The explanation is pretty simple. If you follow the history of the battle over internet radio royalties, you'll quickly see that it is all about stream ripping. The music industry is convinced that millions of people are "stealing" music by recording streaming radio with free tools like streamripper.
It's not just about stream-ripping. It's also about controlling the market. Internet radio destroys the ability of the major labels to determine what music gets played, which means that they lose the marketing oligopoly they currently hold.
It is the economists on WALL STREET, not those on campus, whose lives directly depend on a strong economy. I have a strong feeling that if they were polled the results would be heavily skewed towards the candidate that is not announcing large tax increases...
That's predicated on the assumption that tax increases inhibit a strong economy. Most economists believe this not to be whole story, as spending of the tax by the government also stimulates the economy.
Could BadAnalogyGuy or someone else please provide us with some car analogies to explain the economy, this survey, Scott Adams, what economists do, and anything else you feel could be well covered by a good solid car analogy.
I'll try to help out here, though I'm probably a poor substitute for BAG.
See, Republicans are Fords. And Democrats are Toyotas. And Scott Adams has surveyed a bunch of auto industry employees about whether the industry would do better with the CEo of Ford or the CEO of Toyota running the entire auto industry.
More Toyota employees respond to the survey than Ford employees. It turns out that most employees of Toyota say the CEO of Toyota would make the auto industry better; most employees of Ford say that the CEO of Ford would do a better job.
Wait, who am I kidding. Even the employees of Ford know that the top brass at Ford are idiots.
Let's give this another shot:
The economy is a Ford Explorer. The tires on the car (the Republican machine) all agree that the car won't go anywhere if they aren't in charge, even though they are bald and going flat. The transmission (the Democratic machine) thinks that only changing gears can save the car. The engine (the "captains of industry") knows it's really in charge, but lets the tires and transmission duke it out for symbolic control of the car. Palin is the rear spoiler and the neons, pretty but do nothing for performance. Biden is the horn, but more apt to annoy everyone when he makes noise. Nader is the cataliytic converter, and Ron Paul is the loose lugnuts on the tires.
But it doesn't matter, because there are Toyotas and Hondas and Hyundais and Nissans and tons of other cars that are out-competing us... and the truth of the matter is that we need to scrap the Explorer.
I think it would have been better to fund a survey of 500 accountants. Economists are theorists, but accountants deal with hard data every day. It's like faith vs. science.
That's like saying you should ask burger flippers at McDonalds what the long-term growth strategy for the company should be.
Economics is fundamentally different from accounting, they are barely even related fields.
It would be far more efficacious to push for a critical thinking and debate class requirements in grade and collegiate level schools. At least then people would be better equipped to winnow out the facts from the crap themselves, and we wouldn't have to rely on some nebulous "Truth Authority" to inform us.
That may be even harder to make happen than to implement a fair and accurate "truthfulness" rating.
That said, I'm opposed to the idea of any kind of trust ranking. It promotes intellectual laziness, which we already have enough of, and would work against what you promote.
As far as I'm concerned, we need to push tools that stimulate critical thinking and logic. Any system that purports to provide a trustworthiness value of a source is dangerous to society in the long run, for reasons given in others' posts (e.g., groupthink).
I see 100 million fundamentalists paying for quackery, as ultimately harmless. The worst I can say about it, is that they wouldn't be helping. Well, I never really had a fair expectation for them to help. If we don't all agree that science is a good thing, then we'll just have to disagree, instead of forcing someone to do something they don't' want to.
But there's a huge opportunity cost in paying for quackery instead of paying for valuable research.
Plus, if the quackery is well-funded, it will continue to mislead people. I think it's irresponsible to allow the anti-science nutjobs to grow in power and influence. The US is already becoming a scientific laughing-stock, and it's not getting better.
When we pretend that we have consensus of values, we guarantee that somebody will have to end up being a loser. The less power that resides in a decision-making body, the less harmful that body will be to anyone.
It's easy to say that any institution will be less able to do damage if it has less power. I think that the general public is just as capable of doing damage, and that power in the hands of the general public can be perhaps *more* dangerous. I greatly fear the tyranny of the majority... but just as much, I fear the idiocy of the majority.
As for consensus of values... well, we've never had that. There has always been contention, which is why we have things like elections. If we weren't stuck in a two-party system, it would probably work a bit better, in making sure the minority voice gets heard. At any rate, I think that direct democracy is a very bad idea when you have an uneducated populace... and I'm not sure it wuold be possible to have a populace educated enough to make direct democracy tenable in a large society.
Because politicians are, to a certain extent, held responsible for their decisions.
Not to get too sidetracked, but the real problem is that the reins of power are held by those so removed from the citizenry that they really aren't answerable. One senator per 300,000 people is ridiculous... most people have never met their Senator, or even their federal Representative. There is no accountability, except for the need to be accountable to the soundbytes of the evening news.
At any rate... I don't trust politicians to be !evil. But I don't trust the general public to be !stupid. And I'd rather take my chances that a politician might do the right thing, than trust in the general public even knowing what the right thing is.
This book is compromise. It concedes that the existing oppressive legal structure is acceptable and should be worked within.
No, it concedes that IP law exists, and is a reality that must be dealt with.
You can keep on living in an imaginary world where ideas are free (as in beer, as in speech, as in love), but the rest of us have to live in a world where IP exists and has the legal system behind it. Unlike yourself, an understandable guide to that system (like this book) is a useful tool.
I'm all for idealistic notions, but those of us who need to earn our bread in the real world have pressing concerns that makes such idealism impractical.
Private sector" does not necessarily have to be a synonym for "profit-oriented business." Imagine if the same portion of your paycheck's federal withholding that is being spent by the feds on science, were instead voluntarily contributed, by you, to a foundation of your choosing. Imagine choosing foundations based on the directors' expertise in science and grant proposal selection
And now, imagine 100 million people voluntarily contributing funds to a foundation of their choice, as suggested by their pastor/priest/mullah.
I don't mean to be snarky, it's just that I do not trust the wisdom of the crowds (although the tyranny of the majority poses its own problems). WRT research, the problem is that then funds are subject to the 'sexiness' of the research even moreso than now. There is a lot of very valuable unsexy research being done, and I think it would be a big mistake to allow discretionary directed funding of research by the individual taxpayer.
Of course, you may believe differently -- I just have a lot of disdain for the wisdom of the crowds.
Federal research grants have co-opted the Universities, for sure (add in government accreditation and there's even more monopolistic powers)
Co-opted the Universities from what? Most of the best research universities in the US are... guess what... public universities. Public (government) funding has been part of the deal since the inception of public universities.
As for competing with public funds... that's just silly. There is not enough funding for research right now, private grants do not compete with public grants... both types are in high demand in research institutions.
There are thousands of organizations that fund research privately. Competing with taxpayer-funded research is difficult, though, but not impossible.
Please explain. Can you cite or refer to a few examples, where private organizations have been unable to fund research because public funds have 'used up' all the researchers? Where the supply of qualified researchers is limiting the amount of research? I'm really curious if this is actually happening, or if you're making things up again.
The Federalist papers were items that people VOLUNTARILY sought out - they weren't shoved into everyones mailboxes and under their door thresholds.
[CITATION NEEDED]
The federalist papers were originally published in three New York newspapers, then later paublished in other local papers, eventually across the Western World. If someone purchased the newspaper for a different purpose, that person still got 'spammed' with the Federalist Papers in their newspaper. While the analogy is tenuous, receiving unsolicited emails, sent for the same reasons as the publishing of the Federalist Papers, is similar to having them appear in newspapers. In neither case would the content be directly solicited.
For sake of argument, one could say that the way to opt out of spam emails would be to opt out of email. This would be similar to choosing not to purchase a newspaper.
Political freedom of expression is protected; what isn't protected is having ANYTHING shoved down my throat using my own resources.
By extension, you should never have to see an advertisement. After all, it is something shoved down your throat using your own resources. Would you support legislation to ban all advertisement?
I don't know about you but I don't think 'farking huge' is a criteria for coolness. There are plenty of freaking awesome birds out there.
And haing been up close and personal with crocs, caymans, and gators, I can say that they are anything but underwhelming... though some more diversity would be cool.
I just wante to point out that most of the points you make depend on the player choosing to play that way.
Your point (a), however, is very valid -- but is common to many rpgs with feats. The wizard in Baldur's Gate, for example -- lightning was a ridiculous spell that made almost the entire game a cinch. I tend to purposely not choose the 'l33t' feat combinations... because I enjoy difficult gameplay. The problem is as you point out, when the bosses are pretty much impossible without choosing the right feats. This is a design problem.
At any rate, I've found that my experience with RPGs is that it's best to play like I want, not necessarily the way that's the 'best' for character advancement or dps. If I want to play stealth, and not cheese any mobs, I can do that... although it does tend to piss people off in coop play:)
Where do you store your external drives? If it's your personal items you're referring to, you probably keep them in the same house as your computer. Not much of a backup in the event of a fire/tornado/flood/etc. If it's for a business, unless you have offices in multiple locations, you probably keep them in the same office. So now if someone breaks your office's physical security, they have access to your backups as well.
For my home office, I drop off my backups once weekly at my safety deposit box at the bank (right by my office... very convenient). At worst, I lose a week of my work/data if my house burns down.
If you have a business with backup needs more demanding than the safety-deposit-box method (and as a business, you'd want to make sure to do this daily), then pay the cost of an off-site backup service. I've had good experiences with Iron Mountain, particularly when my office was involved in a fire a couple years ago.
The advantage of the book over wikipedia is a cohesive structure, consistency, and progression of complexity. You'll lose a lot of that by having different people write different chapters.
A lot of high-level college textbooks have chapters written by different people. Typically by experts in the subjects covered in those chapters. This is why high-level textbooks are referred to by the names of their editors, not so much the authors.
So, I'm not sure if there is any particular drawback to distributing authorsip for an "open" textbook.
What I do like (other than the creative commons-style licensing) is that it seems there will be much greater oppportunity for community editing. This, if done properly, could result in greater readability and usefulness of the text.
I agree with the gist of your post (though not necessarily the tone)... but
3. If we're going to be anal it is far fewer molecules - The 4 bases of DNA and the proteins involved in their replication are all we need really to understand all disease processes, for it is from this template, and the proteins which they code for, that everything comes from. These 68 are all coded for in the DNA, even the DNA itself. One may wish to be a bit more anal and include mitochondrial DNA and proteins separately, as they are a separate genome technically.
You are oversimplifying... DNA is nothing without the amino acids used to synthesize proteins. And there are plenty of diseases that are dependent on dietary inputs (or lack thereof), that one could not understand with knowledge only of DNA. Never mind the glycols not expressed in the DNA.
Say, you're not a biochemist, are you? Or a pathophysiologist? Didn't think so.
Perhaps reading TFA could help you understand why the chart referred to is noteworthy:
"What is important is that no one has composed it and laid it out so clearly before," said Ajit Varki, M.D., Distinguished Professor of Medicine and Cellular and Molecular Medicine and founder and co-director of the Glycobiology Research and Training Center at UC San Diego School of Medicine, and chief editor of the major textbook in the field, The Essentials of Glycobiology.
Oh, and just to note -- hydroxyapatite is not an organic molecule, it's an inorganic ceramic. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's clear you are unfamiliar with the topic.
Can you imagine calling one of the accountants in at 2:00am because somebody messed something up? It wouldn't happen. If it DID, the accountant would be hailed as a hero that is committed to their job and deserves a promotion.
As much as I understand that many accountants (or people in any non-IT department in a large company) do not understand what goes on in the IT realm, this statement of yours reflects the same kind of ignorance from the IT side.
I work for a global company, in finance, and I regularly get calls at any hour of the day. I typically begin returning calls at 4:30 AM, and am still working at 9 PM. This is considered to be nothing exceptional. Of course, it's factored into my compensation, but as an IT worker, you should not assume that people in another department are not also making sacrifices to stay relevant in the new global business climate.
Interestingly enough, finance and accounting is very similar to IT, in that we have a very high exposure to offshoring. Data entry used to be handled by accounting clerks... now it is outsourced and offshored. Even mid-level finance and accounting work is offshored. In every global firm I've worked for, the people who put in the most hours are the finance team. Sure, it's anecdotal. Small- to mid-sized American firms, not so much.
I guess I should say that the example of accountants for your purposes is likely a poor choice. On the whole, I agree with your post, but I guess I just took exception to your example:)
"Accroding to the firm, which operates a community-based testing network,.."
I guess the editors do not use Firefox to spell check before posting.
Nonsense. 'Accroding' is a perfectly cromulent word. It is the gerund of the verb 'to accrode', which is the process by which an entity corrodes via accretion of a substrate.
Now, I think the author's usage is terrible, but that word should get through the strictest of spell-checkers.
Ethical scandal? Really? She pushed for the firing of some cop who tazer'd his own nephew, and then threatened the life of his soon-to-be-ex father in law? Seems like a fireable offense to me. Regardless of how she's related to the family.
The ethical scandal is that she then got the commissioner fired for not doing as she wished. *That* is the big problem... she is, just like the current executive, intolerant of people who are not yes-men.
I, for one, do not want another my-way-or-the-highway executive, because no person is infallible.
Just a quick note, you should cite properly. KDawson was quoting a source (the submitter) who was quoting another source (an author at the Inquirer); you should not attribute that quote to him.
As for whether doing a recall will bankrupt NVidia...
Bankruptcy is when a company is in a negative cash flow position and does not have the assets to meet all of its obligations. It is quite possible that NVidia faces bankruptcy whether they issue the recall or not, and whether they scrap the bad unsold chips or not.
There are four possibilities for NVidia, and they all suck.
Case 1: Ignore the issue. Continue selling bad chips, and only pay to replace chips under warranty when requested. Upside: low cash cost, no big hit to inventory assets. Downside: Reputation down the drain.
Case 2: No recall, but scrap bad unsold inventory. Upside: Better prognosis for brand reputation. Downside: large cash outlay to replace inventory.
Case 3: Recall bad chips already sold, but continue selling bad inventory. This one makes no sense.
Case 4: Issue recall, scrap unsold inventory. Upside: best for brand reputation. Downside: Massive cash outlay.
So, looking at the cases, they have to trade off brand reputation for cash. If they go bankrupt, they are shit out of luck. They are better off not laying out the cash, and trying to win back brand reputation by other means (such as replacing management, or even via a takeover by another company). This would allow them to survive in the short run, and potentially recover in the long run. If they have other chipsets in development not far from production, then they could recover well as long as they make sure to not replicate the problem:)
Are you referring to day traders? Because, by far, most investors are institutional investors, and they tend to invest for the long term. This especially true of blue-chip stocks like MS.
Likewise, if Apple can say that the Mac gained 3% in the last year, investors don't really care if it went from 3% or 6%.
What? You're just making things up. An increase in market share of 100% (from 3% to 6%) is much more significant than an increase of 50% (from 6% to 9%), which assuming a constant market size, is the difference in your example.
Please, before you make claims about what investors do based upon marketshare figures, I suggest you spend some time working in the field. You don't give investors much credit for doing their homework, which I think is mistaken. And you place too much weight on marketshare numbers, which is a very small part of the hard numbers that contribute to profitability.
You miss a couple important factors. While market share is important, also important is the forecast for the market, and the margins on the product sold in the market.
In terms of expected profits (and hence, expected share value or dividends), who cares if market share is dropping a couple percent a year if the market is growing, say, five percent a year? Or if the margin is increasing likewise?
Of course, you might be making a valid point, I haven't crunched the numbers on MSFT. But, AFAICT from a quick googling, long-term projections for MS are still very good.
Well, free convection is largely dependent on gravity. But forced convection will still work.
Better put a fan on it, or send several dozen of them for whatever task is needed.
If it is truly very efficient, no need to put a fan on it. Just make sure it's being used near an air circulation vent, to take advantage of the already existant currents.
A failure of set-up parachutes is actually one of the most common occurrences in this sort of test
Well, duh. The set-up parachutes are one of the first things to happen in the parachute deployment path. Consider path A --> B --> C ---> D.
Assuming equal probability of failure at any point, then of course failure at point A will be the most common; one cannot proceed to B (or C or D) unless A has happened successfully.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not just about stream-ripping. It's also about controlling the market. Internet radio destroys the ability of the major labels to determine what music gets played, which means that they lose the marketing oligopoly they currently hold.
That's predicated on the assumption that tax increases inhibit a strong economy. Most economists believe this not to be whole story, as spending of the tax by the government also stimulates the economy.
I'll try to help out here, though I'm probably a poor substitute for BAG.
See, Republicans are Fords. And Democrats are Toyotas. And Scott Adams has surveyed a bunch of auto industry employees about whether the industry would do better with the CEo of Ford or the CEO of Toyota running the entire auto industry.
More Toyota employees respond to the survey than Ford employees. It turns out that most employees of Toyota say the CEO of Toyota would make the auto industry better; most employees of Ford say that the CEO of Ford would do a better job.
Wait, who am I kidding. Even the employees of Ford know that the top brass at Ford are idiots.
Let's give this another shot:
The economy is a Ford Explorer. The tires on the car (the Republican machine) all agree that the car won't go anywhere if they aren't in charge, even though they are bald and going flat. The transmission (the Democratic machine) thinks that only changing gears can save the car. The engine (the "captains of industry") knows it's really in charge, but lets the tires and transmission duke it out for symbolic control of the car. Palin is the rear spoiler and the neons, pretty but do nothing for performance. Biden is the horn, but more apt to annoy everyone when he makes noise. Nader is the cataliytic converter, and Ron Paul is the loose lugnuts on the tires.
But it doesn't matter, because there are Toyotas and Hondas and Hyundais and Nissans and tons of other cars that are out-competing us... and the truth of the matter is that we need to scrap the Explorer.
That's like saying you should ask burger flippers at McDonalds what the long-term growth strategy for the company should be.
Economics is fundamentally different from accounting, they are barely even related fields.
That may be even harder to make happen than to implement a fair and accurate "truthfulness" rating.
That said, I'm opposed to the idea of any kind of trust ranking. It promotes intellectual laziness, which we already have enough of, and would work against what you promote.
As far as I'm concerned, we need to push tools that stimulate critical thinking and logic. Any system that purports to provide a trustworthiness value of a source is dangerous to society in the long run, for reasons given in others' posts (e.g., groupthink).
But there's a huge opportunity cost in paying for quackery instead of paying for valuable research.
Plus, if the quackery is well-funded, it will continue to mislead people. I think it's irresponsible to allow the anti-science nutjobs to grow in power and influence. The US is already becoming a scientific laughing-stock, and it's not getting better.
It's easy to say that any institution will be less able to do damage if it has less power. I think that the general public is just as capable of doing damage, and that power in the hands of the general public can be perhaps *more* dangerous. I greatly fear the tyranny of the majority... but just as much, I fear the idiocy of the majority.
As for consensus of values... well, we've never had that. There has always been contention, which is why we have things like elections. If we weren't stuck in a two-party system, it would probably work a bit better, in making sure the minority voice gets heard. At any rate, I think that direct democracy is a very bad idea when you have an uneducated populace... and I'm not sure it wuold be possible to have a populace educated enough to make direct democracy tenable in a large society.
Because politicians are, to a certain extent, held responsible for their decisions.
Not to get too sidetracked, but the real problem is that the reins of power are held by those so removed from the citizenry that they really aren't answerable. One senator per 300,000 people is ridiculous... most people have never met their Senator, or even their federal Representative. There is no accountability, except for the need to be accountable to the soundbytes of the evening news.
At any rate... I don't trust politicians to be !evil. But I don't trust the general public to be !stupid. And I'd rather take my chances that a politician might do the right thing, than trust in the general public even knowing what the right thing is.
No, it concedes that IP law exists, and is a reality that must be dealt with.
You can keep on living in an imaginary world where ideas are free (as in beer, as in speech, as in love), but the rest of us have to live in a world where IP exists and has the legal system behind it. Unlike yourself, an understandable guide to that system (like this book) is a useful tool.
I'm all for idealistic notions, but those of us who need to earn our bread in the real world have pressing concerns that makes such idealism impractical.
And now, imagine 100 million people voluntarily contributing funds to a foundation of their choice, as suggested by their pastor/priest/mullah.
I don't mean to be snarky, it's just that I do not trust the wisdom of the crowds (although the tyranny of the majority poses its own problems). WRT research, the problem is that then funds are subject to the 'sexiness' of the research even moreso than now. There is a lot of very valuable unsexy research being done, and I think it would be a big mistake to allow discretionary directed funding of research by the individual taxpayer.
Of course, you may believe differently -- I just have a lot of disdain for the wisdom of the crowds.
Co-opted the Universities from what? Most of the best research universities in the US are... guess what... public universities. Public (government) funding has been part of the deal since the inception of public universities.
As for competing with public funds... that's just silly. There is not enough funding for research right now, private grants do not compete with public grants... both types are in high demand in research institutions.
Please explain. Can you cite or refer to a few examples, where private organizations have been unable to fund research because public funds have 'used up' all the researchers? Where the supply of qualified researchers is limiting the amount of research? I'm really curious if this is actually happening, or if you're making things up again.
[CITATION NEEDED]
The federalist papers were originally published in three New York newspapers, then later paublished in other local papers, eventually across the Western World. If someone purchased the newspaper for a different purpose, that person still got 'spammed' with the Federalist Papers in their newspaper. While the analogy is tenuous, receiving unsolicited emails, sent for the same reasons as the publishing of the Federalist Papers, is similar to having them appear in newspapers. In neither case would the content be directly solicited.
For sake of argument, one could say that the way to opt out of spam emails would be to opt out of email. This would be similar to choosing not to purchase a newspaper.
By extension, you should never have to see an advertisement. After all, it is something shoved down your throat using your own resources. Would you support legislation to ban all advertisement?
I don't know about you but I don't think 'farking huge' is a criteria for coolness. There are plenty of freaking awesome birds out there.
And haing been up close and personal with crocs, caymans, and gators, I can say that they are anything but underwhelming... though some more diversity would be cool.
I just wante to point out that most of the points you make depend on the player choosing to play that way.
:)
Your point (a), however, is very valid -- but is common to many rpgs with feats. The wizard in Baldur's Gate, for example -- lightning was a ridiculous spell that made almost the entire game a cinch. I tend to purposely not choose the 'l33t' feat combinations... because I enjoy difficult gameplay. The problem is as you point out, when the bosses are pretty much impossible without choosing the right feats. This is a design problem.
At any rate, I've found that my experience with RPGs is that it's best to play like I want, not necessarily the way that's the 'best' for character advancement or dps. If I want to play stealth, and not cheese any mobs, I can do that... although it does tend to piss people off in coop play
For my home office, I drop off my backups once weekly at my safety deposit box at the bank (right by my office... very convenient). At worst, I lose a week of my work/data if my house burns down.
If you have a business with backup needs more demanding than the safety-deposit-box method (and as a business, you'd want to make sure to do this daily), then pay the cost of an off-site backup service. I've had good experiences with Iron Mountain, particularly when my office was involved in a fire a couple years ago.
A lot of high-level college textbooks have chapters written by different people. Typically by experts in the subjects covered in those chapters. This is why high-level textbooks are referred to by the names of their editors, not so much the authors.
So, I'm not sure if there is any particular drawback to distributing authorsip for an "open" textbook.
What I do like (other than the creative commons-style licensing) is that it seems there will be much greater oppportunity for community editing. This, if done properly, could result in greater readability and usefulness of the text.
You are oversimplifying... DNA is nothing without the amino acids used to synthesize proteins. And there are plenty of diseases that are dependent on dietary inputs (or lack thereof), that one could not understand with knowledge only of DNA. Never mind the glycols not expressed in the DNA.
Say, you're not a biochemist, are you? Or a pathophysiologist? Didn't think so.
Perhaps reading TFA could help you understand why the chart referred to is noteworthy:
Oh, and just to note -- hydroxyapatite is not an organic molecule, it's an inorganic ceramic. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's clear you are unfamiliar with the topic.
As much as I understand that many accountants (or people in any non-IT department in a large company) do not understand what goes on in the IT realm, this statement of yours reflects the same kind of ignorance from the IT side.
:)
I work for a global company, in finance, and I regularly get calls at any hour of the day. I typically begin returning calls at 4:30 AM, and am still working at 9 PM. This is considered to be nothing exceptional. Of course, it's factored into my compensation, but as an IT worker, you should not assume that people in another department are not also making sacrifices to stay relevant in the new global business climate.
Interestingly enough, finance and accounting is very similar to IT, in that we have a very high exposure to offshoring. Data entry used to be handled by accounting clerks... now it is outsourced and offshored. Even mid-level finance and accounting work is offshored. In every global firm I've worked for, the people who put in the most hours are the finance team. Sure, it's anecdotal. Small- to mid-sized American firms, not so much.
I guess I should say that the example of accountants for your purposes is likely a poor choice. On the whole, I agree with your post, but I guess I just took exception to your example
Nonsense. 'Accroding' is a perfectly cromulent word. It is the gerund of the verb 'to accrode', which is the process by which an entity corrodes via accretion of a substrate.
Now, I think the author's usage is terrible, but that word should get through the strictest of spell-checkers.
The more you know...
The ethical scandal is that she then got the commissioner fired for not doing as she wished. *That* is the big problem... she is, just like the current executive, intolerant of people who are not yes-men.
I, for one, do not want another my-way-or-the-highway executive, because no person is infallible.
Just a quick note, you should cite properly. KDawson was quoting a source (the submitter) who was quoting another source (an author at the Inquirer); you should not attribute that quote to him.
:)
As for whether doing a recall will bankrupt NVidia...
Bankruptcy is when a company is in a negative cash flow position and does not have the assets to meet all of its obligations. It is quite possible that NVidia faces bankruptcy whether they issue the recall or not, and whether they scrap the bad unsold chips or not.
There are four possibilities for NVidia, and they all suck.
Case 1: Ignore the issue. Continue selling bad chips, and only pay to replace chips under warranty when requested. Upside: low cash cost, no big hit to inventory assets. Downside: Reputation down the drain.
Case 2: No recall, but scrap bad unsold inventory. Upside: Better prognosis for brand reputation. Downside: large cash outlay to replace inventory.
Case 3: Recall bad chips already sold, but continue selling bad inventory. This one makes no sense.
Case 4: Issue recall, scrap unsold inventory. Upside: best for brand reputation. Downside: Massive cash outlay.
So, looking at the cases, they have to trade off brand reputation for cash. If they go bankrupt, they are shit out of luck. They are better off not laying out the cash, and trying to win back brand reputation by other means (such as replacing management, or even via a takeover by another company). This would allow them to survive in the short run, and potentially recover in the long run. If they have other chipsets in development not far from production, then they could recover well as long as they make sure to not replicate the problem
What? You're just making things up. An increase in market share of 100% (from 3% to 6%) is much more significant than an increase of 50% (from 6% to 9%), which assuming a constant market size, is the difference in your example.
Please, before you make claims about what investors do based upon marketshare figures, I suggest you spend some time working in the field. You don't give investors much credit for doing their homework, which I think is mistaken. And you place too much weight on marketshare numbers, which is a very small part of the hard numbers that contribute to profitability.
You miss a couple important factors. While market share is important, also important is the forecast for the market, and the margins on the product sold in the market.
In terms of expected profits (and hence, expected share value or dividends), who cares if market share is dropping a couple percent a year if the market is growing, say, five percent a year? Or if the margin is increasing likewise?
Of course, you might be making a valid point, I haven't crunched the numbers on MSFT. But, AFAICT from a quick googling, long-term projections for MS are still very good.
If it is truly very efficient, no need to put a fan on it. Just make sure it's being used near an air circulation vent, to take advantage of the already existant currents.
Well, duh. The set-up parachutes are one of the first things to happen in the parachute deployment path. Consider path A --> B --> C ---> D.
Assuming equal probability of failure at any point, then of course failure at point A will be the most common; one cannot proceed to B (or C or D) unless A has happened successfully.
Sarcasm. Parody.
I caught frogs, crawfish, etc, but never did anything worse than put them on a hook as fishing bait.