They will try to make new devices. I bet that they won't be nearly as successful as iTunes or the iPhone.
You are thinking really narrow with respect to the power of data. If the Calgary Flames sell out all the time, then data isn't as important as it is for 99% of other businesses that could always use more traffic/business. Sure there is advertising, which is the most visible use of the data. But there is national and corporate security, identifying untapped markets, car and mass transit traffic logistics, shipping logistics, broad marketplaces, legislation, etc... The ability to bring data together and make sense of it is so much bigger than anything in hardware, it isn't even funny.
Unless Apple plans to making flying vehicles, house cleaning robots, or automated chefs...
My point is that they can't hold onto the high margin in the long term. Apple isn't Prada or Gucci. I also realize that advertising isn't in their industry. But there is no long term, high profit margins in hardware...unless you expect to come out with revolutionary products every 5 years. No one can do that though.
Even IBM sees no future in hardware.
Apple can stay in that space, but they won't be the dominate tech company 5 years from now unless they get lucky and invent some remarkable iCar or iPlane or iTV. They will fall back to where they were in the 90's.
There is money in their productions. And they can continue to make money in it if they can keep inventing new devices. In 2002, they didn't invent the iPod, iPhone, iTunes, or iPad yet. Their business model will always make them profits, but there is a limit. The limit is based on how many new products they come up with.
In contrast, data itself has perpetual value. Anyone can make a device. Not everyone can collect data from such a HUGE segment of the population and have the capability to keep in contact with them every single day...like Google.
I am not talking about 1 year projections. I am talking about 10 years from now. It will be Google that can offer you a discount at the store you just left without buying anything. The value in that concept plants the seed for a market revolution. And revolutions are worth a pretty penny as Apple has seen with mobile devices.
Apple is successful in their hardware, but data is the future of tech money. Targeted (and automated) marketing will rule the industry while Apple produces commodity products that will be copied and copied again, destroying the margins.
It isn't just Oracle. IBM is more heavily invested in Java than the owner themselves. Google too. Between those 3, you can't possibly avoid Java or think that it will continue to drop in the Enterprise space. Just not going to happen.
I think the context of "inefficient" was about its runtime performance, but the development time for certain applications. Like writing your own CGI class to handle HTTP requests instead of just using JEE for a web site. Or web service development. Or making snazzy UIs like with Flash.
1. You have a right to life. 2. You have a right to do what you want. 3. You have a right to your affects/property. X. No one can infringe on someone else's rights by "force or fraud".
This doesn't mean "wipe every regulation off the books". A significant number, yes. However, it also means allowing people to sue others for pollution...even air pollution.
A Libertarian isn't against the idea of taxing. They are against spending by Central Government beyond what is outlined above, and therefore don't like being taxed to cover the "other stuff". A Libertarian is more accepting of certain taxes over others though.
A Libertarian is against anything that favors a group of people over another group of people. Any kind of collectivism is generally considered bad. So giving welfare to a welfare class isn't optimal. Although not Libertarian, it would be more accepting to just give everyone, poor or rich, a check to cover basic food/shelter/medical services. See Milton Friedman's acceptance of the idea of a Basic Income. It is more accepting because it doesn't favor a certain group of people, there is no means test, and there is still an incentive to work. Right now, someone on welfare, if they start working, could actually make less money.
A Libertarian would argue that it isn't society's responsibility to favor certain people (the poor). That is the job of the people through charity. I am more in favor of a Basic Income concept, but scared as hell of the slippery slope it would cause. Just have some supreme unchangeable law that the money is computed based on the price of rice, beans, water, group housing, and sensible medical care.
Example of regulation to not keep. Get rid of the SEC and the idea of "public companies". All companies should be private and if they want to expose themselves to investors, join a private exchange that regulates its members. Get rid of regulating alcohol, drugs, weapons, transportation, etc... Never prohibit; just educate. Make all drugs (and all things) provide full disclaimers in standardized way. Maybe a website of product information and comparables.
Don't ban certain light bulbs and toilets. Don't force cars to have black boxes. Don't build roads (subsidizing a mode of transportation) that aren't offset by tolls. I could go on...
You might bring up regulation on nuclear power. A regulation I would accept is that anything that could cause an individual to go bankrupt would have to be insured. This includes car liability insurance. Make every pay now and provide an incentive for them to take the precautionary measures to lower their premiums...maybe to the point where something like nuclear power becomes economically feasible (which it wouldn't be right now if they had to insure against meltdowns).
That is actually a very useful application of such a program. Likewise, I see this type of technology working within the field of contracts and contract law. You could be monitored while signing a document, as to provide courtroom statistical evidence that you meant to sign what you signed.
Occupy and the Tea Party movements have been absorbed by the status quo. They still have their points, but each side too much with one side to consider it a national movement...just a party movement.
The Ron Paul movement goes beyond that. In fact, it probably started the original tea party idea before it was hijacked by a bunch of idiots and absorbed in to a Republican movement.
"... But history reminds us that America's leaders can draw the nation together to solve problems...."
I would argue that is the source of the problems. Why can't we just admit that you can't bring 300+ million people together on how to spend 30% of the resources. Maybe cut that down to 10% and let the other 20% go back to smaller governing bodies. We need to "draw the nation together" to agree to separate a little bit.
You are mistaken. I am not sure how you are interpreting that article. First, it says that football generates 57% of the athletic department's revenue. Basketball makes a crap-ton of profit too. Also, royalties added another 15%. It also doesn't include booster donations to the general athletic fund. A school like Florida (or Penn State or Ohio State or Michigan) ALWAYS keep their expenses under their revenue. A few years ago, Michigan generated $17 million in profit for the school.
Don't confuse CS-related income with BIZ-related income. How much of Gates' income was from CS-related innovation? How much was from good business decisions? You could do something similar with Michael Jordan, but really, ALL of his income came from his athletic ability. You can't say the same about Gates.
The Google founders probably have the most CS-related income. For a while, they paid someone else to handle the business side of things.
How many people around the country would know about UF if it didn't have an athletics program? It is proven that a good athletics program increase applications to a school. It is a marketing tool for the academic side of the school. So yes, a self sufficient athletic program, like at UF, is a HUGE benefit to the academic side of the school. By huge, I mean 10's of millions a year they otherwise would not have had.
All that power will go from oil to....oil. Oil power plants. At least for the short term. In the long term, they will diversify their energy portfolio. They will get into sun, wind, hydro, and nuclear (uranium) business.
Yes, you have always been allowed to question your government (in America since John Adams' Sedition Act), but not allowed to steal stuff from the local store. Granted, the penalty is stiff in your example, but the concept has been the same for centuries.
Slashdot Mirror
In OH, they first cut buses and sports. Obviously, it worked.
Eventually, they'll stop thinking that way and treat programmers more like lawyers and doctors. In my opinion, it is starting to happen.
They could have just closed the Department managing Journalism degrees. Instead, they picked the one most relevant to tomorrow's economy.
They will try to make new devices. I bet that they won't be nearly as successful as iTunes or the iPhone.
You are thinking really narrow with respect to the power of data. If the Calgary Flames sell out all the time, then data isn't as important as it is for 99% of other businesses that could always use more traffic/business. Sure there is advertising, which is the most visible use of the data. But there is national and corporate security, identifying untapped markets, car and mass transit traffic logistics, shipping logistics, broad marketplaces, legislation, etc... The ability to bring data together and make sense of it is so much bigger than anything in hardware, it isn't even funny.
Unless Apple plans to making flying vehicles, house cleaning robots, or automated chefs...
My point is that they can't hold onto the high margin in the long term. Apple isn't Prada or Gucci. I also realize that advertising isn't in their industry. But there is no long term, high profit margins in hardware...unless you expect to come out with revolutionary products every 5 years. No one can do that though.
Even IBM sees no future in hardware.
Apple can stay in that space, but they won't be the dominate tech company 5 years from now unless they get lucky and invent some remarkable iCar or iPlane or iTV. They will fall back to where they were in the 90's.
There is money in their productions. And they can continue to make money in it if they can keep inventing new devices. In 2002, they didn't invent the iPod, iPhone, iTunes, or iPad yet. Their business model will always make them profits, but there is a limit. The limit is based on how many new products they come up with.
In contrast, data itself has perpetual value. Anyone can make a device. Not everyone can collect data from such a HUGE segment of the population and have the capability to keep in contact with them every single day...like Google.
I am not talking about 1 year projections. I am talking about 10 years from now. It will be Google that can offer you a discount at the store you just left without buying anything. The value in that concept plants the seed for a market revolution. And revolutions are worth a pretty penny as Apple has seen with mobile devices.
Apple is successful in their hardware, but data is the future of tech money. Targeted (and automated) marketing will rule the industry while Apple produces commodity products that will be copied and copied again, destroying the margins.
How do you plan to take a Kayak from Chicago? Over the Niagara Falls, out the St Lawrence Seaway? That would surely cost more than $122.
No, it is also created through natural mutations, which is apparently the case here.
I like myself some Spotted Cow and Flying Squirrel. I haven't been to Wisconsin in years though...
It isn't just Oracle. IBM is more heavily invested in Java than the owner themselves. Google too. Between those 3, you can't possibly avoid Java or think that it will continue to drop in the Enterprise space. Just not going to happen.
I think the context of "inefficient" was about its runtime performance, but the development time for certain applications. Like writing your own CGI class to handle HTTP requests instead of just using JEE for a web site. Or web service development. Or making snazzy UIs like with Flash.
The Libertarian ideal is:
1. You have a right to life.
2. You have a right to do what you want.
3. You have a right to your affects/property.
X. No one can infringe on someone else's rights by "force or fraud".
This doesn't mean "wipe every regulation off the books". A significant number, yes. However, it also means allowing people to sue others for pollution...even air pollution.
A Libertarian isn't against the idea of taxing. They are against spending by Central Government beyond what is outlined above, and therefore don't like being taxed to cover the "other stuff". A Libertarian is more accepting of certain taxes over others though.
A Libertarian is against anything that favors a group of people over another group of people. Any kind of collectivism is generally considered bad. So giving welfare to a welfare class isn't optimal. Although not Libertarian, it would be more accepting to just give everyone, poor or rich, a check to cover basic food/shelter/medical services. See Milton Friedman's acceptance of the idea of a Basic Income. It is more accepting because it doesn't favor a certain group of people, there is no means test, and there is still an incentive to work. Right now, someone on welfare, if they start working, could actually make less money.
A Libertarian would argue that it isn't society's responsibility to favor certain people (the poor). That is the job of the people through charity. I am more in favor of a Basic Income concept, but scared as hell of the slippery slope it would cause. Just have some supreme unchangeable law that the money is computed based on the price of rice, beans, water, group housing, and sensible medical care.
Example of regulation to not keep. Get rid of the SEC and the idea of "public companies". All companies should be private and if they want to expose themselves to investors, join a private exchange that regulates its members. Get rid of regulating alcohol, drugs, weapons, transportation, etc... Never prohibit; just educate. Make all drugs (and all things) provide full disclaimers in standardized way. Maybe a website of product information and comparables.
Don't ban certain light bulbs and toilets. Don't force cars to have black boxes. Don't build roads (subsidizing a mode of transportation) that aren't offset by tolls. I could go on...
You might bring up regulation on nuclear power. A regulation I would accept is that anything that could cause an individual to go bankrupt would have to be insured. This includes car liability insurance. Make every pay now and provide an incentive for them to take the precautionary measures to lower their premiums...maybe to the point where something like nuclear power becomes economically feasible (which it wouldn't be right now if they had to insure against meltdowns).
That is actually a very useful application of such a program. Likewise, I see this type of technology working within the field of contracts and contract law. You could be monitored while signing a document, as to provide courtroom statistical evidence that you meant to sign what you signed.
Occupy and the Tea Party movements have been absorbed by the status quo. They still have their points, but each side too much with one side to consider it a national movement...just a party movement.
The Ron Paul movement goes beyond that. In fact, it probably started the original tea party idea before it was hijacked by a bunch of idiots and absorbed in to a Republican movement.
I am going to guess that Federico Cirett didn't go to UF.
"... But history reminds us that America's leaders can draw the nation together to solve problems. ..."
I would argue that is the source of the problems. Why can't we just admit that you can't bring 300+ million people together on how to spend 30% of the resources. Maybe cut that down to 10% and let the other 20% go back to smaller governing bodies. We need to "draw the nation together" to agree to separate a little bit.
You are mistaken. I am not sure how you are interpreting that article. First, it says that football generates 57% of the athletic department's revenue. Basketball makes a crap-ton of profit too. Also, royalties added another 15%. It also doesn't include booster donations to the general athletic fund. A school like Florida (or Penn State or Ohio State or Michigan) ALWAYS keep their expenses under their revenue. A few years ago, Michigan generated $17 million in profit for the school.
Don't confuse CS-related income with BIZ-related income. How much of Gates' income was from CS-related innovation? How much was from good business decisions? You could do something similar with Michael Jordan, but really, ALL of his income came from his athletic ability. You can't say the same about Gates.
The Google founders probably have the most CS-related income. For a while, they paid someone else to handle the business side of things.
How many people around the country would know about UF if it didn't have an athletics program? It is proven that a good athletics program increase applications to a school. It is a marketing tool for the academic side of the school. So yes, a self sufficient athletic program, like at UF, is a HUGE benefit to the academic side of the school. By huge, I mean 10's of millions a year they otherwise would not have had.
You can get a degree in Business Administration; right?
What money is UF Athletics getting from the State? Please tell... What money is it even getting from the Academic side of the University??
All that power will go from oil to....oil. Oil power plants. At least for the short term. In the long term, they will diversify their energy portfolio. They will get into sun, wind, hydro, and nuclear (uranium) business.
I routinely fill up in under 5 minutes. Granted, my 10 year old car gets 38 mpg and has only a 10 gallon tank, but it is quick.
Yes, you have always been allowed to question your government (in America since John Adams' Sedition Act), but not allowed to steal stuff from the local store. Granted, the penalty is stiff in your example, but the concept has been the same for centuries.