Hard disk drive production capacity is far higher than demand, hence HDD manufacturers are having a harder time making a profit.
Why is this? Well three simple reasons spring to mind.
1. Current HDD capacities far exceed most users current demands.
OK, so you have more than one drive in your PC, but how many of the billion PCs sold have more than one? Servers do but they make up a very small (albeit highly profitable) segment of the HDD market. Most are installed in desktop PCs and, nowadays, most people don't use more than a fraction of the 20GB+ drives that come with a modern PC. Heck, even 5GB, the kind of capacity that was typical on an entry-level desktop three years ago is more than most users get through.
(Remember, not everyone is a MP3-fiend.)
2. We're buying fewer PCs.
Companies are buying fewer machines, as are private individuals.
Companies because the desktops that they've being buying lately need to be replaced less frequently than was previously the case (because the desktops they bought three years ago still run today's software comfortably), and because they are finding few new areas (ones that they haven't already covered) where a PC will help streamline operations. The current state of the global economy doesn't help either.
The same is essentially true for private individuals too. Anyone who wants a PC already likely has one, so why buy another one (especially in an uncertain economic climate) if the old one does the trick?
No new PC means no new HDD.
3. HDDs are now commodities.
Once something becomes ubiquitous and readily available, as HDDs have in the last five years, then it no longer demands a price premium. Fiercer competition means small profits, which means less reason to stay in the business, especially a business that ties up so much capital in the first place (in R&D and fabrication costs).
Examining these factors, especially the last one, it's not too hard to see why so many companies have exited the HDD business recently.
That isn't a racist statement. If you had instead slated someone elses religion in an insulting way, then that would be racist.
For example, if you started referring to 'those filthy kikes' or 'goddamn pig-fucking Muslims' - that would be racist.
Expressing happiness for your own religion/race should not be construed as racist.
Err, Muslims are semites. Just like Jews, they consider pigs to be filthy animals and don't eat pork (or, as Jules from Pulp Fiction would say, they don't dig on swine). The idea that a Muslim would lie down with a pig isn't intrinsically racist, but it is highly offensive to a Muslim.
Arguably, by even suggesting that Muslims would have intimate contacts with pigs, your words are more inflammatory than you perhaps originally imagined. In essence, your examples of how to cause offence are highly offensive, ignorant of the Islamic faith and, as such, could be interpreted as racist.
'cyberbuffs are afflicted with "insufficient perspective, disdain for history, unnecessary futurology and technophilia."'
Classic marketing/financial services speak, to be expected from a banker quoted by the WSJ I suppose. Anyway, here's what that means:
"People who are keen on the internet don't look further than their noses and take a narrow view, have little consideration for what came before and have an unhealthy obsession for the latest technology and the next big thing."
A nice, sweeping generalisation, that's more anecdotal than scientific. (Or, put simpler, they don't have any numbers to back up what they say but, hey, everyone knows it's true don't they?)
If you can say something in an "artistic" way, use lots of long, fluffy words, instead of a straightforward manner, using plain, simple language, then a job in public relations or investment banking awaits you.
And people in those industries wonder why we don't believe everything they say...
I live in the UK, not the US, so I don't consider this list exhaustive, but here are a handful of US imports that I watch that have award-calibre writing:
1. Law & Order: A cops and lawyers drama series with some excellent dialogue. Amongst the regulars, Det. Lennie Briscoe (played by Jerry Orbach) and EADA Jack McCoy (Sam Waterston) have the best lines - perhaps some of the wittiest and sharpest on TV at the moment. The other members of the cast are less blessed - because the characters they play are less vivacious - but they still get to deliver some cutting one-liners.
2. The West Wing: What can I say? The best thing on TV. Well written, well acted, thought-provoking yet often heart-touching drama. OK, so President Jed Bartlett (Martin Sheen) lives in a world with fewer shades of grey than the real one but the contrast between a President that knows what he's talking about and the clown that's currently in the Oval Office is striking - as is the quality of this show.
3. C.S.I.: Crime Scene Investigation: Once again, great penmanship but complimented by some great special effects. Gil Grissom (William L. Petersen), head of the crime lab, gets the best lines (as all male leads tend to do) but even the lab geek, Greg Sanders (Eric Szmanda), gets some smart scenes of his own.
There are others that I can mention too - mini-series such as 24 and Band Of Brothers spring to mind - but Buffy The Vampire Slayer is way, way down the list.
On holiday (in Playa del Ingles, Grand Canary, in the Canary Islands recently) I spotted two fully boxed Atari 2600 systems for sale for 15 Euros (~ GBP10/15USD) each. Also on sale were at least four clone systems at 10 Euros a pop.
I was tempted to buy one - £10 for a piece of history! - but decided not to as I'm sure the one that I had as a kid is lying in the loft right now just aching to be brought down again.
So, if you want an Atari 2600, and a holiday in the sun to boot, visit Playa. The store concerned is a TV, video and music outlet one the first floor of the "Jumbo Centre" shopping precinct.
Something similar has been done before... The only problem being you can't trust taco to leave these polls alone... The Who won by millions of votes, if i remember correctly.
Well, I did look for a prior poll before writing my post. I specifically searched through the polls for "musio", "musician", "band", "artist" and came up empty.
If there is a relevant poll that you know of, could you please provide a link to it?
If the reports about WorldCom are accurate then this is Enron all over again.
In today's economic environment, accountancy practices are under closer scrutiny than ever before - and not before time. The only reason why Enron were able to get away with fraud and misrepresentation on such a grand scale was because everyone - the accountants, the analysts, and the investors - had their eyes closed to the obvious.
Hindsight is 20/20, but even an idiot could tell you that, in an era where companies lie about just about everything, anything said by a CEO, issued by a press officer or printed in an annual report should be taken with a very large pinch of salt.
Post-Enron, the markets are very jittery, and many investors have lost faith entirely - if a seemingly sure-fire, blue-chip company like Enron can fall then anyone can. Freefall is an exaggeration, but compare how quickly the markets bounced back from September 11 to how badly they've reacted to the ongoing crisis of faith sparked off by the Enron/Andersen fiasco.
Witness how even the slightest sign of weakness is being jumped upon by analysts. Profits warnings and other negative indicators that would have shrugged off just twelve months ago are now being forensically examined by paranoid dealers anxious not to get caught out a second time.
One things for sure: there are a few more timebombs ticking away out there. Enron may have been just the first of many.
The bottom line is this: it's going to be some time until the markets recover and it's going to be longer still until we see the kind of market gains that we experienced in the 80's and 90's.
The US isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic. You (unless you happened to be an elected official) don't make the laws - you elect people to do that for you.
The people of Russia do the same.
Yeltsin turned the Russian gov't into a virtual dictatorship then handed it over to a former KGB spook.
In 1991, when a military coup threatened to overthrow Mikhail Gorbachev's government and put an end to the democratic reforms that he had begun, Boris Yeltsin risked his life opposing them and championed the cause of a truly democratic Russia.
When was the last time you put your life on the line for democracy? When was the last time an official in the upper echelons of the US government did the same?
And Russian President Vladimir Putin is a former KGB operative - so what? Weren't US Presidents J Edgar Hoover and George Bush Sr CIA chiefs?
Furthermore, Yeltsin didn't just "hand over" anything to anyone - Putin was democratically elected to his post by a majority of the Russian people. Which is more than can be said of George W Bush.
An uninformed populus is fed bullshit through state-owned media outlets while Putin pays lip-service to a castrated Duma and does whatever he wants.
Oh dear. Do you really think that the average American has a clue about global affairs? About how the rest of the world views them? Do you think the news that you get on CNN, ABC, MSNBC, etc is evenhanded and unbiased? Do you really think that Senators and Congressmen serve their constituents before they serve themselves? Do you really believe that Dubya is a good president, serving America's long-term interests?
Two facts for you to think about.
1. Only 5 percent of Americans have passports - what does that suggest to you about Joe Average's knowledge of other nations, cultures and societies?
2. The biggest library in the US is the Library of Congress. It's paid for by taxpayers but taxpayers can't use it.
I suggest that, in the future, before you completely write-off other societies (especially those that you have no first-hand knowledge of) that you first examine the one you live in first.
I copied Moby's newest CD, and am glad I did. It really isn't very good, original, or otherwise worth $15.
I think you proved his point.
So you didn't immediately fall in love with '18'. That doesn't give you the right to copy it, does it?
I'm sure you're going to justify this here or in your head some how. Here are a few easy options for you:
1. As soon as you decide you like it then you're going to rush out and buy a legitimate copy; 2. You don't think that you should have to pay for anything less than the best, and this isn't it so you don't ever have to pay for it; or 3. Hey, I already bought one of his albums and he's not going hungry right? Where's the victim?
Frankly, I don't care which of these you pick - they're all lame excuses and you know it. You just want something for nothing.
(And don't even pretend that you making a copy is "try before you buy". As plenty of other posters have pointed out, there are several ecommerce websites where you can listen to the tracks before parting with your cash. And, nowadays, many of these websites, as well as many bricks and mortar retailers, will gladly refund your money on any purchases with which you're not entirely happy.)
Whether or not you like his music or his polictics, the bottom line is that Moby is right: tech-savvy fans are far more likely to make or own illegal copies of CDs, simply because the have the means and the know how to make perfect copies.
I fail to see how an artist pointing this out (especially a conciencious artist such as Moby) is reason for a public stoning.
I don't know about the rest of the Slashdot crowd but I know I speak for more than a handful of people when I say that Gattaca was perhaps one of the best pieces of sci-fi that I've ever seen on the big screen.
Yeah, it doesn't have a ton of special effects but the film has everything - a good basic story, a few twists along the way, some great performances and a message that stays with you longer than the time it takes for the end credits to finish.
Compared to today's average "sci-fi" film - dross that's nothing more than eye candy, such as ID4 - Gattaca is mana from heaven.
If only all sci-fi was as beautifully-crafted and thought-provoking.
If a crack dealer supplies a junkie with the dope that he uses to get high and commit crimes with, does that make the dealer responsible for the junkie's armed robbery?
No, it doesn't.
Similarly, acting as an arms dealer doesn't make you a combatant nation. The US poured weapons and expertise into Afghanistan to help its people fight the Soviet Union - does that mean the US and the USSR were at war?
No, it doesn't.
The French sold Exocet anti-ship missiles to the Argentinian military, which were used to devastating effect against British ships in the Falklands War - does that mean France and Britain were at war?
No, it doesn't.
The US did provide some assitance to the allies prior to Pearl Harbour, but it all came with a price tag. It wasn't called the Lend-Lease Act for nothing.
And, pardon me for saying so, but anyone who charges you for using their hose when your house is on fire isn't a true friend.
Go read a history book. Britain and France declared war on Nazi Germany at the start of September 1939 not because of any direct threat that they faced but because of the German invasion of Poland.
Hitler gambled that Britain and France would do nothing. He was proved wrong, and World War Two began.
The option of further appeasing Germany was always available but Britain and France had agreed (and they made it publicly clear to Hitler) that any unprovoked German aggression against Poland would lead to a declaration of war.
To even suggest that Britain and France pretended to look the other way until the war was being fought on their soil is hilarious. (Tell me, just exactly when did the German invasion of mainland Britain occur? In either WWI or WWII?)
America chose to sit out of the war for as long as possible. Churchill repeatedly told Roosevelt that the US couldn't sit on the sidelines forever but American public opinion was so opposed to intervention that the hands of the American president and military were effectively tied.
The US could have entered the war - just like Canada had done. It just chose not to.
This is exactly what I mean when I talk about revisionism - you don't like the facts so you massage them to suit your purpose and stroke your ego.
Next time, take my original advice. Read a damn history book before you open your mouth.
Especially those of us with relatives who lost their lives saving Europe.
Perhaps you should stop living off the backs of others.
Or, maybe the Brits can get off their high horses and act POLITELY towards Americans. Considering how we saved them, it's not that much to ask.
And perhaps you should open your eyes while you're at it - who the hell do you think is standing shoulder to shoulder with the US on its new-found war on "global" terrorism? Yes, Britain. The same Britain that was politely told to take a hike by George Bush Sr. during his term in office when it asked for the help of the US government in stopping the flow of funds from US citizens to the IRA, which was busy blowing up British politicians, soldiers, policemen and civilians. why? Because denying US citizens the right to fund terrorist groups murdering innocent men, women and children was considered "a violation of their first amendment rights".
Brits act politely towards Americans? Perhaps Americans could start doing the same towards Brits (and everyone else).
You mean a year or two after the Swiss? Spain? Portugal? Sweden? All of these European counties at least initially claimed neutrality.
Oh I see. You were expecting the Swiss to get involved in a major conflict? Fat chance.
For centuries the Swiss have always maintained neutrality. It's been their method of retaining their sovreignty throughout the ages whilst the rest of continental Europe was in flux - Empires and nations came and went but the Swiss kept out of it all and, amazingly, they survived intact.
Even today, the Swiss are paranoid about maintaining their traditional position. In recent years the subject has been a matter of national debate, and topics as radical as whether or not the Swiss military should carry guns(!) have taken place.
Most impressively, Switzerland has now (finally) become a full member of the United Nations. For years, the country held "UN Observer Status", which basically meant that it had its beady eye on the UN but was not a member of the club and never got involved. God knows what harm just joining up like the rest of the world would do - they could always have abstained from every vote.
But that's the Swiss for you - a truly strange nation.
This, of course, doesn't change the fact that, throughout history, the United States has traditionally sat on its butt and done jack shit unless its hand was forced.
The US only got involved in World War One in 1917, three years after the conflict started, and even then it only sent a token force into combat. In World War Two, it took a direct smack in the face (Pearl Harbour) to wake the US up from the dream that it could isolate itself from world affairs. Even then the US only declared war on Japan - it took Germany's declaration of war on the US for America to get involved in the war in Europe.
So, next time you (or one of the hundreds of other Stars-and-Stripes-loving revisionists on Slashdot) feel like talking about how nobody else apart from America does anything, please have at least a passing knowledge of history.
Unless the agreement I assume UK Tivo owners have to agree to for service covers this, isn't this some form of invasion of privacy?
Oh wait. I forgot, that's all gone in the UK.
Yeah, troll away. Be an ignorant fool all your life. Take the easy option.
For your information, the British do have some legally enshrined rights to privacy, some granted by British law, others granted by European Union law.
Included in these is Britain's Data Protection Act. Basically, the DPA governs every detail of how companies treat all the computer-held data that they have on their customers, employees, etc.
One nice benefit of the DPA is that I can demand a company disclose all the information that they have on me. They can charge a nominal fee for this (£10 ~ US$15) but they must comply within a set time limit. And, obviously, if their information is incorrect or harmful in any way they can be made to correct it (and I have the right to take appropriate legal action if I want to).
Now, I can demand that of my credit card provider, my bank, my doctor, my employer, my accountant, my gym, my golf club or anyone else who holds information about me. Try asking that of similar institutions in the US and elsewhere and see how far you get.
Yes, our laws are different. Yes, you have some rights that you'd cut off your right arm than give up (gun ownership anyone?) but, remember, we have some that you'd cut off the other one too to have.
NASA shuts things off, Homer says D'oh!
on
Resurrecting NEAR
·
· Score: 2
This is a damn good question.
I'm not sure why but it is highly likely that there were any power generation concerns. Solar cells generate less electricity the further you get away from the Sun (yeah, I know it's obvious) and batteries/battery backups will have been limited in size and capacity, if only to keep down launch costs - if you run a space agency on a limited budget you don't put up any more mass than you need.
This topic and your question remind me of a conversation I had with one of my astronomy professors whilst at university many moons ago (if you pardon the pun) about the Apollo landings and their ongoing scientific value.
It seems that, at some point in the late seventies, many of the remote probes and instruments that NASA left behind were sending back more data than NASA could process. So, rather than leave them running indefinitely (which was an option as they had efficient solar cells and lower power demands) the bean counters at NASA told the various devices to shut themselves off - something that couldn't be reversed.
A few years later (well, maybe about 10-15, but who's counting?) some people at NASA decided they wanted some fresh numbers from the moon. Technology had moved on, computers were more powerful and accessible, and there was so much more that could be extracted from the raw data that could help NASA elsewhere (cometary studies, researching manned and unmanned missions to Mars to name but two). Now all NASA had to do was to get this new data was to add a new series of lunar missions to its already cash-strapped budget.
Apparently, there was a series of meetings in which it dawned on the boffins that they had had exactly what they wanted - except that, at some stage, someone had taken the executive decision to pull the plug. Millions of dollars thrown down the drain at the flick of one switch. According to my professor, all hell broke loose and the mother of all fingerpointing wars started.
Homer Simpson would have been proud.
Even today, there's at least one person I know of whose still ticked off at NASA for that toss-a-coin decision.
Bottom line: NASA et al turn things off all the time. A few years later, they wish they hadn't.
The article explains some of the myths and realities about game console pricing, how the current price war is playing out, why Sony is winning, and why Microsoft is losing.
It's a strange world where loosing money faster than your competitors is decribed as "winning". Seems to me that, not too long ago, that's how many.coms "won" too.
(Not that I expect to see Sony or Microsoft appearing on the pages of www.fuckedcompany.com any time soon - they both have very deep pockets - but it's an interesting parallel. And yes, I know it's all about market share and the razors/razor blades business model...)
Imagine your neighbour was putting up a shed in his back garden that overlooked the sandpit that your kids played in. But, because he's never done something like this before he's enlisted the help of the expert builder who lives down the street to help him make sure that the shed's built safely (using the appropriate materials and methods, etc) so that it won't accidentally fall over and squash your kids one day.
In that scenario, why on earth would you stop the good samaritan from making sure that the job was done well? Especially when you know the alternative is that your neighbour will still build the shed but is bound to do a less than perfect job of it?
Why wouldn't you want that shed to be the safest shed in the world?
Hint: because not wanting your neighbour to have a shed at all is clouding your better judgement.
Some people would call this pig-headedness. Others would call it cutting your nose off to spite your face. Or shortsighted. Me? Well, I just call it dumb.
Slashdot Mirror
You took the words right out of my mouth.
Hard disk drive production capacity is far higher than demand, hence HDD manufacturers are having a harder time making a profit.
Why is this? Well three simple reasons spring to mind.
1. Current HDD capacities far exceed most users current demands.
OK, so you have more than one drive in your PC, but how many of the billion PCs sold have more than one? Servers do but they make up a very small (albeit highly profitable) segment of the HDD market. Most are installed in desktop PCs and, nowadays, most people don't use more than a fraction of the 20GB+ drives that come with a modern PC. Heck, even 5GB, the kind of capacity that was typical on an entry-level desktop three years ago is more than most users get through.
(Remember, not everyone is a MP3-fiend.)
2. We're buying fewer PCs.
Companies are buying fewer machines, as are private individuals.
Companies because the desktops that they've being buying lately need to be replaced less frequently than was previously the case (because the desktops they bought three years ago still run today's software comfortably), and because they are finding few new areas (ones that they haven't already covered) where a PC will help streamline operations. The current state of the global economy doesn't help either.
The same is essentially true for private individuals too. Anyone who wants a PC already likely has one, so why buy another one (especially in an uncertain economic climate) if the old one does the trick?
No new PC means no new HDD.
3. HDDs are now commodities.
Once something becomes ubiquitous and readily available, as HDDs have in the last five years, then it no longer demands a price premium. Fiercer competition means small profits, which means less reason to stay in the business, especially a business that ties up so much capital in the first place (in R&D and fabrication costs).
Examining these factors, especially the last one, it's not too hard to see why so many companies have exited the HDD business recently.
That isn't a racist statement. If you had instead slated someone elses religion in an insulting way, then that would be racist.
For example, if you started referring to 'those filthy kikes' or 'goddamn pig-fucking Muslims' - that would be racist.
Expressing happiness for your own religion/race should not be construed as racist.
Err, Muslims are semites. Just like Jews, they consider pigs to be filthy animals and don't eat pork (or, as Jules from Pulp Fiction would say, they don't dig on swine). The idea that a Muslim would lie down with a pig isn't intrinsically racist, but it is highly offensive to a Muslim.
Arguably, by even suggesting that Muslims would have intimate contacts with pigs, your words are more inflammatory than you perhaps originally imagined. In essence, your examples of how to cause offence are highly offensive, ignorant of the Islamic faith and, as such, could be interpreted as racist.
Oh, the irony.
(FYI, I am not a Muslim. I'm just a pedant.)
'cyberbuffs are afflicted with "insufficient perspective, disdain for history, unnecessary futurology and technophilia."'
Classic marketing/financial services speak, to be expected from a banker quoted by the WSJ I suppose. Anyway, here's what that means:
"People who are keen on the internet don't look further than their noses and take a narrow view, have little consideration for what came before and have an unhealthy obsession for the latest technology and the next big thing."
A nice, sweeping generalisation, that's more anecdotal than scientific. (Or, put simpler, they don't have any numbers to back up what they say but, hey, everyone knows it's true don't they?)
If you can say something in an "artistic" way, use lots of long, fluffy words, instead of a straightforward manner, using plain, simple language, then a job in public relations or investment banking awaits you.
And people in those industries wonder why we don't believe everything they say...
I live in the UK, not the US, so I don't consider this list exhaustive, but here are a handful of US imports that I watch that have award-calibre writing:
1. Law & Order : A cops and lawyers drama series with some excellent dialogue. Amongst the regulars, Det. Lennie Briscoe (played by Jerry Orbach) and EADA Jack McCoy (Sam Waterston) have the best lines - perhaps some of the wittiest and sharpest on TV at the moment. The other members of the cast are less blessed - because the characters they play are less vivacious - but they still get to deliver some cutting one-liners.
2. The West Wing : What can I say? The best thing on TV. Well written, well acted, thought-provoking yet often heart-touching drama. OK, so President Jed Bartlett (Martin Sheen) lives in a world with fewer shades of grey than the real one but the contrast between a President that knows what he's talking about and the clown that's currently in the Oval Office is striking - as is the quality of this show.
3. C.S.I.: Crime Scene Investigation : Once again, great penmanship but complimented by some great special effects. Gil Grissom (William L. Petersen), head of the crime lab, gets the best lines (as all male leads tend to do) but even the lab geek, Greg Sanders (Eric Szmanda), gets some smart scenes of his own.
There are others that I can mention too - mini-series such as 24 and Band Of Brothers spring to mind - but Buffy The Vampire Slayer is way, way down the list.
On holiday (in Playa del Ingles, Grand Canary, in the Canary Islands recently) I spotted two fully boxed Atari 2600 systems for sale for 15 Euros (~ GBP10/15USD) each. Also on sale were at least four clone systems at 10 Euros a pop.
I was tempted to buy one - £10 for a piece of history! - but decided not to as I'm sure the one that I had as a kid is lying in the loft right now just aching to be brought down again.
So, if you want an Atari 2600, and a holiday in the sun to boot, visit Playa. The store concerned is a TV, video and music outlet one the first floor of the "Jumbo Centre" shopping precinct.
Enjoy.
Something similar has been done before... The only problem being you can't trust taco to leave these polls alone... The Who won by millions of votes, if i remember correctly.
Well, I did look for a prior poll before writing my post. I specifically searched through the polls for "musio", "musician", "band", "artist" and came up empty.
If there is a relevant poll that you know of, could you please provide a link to it?
Yeah, I realised as soon as I hit the "Submit" button that I had omitted Pink Floyd from my quickly compiled list.
I was quickly consoled by the knowledge that it wouldn't be long before someone pointed it out though...
OK, we know who CmdrTaco thinks is the greatest band of all time but how about we put the question to the /. community as a whole?
/. polls tell you: "Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.")
Here are some suggestions for bands that might make up poll options:
The Beach Boys
The Eagles
The Beatles
Oasis
Radiohead
The Rolling Stones
U2
The Who
Of course, feel free to add your own suggestions as to who should appear on the poll. We might not get a poll but we can at least discuss it.
(And, as all
I'll suggest the poll topic in a day or two. OK, it's over to the rest of you - who should and shouldn't be on the poll?
If the reports about WorldCom are accurate then this is Enron all over again.
In today's economic environment, accountancy practices are under closer scrutiny than ever before - and not before time. The only reason why Enron were able to get away with fraud and misrepresentation on such a grand scale was because everyone - the accountants, the analysts, and the investors - had their eyes closed to the obvious.
Hindsight is 20/20, but even an idiot could tell you that, in an era where companies lie about just about everything, anything said by a CEO, issued by a press officer or printed in an annual report should be taken with a very large pinch of salt.
Post-Enron, the markets are very jittery, and many investors have lost faith entirely - if a seemingly sure-fire, blue-chip company like Enron can fall then anyone can. Freefall is an exaggeration, but compare how quickly the markets bounced back from September 11 to how badly they've reacted to the ongoing crisis of faith sparked off by the Enron/Andersen fiasco.
Witness how even the slightest sign of weakness is being jumped upon by analysts. Profits warnings and other negative indicators that would have shrugged off just twelve months ago are now being forensically examined by paranoid dealers anxious not to get caught out a second time.
One things for sure: there are a few more timebombs ticking away out there. Enron may have been just the first of many.
The bottom line is this: it's going to be some time until the markets recover and it's going to be longer still until we see the kind of market gains that we experienced in the 80's and 90's.
Compare and contrast with the United States.
"Communist-turned-democratic" my ass.
Democratic my ass.
The US isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic. You (unless you happened to be an elected official) don't make the laws - you elect people to do that for you.
The people of Russia do the same.
Yeltsin turned the Russian gov't into a virtual dictatorship then handed it over to a former KGB spook.
In 1991, when a military coup threatened to overthrow Mikhail Gorbachev's government and put an end to the democratic reforms that he had begun, Boris Yeltsin risked his life opposing them and championed the cause of a truly democratic Russia.
When was the last time you put your life on the line for democracy? When was the last time an official in the upper echelons of the US government did the same?
And Russian President Vladimir Putin is a former KGB operative - so what? Weren't US Presidents J Edgar Hoover and George Bush Sr CIA chiefs?
Furthermore, Yeltsin didn't just "hand over" anything to anyone - Putin was democratically elected to his post by a majority of the Russian people. Which is more than can be said of George W Bush.
An uninformed populus is fed bullshit through state-owned media outlets while Putin pays lip-service to a castrated Duma and does whatever he wants.
Oh dear. Do you really think that the average American has a clue about global affairs? About how the rest of the world views them? Do you think the news that you get on CNN, ABC, MSNBC, etc is evenhanded and unbiased? Do you really think that Senators and Congressmen serve their constituents before they serve themselves? Do you really believe that Dubya is a good president, serving America's long-term interests?
Two facts for you to think about.
1. Only 5 percent of Americans have passports - what does that suggest to you about Joe Average's knowledge of other nations, cultures and societies?
2. The biggest library in the US is the Library of Congress. It's paid for by taxpayers but taxpayers can't use it.
I suggest that, in the future, before you completely write-off other societies (especially those that you have no first-hand knowledge of) that you first examine the one you live in first.
I copied Moby's newest CD, and am glad I did. It really isn't very good, original, or otherwise worth $15.
I think you proved his point.
So you didn't immediately fall in love with '18'. That doesn't give you the right to copy it, does it?
I'm sure you're going to justify this here or in your head some how. Here are a few easy options for you:
1. As soon as you decide you like it then you're going to rush out and buy a legitimate copy;
2. You don't think that you should have to pay for anything less than the best, and this isn't it so you don't ever have to pay for it; or
3. Hey, I already bought one of his albums and he's not going hungry right? Where's the victim?
Frankly, I don't care which of these you pick - they're all lame excuses and you know it. You just want something for nothing.
(And don't even pretend that you making a copy is "try before you buy". As plenty of other posters have pointed out, there are several ecommerce websites where you can listen to the tracks before parting with your cash. And, nowadays, many of these websites, as well as many bricks and mortar retailers, will gladly refund your money on any purchases with which you're not entirely happy.)
Whether or not you like his music or his polictics, the bottom line is that Moby is right: tech-savvy fans are far more likely to make or own illegal copies of CDs, simply because the have the means and the know how to make perfect copies.
I fail to see how an artist pointing this out (especially a conciencious artist such as Moby) is reason for a public stoning.
You thought Gattaca was a bad movie?
I don't know about the rest of the Slashdot crowd but I know I speak for more than a handful of people when I say that Gattaca was perhaps one of the best pieces of sci-fi that I've ever seen on the big screen.
Yeah, it doesn't have a ton of special effects but the film has everything - a good basic story, a few twists along the way, some great performances and a message that stays with you longer than the time it takes for the end credits to finish.
Compared to today's average "sci-fi" film - dross that's nothing more than eye candy, such as ID4 - Gattaca is mana from heaven.
If only all sci-fi was as beautifully-crafted and thought-provoking.
Have you read George Orwell's 1984?
The three slogans of the Party say it all:
War Is Peace
Slavery Is Freedom
Ignorance Is Strength
Not a large jump from those to Speilberg's "Safety Is Freedom".
(Check out http://www.newspeakdictionary.com for more, including the full text of 1984.)
If a crack dealer supplies a junkie with the dope that he uses to get high and commit crimes with, does that make the dealer responsible for the junkie's armed robbery?
No, it doesn't.
Similarly, acting as an arms dealer doesn't make you a combatant nation. The US poured weapons and expertise into Afghanistan to help its people fight the Soviet Union - does that mean the US and the USSR were at war?
No, it doesn't.
The French sold Exocet anti-ship missiles to the Argentinian military, which were used to devastating effect against British ships in the Falklands War - does that mean France and Britain were at war?
No, it doesn't.
The US did provide some assitance to the allies prior to Pearl Harbour, but it all came with a price tag. It wasn't called the Lend-Lease Act for nothing.
And, pardon me for saying so, but anyone who charges you for using their hose when your house is on fire isn't a true friend.
Go read a history book. Britain and France declared war on Nazi Germany at the start of September 1939 not because of any direct threat that they faced but because of the German invasion of Poland.
Hitler gambled that Britain and France would do nothing. He was proved wrong, and World War Two began.
The option of further appeasing Germany was always available but Britain and France had agreed (and they made it publicly clear to Hitler) that any unprovoked German aggression against Poland would lead to a declaration of war.
To even suggest that Britain and France pretended to look the other way until the war was being fought on their soil is hilarious. (Tell me, just exactly when did the German invasion of mainland Britain occur? In either WWI or WWII?)
America chose to sit out of the war for as long as possible. Churchill repeatedly told Roosevelt that the US couldn't sit on the sidelines forever but American public opinion was so opposed to intervention that the hands of the American president and military were effectively tied.
The US could have entered the war - just like Canada had done. It just chose not to.
This is exactly what I mean when I talk about revisionism - you don't like the facts so you massage them to suit your purpose and stroke your ego.
Next time, take my original advice. Read a damn history book before you open your mouth.
Especially those of us with relatives who lost their lives saving Europe.
Perhaps you should stop living off the backs of others.
Or, maybe the Brits can get off their high horses and act POLITELY towards Americans. Considering how we saved them, it's not that much to ask.
And perhaps you should open your eyes while you're at it - who the hell do you think is standing shoulder to shoulder with the US on its new-found war on "global" terrorism? Yes, Britain. The same Britain that was politely told to take a hike by George Bush Sr. during his term in office when it asked for the help of the US government in stopping the flow of funds from US citizens to the IRA, which was busy blowing up British politicians, soldiers, policemen and civilians. why? Because denying US citizens the right to fund terrorist groups murdering innocent men, women and children was considered "a violation of their first amendment rights".
Brits act politely towards Americans? Perhaps Americans could start doing the same towards Brits (and everyone else).
You mean a year or two after the Swiss? Spain? Portugal? Sweden? All of these European counties at least initially claimed neutrality.
Oh I see. You were expecting the Swiss to get involved in a major conflict? Fat chance.
For centuries the Swiss have always maintained neutrality. It's been their method of retaining their sovreignty throughout the ages whilst the rest of continental Europe was in flux - Empires and nations came and went but the Swiss kept out of it all and, amazingly, they survived intact.
Even today, the Swiss are paranoid about maintaining their traditional position. In recent years the subject has been a matter of national debate, and topics as radical as whether or not the Swiss military should carry guns(!) have taken place.
Most impressively, Switzerland has now (finally) become a full member of the United Nations. For years, the country held "UN Observer Status", which basically meant that it had its beady eye on the UN but was not a member of the club and never got involved. God knows what harm just joining up like the rest of the world would do - they could always have abstained from every vote.
But that's the Swiss for you - a truly strange nation.
This, of course, doesn't change the fact that, throughout history, the United States has traditionally sat on its butt and done jack shit unless its hand was forced.
The US only got involved in World War One in 1917, three years after the conflict started, and even then it only sent a token force into combat. In World War Two, it took a direct smack in the face (Pearl Harbour) to wake the US up from the dream that it could isolate itself from world affairs. Even then the US only declared war on Japan - it took Germany's declaration of war on the US for America to get involved in the war in Europe.
So, next time you (or one of the hundreds of other Stars-and-Stripes-loving revisionists on Slashdot) feel like talking about how nobody else apart from America does anything, please have at least a passing knowledge of history.
Arse, elbow. Nuff said.
Unless the agreement I assume UK Tivo owners have to agree to for service covers this, isn't this some form of invasion of privacy?
Oh wait. I forgot, that's all gone in the UK.
Yeah, troll away. Be an ignorant fool all your life. Take the easy option.
For your information, the British do have some legally enshrined rights to privacy, some granted by British law, others granted by European Union law.
Included in these is Britain's Data Protection Act. Basically, the DPA governs every detail of how companies treat all the computer-held data that they have on their customers, employees, etc.
One nice benefit of the DPA is that I can demand a company disclose all the information that they have on me. They can charge a nominal fee for this (£10 ~ US$15) but they must comply within a set time limit. And, obviously, if their information is incorrect or harmful in any way they can be made to correct it (and I have the right to take appropriate legal action if I want to).
Now, I can demand that of my credit card provider, my bank, my doctor, my employer, my accountant, my gym, my golf club or anyone else who holds information about me. Try asking that of similar institutions in the US and elsewhere and see how far you get.
Yes, our laws are different. Yes, you have some rights that you'd cut off your right arm than give up (gun ownership anyone?) but, remember, we have some that you'd cut off the other one too to have.
This is a damn good question.
I'm not sure why but it is highly likely that there were any power generation concerns. Solar cells generate less electricity the further you get away from the Sun (yeah, I know it's obvious) and batteries/battery backups will have been limited in size and capacity, if only to keep down launch costs - if you run a space agency on a limited budget you don't put up any more mass than you need.
This topic and your question remind me of a conversation I had with one of my astronomy professors whilst at university many moons ago (if you pardon the pun) about the Apollo landings and their ongoing scientific value.
It seems that, at some point in the late seventies, many of the remote probes and instruments that NASA left behind were sending back more data than NASA could process. So, rather than leave them running indefinitely (which was an option as they had efficient solar cells and lower power demands) the bean counters at NASA told the various devices to shut themselves off - something that couldn't be reversed.
A few years later (well, maybe about 10-15, but who's counting?) some people at NASA decided they wanted some fresh numbers from the moon. Technology had moved on, computers were more powerful and accessible, and there was so much more that could be extracted from the raw data that could help NASA elsewhere (cometary studies, researching manned and unmanned missions to Mars to name but two). Now all NASA had to do was to get this new data was to add a new series of lunar missions to its already cash-strapped budget.
Apparently, there was a series of meetings in which it dawned on the boffins that they had had exactly what they wanted - except that, at some stage, someone had taken the executive decision to pull the plug. Millions of dollars thrown down the drain at the flick of one switch. According to my professor, all hell broke loose and the mother of all fingerpointing wars started.
Homer Simpson would have been proud.
Even today, there's at least one person I know of whose still ticked off at NASA for that toss-a-coin decision.
Bottom line: NASA et al turn things off all the time. A few years later, they wish they hadn't.
Great, so those X-10 webcams featured in those annoying pop-up ads can fly now? Is there no end to the invasion of our privacy?
OK, first one to hack into these babies and have them looping-the-loop on demand officially has the best kung-fu.
The article explains some of the myths and realities about game console pricing, how the current price war is playing out, why Sony is winning, and why Microsoft is losing.
.coms "won" too.
It's a strange world where loosing money faster than your competitors is decribed as "winning". Seems to me that, not too long ago, that's how many
(Not that I expect to see Sony or Microsoft appearing on the pages of www.fuckedcompany.com any time soon - they both have very deep pockets - but it's an interesting parallel. And yes, I know it's all about market share and the razors/razor blades business model...)
Imagine your neighbour was putting up a shed in his back garden that overlooked the sandpit that your kids played in. But, because he's never done something like this before he's enlisted the help of the expert builder who lives down the street to help him make sure that the shed's built safely (using the appropriate materials and methods, etc) so that it won't accidentally fall over and squash your kids one day.
In that scenario, why on earth would you stop the good samaritan from making sure that the job was done well? Especially when you know the alternative is that your neighbour will still build the shed but is bound to do a less than perfect job of it?
Why wouldn't you want that shed to be the safest shed in the world?
Hint: because not wanting your neighbour to have a shed at all is clouding your better judgement.
Some people would call this pig-headedness. Others would call it cutting your nose off to spite your face. Or shortsighted. Me? Well, I just call it dumb.