The cable companies that you speak of... the ones that rested on their monopolies (at least until satellite TV), and laid down the cable lines in the first place... are the same companies by name only.
The majority of them have been bought up by highly competitive companies who want to bring broadband connections to the forefront as fast as possible.
And this statement clenches it...you really are *totally* out of your field of knowledge...either that or you work in a marketing department for a cableco. I have not heard any significant cableco ever express any intentions of opening up their access to any other ISPs, ever.
Yup... just because you have never heard of it must mean that I am completely full of rhino feces. :)
--Executives close to AT&T (T) and American OnLine (AOL) said the two companies are considering an arrangement which would give AOL - and perhaps other internet providers - enhanced access to AT&T's systems, The New York Times reports in its Monday edition. The arrangement would bypass communication systems and web services developed by Excite@Home, an internet-over-cable company backed by many cable television players, including AT&T. Such a deal would let AT&T and America Online each tap the technical and marketing strengths of the other, The New York Times reported. AT&T and America Online declined comment, the New York Times reported.
Cable modem access was long ago available to be up and running in our area...what was the delay? Waiting for @Home to build their (still pathetically performing) network out to our location enough to actually be able to sell their service on the cable network.
Wasn't this my point? I have to wait years still for any high-speed access (at last estimate)... if this starts getting regulated, i am going to have to wait even longer. Instead, I want these various high-speed mediums to be racing to get to me, and to provide me with their service!
Justas cable TV service got a hell of a lot better with the advent of competing satellite TV, so will cable connecions get better.
Here's a clue...if cablecos are depending on competition with DSL to keep the regulators off their backs...they're in bad shape, 'cause right now, every local and national ISP that's not affiliated with a cableco is badmouthing (and rightly so) the cable-modem access for the suckiness that it is. Any time that DSL is a viable alternative, the cablecos are gonna lose and lose big time! @Home can't even provide service to a tiny fraction of the population where I am...DSL already has more customers around here and its only been available for a month, and even its not opened up to alternatives ISPs very well. When BellSouth gets a clue on their pricing and other ISPs can viably offer DSL service via their DSL network, Intermedia/@Home is dead.
First of all, that DSL is better is certainly up for debate... but more pertaining to our argument thread here >> Read your first sentence above. You are again proving my point. DSL is certainly a viable, competing high-speed option away from cable (in fact, AT&T is starting to even provide DSL service!). If so many people think DSL is better, that will encourage the cable companies to improve their technology, and roll it out even faster.
And I still believe most consumers do not give a rat's ass on the specs... they will fork out the money to whomever is able to reach them first.
Long term, customer choice is almost always gonna be better than monopoly positions both for consumers, and even for the monopoly company! By the cablecos not fostering competition, and by governments not fostering competition within the cable access networks, both entities are ultimately shooting themselves in their respective feet.
There is going to be choice! You will be able to choose between cable, DSL, satellite, and whatever else rolls along.
And do you really believe the cable companies are going to completely turn their backs on the ISP's anyways!? This would eliminate a large customer base and source of revenue.
Cable modem access was long ago available to be up and running in our area...what was the delay? Waiting for @Home to build their (still pathetically performing) network out to our location enough to actually be able to sell their service on the cable network.
Wasn't this my point? I have to wait years still for any high-speed access (at last estimate)... if this starts getting regulated, i am going to have to wait even longer. Instead, I want these various high-speed mediums to be racing to get to me, and to provide me with their service!
Here's a clue...if cablecos are depending on competition with DSL to keep the regulators off their backs...they're in bad shape, 'cause right now, every local and national ISP that's not affiliated with a cableco is badmouthing (and rightly so) the cable-modem access for the suckiness that it is. Any time that DSL is a viable alternative, the cablecos are gonna lose and lose big time! @Home can't even provide service to a tiny fraction of the population where I am...DSL already has more customers around here and its only been available for a month, and even its not opened up to alternatives ISPs very well. When BellSouth gets a clue on their pricing and other ISPs can viably offer DSL service via their DSL network, Intermedia/@Home is dead.
First of all, that DSL is better is certainly up for debate... but more pertaining to our argument thread here >> Read your first sentence above. You are again proving my point. DSL is certainly a viable, competing high-speed option away from cable (in fact, AT&T is starting to even provide DSL service!). If so many people think DSL is better, that will encourage the cable companies to improve their technology, and roll it out even faster.
And I still believe most consumers do not give a rat's ass on the specs... they will fork out the money to whomever is able to reach them first.
Long term, customer choice is almost always gonna be better than monopoly positions both for consumers, and even for the monopoly company! By the cablecos not fostering competition, and by governments not fostering competition within the cable access networks, both entities are ultimately shooting themselves in their respective feet.
There is going to be choice! You will be able to choose between cable, DSL, satellite, and whatever else rolls along.
And do you really believe the cable companies are going to completely turn their backs on the ISP's anyways!? This would eliminate a large customer base and source of revenue.
Yes, potential problems down the road if the cable companies are able to amass such power of high-speed access, and the FCC will have to watch this in the years to come... but what you are addressing is essentially putting the cart far before the horse. There is a far more fundamental problem with high-speed access that's hurting consumers right now: They can't get anyone to sell it to them!
The incentives to roll this out have simply not been there... until AT&T came along and forced everyone to get off their asses.
A monopoly position is going to encourage development? That would be a first.
Whoever said cable modems are the wave of the future? The vast majority of speed-starved consumers will gladly fork over $60 a month to the first medium who arrives with a high-speed link.... no technological questions asked.
Remember DSL? AOL certainly does. When it isn't busy coaching lobbyists and bawling at the government to save it (and they are ones to talk!), it's making deals with the likes of GTE, Ameritech SBC and Bell Atlantic.
There are options out there right now... instead of botching up the whole process with forced regulation, let these companies put out the service first! They are competing right now!
The cable companies are now racing to provide broadband service... as a result, the regional bell's are racing to do the same thing, with the satellite companies not too far behind.... each trying to keep their costs to consumers as low as possible. What would you call this scenario? I tend to call it competition.
If it were not for these cable companies, your chances of getting any broadband connection might be realized 25 or so years down the road. it certainly was not in the phone or ISP's best interests to make the nesacary investments to roll out this new service!
Now, the cable companies are forcing them to, in order to stay in the market.
And do you really believe that the cable companies are going to simpl ignore the already millions of internet users on ISP's not their own (AOL = 19 million). They will open up their lines to these ISP's... it is a great market, but it should be on their terms, and not mandated by the government! i would even bet that self regulated prices by the cable companies will even fall under what the government would opose.
And that is exactly what I see as the largest problem with opening up the cable lines.
Where is the need for high maintenance and improvements in technology when these companies have close to a guaranteed return? Why would they want to invest more into a system, when their profits will remain largely the same?
If left up to the regional bell's, broadband technology would probably be 25 years down the road. I applaud these cable companies for coming in, shaking things up and forcing the regional bell's to get of their asses.
There is going to be compitition to drive prices down between DSL, cable and satellite access. Forced open access is only going to encourage stagnation.
They are not talking about opening up the lines for a ridiculously low cost... the cable companies are still going to make a pretty profit from their initial investments (just not as high as they might like it).
However, the reason that I am against open access, is that it will discourage competition and improvements on technology. Let the cable companies, the regional bell's and the satellite providers duke it out. That is enough competition to keep prices down, but more importantly, it will encourage companies to reinvest their profits in order to improve upon these technologies.
If the cable companies are forced to open up, that , in a sense will guarantee them a certain rate of profits. The companies will be merely content to rest on their laurels with this guarantee, than to spend additionla capital on maintenance and upgrades. Why would they!? Their profits will not nesacarily improve with better service, if forced to open up.
Yes, I think it was something similar to that. What basically happened was there was no single ruler or King. When an issue arose, a citizen (A man) was randomly picked to make the decision. After that, his "rule" was over.
What put an end to that nice little system was one man (forget his name), simply refused to step down.
This was at the very beginning of Athens existance... since that point, they had implemented other forms of democracy (including assemblies attending by *All* citizens, each able to voice his concerns, and issues then decided upon by elected officials).
Athens was pretty darn succesful for quite some time.
I have always thought a good way to run our government would be through a system similar to a jury summoning.
At some point in your life, you are required to represent your region in congress (you are selected completely randomly). You get there, are absolutely scared shitless and work your ass off for two years until you get to go home.
While it introduces a few small problems... it does a good job of emliminating the countless problems we have with long-term politicians.
So I am not completely rooted in reality.... sue me.
You could just buy 3Com now. When the spin off occurs, you will get a certain amount of shares of the new company, in addition to retaining a large portion of your share in 3com.
Now, furthermore, I have never found a communist dictator in history.
Well, no, they are contradictory terms. However, as Orwell is so adept at pointing out, this has a way of taking shape.
Stalin used Marxist ideas as a means of having absolute control (dictator), which by all means, he did have.
The thing behind communism (not necesarily Marxism) is that there does need to be a revolution by the people. However, there needs to be a leader... then, there needs to be a system (government) put in place that will implement the seeds of Marxism, until government is no longer necesary and a true anarchy reigns.
My point is, is that almost all dictators throughout history have risen to power sporting Marxist ideals. They are doing this to over throw the tyranical government, in order to give the *people* power. In order to accomplish these goals, they argue the need for absolute control! These contradictions/double-think are the largest problems with communism.
What this really points out, is that we are moving from a goods-based economy, to a service-based economy. That is still very much capitalism. The internet is not going to change fundamental human greed:)
I have to agree... the idea behind console systems, in my mind, continues to be that you no longer have to go down to the arcade to play cool games (though it will never replace pinball!).
I recently read that it was quite a fight to have the Dreamcast come out today.
Sega Corp. of America has been jolted quite a bit... the (old) CEO was constanlty in CaHoots with Sega Japan. He had fought an uphill battle to get the retailers to back Sega once again (after the disastrous Saturn), and Japan turned around wanting to sell the Dreamcast through the internet (which would have obviously pissed off the retailers). Japan also wanted to delay the dreamcast in america until after christmas (thus losing the christmas buying explosion, and losing their one-up on play station II).
Since then, that CEO who fought for those things has resigned.
Linux is already being proclaimed as the alternative to Microsoft. What I see happening is that once a person has decided to go to linux, they then have a number of choices. The companies that succeed will be the ones that distinguish themselves from the others. I do not see the competition arising in order to capture each others market share, but from gaining the attention from those that are sick of Microsoft.
Right now, that company is Redhat... and they are smart to further the Wall Street iterpretation that they are indeed, the embodiment of linux. They will always have the advantage of being the first. But the first often fail.
It is like all the E-Trades out there.... their *real* competition is not the full service brokerage firms that they attack in their ads, it is the other countless on-line brokerage firms that have sprung up. Those ads are not as much to entice people from the Merril Lynch's out there... but to differentiate themselves as the best alternative to that.
I believe this market will soon grow to mirror that.
I think this is one thing many people fail to recognise when thinking about Redhat (especiall the "Redhat is Linux" types):
The main competition for Redhat is not going to be Microsoft... it is going to be other Linux software and support companies that will spring up. As will surely happen given the instant IPO success with Redhat.
Just as Amazon.com's competitors soon become buy.com and the likes, instead of (as much) Barnes & Nobles.... Redhat is not going to be the only company to do this... they just happened to be the first to go public.
A diferent way to look at things. I just think they need to stop focusing so much on Microsoft in order to succeed.
The more I read about Lucas, the more I lose respect for him. I think it would be absolute hell to work under such a control-freak.
Did you know at one time, Francis Ford Copella(sp?) approached Lucas with the idea of starting a religon based on "The Force"? I am actually suprised Lucas declined. He seems to be so ego driven. well, despite this... i still love the story, and kenobi (as played by guinness or macgregor) continues to be my favorite character.
While I am a big fan od Star Wars, I like the fact that I can get into the story without the dedication it takes (as well as loss of one's life:) to get into Star Trek. Call it the Lazy Man's Star Trek if you will. Granted, you can get almost as obsessed and read all those horrible books (I quit after about 5), but being a Star Wars fan is not a full-time job.
People invested in IBM certainly did lose a boat load of money in IBM in the late 80's.... but, if they did not sell, and held on to their shares, they would have more than quinupled their money today.
These huge, widely diversified companies have incredible staying power.... as well as growth potential.
Slashdot Mirror
The shares should only be available to Anonymous Posters.... especially that POLYESTER.COM guy. He rules!
I am always losing my debit card and I.D.
:-)
The cable companies that you speak of... the ones that rested on their monopolies (at least until satellite TV), and laid down the cable lines in the first place... are the same companies by name only.
The majority of them have been bought up by highly competitive companies who want to bring broadband connections to the forefront as fast as possible.
And this statement clenches it...you really are *totally* out of your field of knowledge...either that
or you work in a marketing department for a cableco. I have not heard any significant cableco ever
express any intentions of opening up their access to any other ISPs, ever.
Yup... just because you have never heard of it must mean that I am completely full of rhino feces.
:)
--Executives close to AT&T (T) and American OnLine (AOL)
said the two companies are considering an arrangement which would give AOL -
and perhaps other internet providers - enhanced access to AT&T's systems, The
New York Times reports in its Monday edition.
The arrangement would bypass communication systems and web services developed
by Excite@Home, an internet-over-cable company backed by many cable television
players, including AT&T.
Such a deal would let AT&T and America Online each tap the technical and
marketing strengths of the other, The New York Times reported.
AT&T and America Online declined comment, the New York Times reported.
12:46 AM- - 12 46 AM EDT 08-09-99
Cable modem access was long ago available to be up and running in our area...what was
the delay? Waiting for @Home to build their (still pathetically performing) network out to our
location enough to actually be able to sell their service on the cable network.
Wasn't this my point? I have to wait years still for any high-speed access (at last estimate)... if this starts getting regulated, i am going to have to wait even longer. Instead, I want these various high-speed mediums to be racing to get to me, and to provide me with their service!
Justas cable TV service got a hell of a lot better with the advent of competing satellite TV, so will cable connecions get better.
Here's a clue...if cablecos are depending on competition with DSL to keep the regulators off their
backs...they're in bad shape, 'cause right now, every local and national ISP that's not affiliated
with a cableco is badmouthing (and rightly so) the cable-modem access for the suckiness that it is.
Any time that DSL is a viable alternative, the cablecos are gonna lose and lose big time! @Home
can't even provide service to a tiny fraction of the population where I am...DSL already has more
customers around here and its only been available for a month, and even its not opened up to
alternatives ISPs very well. When BellSouth gets a clue on their pricing and other ISPs can viably
offer DSL service via their DSL network, Intermedia/@Home is dead.
First of all, that DSL is better is certainly up for debate... but more pertaining to our argument thread here >> Read your first sentence above. You are again proving my point. DSL is certainly a viable, competing high-speed option away from cable (in fact, AT&T is starting to even provide DSL service!). If so many people think DSL is better, that will encourage the cable companies to improve their technology, and roll it out even faster.
And I still believe most consumers do not give a rat's ass on the specs... they will fork out the money to whomever is able to reach them first.
Long term, customer choice is almost always gonna be better than monopoly positions both for
consumers, and even for the monopoly company! By the cablecos not fostering competition, and by
governments not fostering competition within the cable access networks, both entities are
ultimately shooting themselves in their respective feet.
There is going to be choice! You will be able to choose between cable, DSL, satellite, and whatever else rolls along.
And do you really believe the cable companies are going to completely turn their backs on the ISP's anyways!? This would eliminate a large customer base and source of revenue.
Cable modem access was long ago available to be up and running in our area...what was
the delay? Waiting for @Home to build their (still pathetically performing) network out to our
location enough to actually be able to sell their service on the cable network.
Wasn't this my point? I have to wait years still for any high-speed access (at last estimate)... if this starts getting regulated, i am going to have to wait even longer. Instead, I want these various high-speed mediums to be racing to get to me, and to provide me with their service!
Here's a clue...if cablecos are depending on competition with DSL to keep the regulators off their
backs...they're in bad shape, 'cause right now, every local and national ISP that's not affiliated
with a cableco is badmouthing (and rightly so) the cable-modem access for the suckiness that it is.
Any time that DSL is a viable alternative, the cablecos are gonna lose and lose big time! @Home
can't even provide service to a tiny fraction of the population where I am...DSL already has more
customers around here and its only been available for a month, and even its not opened up to
alternatives ISPs very well. When BellSouth gets a clue on their pricing and other ISPs can viably
offer DSL service via their DSL network, Intermedia/@Home is dead.
First of all, that DSL is better is certainly up for debate... but more pertaining to our argument thread here >> Read your first sentence above. You are again proving my point. DSL is certainly a viable, competing high-speed option away from cable (in fact, AT&T is starting to even provide DSL service!). If so many people think DSL is better, that will encourage the cable companies to improve their technology, and roll it out even faster.
And I still believe most consumers do not give a rat's ass on the specs... they will fork out the money to whomever is able to reach them first.
Long term, customer choice is almost always gonna be better than monopoly positions both for
consumers, and even for the monopoly company! By the cablecos not fostering competition, and by
governments not fostering competition within the cable access networks, both entities are
ultimately shooting themselves in their respective feet.
There is going to be choice! You will be able to choose between cable, DSL, satellite, and whatever else rolls along.
And do you really believe the cable companies are going to completely turn their backs on the ISP's anyways!? This would eliminate a large customer base and source of revenue.
Yes, potential problems down the road if the cable companies are able to amass such power of high-speed access, and the FCC will have to watch this in the years to come... but what you are addressing is essentially putting the cart far before the horse. There is a far more fundamental problem with high-speed access that's hurting consumers right now: They can't get anyone to sell it to them!
The incentives to roll this out have simply not been there... until AT&T came along and forced everyone to get off their asses.
A monopoly position is going to encourage development? That would be a first.
Whoever said cable modems are the wave of the future? The vast majority of speed-starved consumers will gladly fork over $60 a month to the first medium who arrives with a high-speed link.... no technological questions asked.
Remember DSL? AOL certainly does. When it isn't busy coaching lobbyists and bawling at the government to save it (and they are ones to talk!), it's making deals with the likes of GTE, Ameritech SBC and Bell Atlantic.
There are options out there right now... instead of botching up the whole process with forced regulation, let these companies put out the service first! They are competing right now!
The cable companies are now racing to provide broadband service... as a result, the regional bell's are racing to do the same thing, with the satellite companies not too far behind.... each trying to keep their costs to consumers as low as possible.
What would you call this scenario? I tend to call it competition.
If it were not for these cable companies, your chances of getting any broadband connection might be realized 25 or so years down the road.
it certainly was not in the phone or ISP's best interests to make the nesacary investments to roll out this new service!
Now, the cable companies are forcing them to, in order to stay in the market.
And do you really believe that the cable companies are going to simpl ignore the already millions of internet users on ISP's not their own (AOL = 19 million). They will open up their lines to these ISP's... it is a great market, but it should be on their terms, and not mandated by the government!
i would even bet that self regulated prices by the cable companies will even fall under what the government would opose.
And that is exactly what I see as the largest problem with opening up the cable lines.
Where is the need for high maintenance and improvements in technology when these companies have close to a guaranteed return? Why would they want to invest more into a system, when their profits will remain largely the same?
If left up to the regional bell's, broadband technology would probably be 25 years down the road. I applaud these cable companies for coming in, shaking things up and forcing the regional bell's to get of their asses.
There is going to be compitition to drive prices down between DSL, cable and satellite access. Forced open access is only going to encourage stagnation.
They are not talking about opening up the lines for a ridiculously low cost... the cable companies are still going to make a pretty profit from their initial investments (just not as high as they might like it).
However, the reason that I am against open access, is that it will discourage competition and improvements on technology. Let the cable companies, the regional bell's and the satellite providers duke it out. That is enough competition
to keep prices down, but more importantly, it will encourage companies to reinvest their profits in order to improve upon these technologies.
If the cable companies are forced to open up, that , in a sense will guarantee them a certain rate of profits. The companies will be merely content to rest on their laurels with this guarantee, than to spend additionla capital on maintenance and upgrades. Why would they!? Their profits will not nesacarily improve with better service, if forced to open up.
Yes, I think it was something similar to that.
What basically happened was there was no single ruler or King. When an issue arose, a citizen (A man) was randomly picked to make the decision. After that, his "rule" was over.
What put an end to that nice little system was one man (forget his name), simply refused to step down.
This was at the very beginning of Athens existance... since that point, they had implemented other forms of democracy (including assemblies attending by *All* citizens, each able to voice his concerns, and issues then decided upon by elected officials).
Athens was pretty darn succesful for quite some time.
I have always thought a good way to run our government would be through a system similar to a jury summoning.
At some point in your life, you are required to represent your region in congress (you are selected completely randomly). You get there, are absolutely scared shitless and work your ass off for two years until you get to go home.
While it introduces a few small problems... it does a good job of emliminating the countless problems we have with long-term politicians.
So I am not completely rooted in reality.... sue me.
You could just buy 3Com now.
When the spin off occurs, you will get a certain amount of shares of the new company, in addition to retaining a large portion of your share in 3com.
Now, furthermore, I have never found a communist dictator in history.
Well, no, they are contradictory terms.
However, as Orwell is so adept at pointing out, this has a way of taking shape.
Stalin used Marxist ideas as a means of having absolute control (dictator), which by all means, he did have.
The thing behind communism (not necesarily Marxism) is that there does need to be a revolution by the people. However, there needs to be a leader... then, there needs to be a system (government) put in place that will implement the seeds of Marxism, until government is no longer necesary and a true anarchy reigns.
My point is, is that almost all dictators throughout history have risen to power sporting Marxist ideals. They are doing this to over throw the tyranical government, in order to give the *people* power. In order to accomplish these goals, they argue the need for absolute control!
These contradictions/double-think are the largest problems with communism.
It is called elitism.
:)
But I think this thread shows that many linux users are indeed, very pro-capitalism.
now the religion issue on the other hand.... probably do not want to go into that.
What this really points out, is that we are moving from a goods-based economy, to a service-based economy. That is still very much capitalism. :)
The internet is not going to change fundamental human greed
If the media printed in their papers, magazines and news specials "Y2K -- EVERYTHING'S GOING TO BE OK!", would they sell many copies?
Stock market's a workin'
:)
I have to agree... the idea behind console systems, in my mind, continues to be that you no longer have to go down to the arcade to play cool games (though it will never replace pinball!).
If you want to hack... use your computer.
I recently read that it was quite a fight to have the Dreamcast come out today.
Sega Corp. of America has been jolted quite a bit... the (old) CEO was constanlty in CaHoots with Sega Japan. He had fought an uphill battle to get the retailers to back Sega once again (after the disastrous Saturn), and Japan turned around wanting to sell the Dreamcast through the internet (which would have obviously pissed off the retailers). Japan also wanted to delay the dreamcast in america until after christmas (thus losing the christmas buying explosion, and losing their one-up on play station II).
Since then, that CEO who fought for those things has resigned.
Are you sure it was 880,000 shares for solely the affinity program?
I know a number of shares went towards Redhat employees (not counting officers). That could account for the missing shares.
I did not think anyone in the affinity program got more than 400.
But of coure, I am probably dead-ass wrong.
Linux is already being proclaimed as the alternative to Microsoft. What I see happening is that once a person has decided to go to linux, they then have a number of choices. The companies that succeed will be the ones that distinguish themselves from the others. I do not see the competition arising in order to capture each others market share, but from gaining the attention from those that are sick of Microsoft.
Right now, that company is Redhat... and they are smart to further the Wall Street iterpretation that they are indeed, the embodiment of linux. They will always have the advantage of being the first. But the first often fail.
It is like all the E-Trades out there.... their *real* competition is not the full service brokerage firms that they attack in their ads, it is the other countless on-line brokerage firms that have sprung up. Those ads are not as much to entice people from the Merril Lynch's out there... but to differentiate themselves as the best alternative to that.
I believe this market will soon grow to mirror that.
I think this is one thing many people fail to recognise when thinking about Redhat (especiall the "Redhat is Linux" types):
The main competition for Redhat is not going to be Microsoft... it is going to be other Linux software and support companies that will spring up. As will surely happen given the instant IPO success with Redhat.
Just as Amazon.com's competitors soon become buy.com and the likes, instead of (as much) Barnes & Nobles.... Redhat is not going to be the only company to do this... they just happened to be the first to go public.
A diferent way to look at things. I just think they need to stop focusing so much on Microsoft in order to succeed.
The more I read about Lucas, the more I lose respect for him. I think it would be absolute hell to work under such a control-freak.
:) to get into Star Trek. Call it the Lazy Man's Star Trek if you will. Granted, you can get almost as obsessed and read all those horrible books (I quit after about 5), but being a Star Wars fan is not a full-time job.
Did you know at one time, Francis Ford Copella(sp?) approached Lucas with the idea of starting a religon based on "The Force"? I am actually suprised Lucas declined. He seems to be so ego driven. well, despite this... i still love the story, and kenobi (as played by guinness or macgregor) continues to be my favorite character.
While I am a big fan od Star Wars, I like the fact that I can get into the story without the dedication it takes (as well as loss of one's life
and my point was?
People invested in IBM certainly did lose a boat load of money in IBM in the late 80's.... but, if they did not sell, and held on to their shares, they would have more than quinupled their money today.
These huge, widely diversified companies have incredible staying power.... as well as growth potential.