While it isn't Blacks (a wonderful reference which every polymath should have at hand), dictionary.law.com, has the following definitions for regulation and law:
Regulations
n. rules and administrative codes issued by governmental agencies at all levels, municipal, county, state and federal. Although they are not laws, regulations have the force of law, since they are adopted under authority granted by statutes, and often include penalties for violations. One problem is that regulations are not generally included in volumes containing state statutes or federal laws but often must be obtained from the agency or located in volumes in law libraries and not widely distributed. The regulation-making process involves hearings, publication in governmental journals which supposedly give public notice, and adoption by the agency. The process is best known to industries and special interests concerned with the subject matter, but only occasionally to the general public. Federal regulations are adopted in the manner designated in the Administrative Procedure Act (A.P.A.) and states usually have similar procedures.
law
n. 1) any system of regulations to govern the conduct of the people of a community, society or nation, in response to the need for regularity, consistency and justice based upon collective human experience. Custom or conduct governed by the force of the local king were replaced by laws almost as soon as man learned to write. The earliest lawbook was written about 2100 B.C. for Ur-Nammu, king of Ur, a Middle Eastern city-state. Within three centuries Hammurabi, king of Babylonia, had enumerated laws of private conduct, business and legal precedents, of which 282 articles have survived. The term "eye for an eye" (or the equivalent value) is found there, as is drowning as punishment for adultery by a wife (while a husband could have slave concubines), and unequal treatment of the rich and the poor was codified here first. It took another thousand years before written law codes developed among the Greek city-states (particularly Athens) and Israel. China developed similar rules of conduct, as did Egypt. The first law system which has a direct influence on the American legal system was the codification of all classic law ordered by the Roman Emperor Justinian in 528 and completed by 534, becoming the law of the Roman empire. This is known as the Justinian Code, upon which most of the legal systems of most European nations are based to this day. The principal source of American law is the common law, which had its roots about the same time as Justinian, among Angles, Britons and later Saxons in Britain. William the Conqueror arrived in 1066 and combined the best of this Anglo-Saxon law with Norman law, which resulted in the English common law, much of which was by custom and precedent rather than by written code. The American colonies followed the English Common Law with minor variations, and the four-volume Commentaries on the Laws of England by Sir William Blackstone (completed in 1769) was the legal "bible" for all American frontier lawyers and influenced the development of state codes of law. To a great extent common law has been replaced by written statutes, and a gigantic body of such statutes have been enacted by federal and state legislatures supposedly in response to the greater complexity of modern life. 2) n. a statute, ordinance or regulation enacted by the legislative branch of a government and signed into law, or in some nations created by decree without any democratic process. This is distinguished from "natural law," which is not based on statute, but on alleged common understanding of what is right and proper (often based on moral and religious precepts as well as common understanding of fairness and justice). 3) n. a generic term for any body of regulations for conduct, including specialized rules (military law), moral conduct under various religions and for organizations, usually called "bylaws
Based on what I know about labor costs in China at present, these charges don't hold up.
For background, factory workers (usually young women), are not so surprisingly in short supply and high demand in the manufacturing areas of the PRC these day.
Given this situation, they are demanding better wages and working conditions. The wages and working conditions are no where near what I have seen in the last 10 years of working with China and bear no resemblance to what is the market now.
1. Wages Wages for factory workers are actually above those of recent college graduates (there is a glut of college graduates). A good college grad can expect to make 1500 to 2000 RMB (about USD 180 to 250) starting out. A factory work will make 1800 to 2400 RMB.
2. Room & Board Chargs As part of the job package in China, a factory work receives housing and food. They aren't charged for these.
3. Housing Conditions By and large they are college like and are above the average for Chinese housing for young adults who are living at home.
Based on my first hand knowledge of China, I have to heavily discount the claims in this article and question the rest of it.
I would strongly recommend going with a Wiki with access control. This will allow your team to collaborate on various documents. I highly recommend Confluence http://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/ from Atlassian Software.
Everything your analysts like about the combo of Word and Sharepoint will be provided in an easy to use package, plus everything that the "geeks" want, need, and love will also be provided.
The current arbitrage opportunities between the US market and other labor markets (India, Eastern Europe, China), like all arbitrage opportunities, is on the path to disappearing. I know many of you will look at bold statement with a high degree of skepticism.
In fact, I will go even further, within 20 years labor costs will not be a factor in moving work to India, Eastern Europe, or even China.
How do I back up these statements? Well, in my last position I was the dotted-line manager of an India team for a major software company. The 2005 raise budget for the India campus was 18%! Yes, that is correct. And this was on top of a mid-year, across the board, salary adjustment of 10%.
Simply put, salaries cannot grow at this rate (a CAGR of 29%) for an extended period of time without coming into line with those in the US. The ratio between the US and India is no longer 1:10, it is more like 1:4 and shrinking. This is the reality of a world which is flat. Things reach a point of balance. And in this case, the point of balance is moving up.
When I speak to companies who are doing offshoring these days, I am not hearing issues about labor costs at the front of the back. Rather, it is about finding specific skill sets and to attract people who don't want to live in Silicon Valley, the US, etc. Least you think the last point is fantasy, I personally know of a good 1/2 dozen folks who have moved to India and China (accepting local pay packages) in order to have a better quality of life (for example, household servants).
So, contrary to what Lou Dobbs would have you believe, IT and High Tech jobs are not leaving the US for India and China. IT and High Tech is alive and well in the US and will be for some time.
So my words to you: go for it! You will have a blast and will be able to feed your family.
Companies are under no obligation to provide "guidance" on future earnings or growth of the company. A company is obligied to publish its 10K and 10Q forms as well as other required SEC filings. These documents - for those willing to do the work - provide more than enough to analyze a company and its business.
In fact, the "guidance" you and the analysts are demanding has been the source of untold harm. Remember, it was Enron working to ensure that it hit its earning's guidance and estimates that led to the fruad to keep the numbers on track. It is trying to keep earnings estimates on track that leads many a company to dump staff to "cut costs", rather than accept "lumpy earnings".
It should be noted that there are other companies that refuse to provide guidance. Companies like Berkshire Hathaway (i.e. Warren Buffett's company). What the analysts don't like is that they aren't in control here. That in analyzing Google they might actually have to do some work.
Like many of those at the Motley Fool, I applaud those who refuse to give into the demands of the analysts and give earnings guidance. Of course, this could be a case of trying to "get even" with Google. Remember, they were the folks that selected the "Dutch Auction" for their IPO and had to deal with the investment bankers and analysts who were upset that at market rather than their experts got to set the price for Google shares.
As a longtime "Macinista" who purchased a 512K Mac in 1985 and worked for Apple from 1986 to 1999, followed by 6+ years at Adobe Systems, you would imagine that I might see Bill as "The Borg". But I have to give Bill credit for the work the Gates Foundation is doing.
The way he is spending his fortune, along with his plan to leave "only a few million" to his children, is incredible.
The more I learn about the Gates Foundation and how he is both giving the money (which is "easy") and involved managing the process is nothing short of incredible.
The Gates Foundation through the work of Bill, Melinda, and Bill Sr., are also driving incredible changes for the better in how aid and research money are being spent. They are bringing a degree of strategic thinking, creativity, and accountability to how the money is being spent.
Bill Gates along with Pierre Omidyar, founder of eBay, have the potential to have a greater impact on society (and all for the good) through their philanthrophic activities than they did through their businesses. And that is saying a lot. Bill - through his actions - is nudging Warren Buffett to start being active in giving his money away.
Bill Gates and Pierre Omidyar seem to be taking as their role model Andrew Caregie (did you know that we have widespread public libraries in the US due to his efforts and that prior to his work most libraries were more like video rental stores?), who said some very interesting things about giving:
+ "Surplus wealth is a sacred trust which its possessor is bound to administer in his lifetime for the good of the community."
+ "One of the serious obstacles to the improvement of our race is indiscriminate charity."
+ "I resolved to stop accumulating and begin the infinitely more serious and difficult task of wise distribution."
+ "I would as soon leave my son a curse as the almighty dollar."
+ "The man who dies rich dies disgraced"
+ "This, then, is held to be the duty of the man of wealth: First, to set an example of modest, unostentatious living, shunning display or extravagance; to provide moderately for the legitimate wants of those dependent upon him; and, after doing so, to consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds, which he is called upon to administer, and strictly bound as a matter of duty to administer in the manner which, in his judgment, is best calculated to produce the most beneficial results for the community/the man of wealth thus becoming the mere trustee and agent for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves."
What is lost in all of this discussion about Google being in China or not, is any discussion about the what works in changing a society. Is it engagement which works? Or does disengagement work?
Well, we have two societies and governments which were essentially identically, but which were (have been) treated differently by the United States: the Soviet Union and Cuba.
Starting very early on - going back to the Pepsi debate with Nixon in the mid-50s - the US followed a policy of engagement with the old Soviet Union. Yes, we were restricted in what wecould do, but through a number of various channels we kept pushing the boundaries and things "leaked through". And the end result was - for this and a lot of other reasons - the collapse of Soviet Communism.
Now, compare that with Castro's Cuba. The policy of the US since the 1960s - due to the influence of the powerful Cuban community in Florida - has been: no contact. So, what change have we seen in Cuba? Nothing. Nada.
Both the Soviet Union and Castro's Cuba were communist states with collapsing economies. They were as similar as could be, with the difference in this little experiment being how the US engaged or failed to engage with them. Cuba has seen no book fairs, no trade fairs, no cultural exchanges, no Danforth or Fullbright scholarships. It has been as isolated as many would like to see China isolated.
In closing I would ask you what you would want: no access to Google in China, or a Google which is imperfectly blocked by the government? I know what I would chose, for I believe it has the greatest potential for changing China.
If you want change in China - and I say this as the Father of a Chinese daughter who wants the best for my daughter's native land - engage!
Also lost in the hue and the cry is Google's decision to not make available services in China which could be used to harm dissidents. Neither GMail nor Blogspot will be available. There will be no records for the Chinese government to seize and search. I think they have made an excellent decision. I fully support them.
This article really overstates things. Google - at over $400 a share - was significantly overvalued on a Discounted Cash Flow(1) basis. At just(!) $300 a share, Google would have to grow at its current rates for 5+ years to be fairly valued.
Let's be clear here, I believe that Google is a great company (and living in Mountain View, am looking forward to their free WiFi for our community) and will continue to influence the business world, our society, and culture for a long time to come. But I also can see when a company is overvalued. At between $100-$200 a share, Google would be fairly valued.
Google has been - and still is - in a bubble. As we say in 2000/2001, a small event can puncture a bubble and cause a stock to drop in value. The DOJs subpoenas may just be the event that puncture's Google's bubble.
Yours,
Jordan
1. Discounted Cash Flow or DCF is the sum of all future cash flows discounted back to the present. It is the best way to get an intrinsic value for a stock.
Ideally, you wish to purchase stocks of companies trading below their intrinsic value. Of course, buying below intrinsic value is as much art as science, but it is possible.
While I agree with you, that Steve has an incredible ability to come out on top (I was there at ground zero when Apple bought NeXT), and it is likely that a post-acquisition Jobs would have tremendous influence over Disney, there are some errors in your analysis.
1. Disney is currently worth just show of $50 billion (look at market capitalization at http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=DIS>).
2. Jobs only controls approximately half of Pixar, with Pixar valued at just show of 7 billion http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=PIXR> as you said.
3. The deal would likely be a stock swap, not a cash deal, for various tax reasons. The new entity would likely be valued at between $55 and $60 billion, with Jobs controlling a $3 billion slice, or as you said 5%, of Disney.
4. While owning 5% of Disney is nothing to sneeze at, realize that Roy Disney controlled close to 17 million shares of Disney (close to 1%) as well as popular backing and wasn't able to get what he wanted.
Disney is a much different company from Apple in early 1997. It has plenty of money in the bank (Apple had closer to $2 billion in cash vs. the $7 billion you describe), has strong free cash flow (wheras things were quite shakey at Apple), and is on a rebound vs. heading downward. Remember it was only at MacWorld in the summer of 1997, that things started to turnaround with the famous investment of Microsoft in Apple and the promise to keep Office on the Mac for 5 years.
For Apple, Jobs was - rightfully - viewed as a savior, the only one who could turn this company around. At Disney, Jobs will be just another person at the boardroom table. Will he be a first among equals? Definitely! Will he be able to call all of the shots? No.
And in that fact, that he won't be able to call all the shots, is the truth that Jobs would not likely stay long on the board. Jobs is one who has to control things completely. If he can't, then he will walk away.
I firmly believe that if Pixar is sold to Disney, that Steve will not be long with Disney. Will he leave his mark on the company? Definitely. His people - like John Lasseter - will be in senior positions prior to his leaving. But he won't be around for long.
And that is a shame. Disney - based on our family's latest experience at Disneyland - really could use someone with Steve's drive for quality and attention to detail to bring back the fabled "Disney experience".
What the speculation around the impact of Jobs selling Pixar to Disney and joining the Disney board (we would likely only settle for chairperson) falls to address, is the impact of restrictions on self-dealing, etc., on what a board member can do in this post-Enron and SOX era.
If Warren Buffet can be criticized for being on the Disney board and called a "non-independent" Director because Diary Queen (which BRKB owns) purchases a few million in Coca Cola syrup a year, imagine the furor that Jobs pushing a "good deal" for iTunes would face.
I actually believe that a sale to Disney followed by Jobs joining the board would make things more difficult and would limit his ability to get the famous "Apple terms" for contnet, et al.
One way around this, would be for the terms of the deal with respect to iTunes content to be hammered out now, and announced as part of the acquisition deal.
A lot of folks who have my respect (the Pragmatic Programmer folks) are very excited about both Ruby and Ruby on Rails.
I am definite that Ruby is going to be my scripting language going forward. I can see so many ways in which it will make my life easier given the combination of the language's expressiveness and the power of the set of standard libraries.
Rails holds out the promise to build some very powerful web applications really quickly. Java & C# - as Tate outlines in "Beyond Java" - are no longer on the cutting edge. Heck, every year at Java One, they roll out a new Java stack.
Ruby and Rails are a nice, compact, and very powerful stack for building web applications. It hooks into AJax quite nicely. It is really impressive.
Ruby is a dynamic OO language in the spirit of Smalltalk, where everything is an object. There are definitely some conceptual differences from C# or Java (which are essentially clones of one another).
There are a number of expressions of ID out there.
There are those, like myself, who believe in a Creator who made the Creation: the Universe to its visible limits, life to the level of mitochondria, and everything in between. But also believe that the mechanisms we have come to understand from our studies in cosmology and evolutionary biology could and were used by the Creator in creating the Creation.
I will agree that it requires Kierkegaard's leap of faith, but when I look at the complexity of the creation, and see the design patterns which show up again and again (Pi, Fibonacci sequences, etc.), I see the hand of an intelligent creator. This is a matter of faith.
Belief in a Creator and acceptance of the mechanisms described by modern cosmology and evolutionary biology are not mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, there are those on both side of this "debate" who hold that position. I have run into "missionaries of evolution" who with all the fervor of a tent meeting fundamentalist will tell you that if you accept the findings of cosmology and evolutionary biology, you must reject any belief in a Creator. And there are the hardcore Creationists who will tell you that if you accept the existence of a Creator, you have to believe he did it in a literal six days.
Neither cosmology nor evolutionary biology have anything to say about ultimate origins. To say that they preclude a Creator is an act of faith, no different from my belief that I see the hand of a Creator in "the design patterns of creation".
To me, acknowledging ID simply means that when teaching cosmology and evolutionary biology, that you clearly say that they don't speak to ultimate origins. That they are the mechanisms by which we got from point A to point B, but that they don't and can't say anything with respect to ultimate origins.
I do believe that children would be well served by being exposed to a collection of thoughts on ultimate origins. From the "it just happened" school of thought, to the ID thinking, to maybe some of the Hindu and Shinto creation myths.
Actually, ID (if properly approached) isn't all that different from the position outlined by Cardinal Paul Poupard as reported in the original article.
Cardinal Poupard is saying that the Vatacian accepts that God created the Universe and all living things and that evolution (and cosmology I assume) as currently understood seem to be the best explanation for the mechanisms God used.
I do have - and will always - have problems with those who are using ID as a cover to get Creationism back into the schools. On the other had, accepting that there is and was a Creator who used mechanisms understood through cosmology and evolutionary biology to create the Universe are positions not at all at odds for me.
The difficulty some have with how evolutionary biology is taught (and I saw this 25 years ago in High School science classes) is reasonable. I was taught - by a teacher I have respect for to this day - that cosmology and evolutionary biology completely explained how the universe and life came to pass and that there was no room in it for a Creator.
In part, this is because we have no requirements around disclosure. Where we do (for example Lobbyist registration), they have proven very effective. In numerous cases, the failure of a Lobbyist to register has hit them hard.
1. All lobbyists are currently required to be registered. Real easy to cross reference this against calendars.
2. All members of Congress and the Executive Branch keep very detailed calendars. Simply put these calendars online. Of course, the content of some meetings could and would be blacked out. For the President, it might say, "In Situation Room"
Finally, you back up the requirements with stiff penalities for non-disclosure. Penalities that will be leveled on both the member of Congress or the Executive Branch, and those meeting with them.
Fees, even jail sentences for willful non-compliance would be possibilities, but I would also recommend rules changes in the House and Senate which would require that you recuse yourself on an issue (all Committee and Floor votes), if you didn't disclose meetings on it.
Yes, things won't be perfect, but it would be better than what we have right now. Remember that the enemy of the good is the perfect!
I am one of the biggest fans of Carter out there, but I believe that both FDR and JFK (though I love Teddy Roosevelt) laid much of the ground work for the world we see and face now.
FDR's blatant overreaching of the Commerce Clause to get the Federal Government into just about anything along with his disregard for the concept of unenumerated rights, has done much to create the politcal world in which we find ourselves.
JFK's administration (all 3 years of it) laid a foundation which Johnson and Nixon built upon to create "The Imperial Presidency". Of course, it took GW Bush to take this to its extreme.
The reality is that neither party respects our liberties (i.e., fully embracing both the enumerated and unenumerated, and retained rights as outlined in the 10th Amendment of the Constitution). They tell us to look at the US Constitution and ask "where are you given that right?", rather than asking the question Madison would have, which is, "where did you give up that right?"
Both political parties have a shared monopoly on power (I think we called this a duopoly in Econ 101), and will resist any attempt to take away this power. Yes, they will jostle for advantage over one another, but when this duopoly is threatened they will unite against it (see, opposition to any redistricting reform by the mainstreams of both the Republican and Democratic parties in California).
Looking back at the 2004 election, the mainstream of the Democratic party was hit right between the eyes by the power of the Internet and Blogs, as demonstrated by the insurgent campaign of Howard Dean. The look at this and wonder what it might have been
Couple this with that there are still a few Republicans who value liberty (as understood through the lens of enumerated and unenumerated rights), over staying in power, and you see why this got fair broader support among them.
This isn't the first time something like this happened. Rewind back to the election of 1968, and TV was the breakout media. Eugene McCarthy used it effectively in New Hampshire to force Johnson from the primary process. Nixon and Wallace (running one of the most effective 3rd party campaigns since Teddy Roosevelt (even if I despise what he represented), used it to great benefit.
So, in the Congress following this election what happened? An incredible level of restrictions on TV in political campaigns were put into place, which effectively put access to TV in the hands of those in power.
Like McCain-Feingold (and I say this with the greatest respect for both of these gentleman), giving the FEC oversight of Bloggers will only diminish the level of free speech and dialog in the public square. The internet and blogs dramatically reduced the barriers to entry to commentators, because as A.J. Liebling noted, "Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one." All of a sudden, a whole lot of people now could own the equivalent of a printing press. And the result is as you would expect (applying Sturgeon's Law that 90% of everything is crap), with a lot of nonsenses and garbage spewing forth, but a few gems mixed up in the overall stream.
If I had my magic legislative wand, and could make one change to improve the political process in this country, I would wave it and do away with our FEC as it exists and our various restrictions on political spending and embracing Justice Brandise maxim, "sunlight is the best disinfectant; electric light the best policeman", I would require the following:
1. That within 24 hours of any political donation being made, that this fact be posted for all to see and search on the Internet. Any legislation in which this party has an interest will also be identified. If this donation was made by a PAC, then the membership of that PAC must be clearly visible (i.e. I can follow the money).
2. For scheduled meetings, 24 hours in advance, and for unscheduled meetings within 24 hours, any meeting with a lobbyist (defined as someone educating on an issue or requesting legislative action) will be disclosed for all to search on the Internet. The topic of this conversation will be disclosed along with any legislation discussed or related to the topic of conversation. The source of funding for this lobbyist, organization, or individual, must be made transparent, all the way back up the chain. If Lobbyist A was hired by Organization X who received funding from PACS 1, 2, and 3, who in turned received funding from PACS 4, 5, and 6, I should be able to follow it all the way back to the companies and individuals making the donations.
3. The calendar of all members of the Legislative and Executive branches, along with their staff members, will be made available and search-able on the Internet. Common, unique identifiers will be used to enable cross referencing.
Your situation is about what I have. Basic cable, with local channels and the smattering of good cable channels, is around $15.95. For me this is essentially noise with respec to cost.
The effect of this, is that basic cable channels are essentially "free" to me.
Yes, you are right. I am paying for cable. But as you note, I am paying for it somewhere else and paying such a low price for the value received, that it seems like "free" to me.
Slashdot Mirror
While it isn't Blacks (a wonderful reference which every polymath should have at hand), dictionary.law.com, has the following definitions for regulation and law:
Regulations
law
All -
Based on what I know about labor costs in China at present, these charges don't hold up.
For background, factory workers (usually young women), are not so surprisingly in short supply and high demand in the manufacturing areas of the PRC these day.
Given this situation, they are demanding better wages and working conditions. The wages and working conditions are no where near what I have seen in the last 10 years of working with China and bear no resemblance to what is the market now.
1. Wages
Wages for factory workers are actually above those of recent college graduates (there is a glut of college graduates). A good college grad can expect to make 1500 to 2000 RMB (about USD 180 to 250) starting out. A factory work will make 1800 to 2400 RMB.
2. Room & Board Chargs
As part of the job package in China, a factory work receives housing and food. They aren't charged for these.
3. Housing Conditions
By and large they are college like and are above the average for Chinese housing for young adults who are living at home.
Based on my first hand knowledge of China, I have to heavily discount the claims in this article and question the rest of it.
Yours,
Jordan
I would strongly recommend going with a Wiki with access control. This will allow your team to collaborate on various documents. I highly recommend Confluence http://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/ from Atlassian Software.
Everything your analysts like about the combo of Word and Sharepoint will be provided in an easy to use package, plus everything that the "geeks" want, need, and love will also be provided.
Yours,
Jordan
The current arbitrage opportunities between the US market and other labor markets (India, Eastern Europe, China), like all arbitrage opportunities, is on the path to disappearing. I know many of you will look at bold statement with a high degree of skepticism.
In fact, I will go even further, within 20 years labor costs will not be a factor in moving work to India, Eastern Europe, or even China.
How do I back up these statements? Well, in my last position I was the dotted-line manager of an India team for a major software company. The 2005 raise budget for the India campus was 18%! Yes, that is correct. And this was on top of a mid-year, across the board, salary adjustment of 10%.
Simply put, salaries cannot grow at this rate (a CAGR of 29%) for an extended period of time without coming into line with those in the US. The ratio between the US and India is no longer 1:10, it is more like 1:4 and shrinking. This is the reality of a world which is flat. Things reach a point of balance. And in this case, the point of balance is moving up.
When I speak to companies who are doing offshoring these days, I am not hearing issues about labor costs at the front of the back. Rather, it is about finding specific skill sets and to attract people who don't want to live in Silicon Valley, the US, etc. Least you think the last point is fantasy, I personally know of a good 1/2 dozen folks who have moved to India and China (accepting local pay packages) in order to have a better quality of life (for example, household servants).
So, contrary to what Lou Dobbs would have you believe, IT and High Tech jobs are not leaving the US for India and China. IT and High Tech is alive and well in the US and will be for some time.
So my words to you: go for it! You will have a blast and will be able to feed your family.
Yours,
Jordan
Ok, we have a major disconnect here.
Companies are under no obligation to provide "guidance" on future earnings or growth of the company. A company is obligied to publish its 10K and 10Q forms as well as other required SEC filings. These documents - for those willing to do the work - provide more than enough to analyze a company and its business.
In fact, the "guidance" you and the analysts are demanding has been the source of untold harm. Remember, it was Enron working to ensure that it hit its earning's guidance and estimates that led to the fruad to keep the numbers on track. It is trying to keep earnings estimates on track that leads many a company to dump staff to "cut costs", rather than accept "lumpy earnings".
It should be noted that there are other companies that refuse to provide guidance. Companies like Berkshire Hathaway (i.e. Warren Buffett's company). What the analysts don't like is that they aren't in control here. That in analyzing Google they might actually have to do some work.
Like many of those at the Motley Fool, I applaud those who refuse to give into the demands of the analysts and give earnings guidance. Of course, this could be a case of trying to "get even" with Google. Remember, they were the folks that selected the "Dutch Auction" for their IPO and had to deal with the investment bankers and analysts who were upset that at market rather than their experts got to set the price for Google shares.
Yours,
Jordan
Hi All -
/the man of wealth thus becoming the mere trustee and agent for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves."
As a longtime "Macinista" who purchased a 512K Mac in 1985 and worked for Apple from 1986 to 1999, followed by 6+ years at Adobe Systems, you would imagine that I might see Bill as "The Borg". But I have to give Bill credit for the work the Gates Foundation is doing.
The way he is spending his fortune, along with his plan to leave "only a few million" to his children, is incredible.
The more I learn about the Gates Foundation and how he is both giving the money (which is "easy") and involved managing the process is nothing short of incredible.
The Gates Foundation through the work of Bill, Melinda, and Bill Sr., are also driving incredible changes for the better in how aid and research money are being spent. They are bringing a degree of strategic thinking, creativity, and accountability to how the money is being spent.
Bill Gates along with Pierre Omidyar, founder of eBay, have the potential to have a greater impact on society (and all for the good) through their philanthrophic activities than they did through their businesses. And that is saying a lot. Bill - through his actions - is nudging Warren Buffett to start being active in giving his money away.
Bill Gates and Pierre Omidyar seem to be taking as their role model Andrew Caregie (did you know that we have widespread public libraries in the US due to his efforts and that prior to his work most libraries were more like video rental stores?), who said some very interesting things about giving:
+ "Surplus wealth is a sacred trust which its possessor is bound to administer in his lifetime for the good of the community."
+ "One of the serious obstacles to the improvement of our race is indiscriminate charity."
+ "I resolved to stop accumulating and begin the infinitely more serious and difficult task of wise distribution."
+ "I would as soon leave my son a curse as the almighty dollar."
+ "The man who dies rich dies disgraced"
+ "This, then, is held to be the duty of the man of wealth: First, to set an example of modest, unostentatious living, shunning display or extravagance; to provide moderately for the legitimate wants of those dependent upon him; and, after doing so, to consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds, which he is called upon to administer, and strictly bound as a matter of duty to administer in the manner which, in his judgment, is best calculated to produce the most beneficial results for the community
Yours,
Jordan
Hi All -
What is lost in all of this discussion about Google being in China or not, is any discussion about the what works in changing a society. Is it engagement which works? Or does disengagement work?
Well, we have two societies and governments which were essentially identically, but which were (have been) treated differently by the United States: the Soviet Union and Cuba.
Starting very early on - going back to the Pepsi debate with Nixon in the mid-50s - the US followed a policy of engagement with the old Soviet Union. Yes, we were restricted in what wecould do, but through a number of various channels we kept pushing the boundaries and things "leaked through". And the end result was - for this and a lot of other reasons - the collapse of Soviet Communism.
Now, compare that with Castro's Cuba. The policy of the US since the 1960s - due to the influence of the powerful Cuban community in Florida - has been: no contact. So, what change have we seen in Cuba? Nothing. Nada.
Both the Soviet Union and Castro's Cuba were communist states with collapsing economies. They were as similar as could be, with the difference in this little experiment being how the US engaged or failed to engage with them. Cuba has seen no book fairs, no trade fairs, no cultural exchanges, no Danforth or Fullbright scholarships. It has been as isolated as many would like to see China isolated.
In closing I would ask you what you would want: no access to Google in China, or a Google which is imperfectly blocked by the government? I know what I would chose, for I believe it has the greatest potential for changing China.
If you want change in China - and I say this as the Father of a Chinese daughter who wants the best for my daughter's native land - engage!
Also lost in the hue and the cry is Google's decision to not make available services in China which could be used to harm dissidents. Neither GMail nor Blogspot will be available. There will be no records for the Chinese government to seize and search. I think they have made an excellent decision. I fully support them.
Yours,
Jordan
All -
This article really overstates things. Google - at over $400 a share - was significantly overvalued on a Discounted Cash Flow(1) basis. At just(!) $300 a share, Google would have to grow at its current rates for 5+ years to be fairly valued.
Let's be clear here, I believe that Google is a great company (and living in Mountain View, am looking forward to their free WiFi for our community) and will continue to influence the business world, our society, and culture for a long time to come. But I also can see when a company is overvalued. At between $100-$200 a share, Google would be fairly valued.
Google has been - and still is - in a bubble. As we say in 2000/2001, a small event can puncture a bubble and cause a stock to drop in value. The DOJs subpoenas may just be the event that puncture's Google's bubble.
Yours,
Jordan
1. Discounted Cash Flow or DCF is the sum of all future cash flows discounted back to the present. It is the best way to get an intrinsic value for a stock.
Ideally, you wish to purchase stocks of companies trading below their intrinsic value. Of course, buying below intrinsic value is as much art as science, but it is possible.
Hi Q -
Disney has already replaced Eisner with Bob Iger, who is CEO. The Chairman of the Board is George Mitchell.
I don't see Iger giving up his role anytime soon. George Mitchell could probably be convinced to step down and give the Chairman role to Jobs.
Yours,
Jordan
Hi -
Eisner has already stepped down with Bob Iger running the show these days. Roy Disney is no longer on the Disney BOD.
Yours,
Jordan
Hi Chris -
While I agree with you, that Steve has an incredible ability to come out on top (I was there at ground zero when Apple bought NeXT), and it is likely that a post-acquisition Jobs would have tremendous influence over Disney, there are some errors in your analysis.
1. Disney is currently worth just show of $50 billion (look at market capitalization at http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=DIS>).
2. Jobs only controls approximately half of Pixar, with Pixar valued at just show of 7 billion http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=PIXR> as you said.
3. The deal would likely be a stock swap, not a cash deal, for various tax reasons. The new entity would likely be valued at between $55 and $60 billion, with Jobs controlling a $3 billion slice, or as you said 5%, of Disney.
4. While owning 5% of Disney is nothing to sneeze at, realize that Roy Disney controlled close to 17 million shares of Disney (close to 1%) as well as popular backing and wasn't able to get what he wanted.
Disney is a much different company from Apple in early 1997. It has plenty of money in the bank (Apple had closer to $2 billion in cash vs. the $7 billion you describe), has strong free cash flow (wheras things were quite shakey at Apple), and is on a rebound vs. heading downward. Remember it was only at MacWorld in the summer of 1997, that things started to turnaround with the famous investment of Microsoft in Apple and the promise to keep Office on the Mac for 5 years.
For Apple, Jobs was - rightfully - viewed as a savior, the only one who could turn this company around. At Disney, Jobs will be just another person at the boardroom table. Will he be a first among equals? Definitely! Will he be able to call all of the shots? No.
And in that fact, that he won't be able to call all the shots, is the truth that Jobs would not likely stay long on the board. Jobs is one who has to control things completely. If he can't, then he will walk away.
I firmly believe that if Pixar is sold to Disney, that Steve will not be long with Disney. Will he leave his mark on the company? Definitely. His people - like John Lasseter - will be in senior positions prior to his leaving. But he won't be around for long.
And that is a shame. Disney - based on our family's latest experience at Disneyland - really could use someone with Steve's drive for quality and attention to detail to bring back the fabled "Disney experience".
Yours,
Jordan
Hi All -
What the speculation around the impact of Jobs selling Pixar to Disney and joining the Disney board (we would likely only settle for chairperson) falls to address, is the impact of restrictions on self-dealing, etc., on what a board member can do in this post-Enron and SOX era.
If Warren Buffet can be criticized for being on the Disney board and called a "non-independent" Director because Diary Queen (which BRKB owns) purchases a few million in Coca Cola syrup a year, imagine the furor that Jobs pushing a "good deal" for iTunes would face.
I actually believe that a sale to Disney followed by Jobs joining the board would make things more difficult and would limit his ability to get the famous "Apple terms" for contnet, et al.
One way around this, would be for the terms of the deal with respect to iTunes content to be hammered out now, and announced as part of the acquisition deal.
Yours,
Jordan
Hi Alvy -
A lot of folks who have my respect (the Pragmatic Programmer folks) are very excited about both Ruby and Ruby on Rails.
I am definite that Ruby is going to be my scripting language going forward. I can see so many ways in which it will make my life easier given the combination of the language's expressiveness and the power of the set of standard libraries.
Rails holds out the promise to build some very powerful web applications really quickly. Java & C# - as Tate outlines in "Beyond Java" - are no longer on the cutting edge. Heck, every year at Java One, they roll out a new Java stack.
Ruby and Rails are a nice, compact, and very powerful stack for building web applications. It hooks into AJax quite nicely. It is really impressive.
Yours,
Jordan
Alvy -
Ruby is a dynamic OO language in the spirit of Smalltalk, where everything is an object. There are definitely some conceptual differences from C# or Java (which are essentially clones of one another).
Take a look. You will like what you see.
Yours,
Jordan
I agree completely with those who say to learn one and learn it well.
But if I had my pick of languages (and I do currently), I would learn Ruby through and through, and then the Rails framework.
I have been studying both of late (just a few days in, and I am quite impressed). They both have "The Right Stuff!".
Yours,
Jordan
There are a number of expressions of ID out there.
There are those, like myself, who believe in a Creator who made the Creation: the Universe to its visible limits, life to the level of mitochondria, and everything in between. But also believe that the mechanisms we have come to understand from our studies in cosmology and evolutionary biology could and were used by the Creator in creating the Creation.
I will agree that it requires Kierkegaard's leap of faith, but when I look at the complexity of the creation, and see the design patterns which show up again and again (Pi, Fibonacci sequences, etc.), I see the hand of an intelligent creator. This is a matter of faith.
Belief in a Creator and acceptance of the mechanisms described by modern cosmology and evolutionary biology are not mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, there are those on both side of this "debate" who hold that position. I have run into "missionaries of evolution" who with all the fervor of a tent meeting fundamentalist will tell you that if you accept the findings of cosmology and evolutionary biology, you must reject any belief in a Creator. And there are the hardcore Creationists who will tell you that if you accept the existence of a Creator, you have to believe he did it in a literal six days.
Neither cosmology nor evolutionary biology have anything to say about ultimate origins. To say that they preclude a Creator is an act of faith, no different from my belief that I see the hand of a Creator in "the design patterns of creation".
To me, acknowledging ID simply means that when teaching cosmology and evolutionary biology, that you clearly say that they don't speak to ultimate origins. That they are the mechanisms by which we got from point A to point B, but that they don't and can't say anything with respect to ultimate origins.
I do believe that children would be well served by being exposed to a collection of thoughts on ultimate origins. From the "it just happened" school of thought, to the ID thinking, to maybe some of the Hindu and Shinto creation myths.
Yours,
Jordan
Hi Mox -
Actually, ID (if properly approached) isn't all that different from the position outlined by
Cardinal Paul Poupard as reported in the original article.
Cardinal Poupard is saying that the Vatacian accepts that God created the Universe and all living things and that evolution (and cosmology I assume) as currently understood seem to be the best explanation for the mechanisms God used.
I do have - and will always - have problems with those who are using ID as a cover to get Creationism back into the schools. On the other had, accepting that there is and was a Creator who used mechanisms understood through cosmology and evolutionary biology to create the Universe are positions not at all at odds for me.
The difficulty some have with how evolutionary biology is taught (and I saw this 25 years ago in High School science classes) is reasonable. I was taught - by a teacher I have respect for to this day - that cosmology and evolutionary biology completely explained how the universe and life came to pass and that there was no room in it for a Creator.
Yours,
Jordan
Hi Greg -
In part, this is because we have no requirements around disclosure. Where we do (for example Lobbyist registration), they have proven very effective. In numerous cases, the failure of a Lobbyist to register has hit them hard.
Yours,
Jordan
Hi Greg -
Actually, getting this would be real easy.
1. All lobbyists are currently required to be registered. Real easy to cross reference this against calendars.
2. All members of Congress and the Executive Branch keep very detailed calendars. Simply put these calendars online. Of course, the content of some meetings could and would be blacked out. For the President, it might say, "In Situation Room"
Finally, you back up the requirements with stiff penalities for non-disclosure. Penalities that will be leveled on both the member of Congress or the Executive Branch, and those meeting with them.
Fees, even jail sentences for willful non-compliance would be possibilities, but I would also recommend rules changes in the House and Senate which would require that you recuse yourself on an issue (all Committee and Floor votes), if you didn't disclose meetings on it.
Yes, things won't be perfect, but it would be better than what we have right now. Remember that the enemy of the good is the perfect!
Yours,
Jordan
Hi CptNerd -
Thank you for your kind words!
I try and post only when i have something of value to add to the discussion.
Yours,
Jordan
I am one of the biggest fans of Carter out there, but I believe that both FDR and JFK (though I love Teddy Roosevelt) laid much of the ground work for the world we see and face now.
FDR's blatant overreaching of the Commerce Clause to get the Federal Government into just about anything along with his disregard for the concept of unenumerated rights, has done much to create the politcal world in which we find ourselves.
JFK's administration (all 3 years of it) laid a foundation which Johnson and Nixon built upon to create "The Imperial Presidency". Of course, it took GW Bush to take this to its extreme.
Yours,
Jordan
Who was also, once upon a time, a Democrat.
A political blog is defined by some (see some of the skirmishes in the last election) as anyone writing on matters political.
There was one case where a blogger/website runner was pushed to file the various FEC disclosure forms, because he endorsed a candidate.
It was this situation, which inspired this proposed legislation.
Yours,
Jordan
Hi All -
The reality is that neither party respects our liberties (i.e., fully embracing both the enumerated and unenumerated, and retained rights as outlined in the 10th Amendment of the Constitution). They tell us to look at the US Constitution and ask "where are you given that right?", rather than asking the question Madison would have, which is, "where did you give up that right?"
Both political parties have a shared monopoly on power (I think we called this a duopoly in Econ 101), and will resist any attempt to take away this power. Yes, they will jostle for advantage over one another, but when this duopoly is threatened they will unite against it (see, opposition to any redistricting reform by the mainstreams of both the Republican and Democratic parties in California).
Looking back at the 2004 election, the mainstream of the Democratic party was hit right between the eyes by the power of the Internet and Blogs, as demonstrated by the insurgent campaign of Howard Dean. The look at this and wonder what it might have been
Couple this with that there are still a few Republicans who value liberty (as understood through the lens of enumerated and unenumerated rights), over staying in power, and you see why this got fair broader support among them.
This isn't the first time something like this happened. Rewind back to the election of 1968, and TV was the breakout media. Eugene McCarthy used it effectively in New Hampshire to force Johnson from the primary process. Nixon and Wallace (running one of the most effective 3rd party campaigns since Teddy Roosevelt (even if I despise what he represented), used it to great benefit.
So, in the Congress following this election what happened? An incredible level of restrictions on TV in political campaigns were put into place, which effectively put access to TV in the hands of those in power.
Like McCain-Feingold (and I say this with the greatest respect for both of these gentleman), giving the FEC oversight of Bloggers will only diminish the level of free speech and dialog in the public square. The internet and blogs dramatically reduced the barriers to entry to commentators, because as A.J. Liebling noted, "Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one." All of a sudden, a whole lot of people now could own the equivalent of a printing press. And the result is as you would expect (applying Sturgeon's Law that 90% of everything is crap), with a lot of nonsenses and garbage spewing forth, but a few gems mixed up in the overall stream.
If I had my magic legislative wand, and could make one change to improve the political process in this country, I would wave it and do away with our FEC as it exists and our various restrictions on political spending and embracing Justice Brandise maxim, "sunlight is the best disinfectant; electric light the best policeman", I would require the following:
1. That within 24 hours of any political donation being made, that this fact be posted for all to see and search on the Internet. Any legislation in which this party has an interest will also be identified. If this donation was made by a PAC, then the membership of that PAC must be clearly visible (i.e. I can follow the money).
2. For scheduled meetings, 24 hours in advance, and for unscheduled meetings within 24 hours, any meeting with a lobbyist (defined as someone educating on an issue or requesting legislative action) will be disclosed for all to search on the Internet. The topic of this conversation will be disclosed along with any legislation discussed or related to the topic of conversation. The source of funding for this lobbyist, organization, or individual, must be made transparent, all the way back up the chain. If Lobbyist A was hired by Organization X who received funding from PACS 1, 2, and 3, who in turned received funding from PACS 4, 5, and 6, I should be able to follow it all the way back to the companies and individuals making the donations.
3. The calendar of all members of the Legislative and Executive branches, along with their staff members, will be made available and search-able on the Internet. Common, unique identifiers will be used to enable cross referencing.
Yours,
Jordan
Hi Everphilski -
Your situation is about what I have. Basic cable, with local channels and the smattering of good cable channels, is around $15.95. For me this is essentially noise with respec to cost.
The effect of this, is that basic cable channels are essentially "free" to me.
Yours,
Jordan
Yes, you are right. I am paying for cable. But as you note, I am paying for it somewhere else and paying such a low price for the value received, that it seems like "free" to me.