If you are a racist, why don't you post with your name and stick up for your fascist ideology? Why call me "Apu" with an anonymous name? A coward perhaps?
Is that the documentary about Chomsky? I think the documentary makers probably care about pirating. After all, they make their living off that. Chomky probably cares too. However, he is an anarchist and most anarchists don't respect copyrights* so I'm not sure.
* Not all anarchists ignore copyrights but many do. In case you are wondering why anarchists don't respect copyrights, it's because they view copyrights as being legitimized by authority (as opposed to choice). This is one of the reason anarchist or anarchist-like websites (eg. indymedia.org) have postings blatantly violating copyright. For exmaple, people post full articles without paying the copyright holder (especially from newspapers or from other people's websites). Even on Slashdot, some people post full articles even though that is a blatant violation of copyright).
Last I heard, the FBI was having problems with their investigation (possibly because the military was blocking the investigation). They had a suspect who was a scientist who worked on the biological weapons programs. His house was searched and they went through all leads relating to him but I guess they came up with nothing. I personally think this scientist is a scapegoat for whomever initiated the attack.
Anyway, the point is not what happened; rather, why is nobody (meaning the media) on this case?
The anchor is FAKING his story. He is LYING! Yes, it is only some comment about some weather (it isn't even the weather report). However, the point is that he is LYING! The media, in this case radio, is manipulating the listeners.
As far as capitalism is concerned, if my theory that free markets lead to oligopolies and monopolies is correct, this phenomenon will increase significantly. It will get to the point that you can't derive any truth from media. Similar to another point I make in another post, if the tv and radio are owned by the same company, how do you know what you are hearing is the truth? If the radio station claims that their employees are located at a certain place, can you look at a tv report to verify this? What if the tv company and the radio are owned by the same company?
I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing it out. However, the main point still stands. The members of AP co-op are for-profit entities so one would expect AP to be aligned with that vision as well.
I think the original message is sacastic. At least that's what I think... see... You rely on one lying media (tv) to prove another lying one (radio)... lol Thinking more about it, that's actually hilarious. lol I can't wait until such mass deception happens on a large scale. Will tv become irrelevant when that happens? Already you can modify video and you can generate some really fake stuff (of course the classical examples are UFO video:) )
One more step in virtualizing the whole world. How soon can we have virtual war, where nobody dies?
Well, if you go with the US media, the Iraqi war is pretty much a virtual war. Sure, you hear about some death here and there but it is all virtual. No one has seen any video of a dead person. No one has seen blood. No one has seen victims without legs, arms, loved ones. No one has seen the soldiers that are crippled for life. It's pretty virtual it seems...
It is better to be on the left and wear a tin foil hat than to live in a cave all their life. Tin foil hats haven't hurt anybody but the conservatives living in caves only start seeing black and white after they live in darkness for so long;)
No one has a problem with people tele-commuting. But people DO have a problem when you LIE. That is exactly what this guy did. I don't care where you are. But if you say you are this or that, and you are not, then I DO care. Why does he have to lie? Why is he lying? Well, the answer is pretty simple. He is trying to manipulate people. If he is lying about such a little thing, maybe he is lying about all sorts of other things. You just don't know--and that's the point! He lost ALL his CREDIBILITY with that lie. I don't know who this guy is and I don't care about the weather. BUT can *I* be sure that he isn't going to lie and say that a medicine is safe because he took it (when in fact he didn't)? Or when he says that you cannot be charged for speeding less than 10km/h over the speed limit (when in fact he may be wrong)?
It's just unfortunate that you still give him the credibility that you do. I think it would be better if you became a little more sceptical. No wonder the majority of people fall for politician's lies. If people didn't fall for it, politics would be 100x better.
Since nearly all media are controlled by private entities under capitalism, and since my theory is that free markets will result in oligopolies and monopolies, I think it is fair to say that this is just the start of the takeover of "news" by corporations. If you ever thought the media was responsible for the truth, you are sadly mistaken. The media has never had anything to do with the truth. In the past, the government controlled media* was nothing more than a propaganda outlet for the--you guessed it--government.
Nowadays, the media is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the corporations. Don't get me wrong. The government still has massive influence. One just needs to look at how the US government has manipulated television, movie studios, or print media since 9/11. At least 40% of what came out of US media in the last 2 years have been disinformation. Anyone wonder why the majority of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was an Al-Qaida member? Ever wonder why no one bothers to find out WHO cooked up the fake documents relating to plutonium in Niger? And best of all, ever wonder what happened to the Anthrax Assasin? Yes folks, the Anthrax Assasin, who incidentally killed more innocent Americans than Saddam Hussein, has dissapeared. And it does not stop with USA. I mean, just pick your favourite country and see how the media manipulates information. One needs to look no further than France and how the French government is manipulating the recent ban on religious ornaments as passing it off as liberalism. Clearly, this has nothing to do with liberalism. After all, liberalism is consistent with multiculturalism and banning things takes society even further away. Yet the French government is claiming it is the liberals who wanted it (this is kind of interesting given that Jacques Chirac is a right winger (Gaullist I think)). Of course, if you want the ultimate book on how the people's opinions are shaped, you can check out the highly acclaimed Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky. Or you can check out some books by Nazis (they were the ultimate propagandists).
Now, my comment is about capitalism. There have been countless stories that were not aired, or countless people who were fired, for simply telling the truth that had a potential to damage their parent corporations. Next time you watch NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, or National Geographic, and notice how it never criticizes G.E., you know why. This is just a tame example (clearly organizations like Fox News and Washington Post are more propagandist). You don't need me to tell you that. Just look around and you'll see. Something like 11 companies control 90% of all media in USA. For the smaller countries, it's even worse (2 or 3 companies control 95% of the media).
It doesn't get any better. People in "liberal" societies think that their news is diverse and comes from many sources. Oh, how mistaken they are. The vast majority of news (probably 80%+) comes from two sources (in North America): Reuters and Associated Press. Sure, there are hundreads of newspapers. Flip through them and you'll see that most news comes from AP and Reuters. Needless to say, AP and Reuters are for-profit entities who only care about making money.
All of this will just get worse and worse. The only thing keeping some of these media companies from merging with each other creating even larger multinational corporations are anti-trust laws and nationalistic laws (eg. laws preventing foreign ownership). Once those legislation are weakened (capitalism calls for the elimination of them), the final stage will be complete. Rest assured. Unless you lead a high-risk lifestyle, it will likely happen within your lifetime.
Welcome to the future world... where all news comes from the Associated World News Network (with its 'your only news source' slogan) versus FuX News Network (with its sloga
After typing my lengthy post:( I re-read all your messages and I guess I misunderstood your point. I thought you were arguing about diversification resulting in everyone taking the same portfolio, when in fact you were arguing about diversification vs non-diversification. I agree with everything you say (if you are talking about diversification vs non-diversification (i.e. on the non-optimal part of the risk-return curve)). If that is indeed the case, which I think it is, you can ignore the top part of my message:) But you can read the botton part though.
If you diversify, the expected return doesn't change, but the risk decreses, so everyone must do it, unless they hate money. (bolded by me)
I forgot my finance stuff but I just doublechecked and I think that is not correct. The expected return can be increased by taking a higher risk. The typical risk-return graph is a parabola, and what you are talking about is the OPTIMAL position, which is ONE POINT on the graph. However, one can take other positions depending on whether they want higher returns for higher risk. Check out these two positions: one risk averse and the other more risky. (Check out the source page for more pictures near the botton).
What you are talking about is if you were on the bottom part of the curve (the green part), in which case you can diversify away risk without losing returns. Or YOU may have particular preference and you might be talking about the intersection of the CML line as shown here. BUT once you are on the optimal part of the curve (the blue part), people can take any position on that curve. I may take a position further to the right on the blue curve. It will be SUB-OPTIMAL but I will get HIGHER RETURN for HIGHER RISK.
Now, if you just cared about the OPTIMAL portfolio then one would you are saying. But doing so will just mean that you will get the market returns (i.e. the average stock market return). *I* might want a higher return. I might want a return higher than the stock market return. What if I want 20% return on the stock market (while the market return is 8%)? In these cases, one would take higher risks which will result in higher returns.
If what you say were right then everyone would take the same position. Yet you see people taking very risky positions. All because they are giving up risk for return.
(As a side note, I'm strongly risk-averse so I would actually take your position which is the optimal position. I was just using myself as an example of a risky person:) )
----
So the managers should ignore individual preferences of the shareholders.
I don't think that theory of finance is true. Compensation for management is tied to performance (i.e. returns). So, management is influenced by the stockholders. I think what people overlook is the fact that the owners feel that they PERSONALLY own the company. Therefore, they place demands on the company. So if an investor wants higher returns, or lower risks, or whatever, they demand it. The finance theory calls for these people to sell their stock and then invest in another company with higher return, or lower risk, or whatever they wanted. In practice I don't think that happens. What happens is that the stockholders push their desires onto the company (rather than pick another company with their desire).
As long as management compensation is tied to performance (which is done to align the interests to that of the shareholders), it will always be like this. After all, who decides if or when to fire the executives? The shareholders. If shareholders want less risky products
This is just my opinion so take it for what it's worth. I DO think that most business decisions are like insurance. I think this is pretty much true for management--especially for project managers. I have seen my bosses and their bosses make decisions that don't make much technical sense but are good business decisions (to alleviate risk & blame). Ultimately it makes sense from an external point of view. It is logical for management to do everything in their power to keep their job. In fact, finance theory has this notion of agency cost which is used to explain why CEOs get paid millions in stock options (according to this theory, it is to align their interests with that of the company. Otherwise, the executives will simply act in their own interests).
When I was in the field (only for a few years--I was in school at that time), I didn't really run into the problem you are talking about (some dude referencing you when in fact you were just giving some opinion). But I did hear about it. I guess it is more of an issue for senior people. I can imagine someone pinning the blame on some architecture or design issue on the person who "suggested" it, instead of they themselves (who made the decision to go with the "suggestion") take responsibility.
"It's really fascinating to observe, if you aren't emotionally invested in the incident."
heh:) When I did have a job, I was only a low level employee (entry level software developer,etc) so I know what you mean. Never faced anything big but I have seen stuff happen...
I'm not a capitalist so I don't have a strong opinion on the stock market. To me, it is nothing more than a capitalist game. I do not consider it as a good measure of the welfare of society. My quote was always 'One of the worst things in my life happened when the stock market started mattering more than the economy'.
On a side note, I think you are wrong with your assertion that finance theory calls for investors to diversify (to minimize risk). Yes, diversifying is the OPTIMAL solution in a portfolio. But I don't think any theory says that YOU must do it. The decision is up to the individual. Finance theory also talks about the risk-return tradeoff (it's basically a curve): the greater the risk, the greater the payoff. YOU may take a different risk position than me. This is what is happening. A lot of people (small investors at least) playing the markets these days are heavily tilted towards the risk side. They are basically taking heavy risk for a heavy (potential) payoff. I don't know why this happens (perhaps people are greedy--capitalism rewards greed) but that's how the stock markets are.
So what happens with those comparison operators? Does it convert them to Pascal-equivalent? Or does it compile (without error) but doesn't do anything?
Everything I say is my OPINION... that goes without saying I guess...:)
I find it interesting that the PHB thinks that Microsoft stands behind their product, but knows better than to actually call up Microsoft as an end user and try to get help.
It's more of a BUSINESS decision than a technical one. The reason management does that is to mitigate risks. That is to say, shift the blame onto someone else. As the saying goes "No one ever got fired for buying from IBM" (I hope I'm getting the quote right). Except this is more at a managerial level. Buying support, regardless of how good it is, means that there is SOMEONE to handle it. Without it, who will get the blame? Most likely the manager and his team.
Think about it. If YOU didn't have the support contract with Rational, YOU will have a MUCH TOUGHER time. You'll be the person at the end and will have to handle all the blame. For instance, if something is a limitation of the software (as you pointed out), YOU will have to JUSTIFY that (if you didn't have support). But if you had support, you can always say that Rational said that it is a limiation of the software. That is a simple example but extrapolate that 100x and you'll see why companies do what they do. When your boss gets yelled at by his superiors, which is easier: "My team is working on it but I need more time" or "Rational/IBM has been notified and they are working on it". Your manager just shifted the blame from your team onto some large vendor like IBM.
The same thing is true for other business issues. In fact, one can argue that most business decisions are carried out for reasons like that. For instance, things like outsourcing, offshoring, downsizing, vertical integration, etc are simply based on POPULAR business views. When downsizing was popular (early 90's), managers and executives carried it out a lot. They did this, not because they knew it would work (this destroyed some companies in the long run), but because everyone else was doing it. It is easier to do something that everyone else is doing and which is justified in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and by the business academia, than not doing it at all.
I was thinking the same thing. For things like set-top boxes, etc, embedded Linux or Windows or whatever should be suitable. I think the author's points are only valid for mission-critical real-time systems (like some you mentioned, along with medical devices, trains, etc).
He might not be wrong per se. However his articles, opinions, and thoughts will be BIASED. This is especially true if he is indeed an executive. A HUGE chunk of compensation executives are tied to company performance (whereas an engineer's is based more on personal performance or product design or whatever). Therefore, it is reasonable to expect this person to be biased AGAINST his competition. Whatever an executive says is pretty much straight out of company PR. In fact, many executive commentary is run through the company PR people first.
Therefore, this article is not valuable. Sure, he may be correct about some things he says. However his bias will mean that the reader can't tell how correct they are.
Is this rhetoric or reality? George Bush (the first one; Sr) also made similar proclamations and it went nowhere. George Bush Jr also makes similar gestures but it is questionable if this will amount to anything. My personal opinion is that nothing will come of this.
First of all, only $1b is new money being allocated. You cannot do anything for $1b. The increase just covers inflation. As Bob McDonald of CBC remarked on tv yesterday, the $11 billion is just reshuffling existing NASA money and this may damage other areas of NASA. Bob was concerned about sacrificing robotics at the expense of human missions. Even with that amount of money, nothing major will be accomplished.
You basically need hundreads of billions to do anything major. This money hasn't been allocated.
Secondly--and most importantly--the only major endeavours in the past have been due to political reasons. Let's face it: As long as there isn't a political threat (however bogus), the public isn't going to be too keen on supporting any major projects. Unless USA initiates some massive propaganda campaign and brainwashes people into thinking that China, Russia, India, Japan, Europe, or whoever else you can come up with is a threat, nothing is going to be done.
Lastly, USA is running a massive deficit. The deficit is around $500 billion this year and unless the economy picks up, it might even get worse. Granted, this isn't a big deal for a big country like USA (at least according to theory), but nevertheless it will have SOME impact. Getting to public to support a massive tax cut for the wealthy is easy (just initiate some propaganda and you'll be ok). It is also easy to increase the military budget by claiming the imminent threat of others. Similarly, increasing budgets for DEA, CIA, and others is pretty easy--you just have to claim you are fighting a very important "war" (in these cases, drugs, and terrorism). You can also get the public to support a missile shield (which in all likelihoods won't work (automatically, the effectiveness against terrorists is 0% since terrorists use asymettric covert techniques)). HOWEVER, getting the public to support a scientific mission is pretty tough.
So to summarize my thoughts... not enough money is allocated... there is no political will... US fiscal situation isn't good enough to get public support... All this can just mean one thing. This is political rhetoric before an election. Nothing more; nothing less!
Then the shareholders should invest in municipal bonds. Business is risky. Get over it.
Yes... but there is nothing wrong with them demanding less risk from their investments. If you own the company, you can do whatever the hell you want with it.
That's the real problem. The "concerns of the shareholders" are a straw man.
Concerns of the shareholders are very real. That is capitalism after all. If you owned stock in a company, your concern matters--and does influence things (as long as you own a significant chunk of it).
But the modern business world is very short term oriented. What matters is how much MONEY is made NOW! Just do something to make some money and if it results in losses in the future, well, just jump ship or change the company name, or just use an advertising campaign. Even investors are short-term oriented. For instance, many investors (including institutional ones) sell out if things look bad.
Reputation used to mean something at one time but is less important now. Apart from the fact that a lot of industries are monoplized or oligopolized now, companies leverage their brands effectively. Consumers have no idea who owns what brands. So companies shift risky stuff to certain brands (away from safe valuable ones) and then if that fails, just re-introduce another brand. The safe brand is never really impacted.
You'll notice this in movies (as well as many other sectors like cars--do you know who owns Mazda? How about BMW?). For example, the Disney brand is good so Disney never does anything risky or controversial with it. So all the risky films are pushed off to the Touchstone label. If the Touchstone label loses its reputation, Disney will just introduce another one (let's call it NewDreams) and use that. The consumers have no idea what the hell is going on.
In addition to all that, major studios that you might think are seperate are actually owned by the same parent company. Or one film might be co-produced by multiple companies. If you want some information on the concentration of media companies (it is not limited to media but other sectors too), check out this The Nation article (old but relevant as ever).
Now, don't get me wrong. I am not saying brands are useless. In fact, some companies are valued solely based on brand. Companies like Coca-Cola and Nike derive their value from their brands. My point, however, is that brands are manipulated more easily nowadays. They are not what they meant 50 years ago. If you think KFC sucks, you might go and buy food at Taco Bell and not realize that they are the same companies.
Waking Life is one of my favourite films of all time. It doesn't surprise me you didn't like it. I think one really has to like philosphical films, or plotless films to like Waking Life. A lot of people who criticize it just don't like that "type" of films...
I'm torn... Do I support freedom of speech (yes, even when private businesses are involved)? Or do I take pleasure in knowing that one of the worst websites on the planet is no more?;)
If Gnome will take two years to catch up to KDE, where will KDE be in two years?
But if KDE resources are transferred to Gnome, KDE won't be improved at the same level as now (read my next point below).
There will always be more than one desktop environment. Why all of a sudden does Novell have any say in this?
Novell's decision will have a big impact for two reasons. First of all, a lot of the key KDE developers are SuSE employees. Moving them to Gnome will be a BIG loss IMO. Having said that, I'm speculating. I really have no idea how significant the SuSE employees are (to KDE).
Since SuSE is controlled by Novell, it is highly likely that SuSE will drop KDE at some point in the future. Novell might already be on the path to phasing KDE out. Novell may deny any such plans, but name one corporation that has publically admitted something that may be criticized by users.
It makes no sense from a business point of view to support two desktops. CEOs will certainly notice the extra costs of supporting two. Chopping one desktop may be the fastest way to generate extra profits. Of course, it will happen over a long period of time (say 2 years).
I predict that KDE will be dropped from SuSE (and other commercial linux distributions) by 2006--you heard it here first (ok maybe not;) ). If you don't think so, come back in 2006 and we'll see who is right (I'll be around)...
What's MY opinion on this? Well, there are advantages and disadvantages--like all things in life. KDE is the better desktop on linux. It is more polished, has more features, easier to use, similar to Windows, etc. Dumping KDE will mean the loss of those advantages (although Gnome would catch up in 2 years once Novell pumps resources into it). I personally like KDE better than Gnome (it is also the default in Mandrake Linux).
The upside is that linux will have ONE solid desktop (other window managers don't count). Some may dislike the lack of choice but splitting resources across multiple projects is a complete waste. Instead of having applications for one or the other, future developers will be able to write applications tailored for Gnome. This should significantly improve the quality of desktop applications. Right now, one pretty much has to use both KDE and Gnome applications. I use KDE (Mandrake 9.1) and probably 20% of hte applications are Gnome, 50% KDE, rest are neither*. This creates inconsistencies, poorer quality, more documentation, and so forth. If everyone used one desktop, it would eliminate this**.
* When I say neither, I'm basically counting applications that don't have a Gnome or KDE "look". Some of these applications actually use the libraries for Gnome and KDE (so technically it belongs to KDE or Gnome).
** Of course, there is a potential that having one desktop could result in stagnation and reduction in innovation. I personally don't think that will be a major problem at this point in time. If linux is successful, that problem wil only be faced 10 years from now, when some developer will be cursing at the desktop and its SDK because the desktop has become a monopoly.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are a racist, why don't you post with your name and stick up for your fascist ideology? Why call me "Apu" with an anonymous name? A coward perhaps?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Is that the documentary about Chomsky? I think the documentary makers probably care about pirating. After all, they make their living off that. Chomky probably cares too. However, he is an anarchist and most anarchists don't respect copyrights* so I'm not sure.
* Not all anarchists ignore copyrights but many do. In case you are wondering why anarchists don't respect copyrights, it's because they view copyrights as being legitimized by authority (as opposed to choice). This is one of the reason anarchist or anarchist-like websites (eg. indymedia.org) have postings blatantly violating copyright. For exmaple, people post full articles without paying the copyright holder (especially from newspapers or from other people's websites). Even on Slashdot, some people post full articles even though that is a blatant violation of copyright).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Last I heard, the FBI was having problems with their investigation (possibly because the military was blocking the investigation). They had a suspect who was a scientist who worked on the biological weapons programs. His house was searched and they went through all leads relating to him but I guess they came up with nothing. I personally think this scientist is a scapegoat for whomever initiated the attack.
Anyway, the point is not what happened; rather, why is nobody (meaning the media) on this case?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The anchor is FAKING his story. He is LYING! Yes, it is only some comment about some weather (it isn't even the weather report). However, the point is that he is LYING! The media, in this case radio, is manipulating the listeners.
As far as capitalism is concerned, if my theory that free markets lead to oligopolies and monopolies is correct, this phenomenon will increase significantly. It will get to the point that you can't derive any truth from media. Similar to another point I make in another post, if the tv and radio are owned by the same company, how do you know what you are hearing is the truth? If the radio station claims that their employees are located at a certain place, can you look at a tv report to verify this? What if the tv company and the radio are owned by the same company?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing it out. However, the main point still stands. The members of AP co-op are for-profit entities so one would expect AP to be aligned with that vision as well.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I think the original message is sacastic. At least that's what I think... see... You rely on one lying media (tv) to prove another lying one (radio)... lol Thinking more about it, that's actually hilarious. lol I can't wait until such mass deception happens on a large scale. Will tv become irrelevant when that happens? Already you can modify video and you can generate some really fake stuff (of course the classical examples are UFO video :) )
Sivaram Velauthapillai
One more step in virtualizing the whole world. How soon can we have virtual war, where nobody dies?
:(
Well, if you go with the US media, the Iraqi war is pretty much a virtual war. Sure, you hear about some death here and there but it is all virtual. No one has seen any video of a dead person. No one has seen blood. No one has seen victims without legs, arms, loved ones. No one has seen the soldiers that are crippled for life. It's pretty virtual it seems...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
It is better to be on the left and wear a tin foil hat than to live in a cave all their life. Tin foil hats haven't hurt anybody but the conservatives living in caves only start seeing black and white after they live in darkness for so long ;)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
No one has a problem with people tele-commuting. But people DO have a problem when you LIE. That is exactly what this guy did. I don't care where you are. But if you say you are this or that, and you are not, then I DO care. Why does he have to lie? Why is he lying? Well, the answer is pretty simple. He is trying to manipulate people. If he is lying about such a little thing, maybe he is lying about all sorts of other things. You just don't know--and that's the point! He lost ALL his CREDIBILITY with that lie. I don't know who this guy is and I don't care about the weather. BUT can *I* be sure that he isn't going to lie and say that a medicine is safe because he took it (when in fact he didn't)? Or when he says that you cannot be charged for speeding less than 10km/h over the speed limit (when in fact he may be wrong)?
It's just unfortunate that you still give him the credibility that you do. I think it would be better if you became a little more sceptical. No wonder the majority of people fall for politician's lies. If people didn't fall for it, politics would be 100x better.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
And how exactly is the "war" on drugs helping that?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Since nearly all media are controlled by private entities under capitalism, and since my theory is that free markets will result in oligopolies and monopolies, I think it is fair to say that this is just the start of the takeover of "news" by corporations. If you ever thought the media was responsible for the truth, you are sadly mistaken. The media has never had anything to do with the truth. In the past, the government controlled media* was nothing more than a propaganda outlet for the--you guessed it--government.
Nowadays, the media is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the corporations. Don't get me wrong. The government still has massive influence. One just needs to look at how the US government has manipulated television, movie studios, or print media since 9/11. At least 40% of what came out of US media in the last 2 years have been disinformation. Anyone wonder why the majority of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was an Al-Qaida member? Ever wonder why no one bothers to find out WHO cooked up the fake documents relating to plutonium in Niger? And best of all, ever wonder what happened to the Anthrax Assasin? Yes folks, the Anthrax Assasin, who incidentally killed more innocent Americans than Saddam Hussein, has dissapeared. And it does not stop with USA. I mean, just pick your favourite country and see how the media manipulates information. One needs to look no further than France and how the French government is manipulating the recent ban on religious ornaments as passing it off as liberalism. Clearly, this has nothing to do with liberalism. After all, liberalism is consistent with multiculturalism and banning things takes society even further away. Yet the French government is claiming it is the liberals who wanted it (this is kind of interesting given that Jacques Chirac is a right winger (Gaullist I think)). Of course, if you want the ultimate book on how the people's opinions are shaped, you can check out the highly acclaimed Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky. Or you can check out some books by Nazis (they were the ultimate propagandists).
Now, my comment is about capitalism. There have been countless stories that were not aired, or countless people who were fired, for simply telling the truth that had a potential to damage their parent corporations. Next time you watch NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, or National Geographic, and notice how it never criticizes G.E., you know why. This is just a tame example (clearly organizations like Fox News and Washington Post are more propagandist). You don't need me to tell you that. Just look around and you'll see. Something like 11 companies control 90% of all media in USA. For the smaller countries, it's even worse (2 or 3 companies control 95% of the media).
It doesn't get any better. People in "liberal" societies think that their news is diverse and comes from many sources. Oh, how mistaken they are. The vast majority of news (probably 80%+) comes from two sources (in North America): Reuters and Associated Press. Sure, there are hundreads of newspapers. Flip through them and you'll see that most news comes from AP and Reuters. Needless to say, AP and Reuters are for-profit entities who only care about making money.
All of this will just get worse and worse. The only thing keeping some of these media companies from merging with each other creating even larger multinational corporations are anti-trust laws and nationalistic laws (eg. laws preventing foreign ownership). Once those legislation are weakened (capitalism calls for the elimination of them), the final stage will be complete. Rest assured. Unless you lead a high-risk lifestyle, it will likely happen within your lifetime.
Welcome to the future world... where all news comes from the Associated World News Network (with its 'your only news source' slogan) versus FuX News Network (with its sloga
After typing my lengthy post :( I re-read all your messages and I guess I misunderstood your point. I thought you were arguing about diversification resulting in everyone taking the same portfolio, when in fact you were arguing about diversification vs non-diversification. I agree with everything you say (if you are talking about diversification vs non-diversification (i.e. on the non-optimal part of the risk-return curve)). If that is indeed the case, which I think it is, you can ignore the top part of my message :) But you can read the botton part though.
:) )
If you diversify, the expected return doesn't change, but the risk decreses, so everyone must do it, unless they hate money. (bolded by me)
I forgot my finance stuff but I just doublechecked and I think that is not correct. The expected return can be increased by taking a higher risk. The typical risk-return graph is a parabola, and what you are talking about is the OPTIMAL position, which is ONE POINT on the graph. However, one can take other positions depending on whether they want higher returns for higher risk. Check out these two positions: one risk averse and the other more risky. (Check out the source page for more pictures near the botton).
What you are talking about is if you were on the bottom part of the curve (the green part), in which case you can diversify away risk without losing returns. Or YOU may have particular preference and you might be talking about the intersection of the CML line as shown here. BUT once you are on the optimal part of the curve (the blue part), people can take any position on that curve. I may take a position further to the right on the blue curve. It will be SUB-OPTIMAL but I will get HIGHER RETURN for HIGHER RISK.
Now, if you just cared about the OPTIMAL portfolio then one would you are saying. But doing so will just mean that you will get the market returns (i.e. the average stock market return). *I* might want a higher return. I might want a return higher than the stock market return. What if I want 20% return on the stock market (while the market return is 8%)? In these cases, one would take higher risks which will result in higher returns.
If what you say were right then everyone would take the same position. Yet you see people taking very risky positions. All because they are giving up risk for return.
(As a side note, I'm strongly risk-averse so I would actually take your position which is the optimal position. I was just using myself as an example of a risky person
----
So the managers should ignore individual preferences of the shareholders.
I don't think that theory of finance is true. Compensation for management is tied to performance (i.e. returns). So, management is influenced by the stockholders. I think what people overlook is the fact that the owners feel that they PERSONALLY own the company. Therefore, they place demands on the company. So if an investor wants higher returns, or lower risks, or whatever, they demand it. The finance theory calls for these people to sell their stock and then invest in another company with higher return, or lower risk, or whatever they wanted. In practice I don't think that happens. What happens is that the stockholders push their desires onto the company (rather than pick another company with their desire).
As long as management compensation is tied to performance (which is done to align the interests to that of the shareholders), it will always be like this. After all, who decides if or when to fire the executives? The shareholders. If shareholders want less risky products
This is just my opinion so take it for what it's worth. I DO think that most business decisions are like insurance. I think this is pretty much true for management--especially for project managers. I have seen my bosses and their bosses make decisions that don't make much technical sense but are good business decisions (to alleviate risk & blame). Ultimately it makes sense from an external point of view. It is logical for management to do everything in their power to keep their job. In fact, finance theory has this notion of agency cost which is used to explain why CEOs get paid millions in stock options (according to this theory, it is to align their interests with that of the company. Otherwise, the executives will simply act in their own interests).
:) When I did have a job, I was only a low level employee (entry level software developer,etc) so I know what you mean. Never faced anything big but I have seen stuff happen...
When I was in the field (only for a few years--I was in school at that time), I didn't really run into the problem you are talking about (some dude referencing you when in fact you were just giving some opinion). But I did hear about it. I guess it is more of an issue for senior people. I can imagine someone pinning the blame on some architecture or design issue on the person who "suggested" it, instead of they themselves (who made the decision to go with the "suggestion") take responsibility.
"It's really fascinating to observe, if you aren't emotionally invested in the incident."
heh
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm not a capitalist so I don't have a strong opinion on the stock market. To me, it is nothing more than a capitalist game. I do not consider it as a good measure of the welfare of society. My quote was always 'One of the worst things in my life happened when the stock market started mattering more than the economy'.
On a side note, I think you are wrong with your assertion that finance theory calls for investors to diversify (to minimize risk). Yes, diversifying is the OPTIMAL solution in a portfolio. But I don't think any theory says that YOU must do it. The decision is up to the individual. Finance theory also talks about the risk-return tradeoff (it's basically a curve): the greater the risk, the greater the payoff. YOU may take a different risk position than me. This is what is happening. A lot of people (small investors at least) playing the markets these days are heavily tilted towards the risk side. They are basically taking heavy risk for a heavy (potential) payoff. I don't know why this happens (perhaps people are greedy--capitalism rewards greed) but that's how the stock markets are.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
So what happens with those comparison operators? Does it convert them to Pascal-equivalent? Or does it compile (without error) but doesn't do anything?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Everything I say is my OPINION... that goes without saying I guess... :)
I find it interesting that the PHB thinks that Microsoft stands behind their product, but knows better than to actually call up Microsoft as an end user and try to get help.
It's more of a BUSINESS decision than a technical one. The reason management does that is to mitigate risks. That is to say, shift the blame onto someone else. As the saying goes "No one ever got fired for buying from IBM" (I hope I'm getting the quote right). Except this is more at a managerial level. Buying support, regardless of how good it is, means that there is SOMEONE to handle it. Without it, who will get the blame? Most likely the manager and his team.
Think about it. If YOU didn't have the support contract with Rational, YOU will have a MUCH TOUGHER time. You'll be the person at the end and will have to handle all the blame. For instance, if something is a limitation of the software (as you pointed out), YOU will have to JUSTIFY that (if you didn't have support). But if you had support, you can always say that Rational said that it is a limiation of the software. That is a simple example but extrapolate that 100x and you'll see why companies do what they do. When your boss gets yelled at by his superiors, which is easier: "My team is working on it but I need more time" or "Rational/IBM has been notified and they are working on it". Your manager just shifted the blame from your team onto some large vendor like IBM.
The same thing is true for other business issues. In fact, one can argue that most business decisions are carried out for reasons like that. For instance, things like outsourcing, offshoring, downsizing, vertical integration, etc are simply based on POPULAR business views. When downsizing was popular (early 90's), managers and executives carried it out a lot. They did this, not because they knew it would work (this destroyed some companies in the long run), but because everyone else was doing it. It is easier to do something that everyone else is doing and which is justified in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and by the business academia, than not doing it at all.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I was thinking the same thing. For things like set-top boxes, etc, embedded Linux or Windows or whatever should be suitable. I think the author's points are only valid for mission-critical real-time systems (like some you mentioned, along with medical devices, trains, etc).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
He might not be wrong per se. However his articles, opinions, and thoughts will be BIASED. This is especially true if he is indeed an executive. A HUGE chunk of compensation executives are tied to company performance (whereas an engineer's is based more on personal performance or product design or whatever). Therefore, it is reasonable to expect this person to be biased AGAINST his competition. Whatever an executive says is pretty much straight out of company PR. In fact, many executive commentary is run through the company PR people first.
Therefore, this article is not valuable. Sure, he may be correct about some things he says. However his bias will mean that the reader can't tell how correct they are.
Sivaram Velauthpaillai
Is this rhetoric or reality? George Bush (the first one; Sr) also made similar proclamations and it went nowhere. George Bush Jr also makes similar gestures but it is questionable if this will amount to anything. My personal opinion is that nothing will come of this.
First of all, only $1b is new money being allocated. You cannot do anything for $1b. The increase just covers inflation. As Bob McDonald of CBC remarked on tv yesterday, the $11 billion is just reshuffling existing NASA money and this may damage other areas of NASA. Bob was concerned about sacrificing robotics at the expense of human missions. Even with that amount of money, nothing major will be accomplished.
You basically need hundreads of billions to do anything major. This money hasn't been allocated.
Secondly--and most importantly--the only major endeavours in the past have been due to political reasons. Let's face it: As long as there isn't a political threat (however bogus), the public isn't going to be too keen on supporting any major projects. Unless USA initiates some massive propaganda campaign and brainwashes people into thinking that China, Russia, India, Japan, Europe, or whoever else you can come up with is a threat, nothing is going to be done.
Lastly, USA is running a massive deficit. The deficit is around $500 billion this year and unless the economy picks up, it might even get worse. Granted, this isn't a big deal for a big country like USA (at least according to theory), but nevertheless it will have SOME impact. Getting to public to support a massive tax cut for the wealthy is easy (just initiate some propaganda and you'll be ok). It is also easy to increase the military budget by claiming the imminent threat of others. Similarly, increasing budgets for DEA, CIA, and others is pretty easy--you just have to claim you are fighting a very important "war" (in these cases, drugs, and terrorism). You can also get the public to support a missile shield (which in all likelihoods won't work (automatically, the effectiveness against terrorists is 0% since terrorists use asymettric covert techniques)). HOWEVER, getting the public to support a scientific mission is pretty tough.
So to summarize my thoughts... not enough money is allocated... there is no political will... US fiscal situation isn't good enough to get public support... All this can just mean one thing. This is political rhetoric before an election. Nothing more; nothing less!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Then the shareholders should invest in municipal bonds. Business is risky. Get over it.
Yes... but there is nothing wrong with them demanding less risk from their investments. If you own the company, you can do whatever the hell you want with it.
That's the real problem. The "concerns of the shareholders" are a straw man.
Concerns of the shareholders are very real. That is capitalism after all. If you owned stock in a company, your concern matters--and does influence things (as long as you own a significant chunk of it).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
But the modern business world is very short term oriented. What matters is how much MONEY is made NOW! Just do something to make some money and if it results in losses in the future, well, just jump ship or change the company name, or just use an advertising campaign. Even investors are short-term oriented. For instance, many investors (including institutional ones) sell out if things look bad.
Reputation used to mean something at one time but is less important now. Apart from the fact that a lot of industries are monoplized or oligopolized now, companies leverage their brands effectively. Consumers have no idea who owns what brands. So companies shift risky stuff to certain brands (away from safe valuable ones) and then if that fails, just re-introduce another brand. The safe brand is never really impacted.
You'll notice this in movies (as well as many other sectors like cars--do you know who owns Mazda? How about BMW?). For example, the Disney brand is good so Disney never does anything risky or controversial with it. So all the risky films are pushed off to the Touchstone label. If the Touchstone label loses its reputation, Disney will just introduce another one (let's call it NewDreams) and use that. The consumers have no idea what the hell is going on.
In addition to all that, major studios that you might think are seperate are actually owned by the same parent company. Or one film might be co-produced by multiple companies. If you want some information on the concentration of media companies (it is not limited to media but other sectors too), check out this The Nation article (old but relevant as ever).
Now, don't get me wrong. I am not saying brands are useless. In fact, some companies are valued solely based on brand. Companies like Coca-Cola and Nike derive their value from their brands. My point, however, is that brands are manipulated more easily nowadays. They are not what they meant 50 years ago. If you think KFC sucks, you might go and buy food at Taco Bell and not realize that they are the same companies.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Waking Life is one of my favourite films of all time. It doesn't surprise me you didn't like it. I think one really has to like philosphical films, or plotless films to like Waking Life. A lot of people who criticize it just don't like that "type" of films...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
lol... what will the trolls do next?
;)
I'm torn... Do I support freedom of speech (yes, even when private businesses are involved)? Or do I take pleasure in knowing that one of the worst websites on the planet is no more?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Posting as AC with a real name? :)
If Gnome will take two years to catch up to KDE, where will KDE be in two years?
But if KDE resources are transferred to Gnome, KDE won't be improved at the same level as now (read my next point below).
There will always be more than one desktop environment. Why all of a sudden does Novell have any say in this?
Novell's decision will have a big impact for two reasons. First of all, a lot of the key KDE developers are SuSE employees. Moving them to Gnome will be a BIG loss IMO. Having said that, I'm speculating. I really have no idea how significant the SuSE employees are (to KDE).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Since SuSE is controlled by Novell, it is highly likely that SuSE will drop KDE at some point in the future. Novell might already be on the path to phasing KDE out. Novell may deny any such plans, but name one corporation that has publically admitted something that may be criticized by users.
;) ). If you don't think so, come back in 2006 and we'll see who is right (I'll be around)...
It makes no sense from a business point of view to support two desktops. CEOs will certainly notice the extra costs of supporting two. Chopping one desktop may be the fastest way to generate extra profits. Of course, it will happen over a long period of time (say 2 years).
I predict that KDE will be dropped from SuSE (and other commercial linux distributions) by 2006--you heard it here first (ok maybe not
What's MY opinion on this? Well, there are advantages and disadvantages--like all things in life. KDE is the better desktop on linux. It is more polished, has more features, easier to use, similar to Windows, etc. Dumping KDE will mean the loss of those advantages (although Gnome would catch up in 2 years once Novell pumps resources into it). I personally like KDE better than Gnome (it is also the default in Mandrake Linux).
The upside is that linux will have ONE solid desktop (other window managers don't count). Some may dislike the lack of choice but splitting resources across multiple projects is a complete waste. Instead of having applications for one or the other, future developers will be able to write applications tailored for Gnome. This should significantly improve the quality of desktop applications. Right now, one pretty much has to use both KDE and Gnome applications. I use KDE (Mandrake 9.1) and probably 20% of hte applications are Gnome, 50% KDE, rest are neither*. This creates inconsistencies, poorer quality, more documentation, and so forth. If everyone used one desktop, it would eliminate this**.
* When I say neither, I'm basically counting applications that don't have a Gnome or KDE "look". Some of these applications actually use the libraries for Gnome and KDE (so technically it belongs to KDE or Gnome).
** Of course, there is a potential that having one desktop could result in stagnation and reduction in innovation. I personally don't think that will be a major problem at this point in time. If linux is successful, that problem wil only be faced 10 years from now, when some developer will be cursing at the desktop and its SDK because the desktop has become a monopoly.
Sivaram Velauthapillai