As an investor/shareholder I am also a partial owner of these companies.
I want sustainable long term performance, I don't care about an off quarter or even an off year, they happen I accept it. I want management to take the long term view and build a profitable company that will still be making me money in 20-30 years.
Heads are rolling at Dell because of a single bad quarter. It is like that at most successful companies..
Yes you can always tell how good a job someone is doing in 3 months. That's the recipe for short term thinking and arguably what is wrong with most publicly traded companies.
I had an old computer and dosshell task switching didn't really multitask.
With linux I could easily multitask with VC's and still get excellent speed. I wasn't limited to playing terminate or editing text files while downloading off a BBS, I could really multitask. I invested the time and learned the system and found it quite usable for my needs. Since then the system grew an I just never felt dissatisfied enough to leave.
I was playing some online games, but then they go and implement dumb rules, or change the game dynamics making it "suck". So I complain, they say no, and I quit.
Your viewing (or payment) is the only thing they care about. As long as their power tripping GMs don't cost them customers, they don't care, and they shouldn't care because it obviously doesn't matter that much.
Reminds me of irc politics, everything was fine with abusive ops for years. Then people started complaining and actually leaving and changes came.
Excellent link, I doubt they can demonstrate that the purpose is to create the impression of Government approval.
for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States
I'm under a different impression, but maybe that is because I read the companies annual reports.
Many government labs and large drug companies are researching a number of vaccines, antivirals and new antibiotics. There is also research into other areas like incontinence, diabetes, and insomnia.
The drug industry spends twice as much money on advertizing as it does on R&D Which drug company? In my example the company spends less than double on marketting than on R&D, in fact they spend less on marketting than in R&D plus manufacturing.
Marketting not only includes advertising, but also samples and education on the product.
Many left wing groups claim governments are more efficient, many right wing groups claim the goverment is less efficient. Both have numbers to support either position, I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. You claim the government is far less wasteful, I disagree. Overall I think it is roughly equivalent.
As for hospital placement, they are placed where it is most cost effective, to make sure each dollar spent will result in the maximum benefit. Why are the larger more advanced hospitals and care facilities in the larger population centers? Simply to provide care closest to the people most likely to need it. Simple economics and logical reasoning supports this as an efficient way to provide health care to the most people.
As for overwhelming support for raising budgets sure that exists, everyone wants more money. However there is more overwheling opposition to the constant tax increases we're being saddled with. Overall I think we would be best served if the government left people with their own money for them to decide how they wanted to spend it, rather than pretending they know better what to do with MY money.
The public DOES benefit from the current patent system. We have products available today that simply would not exist if it didn't exist. For example Tamiflu was created by a private company, not the government.
If the government system is so much more efficient, they should simply use some seed money to research and produce new products, then continue funding with the savings. Assuming they are much more efficient they will easily overtake private industry simply by being more competative.
I of course don't think it will turn out that way. I just look at the amount of loans my government gives to companies, most of them end up unable to repay the loan. I wouldn't want those same people who are unable to select a viable business to be the only ones controlling drug research.
I support having 2 systems public and private because I believe in practicality and success over idealogy and theory.
Your fire department example is interesting. In my area volunteer firefighters are quite common because the government determined it isn't worthwhile to pay professional firefighters.
What about hospital locations? Those again are positioned where they are economically justified. In some countries these ARE private corporations.
As for a 100% public system that would not only make better decisions than corporate power centers . I don't agree, IMO public systems tend to be wasteful and inefficient, with those added costs passed on to taxpayers. Private sector business can be more or less efficient, but eventually the less efficient companies self destruct.
To be very clear there is a place for both private AND public delivery of products, services and research.
As for simply hiring "everybody at their generous salary" I have a few questions. Which country would hire them? If Country A pays for the research should Country B get the benefit? Why doesn't Country B just cut their entire research budget? Many innovative companies are founded by groups of researchers who leave a larger company to gain research freedom. If there is no payback for taking that risk we would see less truely innovative research. Or they might err on the otherside and end up with too much crazy research that doesn't work.
I'm not arguing that the government can't foster innovation, I'm only suggesting that governments tend to be wasteful and we shouldn't rely on them to be the only source of research and innovation on any area.
Yeah marketting is expensive look at the annual reports.
On page 60 of Mercks 2004 annual report
2004 Merck spent $4.9B on Materials and Manufacturing $7.3B on Marketting & Administration $4B on R&D
To be fair the administration expenses should be a large part of that expense, but it seems clear that more money is spent on researching and producing the drugs than selling them.
Where is the incentive to develop new drugs that work? There will never be a cure for cancer. There is no money in it.
More profitable. For example Merk is developing a cancer vaccine (cervical cancer actually).
Company A might make money selling anti cancer treatments. The drugs doctors specialists etc (very expensive). The government, insurance companies or even the individuals would be willing to pay to stop cancer cheaper. Additionally Company B would gain business that they currently don't have.
He is somewhat correct, if security was a priority these problems wouldn't exist.
However consumers want easy to use and don't care about security. When you don't consider security (your customer doesn't care) and focus only on easy to use you will have an insecure system.
Given the choice most people will choose insecure and easy over secure and less easy. They'll even pay for the difference.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a documented format with multiple viewers.
I find xpdf fast, acrobat is high quality, but kinda crappy.
I'm finding kpdf is quickly becoming my favourite.
Well this can happen in a democracy, but in a while they have the option to change again.
Sheesh, make an open source interface and give it away. Once someone writes it, everyone can use it.
That being said my nVidia card works fine, I downloaded their kernel patch and I've been happy for years.
The GPL only has 1 restriction and that is that if you distribute the software the recipients get all the same rights you do.
The ONLY thing you aren't permitted to do is give them less than you have, which isn't that bad because it wasn't your software to begin with.
GPL is for people who want their free software to stay free, and not get embraced and extended by someone else.
Yes air can turn on a dime.
But the harder you make it turn the bigger the pressure drop and it lowers your overall fluid flow.
90 deg turns are horrible.
The effects of airflow and pressure change can be very significant. Think of an aircraft in flight for example.
As an investor/shareholder I am also a partial owner of these companies.
I want sustainable long term performance, I don't care about an off quarter or even an off year, they happen I accept it. I want management to take the long term view and build a profitable company that will still be making me money in 20-30 years.
SGI would be a smallcap/microcap.
Market cap is only $120 million, Redhat could buy them cash for 20% of their available cash.
Heads are rolling at Dell because of a single bad quarter. It is like that at most successful companies..
Yes you can always tell how good a job someone is doing in 3 months. That's the recipe for short term thinking and arguably what is wrong with most publicly traded companies.
Hydrogen comes from electricity.
Incremental electric demand comes from oil & natural gas.
Using hydrogen cars will just shift the fossil fuel burning to the power plant rather than the car.
So I'm wondering, other than sounding like cool space age technology, where is the benefit?
I had an old computer and dosshell task switching didn't really multitask.
With linux I could easily multitask with VC's and still get excellent speed.
I wasn't limited to playing terminate or editing text files while downloading off a BBS, I could really multitask.
I invested the time and learned the system and found it quite usable for my needs. Since then the system grew an I just never felt dissatisfied enough to leave.
I was playing some online games, but then they go and implement dumb rules, or change the game dynamics making it "suck".
So I complain, they say no, and I quit.
Your viewing (or payment) is the only thing they care about. As long as their power tripping GMs don't cost them customers, they don't care, and they shouldn't care because it obviously doesn't matter that much.
Reminds me of irc politics, everything was fine with abusive ops for years. Then people started complaining and actually leaving and changes came.
Excellent link, I doubt they can demonstrate that the purpose is to create the impression of Government approval.
for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States
Mandatory licensing of copyrights or patents is one possible solution to some of the IP problems today.
I'm under a different impression, but maybe that is because I read the companies annual reports.
Many government labs and large drug companies are researching a number of vaccines, antivirals and new antibiotics. There is also research into other areas like incontinence, diabetes, and insomnia.
The drug industry spends twice as much money on advertizing as it does on R&D
Which drug company?
In my example the company spends less than double on marketting than on R&D, in fact they spend less on marketting than in R&D plus manufacturing.
Marketting not only includes advertising, but also samples and education on the product.
Many left wing groups claim governments are more efficient, many right wing groups claim the goverment is less efficient. Both have numbers to support either position, I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. You claim the government is far less wasteful, I disagree. Overall I think it is roughly equivalent.
As for hospital placement, they are placed where it is most cost effective, to make sure each dollar spent will result in the maximum benefit.
Why are the larger more advanced hospitals and care facilities in the larger population centers? Simply to provide care closest to the people most likely to need it. Simple economics and logical reasoning supports this as an efficient way to provide health care to the most people.
As for overwhelming support for raising budgets sure that exists, everyone wants more money. However there is more overwheling opposition to the constant tax increases we're being saddled with. Overall I think we would be best served if the government left people with their own money for them to decide how they wanted to spend it, rather than pretending they know better what to do with MY money.
The public DOES benefit from the current patent system. We have products available today that simply would not exist if it didn't exist.
For example Tamiflu was created by a private company, not the government.
If the government system is so much more efficient, they should simply use some seed money to research and produce new products, then continue funding with the savings. Assuming they are much more efficient they will easily overtake private industry simply by being more competative.
I of course don't think it will turn out that way. I just look at the amount of loans my government gives to companies, most of them end up unable to repay the loan. I wouldn't want those same people who are unable to select a viable business to be the only ones controlling drug research.
I support having 2 systems public and private because I believe in practicality and success over idealogy and theory.
Your fire department example is interesting. In my area volunteer firefighters are quite common because the government determined it isn't worthwhile to pay professional firefighters.
What about hospital locations? Those again are positioned where they are economically justified. In some countries these ARE private corporations.
As for a 100% public system that would not only make better decisions than corporate power centers .
I don't agree, IMO public systems tend to be wasteful and inefficient, with those added costs passed on to taxpayers.
Private sector business can be more or less efficient, but eventually the less efficient companies self destruct.
To be very clear there is a place for both private AND public delivery of products, services and research.
As for simply hiring "everybody at their generous salary" I have a few questions.
Which country would hire them?
If Country A pays for the research should Country B get the benefit? Why doesn't Country B just cut their entire research budget?
Many innovative companies are founded by groups of researchers who leave a larger company to gain research freedom. If there is no payback for taking that risk we would see less truely innovative research. Or they might err on the otherside and end up with too much crazy research that doesn't work.
I'm not arguing that the government can't foster innovation, I'm only suggesting that governments tend to be wasteful and we shouldn't rely on them to be the only source of research and innovation on any area.
Yeah marketting is expensive look at the annual reports.
On page 60 of Mercks 2004 annual report
2004 Merck spent
$4.9B on Materials and Manufacturing
$7.3B on Marketting & Administration
$4B on R&D
To be fair the administration expenses should be a large part of that expense, but it seems clear that more money is spent on researching and producing the drugs than selling them.
This is drug industry propoganda.
Investors wouldn't invest my money into a companies if they can't provide a decent ROI.
Yes the public sector might be able to produce drugs cheaper however there is one problem.
Resource allocation, capitalism, as nasty as it is successfully solves this problem. Those who prove to be best at allocating resources get more.
The government isn't good at picking winners and losers. I wouldn't want them to be the only ones to decide which research to pursue.
Where is the incentive to develop new drugs that work? There will never be a cure for cancer. There is no money in it.
More profitable. For example Merk is developing a cancer vaccine (cervical cancer actually).
Company A might make money selling anti cancer treatments. The drugs doctors specialists etc (very expensive).
The government, insurance companies or even the individuals would be willing to pay to stop cancer cheaper. Additionally Company B would gain business that they currently don't have.
The genes aren't patented.
Manipulation of a particular genetic sequence to cause a reaction is patentable.
I don't really understand how though, to myself turning off the eating gene is a pretty obvious way to help someone lose weight.
BSD& Friends vs Windows
People even complain about the OpenBSD security obsession making this hard to use.
He is somewhat correct, if security was a priority these problems wouldn't exist.
However consumers want easy to use and don't care about security. When you don't consider security (your customer doesn't care) and focus only on easy to use you will have an insecure system.
Given the choice most people will choose insecure and easy over secure and less easy. They'll even pay for the difference.
You missed my point.
Creating and providing the software is a valid and appropriate behaviour.
The moral/political oppostition to the end use is irrelevant as the provider does not have control over the end use of the product.
I didn't know that content filtering was always bad.
I know many people who
Filter email for spam
Block spyware
Block ads
Block pornography from minors
Yawn a tool is being used for a purpose someone disagrees with.
Is the tool bad, or just that it is being used for that purpose.
Considering 2 examples of filtering/censoring software and p2p file distribution software.
They both have legitimate uses, however they may be used in other manners.