming force to keep things in line. Being provocative can be a good thing. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" is a common way to express this.
Then there is the question about how provocative this move would actually be. How does this change anything for our adversaries, especially in ways that might lead them into open conflict with us? Sure, it recognizes the domain of space in military thinking and emphasizes our commitment to contend for superiority on this front, but I don't see how the Russians and Chinese are not already acutely aware of the technology race and are not fully engaged in being as competitive as they can in that realm. I don't see how a reorganization of the department of defense would change that or provoke them further.
As I understand the idea here, a "Space Force" would carve out the parts of the Air Force that wasn't based on wings and aircraft into a new branch of the department of defense. It wouldn't be taking over the Navy's mission. So the rocket vehicle based operations of the current Air Force and satellites would fall under "Space" and not "Air". The Army, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard wouldn't be affected, except that they'd have to deal with "Space Force" for their satellite operational needs, instead of their current Air Force contacts.
The political pull to the left is strong with this one... Why must you see collusion and conspiracy around every corner?
Because I'm paying attention.
I see good reasons to move this function away from the Air Force,
Name one.
I'll bite, once... Unless you actually respond in kind.
The division of the Air Force is pretty easy. Rockets and Satellites go to the Space Force, Things having to do with wings stay with the Air Force. So the division is conceptually clear, much like the division of the Army was when the Air Force was Created.
Flying aircraft and flying rockets are largely different disciplines that deal with dissimilar hardware, so it makes sense to have speculated skills and training in one thing or the other in your manpower resources, equipment, logistics and base locations. It also allows for advancement for troops which are currently in dead end careers, being non-pilots in the Air Force sitting in missile silos for 48 hour watches with moral about as low as the base of the missiles they man.
Interesting issue you bring up, but you need to divorce yourself from the political considerations on this.
There are reasons to create a new branch of the armed services that go beyond costs. The mission and budget of the Air Force is quite big, as is their command structure. Carving out a new branch, much like the carving out the Army Air Corps, does have it's advantages. Flattening the command structure allows more flexibility and faster response times, allows for specialized training and skills to be closer to the top of the command structure, and allows for focusing appropriated budget and resources on specific areas of the mission.
Of course, there is a down side to everything. But in my opinion this idea has merit. It flattens the hierarchy at the Pentagon, allows the development and advancement of resources with specialized skills. And creates a sharper focus on a specific problem set. Rockets and satellites go one way, things that depend on wings go another. It's a natural division and there is very little overlap, so it actually makes sense to me.
The political pull to the left is strong with this one... Why must you see collusion and conspiracy around every corner?
I see good reasons to move this function away from the Air Force, I also see good reasons not to and why the Air Force might not like the idea. None of those reasons have anything to do with my political bias or creating some intractable advantage for our advisories. These reasons should be (and are being) discussed and evaluated apart from political bias, because politics is usually a poor decision maker when it comes to national defense questions.
So, apart from your unsubstantiated theories about Trump's motives and your political bias, do you have any actual reasons you oppose this you'd like to discuss? (I mean, do you oppose this for some reason other than because Trump suggested it?) If so, let's hear what they are please.
Slashdot Mirror
This will just become the next attack vector hackers use to compromise the systems.
Next? Um, that would be the FIRST one used to do this.
Where we have demonstrated a lot of hacks are possible on such systems, extremely few (as in I don't remember one) has actually happened during an election where it was suspected that the votes counts where altered.
There has been provable vote fraud, but not electronic voting machine hacks of any import.
You don't need a government program to fix everything, private donations and effort can actually work to fix problems like the rising cost of tuition.
So instead of a government program with some measure of accountability, you prefer hand outs from wealthy donors with no accountability? Nothing wrong with private donations but depending on fickle handouts from rich people who may have ulterior motives isn't a very sensible way to run a society.
And forcible confiscations of taxes from the poor, middle class and rich alike to support such programs IS sensible?
To each their own I guess.
You used government and accountable in the same sentence, implying that one gives you the other. Somehow I don't think you understand what "accountable" means because one doesn't give you the other. Besides, if doctors are getting trained and are able to meet the certification standards to get their licenses, what more accountability do you need in this case?
Why not? Rich people are capable of understanding society's need for these things, are they not?
Why yes they are able to understand. In fact, such endowments exist now for the fields of study you outline. They are just not ballyhooed in the press.
Maybe the problem here is the lack of interest by the press and then the public? Hmmm. Why isn't such philanthropic activity held in high esteem? Seems to me we spend more time engaged in class warfare than encouraging such giving.
You don't need a government program to fix everything, private donations and effort can actually work to fix problems like the rising cost of tuition.
This is great, but not what we really need. We really need to have a "follow the money" tool from Google.
We need two things for politicians. 1. Who gave or loaned them what and when. Every penny they received or was spent on their behalf needs to be traceable to *exactly* who gave it. 2. What did the candidate *spend* this money on? Every penny they spend needs to be traceable to it's destination, all the way down to who catered the buffet at the election night party.
IF we had this, it would immediately become really clear who's really in control.
Rockets are like aircraft in that they go fast and above the water & sea, they are like sailing ships because they can take years to get anywhere & there are brief periods of excitement with long boring parts.
I think it makes sense to have a Space Force, but the way Trump trumpets it, it behoves Russia & China to get in on the act for their self preservation.
Trump comes across as a spoilt child who says mine!, Mine!!, MINE!!! - as they don't want to play with other children, unless they always get their own way!
So you agree with the idea, you just don't like the style of the one pushing it. Fair enough.
I don't give out style points to politicians anyway because I'm concerned with what they do and why they do it and not what or how they say what they say. I'm after results, not flowery talk. What have you actually DONE concerns me more than how you talk about things.
Boy, are you misinformed.
The *only* limitations about the use of space are from a couple of treaties over 40 years old, but they do not keep the military or weapons out of space. You cannot deploy nuclear weapons and you cannot claim space or parts of it as your sovereign territory by the traditional means of military occupation, but you can fly conventional weapons and operate defensive and offensive weapon systems in space all you like So no building a military installation on the moon and claiming it as your own, and no putting nuclear weapons in space, but the rest is allowed. The rest of the treaties regulate liability for accidents, and who's responsible for hardware in space and any damage it may do to other's hardware or territory.
So you CAN militarize your use of space within limits (no nuclear weapons, but conventional ones are OK).
Again, your example is totally out of proportion to what we are discussing.
Sputnik was obvious a provocative act, overflying another country with a new technology, demonstrating a capability that could be obviously used for less than peaceful purposes. Yea, that was provocative, clearly so.
WE are discussing an organizational change of the DOD, which is a far cry from demonstrating some new level of technology like Sputnik did. Yet, here we are, comparing this move to the launch of Sputnik. You are really overstating your argument there, which betrays how weak it really is. A reorganization of the Air Force into two parts is not even close to the provocation of Sputnik, not by a country mile.
So, based on a news paper report, you are ready to bash Apple for being cheap? We have jumped into this process in the very beginning, not at the end, Apple has gotten away with nothing yet.
It's like you blasting a car dealer for daring to publish the MSRP as their asking price or bashing the buyer for offering the dealer $100 for that new car. Everybody knows that the actual price is someplace in-between and negotiations are just getting started. Why did the news paper inject itself in this story? To bash Apple as the big money evil corporation trying to skip out on paying it's fair share. The truth here is Apple is trying to reduce it's tax liability, nothing wrong with that. What's going to HAPPEN here is the tax office will hear Apple's appeal, justify their idea of what the buildings are worth and Apple will pay taxes on that. Why drag them though the mud on this, except to bash the evil corporation as a tax cheat, even when it's not.
From my perspective this is why news papers shouldn't be involved. Taxable values should NOT be argued in the court of public opinion, but by people who actually know how to appraise the actual values of buildings.
Apple can go piss off a wind-swept roof, facing the wind, and pay their property tax bill just like I do.
So you just blindly pay your taxes on the assessed value? I don't. I review my assessed value verses market conditions when they send me their proposed valuation every year and IF I felt the value they had was out of line, I'd be objecting. I suggest all property owners do the same thing.
So all this really is, is Apple contesting their assessed value. $1B seems a bit steep, and $200 seems very low, but this is just a negotiation in the starting phases. They will reach a value that's in-between the two extremes eventually.
All we have here is somebody trying to make Apple look bad by releasing their bargaining position so it gets tried in the press, which may be fair, but unfortunate that things get decided like this in the press. The appeals process should run it's course, unhindered by such interference by the likes of the local news paper.
So the assessors who collect taxes are able to determine the value w/o any process to appeal if they are wrong? I don't think so. The truth is someplace between $200 and $1B, the question is where that is.
Apple has their view, the tax collector theirs and what the poster was asking for was independent analysis of the building's true worth for the purposes of the property taxes.
How much C02 does the "process" of producing this material create and how much CO2 does it consume? The article doesn't say. Just being able to fix carbon doesn't mean it's a good thing.
Often the total CO2 being emitted from the total lifecycle is not being considered and we get things like raising corn to make ethanol to burn in our cars which produces more CO2 than it saves when you look at the whole process, end to end, including the growing, transportation, processing and waste removal. Such things need to be carefully considered, or we are spitting into the wind.
So is my gasoline powered car if you go back far enough.
I see good reasons to move this function away from the Air Force,
Name one.
There's no air in space.
That's all I got.
LOL.. I like that one, I'll have to use it next time.
I think you are hyperventilating about nearly nothing. Just like they went off on Reagan about his Star Wars thing, but for a whole lot less actual reason. It's not like there was an announced weapon system with specific capabilities that eclipse anything anybody else has, we are talking about reorganizing the department of defense to provide some additional focus into military force in space, there isn't some new revelation of some new weapons system or some huge R&D project that would catch them flat footed or unaware of our capabilities.
If you think the Russians or the Chinese are provoked by such talk, I'm only going to laugh at you. They are provoked by our very presence in space, by our navigation assets in orbit, communications ability and the like, because they KNOW they are behind. They are provoked by what they know we can already do that they can't. Busting out half the Air Force and calling it by another name isn't going to change that or provoke them any further.
But to hear you talk, it's like they are going to be incensed and be all that closer to entering a shooting war with us, JUST because we broke up the Air Force and created some "Space Force" from the pieces.
Woosh! You are not interested in engaging here. Have a nice day.
LOL.. I seriously don't think Russia or China will be in any way deterred from their current research, nor will the realignment of the Air Force to split out a "Space Force" would spur them on to additional activities or fielding additional weapons... Unless you are claiming that the development of a "Space Force" would actually advance the arms race, because it would actually produce additional capabilities and expertise on our part.
IF you really think the latter, then I've got to ask, shouldn't we be doing all this stuff anyway? Shouldn't we be developing our space defense capability as best we can anyway? Are we not already provoking by doing this, regardless of how the DOD is organized? Should we not be building a bigger stick so we can speak softly and keep the peace?
Seem to me that if you find this to be provocative, you are really saying that it's going to be effective at development of the technology we need to be developing and you are making my argument for me. Yep, if China and Russia think this will advance the state of the art and they'd have to step up their game to keep up, then this is a good thing. We need to focus and be a head of the pack.
The "It's a clean division" argument is simply to dispel the "It makes no sense" line of debate. It is a logical precondition of being able to split anything with as many moving parts as the Air Force to have a easy to define line to decide with. So the dividing line is easy to define and understand. This is but a pre-condition of the next step in the debate.
You are correct, it must also make operational sense. I believe it does make sense. Here is way.
There are two clear parts of the Air Force and the skills you must have to be effective when managing and flying aircraft are quite a bit different than management and launching of space vehicles. They are vastly different from maintenance all the way up through command and once you start down one path or the other, your skills and experience will drive your career more than your desire to change tracks can. We have a pile of missile officers who have no place to go, they will not be released to pursue other tracks and are seemingly stuck sitting in holes for days at a time with no way up, you can only sit at a rank so long before it's time to get out. So for these guys and gals the 'Space Force" they'd be apart of would have more opportunity for them to advance.
Also, the logistics of Space are quite different than Aircraft as are the physical facilities required for both. Space doesn't need to forward spares around the world and can get by with only a few large launch sites, Air needs to have a logistics pipeline that reaches to the battle field, places to land to refuel and house repair facilities around the world. The reasons for separating them make obvious sense. Separating the personnel also makes obvious sense, for both the ability to train the necessary skills and provide rewarding career opportunities for those with unique skills and knowledge.
Why is being provocative a problem? And is this really provocative?
We often project force forward and have done so for more than 100 years now. It's what the Navy was initially for and what the Air Force and Navy do now. What do you think the point of deploying aircraft carrier task forces into the middle east is if not provocative? Sometimes all one has to do is display the ability of applying overwhelming force to keep things in line. Being provocative can be a good thing. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" is a common way to express this.
Then there is the question about how provocative this move would actually be. How does this change anything for our adversaries, especially in ways that might lead them into open conflict with us? Sure, it recognizes the domain of space in military thinking and emphasizes our commitment to contend for superiority on this front, but I don't see how the Russians and Chinese are not already acutely aware of the technology race and are not fully engaged in being as competitive as they can in that realm. I don't see how a reorganization of the department of defense would change that or provoke them further.
So, the nuclear triad doesn't mean anything to you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As I understand the idea here, a "Space Force" would carve out the parts of the Air Force that wasn't based on wings and aircraft into a new branch of the department of defense. It wouldn't be taking over the Navy's mission. So the rocket vehicle based operations of the current Air Force and satellites would fall under "Space" and not "Air". The Army, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard wouldn't be affected, except that they'd have to deal with "Space Force" for their satellite operational needs, instead of their current Air Force contacts.
The political pull to the left is strong with this one... Why must you see collusion and conspiracy around every corner?
Because I'm paying attention.
I see good reasons to move this function away from the Air Force,
Name one.
I'll bite, once... Unless you actually respond in kind.
The division of the Air Force is pretty easy. Rockets and Satellites go to the Space Force, Things having to do with wings stay with the Air Force. So the division is conceptually clear, much like the division of the Army was when the Air Force was Created.
Flying aircraft and flying rockets are largely different disciplines that deal with dissimilar hardware, so it makes sense to have speculated skills and training in one thing or the other in your manpower resources, equipment, logistics and base locations. It also allows for advancement for troops which are currently in dead end careers, being non-pilots in the Air Force sitting in missile silos for 48 hour watches with moral about as low as the base of the missiles they man.
Interesting issue you bring up, but you need to divorce yourself from the political considerations on this.
There are reasons to create a new branch of the armed services that go beyond costs. The mission and budget of the Air Force is quite big, as is their command structure. Carving out a new branch, much like the carving out the Army Air Corps, does have it's advantages. Flattening the command structure allows more flexibility and faster response times, allows for specialized training and skills to be closer to the top of the command structure, and allows for focusing appropriated budget and resources on specific areas of the mission.
Of course, there is a down side to everything. But in my opinion this idea has merit. It flattens the hierarchy at the Pentagon, allows the development and advancement of resources with specialized skills. And creates a sharper focus on a specific problem set. Rockets and satellites go one way, things that depend on wings go another. It's a natural division and there is very little overlap, so it actually makes sense to me.
The political pull to the left is strong with this one... Why must you see collusion and conspiracy around every corner?
I see good reasons to move this function away from the Air Force, I also see good reasons not to and why the Air Force might not like the idea. None of those reasons have anything to do with my political bias or creating some intractable advantage for our advisories. These reasons should be (and are being) discussed and evaluated apart from political bias, because politics is usually a poor decision maker when it comes to national defense questions.
So, apart from your unsubstantiated theories about Trump's motives and your political bias, do you have any actual reasons you oppose this you'd like to discuss? (I mean, do you oppose this for some reason other than because Trump suggested it?) If so, let's hear what they are please.
Well maybe some electricity
And.. (don't forget)... The profits of video card makers..
OK speculators... now the time to buy? A rebound due?
Yes, a rebound is defiantly DUE... The issue is will it arrive...