Still around $20 billion in free cash flow per year. That is simply incredible. They buy billion dollar companies for cash, several times a year. They started paying dividends a few years ago, which began to decrease their ABSOLUTELY ENORMOUS cash reserves in the early 2000s. Holding $40 bn in cash (as they used to) is an inefficient use of capital, and so the owners are better for them having done something with it.
IIRC, Vista adoption numbers are actually better at this point in its product life-cycle than XP was, contrary to the (somewhat) public perception that Vista's sales are terrible.
If you have facts and analysis to support that Microsoft's cash position is imploding, I'm certainly interested in seeing them. Actually, what I'd like to see a very high-level summary of Microsoft's financials over time, related to their product offerings, seismic industry developments, the Internet, XBox, etc. You know, "look at the revenue spike when the XBox360 was released" or "see how a certain expense line varied with new OS releases." (hypothetical)
BEAR STEARNS IS NOT A BAILOUT. That is, the Government isn't handing $30 billion to either Bear Stearns or JP Morgan. This effort has not cost taxpayers anything so far.
The $30 billion involved in the JP Morgan buy-out of Bear Stearns is NOT a bail-out - it is a non-resource loan (think: loan guarantee) provided by the Federal Reserve system to JP Morgan, in order to induce JP Morgan to take over Bear Stearns, by limiting the downside risks to the Bear Stearns assets that JPM is buying. The Federal Reserve is loaning $30 billion in non-recourse debt against certain Bear Stearns assets, so that if the underlying debtor-counterparty (i.e. homeowner with mortgage) doesn't pay, then the Fed will be left holding that shortfall. This makes it less risky for JP Morgan to buy Bear Stearns.
Now, loan guarantees and non-recourse debt happen everyday in the normal course of business between private parties, and they are not free. It is insurance, and it costs money. The guarantor is accepting risk. So, one could say that there has been SOME bailout, in that there is value to the Federal Reserve's loan to JP Morgan, and I've seen nothing that indicates what JP Morgan actually PAID for that loan in addition to pledging collateral. There might very well have been amounts paid to the Fed in exchange for the loan. Scenario: JPM/BS pledged $40 billion of assets in exchange for a $30 billion loan, and paid for it in the structuring.
Bear Stearns' shareholders have lost about $100 billion in nominal enterprise value over the last year or so, so there isn't a bailout of those investors.
Another relevant point: the Federal Reserve system is not a true U.S. governmental entity, so I'm not sure whether the $30 billion would be a true bailout in any event.
Summary: JP Morgan bought Bear Stearns in a private takeover, and the Federal Reserve system guaranteed the performance of $30 billion in notional debt. This will actually only cost the Federal Reserve the amount that mortgagors (homeowners) don't pay on their mortgage, less recoveries thru foreclosure and similar. Actual cost, if any, will be much smaller - 5-10% (?) of the $30bn.
Management can be sued by shareholders if it intentionally enters a course of action that decreases profits, even if the action is ethical.
Blatantly incorrect.
The Board of Directors, and Management, DO have a responsibility to act in the best interests of shareholders, see Fiduciary Duty.
However, NOT to the extent that they must pursue every market in every industry in the world.
The Business Judgment Rule protects the Board and Management from lawsuits about normal business decisions, such as:
Hypothetical_Google_Director/CEO: "should we go into China knowing the upside for immediate growth and the potential downside for long-term corporate image problems? No, I don't think so."
No way you a shareholder could sue over that. You certainly could try to vote in a new Board of Directors who are committed to expansion in China, but that is not the same as suing the Board for a breach of duty.
Do American laws allow selling the same service or product to different customers at different rates with little or no restrictions?
Generally, yes. It is called price segmentation, or price differentiation. Think airline tickets as an example. Basically, there are not many restrictions on carving up your market and selling the same same to different purchasers at different prices.
Restrictions that can apply are related to consumer protection, and often apply if the seller is a monopoly, is in collusion with other competitors in setting the market price, is an industry-wide wholesale vendor setting an unreasonable MSRP (manufacturer's suggested retail price), or is in a period of emergency where gouging and hording are controlled for the public order.
A U.S. law passed in the 1930's can prohibit wholesale vendors who sell to rather identical retailers from altering prices based on volume (which seems odd to me, as that seems to be one of the cleanest theoretical argument FOR price discrimination: high volume from customer = lower marginal overhead for the vendor, better production planning, and thus cheaper prices for that customer to encourage the continued relationship)
In my professional life, I have worked with a large U.S. retail chain that had complicated pricing arrangements with its wholesale vendors (list pricing, volume rebates, advertising support, chargebacks, logistics charges, shared discounting, etc), and the purchasing managers were cognisant of the various potentially applicable laws, including the Robinson-Patman Act regarding manufacturer-set retail prices.
they'll probably sue him for libel. His only defense then will be to show that he is right, and that will be pretty hard to do after Cittio have cleaned up any discrepancies they might have had in their distribution
Several problems with your statement:
1. In the U.S.A. (where both Cittio and OpenNMS Group are based), it is not "truth is the ONLY defense", but rather "truth is ALWAYS a defense." There are many other defenses. Intent matters, and in some cases, it must also be shown that the intent was malicious, meaning that the statements were known to be false or there was reckless disregard for whether the statements were false.
2. If Cittio "cleans up any discrepancies they might have had", they still have the problem of the discrepancies they DID have. Just because Cittio will have cured the GPL violation doesn't mean the author didn't have a violation at the time about which to complain. Which, if true, would be a defense against the libel claim.
3. If Cittio "cleans up any discrepancies they might have had", then GREAT! That is the prefered outcome in most GPL enforcement cases.
If there's something they've changed in your project then purchase a copy and put the changed code in your version, since any modified GPL code must be re-distributed as GPL code.
Incorrect - please don't perpetuate the myth that the GPL 'infects' other code and causes it be relicensed as GPL against the author's will - it doesn't. And you will be violating the copyright of the infringer, which makes you no better than them.
You are sort of right: the GNU GPL does say that "any modified GPL code must be re-distributed as GPL code." But the imprecise language means you are confusing the meaing of 'must'.
In this case, the 'must' DOESN'T mean that any code that modifies the original GPL code is automatically (re)licensed under the GPL.
The 'must' means that if you don't license your modified and distributed code as required by the GPL, then you do not have re-distribution rights under the GPL license for the original code, and since you don't have any other license or basis for re-distributing the copyrighted GPL code, you are committing copyright infringement of the original GPLed code.
Solutions to this copyright violation: cease-and-desist, or pay infringement damages, or both since infringement has usually already happened. But in no case is the company REQUIRED to license its patches under the GPL - they just need to stop distributing, and probably pay damages for past distrbutions without a license.
-----
If a company violates the GPL by:
1. distributing binaries of GPL-licensed software,
2. that contain source code changes from upstream,
3. which source code the company won't make available to users to whom the company distributed the binaries,
Then:
4. the GPL simply doesn't provide any re-distribution rights that allow the company to distribute the copyrighted upstream software,
5. thus the company is in violation of the copyrights on the upstream software,
6. thus the company must:
6a. cease distributing their modified software, or
6b. pay infringement damages.
-----
Q: Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
A: The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL. Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.(emphasis added)
If anything is substantially responsible for increasing the earth's temperature, it's that nuclear-reactor-in-the-sky.
"The view that the sun is the source of observed global warming seems credible mainly to people who are open to believing that the entire scientific community has somehow, over a period of several decades, failed to adequately study, analyze and understand the most visible influence on the Earth's temperature." ...
"And that brings us to a recent study by the Proceedings of the Royal Society, which examined "all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate," such as sunlight intensity and cosmic rays. The study found that in the past 20 years, all of those trends "have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures." ...
"Those trying to prove the sun is the sole cause of warming have a double challenge. First they would have to show us a mechanism that demonstrates how the sun explains recent warming, even though the data shows solar activity has been declining recently. (In the past, increased warming was associated with an increase in solar activity). They would also have to find an additional mechanism that is counteracting the well-understood warming caused by rising emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. The doubters have done neither."
GREAT article - it is interesting for a non-programmer to read this type of technical detail, presented in an understandable way. For me, right at the edge of my theoretical-only knowledge. A detailed summary, I guess. (oxymoron)
no US citizens != no political prisoners
on
Fidel Castro Resigns
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Presented: a contra-view to your assertion that because no US citizens are being held at Guantanamo, there are no political prisoners there.
Can you please provide a reference for "As political prisoners are invariably citizens of the detaining state" ?
Because I can't find anything, in dictionaries or Wikipedia. Political prisoners are those who (someone claims) are imprisoned for their political views. The term was used a lot to refer to Soviet dissidents (meeting your definition). However, it is often currently used to refer to those who are imprisoned for violence against a government that they were fighting against. In that case, they are usually NOT citizens of the detaining state. Their view that is that they were legitimately resisting a foreign government, and are thus are prisoners of politics, not of crime.
Another description of Political prisoner from Wikipedia: "A political prisoner can also be someone that has been denied bail unfairly, denied parole when it would reasonably have been given to a prisoner charged with a comparable crime, or special powers may be invoked by the judiciary. Particularly in this latter situation, whether an individual is regarded as a political prisoner may depend upon subjective political perspective or interpretation of the evidence."
I would think that for a significant number of observers, the people in Guantanamo meet this definition. Disregarding the ultimate factual actions of the detainees, a lot of people believe that the people in Guantanamo are being held without due process of law, outside of an independent review by a court of competent jurisdiction. Based on decisions made by a government for seemingly political ends, as opposed to judicial or criminal needs.
Not that they didn't commit some real crime. But they are currently prisoners 7 years later because of politics, not because they've been convicted of anything. How many enemy combatants have been tried by a reasonably independent tribunal 7 years after being detained? (CSRTs don't count) Convicted?
How long can a state keep a non-citizen locked up without a conviction, or even a trial, before they are considered political prisoners?
I should reply with the exact counter-argument, but then I'd be back in law school arguing both sides.
Anyone have any idea how these kind of social interaction problems are being dealt with at NASA?
From several articles (granted, somewhat mainstream), it doesn't seem like there is much publicly-available research on human psychological reactions to sexual issues in long-term spaceflight. I would be surprised if there isn't a more robust body of serious literature in sociology & human behavior journals, and inside NASA, ESA and others.
---
These links are more about alleged events, and short-term issues (mechanical & biological). I remember reading the first when Lisa Nowak was news:
Example footer from the space sex article with related links to other Slate articles:
"Felix Gillette explained how space shuttles fly home. Daniel Engber revealed what exactly space tourists do. Dan Kois also wondered where the atmosphere ends and space begins. Chris Suellentrop argued that astronauts shouldn't be considered heroes. Gregg Easterbrook called the space program a big ol' waste of money. After the Columbia disaster in 2003, David Owen pointed out it's a waste of life, too."
You need to re-read your post, with a focus of the tense of the verbs. It is all future-state, not past or current. And besides, it looks to be a toolset for ISPs to build custom-branded versions of Mozilla with the dialup (?!) information for the ISP already setup.
What does this have to do with enterprise deployment, policy-enabling and on-going remote patching?
"The CCK project will produce a set of tools that help distributors customize and distribute the client. Support is provided for creating CD and download installers. Wizards are provided to simplify customization, installation, and ISP signup."
"Currently, our design centers around a win32 implementation because the size of my team has been limited. See Advocacy below if you don't like that."
Are these tools? No - it's a project to create the tools. How do you read that and think enterprises can deploy that NOW?
Bruce jumped the shark for me when in the comments section of his blog he dismissed state election voter ID requirements because voter fraud probably only accounts for a few percentage points here and there, as if that's not enough to sway an election.
If you don't know, this is the very issue that was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday (Indiana law requiring government issued photo ID to vote). I agree with Bruce's POV, but his argument is NOT STRONG ENOUGH.
In-person voter ID fraud doesn't "probably only account for a few percentage points here and there", but per the appellate arguments, there has not been one single identified case of in-person voter ID fraud in the history of Indiana. NOT ONE.
Great article on the subject posted on Tuesday, before the oral arguments. Written by Walter Dellinger, one of the premier Supreme Court appellate attorneys, who is representing Washington DC in its upcoming Supreme Court case regarding DC's gun control laws. The first such case in the last half-century.
---
"A law said to combat voting fraud by imposing the modest task of showing an ID may seem at first impression to be both sensible and fair. But this law is neither."
"First and foremost, Indiana's law is a "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist. The voting fraud it purports to address is illusory. And the means it employs needlessly make it far more difficult for some citizens--especially those who are low-income, elderly, or lack easy access to transportation--to vote."
"Because a photo-ID requirement exists to prevent a type of fraud that appears to be imaginary, the requirement would be hard to justify even if it imposed only a minimal impact on legitimate voters. But a photo-ID law in fact imposes substantial burdens on the right to vote."
Arthur Andersen LLP, a large partnership, was criminally convicted at the federal level of obstruction of justice. It lost licenses to practice accounting at the state and federal (SEC) level. The entity was and is facing many lawsuits with potential damages in the $millions or $billions. The company itself, which is not yet bankrupt or dissolved, has under 200 employees, mostly concerned with handling ongoing litigation and wrapping up the company. Arthur Andersen LLP is essentially over.
The invested capital of the company, similar to common stock, was each partner's 'capital account'. Each partner had $hundreds of thousands, if not $millions of dollars, in their capital account (at another Big4, I heard that partner's capital accounts earned 6-8% per year - kinda like preferred stock, or a dividend on the invested capital).
Most if not all of that invested capital was lost. Hundreds of millions of dollars. I had even heard that new partners, who take out a loan to buy into the partnership with an initial capital investment, wound up being stuck with the $250,000 loan, but saw their invested capital immediately worth nothing. Some particular types of vested retirement funds were protected, I think, probably because they were no longer part of the LLP directly, but trust assets.
In short, the investors lost everything.
What was left? People that had skills. Who had worked together, had contacts, relationships, business processes. The value of an assembled workforce. Ongoing projects with clients. But no viable entity.
At this was happening, other business approached the main partners of different business units, saying: "so, what is your group of 1,000 professionals going to be doing in 6 months?" That group would agree to move, en mass, over to the new company. The new company would then PAY Arthur Andersen LLP a lot of money to buy out employment agreements, non-competes, future billings under ongoing projects, probably laptops and workpapers, etc. That happened for small business units, it happened for entire country practices. (EY-Japan purchased AA-Japan's audit and tax practices, for instance. The AA-Japan business consulting unit (AABC) went to Hitachi.)
These funds were and are being used to pay fines, large legal judgments, and the little ongoing operations of the entity (who are mostly handling litigation and admin).
There wasn't any company for the government to take over. Even if the Gov't took possession of "Arthur Andersen LLP", what would they do with it? The entire business is people, and the people were leaving. The shell of the LLP entity wound up extracting cash from that exodus by leveraging existing employment agreements, non-competes, etc. But what else was left for the government to run? There is no manufacturing plants to take over or sell, and you can't force people to work for a company against their will.
--- --- ---
The partners that were directly involved in the actions that got Arthur Andersen LLP into trouble, David Duncan (the lead Enron audit partner in Houston), and Nancy Temple (lawyer with corporate in Chicago) were held accountable. Duncan was criminally convicted and sentenced to prison (on appeal). Both lost licenses, I think (CPA and Attorney). Probably can't sign audit reports, be admitted to practice before the SEC, etc. Their professional careers are over (at least at the level they previously were).
And are presumably facing numerous civil lawsuit that name them personally, which will take the next 5+ years to deal with.
--- --- ---
And last of all, don't forget the the U.S. Supreme Court later overturned the criminal conviction of Arthur Andersen. The original criminal conviction is what caused the company to go down to be
Bearing Point: I realize you're just quoting from SourceWatch, but both they and you have it wrong, and you're removing the limited context that they had.
the huge accounting firm KPMG LLP that was brought down in the Enron/Arthur Anderson scandal of 2002
No, ARTHUR ANDERSEN was the huge accounting firm that failed due to Enron. KMPG Consulting just bought a piece of the corpse: mostly the U.S./Western Europe operations of the business consulting unit of Arthur Andersen (AABC).
More detail:
The consulting division of KPMG-U.S. was spun of as a separate U.S. public company in early 2001. They then started acquiring other consulting companies (some of them from KPMG-Brazil, KPMG-Japan, etc - all separate accounting partnerships that really are not the same company as KPMG-US.)
In addition, they would also buy smaller (non-KPMG branded) consulting firms.
Arthur Andersen LLP had spun off Andersen Consulting in 1989. Again, two separate companies. After that split (and subsequent protracted litigation between Arthur Andersen and Andersen Consulting to the tune of $billions), Arthur Andersen started a consulting divison again, called AABC.
After Arthur Andersen fell apart as a result of Enron, different companies started buying up different pieces of Arthur Andersen - by country and by business unit. In the U.S., AABC that was part of Arthur Andersen-U.S. was purchased by KPMG Consulting, Inc. (the relatively new separate public company).
By this point, KPMG Consulting had acquired tons of firms, people, accounts, etc, and re-branded themselves as Bearing Point.
I find it unlikely Soyuz had the same number of flights as the shuttles...I am quite sure that, being in service for about a decade longer than the shuttle makes it quite sure it had flown more missions
40 - Soyuz 1-40 (orbits, plus flying to space stations Salyut 1 - 6)
15 - Soyuz T1 to T-15 (flying to Salyut 7 and Mir)
30 - Soyuz TM-1 to TM-30 (Mir)
15 - Soyuz TM31-34, TMA 1-11 (ISS)
---
100. Wikipedia says there were 98 manned Soyuz flights - close.
To my quick count, there were 2 malfunctions that resulted in death (4 people), several more that were close (Soyuz escape system fired on the pad before the launch vehicle exploded; re-entry landing in icy lake that almost cost lives)
I'll give you that the Soyuz malfunctions were early in their program, both before 1972. And that the Space Shuttle malfunctions were later in the life of the Shuttle program. So that tilts in favor of the Soyuz.
But, all-in-all, there have been about as many manned Space Shuttle Missions as there have been manned Soyuz missions. Even including non-manned Soyuz missions, it is going to be very similar. Both have 2 fatal malfunctions, so any statistical "safer" calculations are going to be the same - about a 2% chance for death.
"but let's at least be honest with ourselves that Google isn't doing this out of a sense of altruism"
So what? Since when does the intention of the actor impact the result? Isn't it better than it was? Do you see latent downsides that are hiding in the FCC's rules and Google's bid that overwhelm the positive rules that Google has pushed?
Contrary to what seems to be the anti-capitalism** mindset around here, a company can pursue profits in a manner that creates long-term value for all stakeholders and is net beneficial to society as a whole. Google might not be acting strictly out of altruism, but that doesn't mean that the result can't have a net positive impact on "The Internet" or "The Information Communication Fabric" or whatever.
Altruism with no concern for profits? I'll grant you Google doesn't act that way.
- A search for long-term value, that is guided by smart, competent and seemingly well-intentioned founders and management?
- Who appear to have a fairly-unique business mindset focused on creating and developing new ideas into open platforms that they then leverage into profits?
- While seeming to interact with 'The Internet' in a open, honest manner?
- Which might lead to a net increase in "Value", as happens when human societies develop in a productive way?
In most of what they've shown so far, Google seems to act like THAT. Not altruistic. But the result is net positive in a number of ways. And I like it - it's refreshing to see profits accrue to a company, that in my mind, is doing capitalism-in-modern-society correctly.
-
**: I agree that "capitalism at all costs, consequences-be-damned" is bad. And that not all societal costs and benefits are measured by a financial bottom line.
any enemy we'd have to use this against would be throwing ICBMs with nukes at us
No, they'd just have to have good anti-aircraft capabilities defending what we're attacking - much more common than nuclear-tipped ICBMs. Think: the U.S. attacking Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan-gone-rogue (GULP - trust me, I try not to think about those possibilities. No ICBMs yet, just long-range intra-continental BMs and known early-generation fission weapons. Whew, we're safe!)
It seems to me that this would allow U.S. airstrikes to release precision-guided weapons from farther away, decreasing losses of aircrews and planes, and increasing effective air superiority. Hopefully cheaper than a cruise missile.
For most warfare other than urban counter-insurgency (which, granted, seems to be what the majority of our warfighting will be over foreseeable future), air superiority is a force multiplier, lessening the number of troops needed on the ground. Air superiority leads to saving lives of infantry on the ground. Longer-distance release of precision-guided weapons seems like it would lead to safer air-superiority.
Although, why not just remote-pilot a heavy UAV with current JDAMs over target? Lose a few aircraft to AA - so what? How many of those could we build for the price of these super-sonic iron bombs?
Note re: shooting down aircraft during the Iraq War 2003-2007: I can only find references to 2 Coalition-forces fixed-wing aircraft being shot down ( Wikipedia, of course). And that was against a supposedly a semi-world-class military (or was that only good ground forces?).
The torsion hinges that support the micromirror on Digital Micromirror Device (DMDs) are said to be good for at least a trillion (10^12) operations. Source: Wikipedia, which has no footnote link to an authoritative source:(
Wiki also says that, at least for a DLP projector, the "DMD chip can be easily repaired or replaced".
What does a trillion operations means to you or me? Is that MTBF, or some other metric? No idea. Back-of-the-napkin (assumption: 1 operation/frame):
- 10^12 ops divided by (30 ops/sec) = 33,333,333,333 secs = 9,259,259 hours = 1,057 years.
If it's 100 operations per mirror per frame instead of 1, then that's still 10 continuous years of operation.
There is probably a nice function that can tell you how quickly the actual failure rate per mirror translates into visible degradation of picture quality over the whole screen over time. Does anyone know if the useful life of the screen would be longer or shorter than the MTBF of an individual mirror? Things to consider: MTBF/mirror, deviation of MTBF/mirror, # of mirrors/pixel (wobulation), # or mirrors, and statistics that I don't know.
But in any event, mirror life seems reasonable. At a minimum, it doesn't seem to be enough of a worry to be publicized widely (vs. everyone knowing there were concerns about the life of early plasmas)
GOML - I love it. A new phrase it born, soon to be on the ascendency.
It always interesting to watch internet memes be born, grow in usage, jump the shark and then either dim into ironic retro-use or fade away in oblivion. And then to realize that the entire phenomenon is only being perceived by you from your perspective.
'FTW', for instance. That is relatively new to me - 'For the Win'. It's turned into this year's 'LOL' (circa 2004-5). Of course, that leads you to the whole LOL-Cats thing, which seems to have peaked in the last few months (again, that's how I've perceived it). I recently read, probably linked from somewhere on Slashdot, a comprehensive history of the LOL-Cats meme, with references and historical examples - it must be close to apogee.
Relevant to this post: and on the ascendency in the category of 'forum-shorthand-ackronym' category is "Get Off My Lawn", which I first recall getting some airplay on SNL by Will Forte a year or two ago. And recently being used more and more on Slashdot, usually as shorthand for "the old way was better" or "you have it so easy these days", both of which evoke an aesthetic sense about the virtue of correctness in the face of expediancy.
I like it, and it needs shorthand, just like LOL, YMMV, IANAL, and A/S/L:
As in a retort to a comment about servicing current automobiles, "GOML - it was better when a local mechanic could just adjust the carburetor and clean the points"
Why is it overclock and undervolt and not overvolt and underclock?
Semantics, and all that. The word choices of the phrases are due to the intended goal of the activity that the phrase was created to describe.
Overclocking is seeking the highest clock speed at which that particular processor can run, in order to maximize CPU capability, with only secondary considerations about the energy / thermal factors.It is not seeking to increase the voltage, although that is the unfortunate side effect. Thus it's not "overvolting".
Undervolting is seeking to lower the voltage demand of the CPU/motherboard, in order to lower the energy / thermal requirements, with only secondary consideration about processing capability.It is not seeking to lower the clock speed in order to decrease the CPU capability, although that is the unfortunate side effect. Thus it's not "underclocking".
While similar in form and function, electric cars are monumentally different from gasoline
Not at all, particularly if it uses a single electric motor that rotates a single driveshaft (vs. per-wheel hub-mounted electric coils). Visual design, crash survivability, wind resistance, suspension & handling, tire performance, passenger compartment UI & design are all similar.
Not to mention the BUSINESS aspect of being a car manufacturer.
Just think about the supply chain for an assembly line, and how long it took to get that in place and optimized. Does Telsa have hundreds of suppliers they're already working with, who can supply thousands of parts custom-designed for Telsa in a JIT supply chain? Would that be easy to create from scratch?
National marketing, sales platforms, distribution & servicing channels?
These days, even for manufacturers like auto companies, a huge piece of the company is the intangibles: in-place assembled workforce, corporate organization, institutional knowledge, supplier arrangements & supply-chain logistics, intellectual property, customer recognition of the brand. You don't create that from scratch - it takes years if not decades, and a lot of invested capital.
It's much easier for a company such as Tesla to start their production model making cars numbering in the hundreds and ramp up their scale than it is for a huge manufacturer to go from the large scale and start small.
I couldn't disagree with you more. You think it'd be easier for Telsa to start producing 50,000 autos a year than it would be for GM to create a new electric model? I'm not talking about the corporate will to do so, just the technical & business requirements. Knowing there is a large market for your product has no impact on your ability to create a business from scratch to meet that market. You want to grow production from 100 to 10,000 cars a year? Several billion dollars and a decade.
"Business" often gets derided here on Slashdot, and I think that a lot of IT folks have very little idea, and often no respect for, how & why businesses actually work, and why "Managers" are often more important to the success of a company than the people in the trenches who actually make the product.
"Create a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door." Not today. Create a better mousetrap, get regulatory approval, develop a following, invest in scaling your business, market it to that masses, get investors, scale some more, and then the world will realize you exist and maybe want to come into your showroom.
What legal requirement to keep legal documentation for 7 years? Source, please?
As far as I know, there is no overarching requirement to keep business or legal documentation for any period of time. Certain types of business records need to be kept for different periods of time, but not in general for all "legal" documentation. Tax records, financial records, employment records, health care records, business entity records - yes, all of those have retention requirements, from 1yr to permanently. Regulated industry? Even more rules.
Currently in, or even anticipating, litigation? Extra rules on preservation of potentially discoverable material.
But a mandatory 7 year period for "legal documentation"? Doesn't exist.
/s/igned - a Compliance Officer for a public company in a regulated industry (but not our Records Retention lead). This is not legal advice, I'm not your lawyer, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's imploding cash reserves. No cash, no control, end of story.
Imploding cash reserves? Microsoft has, and is continuing to spin off, gobs of cash from Office and Windows.
- Cash Flow Statement
- Microsoft's cash position
- Microsoft Looks Mighty
Still around $20 billion in free cash flow per year. That is simply incredible. They buy billion dollar companies for cash, several times a year. They started paying dividends a few years ago, which began to decrease their ABSOLUTELY ENORMOUS cash reserves in the early 2000s. Holding $40 bn in cash (as they used to) is an inefficient use of capital, and so the owners are better for them having done something with it.
IIRC, Vista adoption numbers are actually better at this point in its product life-cycle than XP was, contrary to the (somewhat) public perception that Vista's sales are terrible.
If you have facts and analysis to support that Microsoft's cash position is imploding, I'm certainly interested in seeing them. Actually, what I'd like to see a very high-level summary of Microsoft's financials over time, related to their product offerings, seismic industry developments, the Internet, XBox, etc. You know, "look at the revenue spike when the XBox360 was released" or "see how a certain expense line varied with new OS releases." (hypothetical)
BEAR STEARNS IS NOT A BAILOUT. That is, the Government isn't handing $30 billion to either Bear Stearns or JP Morgan. This effort has not cost taxpayers anything so far.
The $30 billion involved in the JP Morgan buy-out of Bear Stearns is NOT a bail-out - it is a non-resource loan (think: loan guarantee) provided by the Federal Reserve system to JP Morgan, in order to induce JP Morgan to take over Bear Stearns, by limiting the downside risks to the Bear Stearns assets that JPM is buying. The Federal Reserve is loaning $30 billion in non-recourse debt against certain Bear Stearns assets, so that if the underlying debtor-counterparty (i.e. homeowner with mortgage) doesn't pay, then the Fed will be left holding that shortfall. This makes it less risky for JP Morgan to buy Bear Stearns.
Now, loan guarantees and non-recourse debt happen everyday in the normal course of business between private parties, and they are not free. It is insurance, and it costs money. The guarantor is accepting risk. So, one could say that there has been SOME bailout, in that there is value to the Federal Reserve's loan to JP Morgan, and I've seen nothing that indicates what JP Morgan actually PAID for that loan in addition to pledging collateral. There might very well have been amounts paid to the Fed in exchange for the loan. Scenario: JPM/BS pledged $40 billion of assets in exchange for a $30 billion loan, and paid for it in the structuring.
Bear Stearns' shareholders have lost about $100 billion in nominal enterprise value over the last year or so, so there isn't a bailout of those investors.
Another relevant point: the Federal Reserve system is not a true U.S. governmental entity, so I'm not sure whether the $30 billion would be a true bailout in any event.
Summary: JP Morgan bought Bear Stearns in a private takeover, and the Federal Reserve system guaranteed the performance of $30 billion in notional debt. This will actually only cost the Federal Reserve the amount that mortgagors (homeowners) don't pay on their mortgage, less recoveries thru foreclosure and similar. Actual cost, if any, will be much smaller - 5-10% (?) of the $30bn.
Management can be sued by shareholders if it intentionally enters a course of action that decreases profits, even if the action is ethical.
Blatantly incorrect.
The Board of Directors, and Management, DO have a responsibility to act in the best interests of shareholders, see Fiduciary Duty.
However, NOT to the extent that they must pursue every market in every industry in the world.
The Business Judgment Rule protects the Board and Management from lawsuits about normal business decisions, such as:
Hypothetical_Google_Director/CEO: "should we go into China knowing the upside for immediate growth and the potential downside for long-term corporate image problems? No, I don't think so."
No way you a shareholder could sue over that. You certainly could try to vote in a new Board of Directors who are committed to expansion in China, but that is not the same as suing the Board for a breach of duty.
Do American laws allow selling the same service or product to different customers at different rates with little or no restrictions?
Generally, yes. It is called price segmentation, or price differentiation. Think airline tickets as an example. Basically, there are not many restrictions on carving up your market and selling the same same to different purchasers at different prices.
Restrictions that can apply are related to consumer protection, and often apply if the seller is a monopoly, is in collusion with other competitors in setting the market price, is an industry-wide wholesale vendor setting an unreasonable MSRP (manufacturer's suggested retail price), or is in a period of emergency where gouging and hording are controlled for the public order.
A U.S. law passed in the 1930's can prohibit wholesale vendors who sell to rather identical retailers from altering prices based on volume (which seems odd to me, as that seems to be one of the cleanest theoretical argument FOR price discrimination: high volume from customer = lower marginal overhead for the vendor, better production planning, and thus cheaper prices for that customer to encourage the continued relationship)
As a starting point, see Price Discrimination and U.S. Robinson-Patman Act
In my professional life, I have worked with a large U.S. retail chain that had complicated pricing arrangements with its wholesale vendors (list pricing, volume rebates, advertising support, chargebacks, logistics charges, shared discounting, etc), and the purchasing managers were cognisant of the various potentially applicable laws, including the Robinson-Patman Act regarding manufacturer-set retail prices.
they'll probably sue him for libel. His only defense then will be to show that he is right, and that will be pretty hard to do after Cittio have cleaned up any discrepancies they might have had in their distribution
Several problems with your statement:
1. In the U.S.A. (where both Cittio and OpenNMS Group are based), it is not "truth is the ONLY defense", but rather "truth is ALWAYS a defense." There are many other defenses. Intent matters, and in some cases, it must also be shown that the intent was malicious, meaning that the statements were known to be false or there was reckless disregard for whether the statements were false.
2. If Cittio "cleans up any discrepancies they might have had", they still have the problem of the discrepancies they DID have. Just because Cittio will have cured the GPL violation doesn't mean the author didn't have a violation at the time about which to complain. Which, if true, would be a defense against the libel claim.
3. If Cittio "cleans up any discrepancies they might have had", then GREAT! That is the prefered outcome in most GPL enforcement cases.
If there's something they've changed in your project then purchase a copy and put the changed code in your version, since any modified GPL code must be re-distributed as GPL code.
Incorrect - please don't perpetuate the myth that the GPL 'infects' other code and causes it be relicensed as GPL against the author's will - it doesn't. And you will be violating the copyright of the infringer, which makes you no better than them.
You are sort of right: the GNU GPL does say that "any modified GPL code must be re-distributed as GPL code." But the imprecise language means you are confusing the meaing of 'must'.
In this case, the 'must' DOESN'T mean that any code that modifies the original GPL code is automatically (re)licensed under the GPL.
The 'must' means that if you don't license your modified and distributed code as required by the GPL, then you do not have re-distribution rights under the GPL license for the original code, and since you don't have any other license or basis for re-distributing the copyrighted GPL code, you are committing copyright infringement of the original GPLed code.
Solutions to this copyright violation: cease-and-desist, or pay infringement damages, or both since infringement has usually already happened. But in no case is the company REQUIRED to license its patches under the GPL - they just need to stop distributing, and probably pay damages for past distrbutions without a license.
-----
If a company violates the GPL by:
1. distributing binaries of GPL-licensed software,
2. that contain source code changes from upstream,
3. which source code the company won't make available to users to whom the company distributed the binaries,
Then:
4. the GPL simply doesn't provide any re-distribution rights that allow the company to distribute the copyrighted upstream software,
5. thus the company is in violation of the copyrights on the upstream software,
6. thus the company must:
6a. cease distributing their modified software, or
6b. pay infringement damages.
-----
Q: Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
A: The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.(emphasis added)
Q: If I know someone has a copy of a GPL-covered program, can I demand he give me a copy?
A: No. The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of the program if he chooses to do so. He also has the right not to redistribute the program, if that is what he chooses.
If anything is substantially responsible for increasing the earth's temperature, it's that nuclear-reactor-in-the-sky.
"The view that the sun is the source of observed global warming seems credible mainly to people who are open to believing that the entire scientific community has somehow, over a period of several decades, failed to adequately study, analyze and understand the most visible influence on the Earth's temperature."
...
...
"And that brings us to a recent study by the Proceedings of the Royal Society, which examined "all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate," such as sunlight intensity and cosmic rays. The study found that in the past 20 years, all of those trends "have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures."
"Those trying to prove the sun is the sole cause of warming have a double challenge. First they would have to show us a mechanism that demonstrates how the sun explains recent warming, even though the data shows solar activity has been declining recently. (In the past, increased warming was associated with an increase in solar activity). They would also have to find an additional mechanism that is counteracting the well-understood warming caused by rising emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. The doubters have done neither."
source: Salon.com: The cold truth about climate change (yes, in the USA, Salon is considered liberal media, but please read & judge the source material yourself.)
GREAT article - it is interesting for a non-programmer to read this type of technical detail, presented in an understandable way. For me, right at the edge of my theoretical-only knowledge. A detailed summary, I guess. (oxymoron)
Similar article on NetBSD: Waving the flag: NetBSD developers speak about version 4.0 (1/30/2008)
Linux focused links:
Current discussion:
LWN: Kernel
KernelTrap
KernelNewbies: Summary of Linux Changes
---
The Wonderful World of Linux series are excellent history - in-depth for outsiders:
WWOL 2.2
WWOL 2.4
WWOL 2.6
---
Towards Linux 2.6 - A look into the workings of the next new kernel(2003)
Kernel Comparison: Linux (2.6.22) versus Windows (Vista)(2007)
[nice post - good stuff like that is why I come to /. ]
Nuclear reactor physics: Short-lived poisons and (reactor) controllability
Presented: a contra-view to your assertion that because no US citizens are being held at Guantanamo, there are no political prisoners there.
Can you please provide a reference for "As political prisoners are invariably citizens of the detaining state" ?
Because I can't find anything, in dictionaries or Wikipedia. Political prisoners are those who (someone claims) are imprisoned for their political views. The term was used a lot to refer to Soviet dissidents (meeting your definition). However, it is often currently used to refer to those who are imprisoned for violence against a government that they were fighting against. In that case, they are usually NOT citizens of the detaining state. Their view that is that they were legitimately resisting a foreign government, and are thus are prisoners of politics, not of crime.
Another description of Political prisoner from Wikipedia: "A political prisoner can also be someone that has been denied bail unfairly, denied parole when it would reasonably have been given to a prisoner charged with a comparable crime, or special powers may be invoked by the judiciary. Particularly in this latter situation, whether an individual is regarded as a political prisoner may depend upon subjective political perspective or interpretation of the evidence."
I would think that for a significant number of observers, the people in Guantanamo meet this definition. Disregarding the ultimate factual actions of the detainees, a lot of people believe that the people in Guantanamo are being held without due process of law, outside of an independent review by a court of competent jurisdiction. Based on decisions made by a government for seemingly political ends, as opposed to judicial or criminal needs.
Not that they didn't commit some real crime. But they are currently prisoners 7 years later because of politics, not because they've been convicted of anything. How many enemy combatants have been tried by a reasonably independent tribunal 7 years after being detained? (CSRTs don't count) Convicted?
How long can a state keep a non-citizen locked up without a conviction, or even a trial, before they are considered political prisoners?
I should reply with the exact counter-argument, but then I'd be back in law school arguing both sides.
Anyone have any idea how these kind of social interaction problems are being dealt with at NASA?
From several articles (granted, somewhat mainstream), it doesn't seem like there is much publicly-available research on human psychological reactions to sexual issues in long-term spaceflight. I would be surprised if there isn't a more robust body of serious literature in sociology & human behavior journals, and inside NASA, ESA and others.
---
These links are more about alleged events, and short-term issues (mechanical & biological). I remember reading the first when Lisa Nowak was news:
"Do Astronauts Have Sex? In space, no one can hear you moan." - article from Slate.com "Slate's The Explainer thanks Bob Jacobs of NASA and Laura Woodmansee, author of 'Sex in Space.'"
Other Links:
Outer-space sex carries complications
Article about book 'Sex in Space'
ISS On-Orbit Pregnancy Test procedures
---
Off-topic - I recommend the column "The Explainer" on Slate.com. Answers to questions that relate to current news (often with a basic or off-beat slant)
Example footer from the space sex article with related links to other Slate articles:
"Felix Gillette explained how space shuttles fly home. Daniel Engber revealed what exactly space tourists do. Dan Kois also wondered where the atmosphere ends and space begins. Chris Suellentrop argued that astronauts shouldn't be considered heroes. Gregg Easterbrook called the space program a big ol' waste of money. After the Columbia disaster in 2003, David Owen pointed out it's a waste of life, too."
You need to re-read your post, with a focus of the tense of the verbs. It is all future-state, not past or current. And besides, it looks to be a toolset for ISPs to build custom-branded versions of Mozilla with the dialup (?!) information for the ISP already setup.
What does this have to do with enterprise deployment, policy-enabling and on-going remote patching?
From http://www.mozilla.org/projects/cck (Emphasis mine)
"There is work going on to product a XUL based Firefox CCK. For more information, see http://www.mozilla.org/projects/cck/firefox/."
"The CCK project will produce a set of tools that help distributors customize and distribute the client. Support is provided for creating CD and download installers. Wizards are provided to simplify customization, installation, and ISP signup."
"Currently, our design centers around a win32 implementation because the size of my team has been limited. See Advocacy below if you don't like that."
Are these tools? No - it's a project to create the tools. How do you read that and think enterprises can deploy that NOW?
Bruce jumped the shark for me when in the comments section of his blog he dismissed state election voter ID requirements because voter fraud probably only accounts for a few percentage points here and there, as if that's not enough to sway an election.
If you don't know, this is the very issue that was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday (Indiana law requiring government issued photo ID to vote). I agree with Bruce's POV, but his argument is NOT STRONG ENOUGH.
In-person voter ID fraud doesn't "probably only account for a few percentage points here and there", but per the appellate arguments, there has not been one single identified case of in-person voter ID fraud in the history of Indiana. NOT ONE.
Great article on the subject posted on Tuesday, before the oral arguments. Written by Walter Dellinger, one of the premier Supreme Court appellate attorneys, who is representing Washington DC in its upcoming Supreme Court case regarding DC's gun control laws. The first such case in the last half-century.
---
"A law said to combat voting fraud by imposing the modest task of showing an ID may seem at first impression to be both sensible and fair. But this law is neither."
"First and foremost, Indiana's law is a "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist. The voting fraud it purports to address is illusory. And the means it employs needlessly make it far more difficult for some citizens--especially those who are low-income, elderly, or lack easy access to transportation--to vote."
"Because a photo-ID requirement exists to prevent a type of fraud that appears to be imaginary, the requirement would be hard to justify even if it imposed only a minimal impact on legitimate voters. But a photo-ID law in fact imposes substantial burdens on the right to vote."
Arthur Andersen LLP, a large partnership, was criminally convicted at the federal level of obstruction of justice. It lost licenses to practice accounting at the state and federal (SEC) level. The entity was and is facing many lawsuits with potential damages in the $millions or $billions. The company itself, which is not yet bankrupt or dissolved, has under 200 employees, mostly concerned with handling ongoing litigation and wrapping up the company. Arthur Andersen LLP is essentially over.
The invested capital of the company, similar to common stock, was each partner's 'capital account'. Each partner had $hundreds of thousands, if not $millions of dollars, in their capital account (at another Big4, I heard that partner's capital accounts earned 6-8% per year - kinda like preferred stock, or a dividend on the invested capital).
Most if not all of that invested capital was lost. Hundreds of millions of dollars. I had even heard that new partners, who take out a loan to buy into the partnership with an initial capital investment, wound up being stuck with the $250,000 loan, but saw their invested capital immediately worth nothing. Some particular types of vested retirement funds were protected, I think, probably because they were no longer part of the LLP directly, but trust assets.
In short, the investors lost everything.
What was left? People that had skills. Who had worked together, had contacts, relationships, business processes. The value of an assembled workforce. Ongoing projects with clients. But no viable entity.
At this was happening, other business approached the main partners of different business units, saying: "so, what is your group of 1,000 professionals going to be doing in 6 months?" That group would agree to move, en mass, over to the new company. The new company would then PAY Arthur Andersen LLP a lot of money to buy out employment agreements, non-competes, future billings under ongoing projects, probably laptops and workpapers, etc. That happened for small business units, it happened for entire country practices. (EY-Japan purchased AA-Japan's audit and tax practices, for instance. The AA-Japan business consulting unit (AABC) went to Hitachi.)
These funds were and are being used to pay fines, large legal judgments, and the little ongoing operations of the entity (who are mostly handling litigation and admin).
There wasn't any company for the government to take over. Even if the Gov't took possession of "Arthur Andersen LLP", what would they do with it? The entire business is people, and the people were leaving. The shell of the LLP entity wound up extracting cash from that exodus by leveraging existing employment agreements, non-competes, etc. But what else was left for the government to run? There is no manufacturing plants to take over or sell, and you can't force people to work for a company against their will.
--- --- ---
The partners that were directly involved in the actions that got Arthur Andersen LLP into trouble, David Duncan (the lead Enron audit partner in Houston), and Nancy Temple (lawyer with corporate in Chicago) were held accountable. Duncan was criminally convicted and sentenced to prison (on appeal). Both lost licenses, I think (CPA and Attorney). Probably can't sign audit reports, be admitted to practice before the SEC, etc. Their professional careers are over (at least at the level they previously were).
And are presumably facing numerous civil lawsuit that name them personally, which will take the next 5+ years to deal with.
--- --- ---
And last of all, don't forget the the U.S. Supreme Court later overturned the criminal conviction of Arthur Andersen. The original criminal conviction is what caused the company to go down to be
Bearing Point: I realize you're just quoting from SourceWatch, but both they and you have it wrong, and you're removing the limited context that they had.
the huge accounting firm KPMG LLP that was brought down in the Enron/Arthur Anderson scandal of 2002
No, ARTHUR ANDERSEN was the huge accounting firm that failed due to Enron. KMPG Consulting just bought a piece of the corpse: mostly the U.S./Western Europe operations of the business consulting unit of Arthur Andersen (AABC).
More detail:
The consulting division of KPMG-U.S. was spun of as a separate U.S. public company in early 2001. They then started acquiring other consulting companies (some of them from KPMG-Brazil, KPMG-Japan, etc - all separate accounting partnerships that really are not the same company as KPMG-US.)
In addition, they would also buy smaller (non-KPMG branded) consulting firms.
Arthur Andersen LLP had spun off Andersen Consulting in 1989. Again, two separate companies. After that split (and subsequent protracted litigation between Arthur Andersen and Andersen Consulting to the tune of $billions), Arthur Andersen started a consulting divison again, called AABC.
After Arthur Andersen fell apart as a result of Enron, different companies started buying up different pieces of Arthur Andersen - by country and by business unit. In the U.S., AABC that was part of Arthur Andersen-U.S. was purchased by KPMG Consulting, Inc. (the relatively new separate public company).
By this point, KPMG Consulting had acquired tons of firms, people, accounts, etc, and re-branded themselves as Bearing Point.
KMPG != Arthur Andersen
I find it unlikely Soyuz had the same number of flights as the shuttles...I am quite sure that, being in service for about a decade longer than the shuttle makes it quite sure it had flown more missions
I can't find an exact list, but Soyuz and Space Shuttle flights do appear to be close in the number of missions. Wiki: List of human spaceflight programs
---------------
Soyuz: (approx.)
40 - Soyuz 1-40 (orbits, plus flying to space stations Salyut 1 - 6)
15 - Soyuz T1 to T-15 (flying to Salyut 7 and Mir)
30 - Soyuz TM-1 to TM-30 (Mir)
15 - Soyuz TM31-34, TMA 1-11 (ISS)
---
100. Wikipedia says there were 98 manned Soyuz flights - close.
To my quick count, there were 2 malfunctions that resulted in death (4 people), several more that were close (Soyuz escape system fired on the pad before the launch vehicle exploded; re-entry landing in icy lake that almost cost lives)
---------------
Space Shuttle: (approx.)
120 manned spaceflight missions
HOWEVER, "currently, the Soyuz spacecraft family is still in service and has launched more manned space missions than any other platform."
I'll give you that the Soyuz malfunctions were early in their program, both before 1972. And that the Space Shuttle malfunctions were later in the life of the Shuttle program. So that tilts in favor of the Soyuz.
But, all-in-all, there have been about as many manned Space Shuttle Missions as there have been manned Soyuz missions. Even including non-manned Soyuz missions, it is going to be very similar. Both have 2 fatal malfunctions, so any statistical "safer" calculations are going to be the same - about a 2% chance for death.
"but let's at least be honest with ourselves that Google isn't doing this out of a sense of altruism"
So what? Since when does the intention of the actor impact the result? Isn't it better than it was? Do you see latent downsides that are hiding in the FCC's rules and Google's bid that overwhelm the positive rules that Google has pushed?
Contrary to what seems to be the anti-capitalism** mindset around here, a company can pursue profits in a manner that creates long-term value for all stakeholders and is net beneficial to society as a whole. Google might not be acting strictly out of altruism, but that doesn't mean that the result can't have a net positive impact on "The Internet" or "The Information Communication Fabric" or whatever.
Altruism with no concern for profits? I'll grant you Google doesn't act that way.
- A search for long-term value, that is guided by smart, competent and seemingly well-intentioned founders and management?
- Who appear to have a fairly-unique business mindset focused on creating and developing new ideas into open platforms that they then leverage into profits?
- While seeming to interact with 'The Internet' in a open, honest manner?
- Which might lead to a net increase in "Value", as happens when human societies develop in a productive way?
In most of what they've shown so far, Google seems to act like THAT. Not altruistic. But the result is net positive in a number of ways. And I like it - it's refreshing to see profits accrue to a company, that in my mind, is doing capitalism-in-modern-society correctly.
-
**: I agree that "capitalism at all costs, consequences-be-damned" is bad. And that not all societal costs and benefits are measured by a financial bottom line.
any enemy we'd have to use this against would be throwing ICBMs with nukes at us
No, they'd just have to have good anti-aircraft capabilities defending what we're attacking - much more common than nuclear-tipped ICBMs. Think: the U.S. attacking Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan-gone-rogue (GULP - trust me, I try not to think about those possibilities. No ICBMs yet, just long-range intra-continental BMs and known early-generation fission weapons. Whew, we're safe!)
It seems to me that this would allow U.S. airstrikes to release precision-guided weapons from farther away, decreasing losses of aircrews and planes, and increasing effective air superiority. Hopefully cheaper than a cruise missile.
For most warfare other than urban counter-insurgency (which, granted, seems to be what the majority of our warfighting will be over foreseeable future), air superiority is a force multiplier, lessening the number of troops needed on the ground. Air superiority leads to saving lives of infantry on the ground. Longer-distance release of precision-guided weapons seems like it would lead to safer air-superiority.
Although, why not just remote-pilot a heavy UAV with current JDAMs over target? Lose a few aircraft to AA - so what? How many of those could we build for the price of these super-sonic iron bombs?
Note re: shooting down aircraft during the Iraq War 2003-2007: I can only find references to 2 Coalition-forces fixed-wing aircraft being shot down ( Wikipedia, of course). And that was against a supposedly a semi-world-class military (or was that only good ground forces?).
The torsion hinges that support the micromirror on Digital Micromirror Device (DMDs) are said to be good for at least a trillion (10^12) operations. Source: Wikipedia, which has no footnote link to an authoritative source
Wiki also says that, at least for a DLP projector, the "DMD chip can be easily repaired or replaced".
What does a trillion operations means to you or me? Is that MTBF, or some other metric? No idea. Back-of-the-napkin (assumption: 1 operation/frame):
- 10^12 ops divided by (30 ops/sec) = 33,333,333,333 secs = 9,259,259 hours = 1,057 years.
If it's 100 operations per mirror per frame instead of 1, then that's still 10 continuous years of operation.
There is probably a nice function that can tell you how quickly the actual failure rate per mirror translates into visible degradation of picture quality over the whole screen over time. Does anyone know if the useful life of the screen would be longer or shorter than the MTBF of an individual mirror? Things to consider: MTBF/mirror, deviation of MTBF/mirror, # of mirrors/pixel (wobulation), # or mirrors, and statistics that I don't know.
But in any event, mirror life seems reasonable. At a minimum, it doesn't seem to be enough of a worry to be publicized widely (vs. everyone knowing there were concerns about the life of early plasmas)
GOML - I love it. A new phrase it born, soon to be on the ascendency.
It always interesting to watch internet memes be born, grow in usage, jump the shark and then either dim into ironic retro-use or fade away in oblivion. And then to realize that the entire phenomenon is only being perceived by you from your perspective.
'FTW', for instance. That is relatively new to me - 'For the Win'. It's turned into this year's 'LOL' (circa 2004-5). Of course, that leads you to the whole LOL-Cats thing, which seems to have peaked in the last few months (again, that's how I've perceived it). I recently read, probably linked from somewhere on Slashdot, a comprehensive history of the LOL-Cats meme, with references and historical examples - it must be close to apogee.
Relevant to this post: and on the ascendency in the category of 'forum-shorthand-ackronym' category is "Get Off My Lawn", which I first recall getting some airplay on SNL by Will Forte a year or two ago. And recently being used more and more on Slashdot, usually as shorthand for "the old way was better" or "you have it so easy these days", both of which evoke an aesthetic sense about the virtue of correctness in the face of expediancy.
I like it, and it needs shorthand, just like LOL, YMMV, IANAL, and A/S/L:
As in a retort to a comment about servicing current automobiles, "GOML - it was better when a local mechanic could just adjust the carburetor and clean the points"
'GOML'. (FTW)
Why is it overclock and undervolt and not overvolt and underclock?
Semantics, and all that. The word choices of the phrases are due to the intended goal of the activity that the phrase was created to describe.
Overclocking is seeking the highest clock speed at which that particular processor can run, in order to maximize CPU capability, with only secondary considerations about the energy / thermal factors.It is not seeking to increase the voltage, although that is the unfortunate side effect. Thus it's not "overvolting".
Undervolting is seeking to lower the voltage demand of the CPU/motherboard, in order to lower the energy / thermal requirements, with only secondary consideration about processing capability.It is not seeking to lower the clock speed in order to decrease the CPU capability, although that is the unfortunate side effect. Thus it's not "underclocking".
While similar in form and function, electric cars are monumentally different from gasoline
Not at all, particularly if it uses a single electric motor that rotates a single driveshaft (vs. per-wheel hub-mounted electric coils). Visual design, crash survivability, wind resistance, suspension & handling, tire performance, passenger compartment UI & design are all similar.
Not to mention the BUSINESS aspect of being a car manufacturer.
Just think about the supply chain for an assembly line, and how long it took to get that in place and optimized. Does Telsa have hundreds of suppliers they're already working with, who can supply thousands of parts custom-designed for Telsa in a JIT supply chain? Would that be easy to create from scratch?
National marketing, sales platforms, distribution & servicing channels?
These days, even for manufacturers like auto companies, a huge piece of the company is the intangibles: in-place assembled workforce, corporate organization, institutional knowledge, supplier arrangements & supply-chain logistics, intellectual property, customer recognition of the brand. You don't create that from scratch - it takes years if not decades, and a lot of invested capital.
It's much easier for a company such as Tesla to start their production model making cars numbering in the hundreds and ramp up their scale than it is for a huge manufacturer to go from the large scale and start small.
I couldn't disagree with you more. You think it'd be easier for Telsa to start producing 50,000 autos a year than it would be for GM to create a new electric model? I'm not talking about the corporate will to do so, just the technical & business requirements. Knowing there is a large market for your product has no impact on your ability to create a business from scratch to meet that market. You want to grow production from 100 to 10,000 cars a year? Several billion dollars and a decade.
"Business" often gets derided here on Slashdot, and I think that a lot of IT folks have very little idea, and often no respect for, how & why businesses actually work, and why "Managers" are often more important to the success of a company than the people in the trenches who actually make the product.
"Create a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door." Not today. Create a better mousetrap, get regulatory approval, develop a following, invest in scaling your business, market it to that masses, get investors, scale some more, and then the world will realize you exist and maybe want to come into your showroom.
What legal requirement to keep legal documentation for 7 years? Source, please?
As far as I know, there is no overarching requirement to keep business or legal documentation for any period of time. Certain types of business records need to be kept for different periods of time, but not in general for all "legal" documentation. Tax records, financial records, employment records, health care records, business entity records - yes, all of those have retention requirements, from 1yr to permanently. Regulated industry? Even more rules.
Currently in, or even anticipating, litigation? Extra rules on preservation of potentially discoverable material.
But a mandatory 7 year period for "legal documentation"? Doesn't exist.
I can't wait for "Slashdot's Setup, Part 8 - Root Passwords"
And what would you do with them? Knowing the root password shouldn't get you into a properly configured and patched system.
I even remember one cracking contest where the owner of the machine gave out the root password to the target machine. (quick google: nope)
You could attack the bandwidth, or try to get physical access. But if Cmdr. Taco can't get in....
The gun fired off ~ 20 rounds in about 1/8th of a second. A kill switch wouldn't have worked - nobody would have reacted that quick.
More details: http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/inside-the-robo.html