However, this does highlight solar PV's strength - you get the most power when you need it.
People have to remember that many parts of the world (Germany, especially) actually uses *more* energy in the winter (and it's more important that it be available - AC for the most part is a modern convenience, but heat it necessary to survive), it's just not traditionally via electricity generation. Natural gas and heating oil are also non-renewable hydrocarbon-based energy sources. A long term solution to power needs to replace *all* form of non-renewable, CO2-generating energy...
And that *concept* is exactly what the GP post said it is. Free speech as a concept originated to protect your right to express your opinion about the government without prosecution, and it has NOTHING to do with allowing trolls to harass people on a PRIVATELY RUN service.
Go stand up in a movie theater some time and try to exercise your free speech, and see how fast you get kicked out of their privately owned building. And good luck trying to sue them for impinging your right to "free speech".
Well... though I live in a larger city now, I grew up in a town of 20k, and my girlfriend grew up in a town of 4k - in fact, she grew up across the street from my grandparents. Which made it slightly less weird (given we live 2000 miles from said town) when the chief of police in her hometown messaged her on Facebook just to check if *my* grandmother was on vacation because he noticed her newspaper hadn't been picked up in 2 days.
Anyway - I have seen *real* small town police who care about (and know) the residents (and, honestly, don't have all that much to do sometimes) which is why I was wondering:)
The truth is, there's a lot of crime and not a lot of money for cops. And for most individuals who are burglarized, there's rarely enough evidence to even begin an investigation.
Yes, and that's the entire POINT of the article. Call them out on it and it WILL change.
And this guy had the arrogance/stupidity to abuse his power to get unfair attention in BERKELEY, a city where even the council members think of their police force as "dirty pigs". Basically, at this point he should probably be looking for a new job because they are never going to let it rest...
Do you live in a small town? I tried to report my phone stolen and they practically laughed at me (as, I have to admit, the AT&T service representative told me they would). And the thief even called a two people in the same town (I had the numbers on my statement!) within hours after it was taken (before I cancelled it). Unfortunately it was pre GPS days. But jeez, you watch a cop show on TV where they can solve a murder by looking at the contents of the victim's stomach and you think the real police are actually competent.
Then again, these days in urban areas there are literally dozens or hundreds of phones lost and stolen every day, they basically just don't give a shit about your $400 loss when they have so many uninvestigated violent crimes and felony thefts to deal with...
Although Google was significantly undervalued at the time.
Google was definitely undervalued at the IPO price - but then again, they dropped the price from ~$130 to $85 right before the offering as well as reducing the number of shares. Basically the opposite of Facebook's approach, and that psychology of supply and demand was definitely a factor in its rapid growth. But I don't think they were all that undervalued over all given the conservative market at the time (and seeing how all of the other search engines were getting hammered) - no one had ever seen an Internet company IPO remotely like theirs, so it felt pretty risky. Once they blew away forecasts the next quarter, though, that risk concern disappeared pretty quickly...
The market needed to see a big tech IPO "succeed", so they basically guaranteed it (after which time investor confidence helped it go through the roof). Again, Facebook and their underwriters - whether through arrogance or greed, or maybe both - took the exact opposite approach, and big surprise, it had the opposite results!
I posted this on a previous article Friday after about *5* minutes of "research". If someone investing large amounts of their own money can't do this same trivial research, they deserve what they get.
Summary: Facebook was valued about 3-4x multiple of what Google was at its IPO with similar financials, and that *without* the literal explosion of revenue income that Google was experiencing at the time. It should have been priced closer to $15-20 (at the most!), with a *very* conservative forecast for growth (ie. expecting it to triple in a year like Google without the growth to justify it is investing in fantasyland!)
====
Google had $3.2B in revenue in 2004, and their IPO made them worth about $24B. Their net income the quarter preceding the IPO was $80M, and diluted EPS was $0.30. Facebook had $3.7B in revenue in 2011, and their IPO made them worth over $100B. Net income last quarter was $137M, and EPS was $0.09.
Revenue and income are clearly in the same ballpark, but valuation and EPS sure aren't. Seems to me FB is in fact way overvalued right now...
And even more interesting to note is Google's revenue and income took off like a hockey stick in the quarters following their IPO (and thus so did the stock). I just don't see Facebook's revenue doing the same. There may soon be a lot of disappointed investors who naively assumed FB stock would be going the same route as GOOG just because it's a "trendy company" rather than actually looking at the financials...
I hope they aren't breaking any strategic weapons treaties with those beads!
You know China is just going to come up with a 150m bead, and the US will have to respond. Pretty soon it's going to be one Mardi Gras mistake away from world destruction.
I guess unlike you, some Slashdot users actually think teaching *is* a real job. Go back to your Santorum rallies if you want to talk to someone who thinks a college education makes you "elitist".
Well, by *definition* there are exactly 6 other G7 countries. Though now it's called the G7, so there are 7 others. Not sure if that counts as "lots". Even less sure what the G7/G8 has to do with all of this.
Umm, that's not how lobbying (or kickbacks) works. Lobbyists work *for* the RIAA, so they are the ones who will now give the kickbacks to the judges deciding in their favor;)
Not every post on slashdot requires you to to try to apply your favorite logical fallacy, you know:)
And besides - as CmdrTaco used to say whenever people whined about this sort of thing - this is a US-based site. As such it sometimes focuses on American technology and politics. And it inherently uses American English idiom, so get over it.
And to even think about making out you have to already know what "making out" means. (hmm, I meant that as another example of American English idiom, but I suppose it could be taken as the usual slashdot commentary...)
It doesn't lower working capital if you make so much income the dividends are only a portion of it. In that case it just slows the increase of working capital. And with $100B in the bank, Apple really doesn't have to worry about having sufficient cash for growth.
And dividends are currently taxed at the same rate as long term capital gains, so it's a perfectly good investment strategy for conservative investors who want to buy large, profitable companies with reasonably small growth. If you had bought AT&T or Wal-Mart stock 5 years ago you'd have made almost 0% profit selling it now if they didn't pay dividends. But since they do, you would have instead *annually* made about 3% on Wal-Mart and 6% on AT&T (ie. 15-30% over the whole period). That's a hell of a lot better than many investments have made in the last 5 years...
Now, for now, their friends are not on Google+ -- but that can turn on a dime. All it needs it Google to care about taking that top spot from Facebook. A good six month marketing strategy, some high profile users, and Facebook is a dead as MySpace.
If Google wants to be taken seriously in social networking, the first thing they need to do is figure out how to get female users to sign up. Facebook has more than 50% female customer base, but (at least on my feed) they make up the clear majority of the actual posts, photo uploads, comments, Farmville invites (ugh) etc. Let's face it, women are just naturally more social:)
And Google+ is what, like 70% male? And it seems like most of the posts I see on G+ are tech or business related. It's become a geek-tech-social networking site, which I have to admit is boring as hell. If they don't change their image soon it's going to go the way of Orkut (just with techies instead of Brazilians:)
The US hasn't been subsidizing US manufacturers, they have been subsidizing new car purchases in general. The goal was to get people spending money and get some clunkers off the road, not prop up US manufacturers. I'm pretty sure the government has paid more subsidies to people buying a Toyota Prius than any other model...
GM and Chrysler were bailed out by buying stock in them to allow them to go through bankruptcy without shutting down. But that's a very different thing from just giving them cash for each car they make so that they can sell them below production cost to compete unfairly with other manufacturers.
That's not true. This information is all public and easy to look up...
Google had $3.2B in revenue in 2004, and their IPO made them worth about $24B. Their net income the quarter preceding the IPO was $80M, and diluted EPS was $0.30. Facebook had $3.7B in revenue in 2011, and their IPO made them worth over $100B. Net income last quarter was $137M, and EPS was $0.09.
Revenue and income are clearly in the same ballpark, but valuation and EPS sure aren't. Seems to me FB is in fact way overvalued right now...
And even more interesting to note is Google's revenue and income took off like a hockey stick in the quarters following their IPO (and thus so did the stock). I just don't see Facebook's revenue doing the same. There may soon be a lot of disappointed investors who naively assumed FB stock would be going the same route as GOOG just because it's a "trendy company" rather than actually looking at the financials...
OnDemand users can already stream that content on their cable box without touching their internet connection
Actually, if you have a CableCard-based box (like Tivo) you can't use OnDemand on your cable box. You can use it on the XBox in that case, for example, but it's just the same IP data as any other XBox app (except for the fact it doesn't go towards your cap).
And the very problem is that, yes, under the hood it *is* going over the same pipes, so either it is causing extra load on their network or it isn't. And in either case, that's what net neutrality is all about - NOT allowing the last mile provider (who is/was often granted a local monopoly by the government, so yes, it makes sense that the FCC can regulate them) to prefer their *content* over someone else's, whether that's in terms of pricing, QoS, or data caps.
Slashdot Mirror
However, this does highlight solar PV's strength - you get the most power when you need it.
People have to remember that many parts of the world (Germany, especially) actually uses *more* energy in the winter (and it's more important that it be available - AC for the most part is a modern convenience, but heat it necessary to survive), it's just not traditionally via electricity generation. Natural gas and heating oil are also non-renewable hydrocarbon-based energy sources. A long term solution to power needs to replace *all* form of non-renewable, CO2-generating energy...
And that *concept* is exactly what the GP post said it is. Free speech as a concept originated to protect your right to express your opinion about the government without prosecution, and it has NOTHING to do with allowing trolls to harass people on a PRIVATELY RUN service.
Go stand up in a movie theater some time and try to exercise your free speech, and see how fast you get kicked out of their privately owned building. And good luck trying to sue them for impinging your right to "free speech".
If people were willing to pay more for goods we wouldn't have destroyed our domestic manufacturing industry in the first place.
Well... though I live in a larger city now, I grew up in a town of 20k, and my girlfriend grew up in a town of 4k - in fact, she grew up across the street from my grandparents. Which made it slightly less weird (given we live 2000 miles from said town) when the chief of police in her hometown messaged her on Facebook just to check if *my* grandmother was on vacation because he noticed her newspaper hadn't been picked up in 2 days.
Anyway - I have seen *real* small town police who care about (and know) the residents (and, honestly, don't have all that much to do sometimes) which is why I was wondering :)
Those people who actually solve crimes on TV shows are detectives and forensics
Sorry, couldn't resist - there I fixed it for you :)
The truth is, there's a lot of crime and not a lot of money for cops. And for most individuals who are burglarized, there's rarely enough evidence to even begin an investigation.
Yes, and that's the entire POINT of the article. Call them out on it and it WILL change.
And this guy had the arrogance/stupidity to abuse his power to get unfair attention in BERKELEY, a city where even the council members think of their police force as "dirty pigs". Basically, at this point he should probably be looking for a new job because they are never going to let it rest...
Do you live in a small town? I tried to report my phone stolen and they practically laughed at me (as, I have to admit, the AT&T service representative told me they would). And the thief even called a two people in the same town (I had the numbers on my statement!) within hours after it was taken (before I cancelled it). Unfortunately it was pre GPS days. But jeez, you watch a cop show on TV where they can solve a murder by looking at the contents of the victim's stomach and you think the real police are actually competent.
Then again, these days in urban areas there are literally dozens or hundreds of phones lost and stolen every day, they basically just don't give a shit about your $400 loss when they have so many uninvestigated violent crimes and felony thefts to deal with...
Although Google was significantly undervalued at the time.
Google was definitely undervalued at the IPO price - but then again, they dropped the price from ~$130 to $85 right before the offering as well as reducing the number of shares. Basically the opposite of Facebook's approach, and that psychology of supply and demand was definitely a factor in its rapid growth. But I don't think they were all that undervalued over all given the conservative market at the time (and seeing how all of the other search engines were getting hammered) - no one had ever seen an Internet company IPO remotely like theirs, so it felt pretty risky. Once they blew away forecasts the next quarter, though, that risk concern disappeared pretty quickly...
The market needed to see a big tech IPO "succeed", so they basically guaranteed it (after which time investor confidence helped it go through the roof). Again, Facebook and their underwriters - whether through arrogance or greed, or maybe both - took the exact opposite approach, and big surprise, it had the opposite results!
I posted this on a previous article Friday after about *5* minutes of "research". If someone investing large amounts of their own money can't do this same trivial research, they deserve what they get.
Summary: Facebook was valued about 3-4x multiple of what Google was at its IPO with similar financials, and that *without* the literal explosion of revenue income that Google was experiencing at the time. It should have been priced closer to $15-20 (at the most!), with a *very* conservative forecast for growth (ie. expecting it to triple in a year like Google without the growth to justify it is investing in fantasyland!)
====
Google had $3.2B in revenue in 2004, and their IPO made them worth about $24B. Their net income the quarter preceding the IPO was $80M, and diluted EPS was $0.30.
Facebook had $3.7B in revenue in 2011, and their IPO made them worth over $100B. Net income last quarter was $137M, and EPS was $0.09.
Revenue and income are clearly in the same ballpark, but valuation and EPS sure aren't. Seems to me FB is in fact way overvalued right now...
And even more interesting to note is Google's revenue and income took off like a hockey stick in the quarters following their IPO (and thus so did the stock). I just don't see Facebook's revenue doing the same. There may soon be a lot of disappointed investors who naively assumed FB stock would be going the same route as GOOG just because it's a "trendy company" rather than actually looking at the financials...
The next step is Chaos(tm) tracking technology.
I hope they aren't breaking any strategic weapons treaties with those beads!
You know China is just going to come up with a 150m bead, and the US will have to respond. Pretty soon it's going to be one Mardi Gras mistake away from world destruction.
I guess unlike you, some Slashdot users actually think teaching *is* a real job. Go back to your Santorum rallies if you want to talk to someone who thinks a college education makes you "elitist".
Lots of other G7 countries out there...
Well, by *definition* there are exactly 6 other G7 countries. Though now it's called the G7, so there are 7 others. Not sure if that counts as "lots". Even less sure what the G7/G8 has to do with all of this.
Umm, that's not how lobbying (or kickbacks) works. Lobbyists work *for* the RIAA, so they are the ones who will now give the kickbacks to the judges deciding in their favor ;)
Just as your entire post means nothing to people who don't speak English, big deal.
No matter what language you speak, you inherently use idiom all the time. So, hey, you learned a new one today! Congrats.
No, I think that's called "thrown out trying to steal third".
I'm not begging the question, I'm making a joke.
Not every post on slashdot requires you to to try to apply your favorite logical fallacy, you know :)
And besides - as CmdrTaco used to say whenever people whined about this sort of thing - this is a US-based site. As such it sometimes focuses on American technology and politics. And it inherently uses American English idiom, so get over it.
And to even think about making out you have to already know what "making out" means. (hmm, I meant that as another example of American English idiom, but I suppose it could be taken as the usual slashdot commentary...)
Oh come on, you don't have to be from the US to imagine a Greek judge making out with a music executive.
...and, bonus, not one, but two floppy drives!
http://oldcomputers.net/ibm5155.html
It doesn't lower working capital if you make so much income the dividends are only a portion of it. In that case it just slows the increase of working capital. And with $100B in the bank, Apple really doesn't have to worry about having sufficient cash for growth.
And dividends are currently taxed at the same rate as long term capital gains, so it's a perfectly good investment strategy for conservative investors who want to buy large, profitable companies with reasonably small growth. If you had bought AT&T or Wal-Mart stock 5 years ago you'd have made almost 0% profit selling it now if they didn't pay dividends. But since they do, you would have instead *annually* made about 3% on Wal-Mart and 6% on AT&T (ie. 15-30% over the whole period). That's a hell of a lot better than many investments have made in the last 5 years...
Now, for now, their friends are not on Google+ -- but that can turn on a dime. All it needs it Google to care about taking that top spot from Facebook. A good six month marketing strategy, some high profile users, and Facebook is a dead as MySpace.
If Google wants to be taken seriously in social networking, the first thing they need to do is figure out how to get female users to sign up. Facebook has more than 50% female customer base, but (at least on my feed) they make up the clear majority of the actual posts, photo uploads, comments, Farmville invites (ugh) etc. Let's face it, women are just naturally more social :)
And Google+ is what, like 70% male? And it seems like most of the posts I see on G+ are tech or business related. It's become a geek-tech-social networking site, which I have to admit is boring as hell. If they don't change their image soon it's going to go the way of Orkut (just with techies instead of Brazilians :)
The US hasn't been subsidizing US manufacturers, they have been subsidizing new car purchases in general. The goal was to get people spending money and get some clunkers off the road, not prop up US manufacturers. I'm pretty sure the government has paid more subsidies to people buying a Toyota Prius than any other model...
GM and Chrysler were bailed out by buying stock in them to allow them to go through bankruptcy without shutting down. But that's a very different thing from just giving them cash for each car they make so that they can sell them below production cost to compete unfairly with other manufacturers.
That's not true. This information is all public and easy to look up...
Google had $3.2B in revenue in 2004, and their IPO made them worth about $24B. Their net income the quarter preceding the IPO was $80M, and diluted EPS was $0.30.
Facebook had $3.7B in revenue in 2011, and their IPO made them worth over $100B. Net income last quarter was $137M, and EPS was $0.09.
Revenue and income are clearly in the same ballpark, but valuation and EPS sure aren't. Seems to me FB is in fact way overvalued right now...
And even more interesting to note is Google's revenue and income took off like a hockey stick in the quarters following their IPO (and thus so did the stock). I just don't see Facebook's revenue doing the same. There may soon be a lot of disappointed investors who naively assumed FB stock would be going the same route as GOOG just because it's a "trendy company" rather than actually looking at the financials...
How about just limiting to Comcast IPs? (or if you want to be really clever, traceroute and give up if you see it leave Comcast's network).
OnDemand users can already stream that content on their cable box without touching their internet connection
Actually, if you have a CableCard-based box (like Tivo) you can't use OnDemand on your cable box. You can use it on the XBox in that case, for example, but it's just the same IP data as any other XBox app (except for the fact it doesn't go towards your cap).
And the very problem is that, yes, under the hood it *is* going over the same pipes, so either it is causing extra load on their network or it isn't. And in either case, that's what net neutrality is all about - NOT allowing the last mile provider (who is/was often granted a local monopoly by the government, so yes, it makes sense that the FCC can regulate them) to prefer their *content* over someone else's, whether that's in terms of pricing, QoS, or data caps.