Have you ever heard of innovators and early adopters? Do you recognize the influence they have in markets? There is a recognized "product diffucion curve" where innovators and early adopters have significant influence over the larger (mass) market.
I would assert that early adopters are more likely to use add-ons. I would therefore assert that the lack of add-ons may be important, and may be statistically significant. I would also assert that Firefox, IE and Safari meet the criteria of "good enough" and therefore replacement products have a much higher hurdle to achieve market penetration.
I would also assert the market share numbers show a problem for Google. A spike in usage followed by a decline as they are seeing indicates a problem in "crossing the chasm" (search for the book of that name if you don't follow).
However, all of this is simply "assertions" and not "proof" - same as your assertion that add-ons are not an issue. My primary point is that meeting the needs of the innovator vs. the mass market is often underestimated (and is a very tough balancing act)
Utilize the staff where they show their competence.
IFF they want to be utilized that way.
On the face of it, this looks like horrible mismanagement
I fundamentally disagree. Job satisfaction, work output, and so many other measures are not dependent upon putting the most efficient person in a job. A Microeconomics class would disillusion believers of that notion very quickly. Economically, it would be putting the person relatively most efficient in the job (who might be the least efficient overall). However, it's a lot more complicated than the short-term economic solution.
For example, the long-term value of the employee must be considered. Management and executive development programs have to pull from somewhere, and companies have to let employees explore (and fail) in order to learn & develop.
Part of this must be solved relative to what the employee wants. I am an engineer by education. I left engineering and even tried sales for two years (Upon reflection: I'm not good at it). I'm now in marketing, which I enjoy. However, I'd probably be much more efficient than most of the programmers that work in the buildings around me. On the other hand, if my employer told me I had to program because I'm better at it than the people doing the development today, I'd go find an employer that actually listens.
"That'll increase the total cost of online purchases"
It increases the cost of ALL purchases. Do you think the books sold at Barnes & Noble randomly teleport into the local store? The issue comes in that if shipping companies (and the USPS) maintain a specific margin, then the absolute delta of the shipping cost for individual items will probably increase relative to bulk-shipped items. But the delta will not be as big as you imply.
"Adding sales tax into the mix will make things even worse."
For some. I owe a use tax on anything I buy from Amazon anyway, so I'm paying either way. It actually saves me time & effort (and increases accuracy) if Amazon bills me up front.
"Right of way" is a myth. I've heard from numerous law enforcement officials that there's no such thing.
A 30 second search of Google shows "right of way" as the title of NY code Article 26. I suspect you'll find similar laws in other jurisdictions. Seems like more than a myth to me.
The exception is where boats are concerned, and in maritime law the smaller craft always has to get out of the way of the larger craft.
This is also wrong. Sailing vessels almost universally have right of way over motorized vessels that are underway. See 33 USC 2018.
If I take a potentially addicting drug, this is "swinging my fist at myself" and is none of your business, regardless of your opinion of how well reasoned my choice is.
Yes, it is my business. The issue is not your choice or reasoning. The issue is the potential side effects. Your later quote is extremely apt:
If they cannot control themselves in the "swinging of their fists", then society needs to control them.
If you get drunk or take a drug, then you directly place yourself in a position that can harm others. You do so because in the case of many controlled drugs, you lose your ability to control your own actions - drunk driving being the most understood example of loss of control due to misuse of a drug. Hallucinogenic drugs are particularly problematic due to loss of control.
With today's "child abuse" laws... We could certainly do a lot better than age as an all-powerful metric today without stretching our resources too far.
You have provided no evidence and no alternative. What objective criteria could be used?
...the people with those answers are usually the ones in the trenches - not some Ivory Towered MBA VP Executive. How come this hasn't caught on?
...because that VP for years advocated path A, and now the employees you're asking for ideas are speaking up saying that path A is the wrong path. Changing course and admitting you are wrong is HARD for people to do.
...because you're asking people to risk eliminating tasks they they (or their co-workers) perform, with no guarantees. That means the company may quickly come around to lay off that individual who spoke up and provided efficiency. (It can appear as if you are asking employees to self-select for a pending layoff)
...because given the choice between a 0% layoff and 33% chance of business failure or a 33% layoff and 0% of business failure, most people will choose the latter - even though they are technically of "equal risk"
You would of had a) employee buy in, and b) increase morale because staff are now part of the solution.
...if AND ONLY IF you have a trusting corporate culture. There are many companies where this would drastically fail. Others are already open about their finances, actually work to educate their employees about what it takes to be profitable and provide return to the owners, and probably would only be caught in a layoff situation if an extremely unexpected, severe and rapid down-turn occurred.
Most public companies are insular about their finances, focused on short term returns (even though there is sufficient evidence that Wall Street understands long-term investment), and generally want to control information and communication in such a way that the underlying culture necessary for the action you suggest is either impossible or would backfire.
Honestly, there isn't much cash flow to disrupt. This isn't EMC, HP, IBM or Hitachi.
The purpose of this product isn't to penetrate large data centers... of if Xiotech thinks it is, then they need new marketing employees (and quickly). Large data centers HAVE the expertise on site to do individual disk replacements, and those large enterprise data centers will demand the feature sets that exist in the much larger equipment from the larger vendors named above.
This is targeted at much smaller data centers, probably those with very simple SANs (think a dozen or two servers), where the data center management skills won't match those in the larger data centers (simply because you have one or two generalists, not a dozen+ specialists). For those smaller sites, the return on investment for a system that requires less maintenance (and also less expertise) may make sense...
Yes, this is evolutionary from a technical perspective, but it still approaches the solution in an interesting way... and may find its own market niche.
I was shocked by this; I'm the student... if I don't
understand what the prof is saying, I fail. Plus, I'm PAYING FOR THIS CLASS. A LOT!!
...and unfortunately, you didn't follow the problem to resolution.
Part of what makes you successful, both in education and a career is understanding where a problem can be solved. If you're going to impact someone's job (due to replacing them with robots, or outsourcing or whatever the impact is), then you don't speak to that person, you speak to their boss.
In this case, you have a similar problem of not dealing with someone who has a scope that encompasses the problem you articulated: The teaching schedule is not within your adviser's control. You need to have spoken to someone who *could* do something about it, and in my opinion, the fact that you didn't establish that with your adviser indicates a communication breakdown, for which you both deserve some portion of the blame.
I'm not saying this out of random theory, but out of experience. When I was in school, I led a group of students (all eventually Tau Beti Pi members, so we're talking the top of the class) to the Dean of Students over such an issue (both language and severe lack of teaching skill). His advice was to talk to the department chairman, which we did. After a bit more work (and some more time with the Dean of Students), this particular professor was permanently removed from teaching responsibility. It worked for us, but only because we b>.
I suspect the point is: Are you happy with where you are, are you pleased with what you've accomplished and would you do it over again?
People spend far too much time comparing themselves to other people rather than looking after their own happiness. Keeping up with the Joneses isn't worth it.
Are you prepared to financially compete for the best?" is "No."
Literally, his answer was no. It has to be: We haven't had a major incident in order to raise the issue to an election crisis for Congress. Thus, the ROI perceived (stress this is a perception issue, not a reality issue) by politicians on spending more for military cyber-security is dwarfed by the ROI companies can actually return from new products. Thus, private industry will employ the experts.
Having said that, the implication in "It's not just our military members either, it's all those who partner with us . . . academia and private industry, our civilians and contractors, too." is that they can - and must (for practical financial reasons) partner with private industry. It's not like the world's experts in aircraft design are in the Air Force: they work at Boeing, Northrop, EDS, etc.
I believe he's saying the same thing here. He can't expect to afford the experts, as they should be working for the companies developing the tools used by the military. However, he can still leverage their expertise, as those companies can be partners to the military, and those well-paid workers in private industry should expect to be helping and training the members of his command (and perhaps even developing new features that the military gets first access to).
I believe you're referring to: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but rather, 'That's funny...'"-Isaac Asimov
Occasionally this is also quoted as ending with 'Hmm, that's funny'.
Yea, it's surprisingly complete, but woefully inadequate. Near me, the facility I work in (controlled access roads with gates) is shown, along with all of our parking lot access roads. Not that you can get to them. humorously, the road through the local dump is also shown, even though it is also controlled access... and the local shopping center is shown with only one entrance, when there are actually 3 different entrances. Very strange.
Sodium borohydrate is over 10% hydrogen by weight, and about 6% when in a water solution (and thus more usable as a fuel for a fuel cell)
If you transport the sodium borohydrate and not the hydrogen, you can do the conversion at a central location (at the solar or nuclear plant) and not have the refilling in the car, thus very different issues with cooling and heating cost in the conversion. Simply make the fuel a removable cartridge rather than a liquid or gas. The "tank" (or more accurately "tanks", to make them transportable by humans) can be swapped as fast as you can swap propane tanks at any "Blue Rhino" facility today, which is to say, a lot faster than 10 minutes.
You're also refuting my point with a lot of "we need to do X today" arguments, which completely miss the point of my earlier post. I'm not discussing what we should be doing tactically, I'm refuting your point about what is "pointless" to consider and what you think will "never" happen.
"Pointless" and "Never" are strong words, especially as you're ignoring the metal hydrates. There are fuel cells that would use the hydrogen in the reversing reaction, but wouldn't attempt to transport it as a gas or liquid.
I also believe throttling is wrong, but that doesn't mean your answer works. I have no non-satellite, non-dialup alternative. (in other words, no high speed alternative)
If you don't want the government to become involved, then you need to get federal laws changed so individuals (not just an attorney general) have the legal standing to bring anti-trust cases against companies.
1. The purpose... is to give people incentives to create (in this case musical)
You are basing your assessment off us US law, where copyright is based on the "Promote the progress of the useful arts" clause of the Constitution. The EU contains no equivalent that I can find.
In fact, the EU specifically states in its directive that:
"(10) If authors or performers are to continue their creative and artistic work, they have to receive an appropriate reward for the use of their work..."
Thus implying that their copyright is not rooted in producing progress, but in protecting property.
This is reinforced elsewhere: "(9)... Intellectual property has therefore been recognised as an integral part of property."
2. If the purpose is to give a life-long income to composers and musicians, then surely record companies and other companies should be excluded.
Again, their view is one of property protection first, progress as a result of protection.
3. If the purpose is to give a life-long income to composers and musicians, then we should say so.
While they don't make statements about life-long income, the EU is focused on return on investment: "(10)... Adequate legal protection of intellectual property rights is necessary in order to guarantee the availability of such a reward and provide the opportunity for satisfactory returns on this investment."
No matter what strategy you have, your own customers will find a way to mess it up.
Then it is your job to either educate those users or to architect the system in such a way that those weaknesses are designed out of the system. The problem is not in the users, it is in the security guidelines you are issuing and your expectations of adherence to those guidelines.
Often, to respond to requirements like those you mention, we use things like: 1qAz@wSx
followed by 3eDc$rFv... when the first one expires after 90 days (and what is the specific and measurable basis in computer security for why the password is forced to expire, especially so rapidly???)
As one can't use the last 4 passwords, you'll find these conveniently rotate...
The problem here is that the folks in charge of security either don't understand or don't care that the "bestest, most strongest, most frequently changed" password system isn't the one with the most complicated and longest password requirements. Security is rooted in passwords that are the hardest to guess OR access. If you are forcing rotation too frequently, or forcing really complicated rules (no dictionary words, must include symbols, etc.), then you will find users will simply resort to patterns or post-it notes, and your security has been defeated. Personally, the password requirements to my e-mail system at work are now so complicated that I have run through dozens of combinations to have them all fail. The ONLY solutions I have found that work are patterns on the keyboard (which IMHO, are less secure than many of the other passwords I tried to use)
I will repeat: This is NOT a user problem, it is an administrative rules and security architecture problem. If you really require security beyond passwords people can remember and type easily (and are willing to do), then you need a security system that goes beyond passwords - e.g. go buy a ThinkPad with an integrated Fingerprint reader.
They own stuff (buildings), they have staff and they have current revenue. It really shouldn't be that hard.
But it's not really that easy, either. If you really believe you should measure Google, Microsoft, Intel, GE, P&G, Citibank, and Caterpillar using the same method, then I *guarantee* your formula isn't simple or isn't accurate.
Revenue as measured in GAAP is an accounting construct, not necessarily a great measurement of the prospects of a company. This becomes particularly apparent in cases where revenue must be recognized over time due to support contracts. It also gets modified in strange ways due to reserves for non-payment and the like (note the recent impact on financial companies due to insufficient loss reserves for the risk they were bearing)
These issues result in various differences between cash flow and revenue. In the case of software support, you end up with a revenue stream that is more predictable than it would be with a company that only sells a physical item without support (because the sale event already occurred, and you are recognizing deferred revenue; the cash flow may also differ depending on the contract).
Anyway, the greater predictability of revenue reduces the risk of that revenue, which should alter the value of the company. Note that it can alter it BOTH up and down - there are places where reduced risk implies no upside (think government bonds) and places where the increased predictability of revenue can support a higher valuation (software support contracts)
Well, according to neoclassical economic theory, software has zero value; so at some point we know the theories break. In fact, so much of economic theory is ideal, it's hard to apply at anything other than a very strategic (years) or very tactical (seconds) time frame.
Having said that, your point about hard assets, meaning one should be invested for deflationary slowdowns (or however you wish to refer to situations where prices drop, job growth is slow or negative and credit is hard to get), is appropriate.
However, you completely lose me on your logic with respect to OSS.
Open Source is likely the sector MOST hurt by a credit crunch. Those without a connection to the IP-monopolized software sector will have a tough time borrowing to develop new software, pay for payrolls, or expand their marketing budgets.
I don't think this reflects how the OSS world works. It may reflect how some small businesses that market and deploy OSS systems work, but the OSS developers and projects are not completely dependent (and in many cases not dependent at all) on companies that are paid to install OSS solutions.
For example, the Mozilla foundation has positive cash flow because it's receiving income from search requests (from the search box in toolbar). Other projects run completely on shoe-string budgets, and the risk (as others have pointed out) is really in the underlying infrastructure (e.g. SourceForge) than in the project's own finances. Asterisk strikes me as another project that would be hard to negatively impact (although you could probably lose a lot of companies deploying the system, the project wouldn't disappear or magically become less useful).
For much of the base software infrastructure where it is hard to differentiate, it makes economic sense for companies to continue to pay to develop OSS, regardless of the macroeconomic environment. It allows them to more effectively compete on the aspects of the software where it is possible to differentiate (For an example of how this works, take a look at either Apache or Eclipse and note the commercial infrastructure surrounding and enhancing those projects)
I guess my point - being an open source developer myself - is that credit isn't necessarily useful to us. We don't have anyone on payroll, and we don't have a marketing budget. We're successful because of the software... especially in my case, where we aren't trying to support ourselves from the project. In fact, I don't even support myself as a programmer, because I have better hours, less stress, more respect and more income from being in sales.
Yes, there is personal risk I have from a "recession" (losing my job, et al.), but given the waxing and waning of companies in any market, it doesn't take a recession to put my job at risk. Even if I lost my job, I would it would change my level of participation in the project, which is why I don't understand the association you make.
2) Some yield loss, especially with a chip the size of Cell, is expected. No chip will ever yield 100% (it's not worth the engineering effort to get there). So to presume that the sale of a product like this indicates "problems" is a false assumption. Since it's statistically likely that the failures occur in an SPE (due to their size) and it seems like Cell has the ability to individually control which SPEs are active, this makes great sense, as an incremental sale of a product that would otherwise not be sold.
What's happening now is that people are getting bigger drives for much cheaper than the previous year.
The article is making a statement on $/drive. You're referring to $/bit. The problem is that $/drive is also impacted by bit/drive.
Thus, your case is not necessarily what the report says, since it's only measuring the average drive price, and not the price per bit.
The scenario could just as easily be:
One year you get a 20GB drive for $100, the next year you get a 40GB for $100, the next year 40GB for $50, since you can't justify the need for an 80GB drive, because you didn't fill the 40GB drive on the old laptop.
There isn't enough data in the article to determine the magnitude of the two effects ($/bit and bit/drive), but it's surely a combination of the two.
Slashdot Mirror
citation needed.
Have you ever heard of innovators and early adopters? Do you recognize the influence they have in markets? There is a recognized "product diffucion curve" where innovators and early adopters have significant influence over the larger (mass) market.
I would assert that early adopters are more likely to use add-ons. I would therefore assert that the lack of add-ons may be important, and may be statistically significant. I would also assert that Firefox, IE and Safari meet the criteria of "good enough" and therefore replacement products have a much higher hurdle to achieve market penetration.
I would also assert the market share numbers show a problem for Google. A spike in usage followed by a decline as they are seeing indicates a problem in "crossing the chasm" (search for the book of that name if you don't follow).
However, all of this is simply "assertions" and not "proof" - same as your assertion that add-ons are not an issue. My primary point is that meeting the needs of the innovator vs. the mass market is often underestimated (and is a very tough balancing act)
IFF they want to be utilized that way.
On the face of it, this looks like horrible mismanagement
I fundamentally disagree. Job satisfaction, work output, and so many other measures are not dependent upon putting the most efficient person in a job. A Microeconomics class would disillusion believers of that notion very quickly. Economically, it would be putting the person relatively most efficient in the job (who might be the least efficient overall). However, it's a lot more complicated than the short-term economic solution.
For example, the long-term value of the employee must be considered. Management and executive development programs have to pull from somewhere, and companies have to let employees explore (and fail) in order to learn & develop.
Part of this must be solved relative to what the employee wants. I am an engineer by education. I left engineering and even tried sales for two years (Upon reflection: I'm not good at it). I'm now in marketing, which I enjoy. However, I'd probably be much more efficient than most of the programmers that work in the buildings around me. On the other hand, if my employer told me I had to program because I'm better at it than the people doing the development today, I'd go find an employer that actually listens.
It increases the cost of ALL purchases. Do you think the books sold at Barnes & Noble randomly teleport into the local store? The issue comes in that if shipping companies (and the USPS) maintain a specific margin, then the absolute delta of the shipping cost for individual items will probably increase relative to bulk-shipped items. But the delta will not be as big as you imply.
"Adding sales tax into the mix will make things even worse."
For some. I owe a use tax on anything I buy from Amazon anyway, so I'm paying either way. It actually saves me time & effort (and increases accuracy) if Amazon bills me up front.
I think you mean: http://google.en_us/
A 30 second search of Google shows "right of way" as the title of NY code Article 26. I suspect you'll find similar laws in other jurisdictions. Seems like more than a myth to me.
The exception is where boats are concerned, and in maritime law the smaller craft always has to get out of the way of the larger craft.
This is also wrong. Sailing vessels almost universally have right of way over motorized vessels that are underway. See 33 USC 2018.
Umm, because Azul runs the Java in hardware. It *is* optimized by being in Java.
Yes, it is my business. The issue is not your choice or reasoning. The issue is the potential side effects. Your later quote is extremely apt:
If they cannot control themselves in the "swinging of their fists", then society needs to control them.
If you get drunk or take a drug, then you directly place yourself in a position that can harm others. You do so because in the case of many controlled drugs, you lose your ability to control your own actions - drunk driving being the most understood example of loss of control due to misuse of a drug. Hallucinogenic drugs are particularly problematic due to loss of control.
With today's "child abuse" laws ... We could certainly do a lot better than age as an all-powerful metric today without stretching our resources too far.
You have provided no evidence and no alternative. What objective criteria could be used?
You would of had a) employee buy in, and b) increase morale because staff are now part of the solution.
Most public companies are insular about their finances, focused on short term returns (even though there is sufficient evidence that Wall Street understands long-term investment), and generally want to control information and communication in such a way that the underlying culture necessary for the action you suggest is either impossible or would backfire.
The purpose of this product isn't to penetrate large data centers... of if Xiotech thinks it is, then they need new marketing employees (and quickly). Large data centers HAVE the expertise on site to do individual disk replacements, and those large enterprise data centers will demand the feature sets that exist in the much larger equipment from the larger vendors named above.
This is targeted at much smaller data centers, probably those with very simple SANs (think a dozen or two servers), where the data center management skills won't match those in the larger data centers (simply because you have one or two generalists, not a dozen+ specialists). For those smaller sites, the return on investment for a system that requires less maintenance (and also less expertise) may make sense...
Yes, this is evolutionary from a technical perspective, but it still approaches the solution in an interesting way... and may find its own market niche.
...actually addressed the problem at a level where it could be solved (sorry for the typo. use preview. ARGH)
Part of what makes you successful, both in education and a career is understanding where a problem can be solved. If you're going to impact someone's job (due to replacing them with robots, or outsourcing or whatever the impact is), then you don't speak to that person, you speak to their boss.
In this case, you have a similar problem of not dealing with someone who has a scope that encompasses the problem you articulated: The teaching schedule is not within your adviser's control. You need to have spoken to someone who *could* do something about it, and in my opinion, the fact that you didn't establish that with your adviser indicates a communication breakdown, for which you both deserve some portion of the blame.
I'm not saying this out of random theory, but out of experience. When I was in school, I led a group of students (all eventually Tau Beti Pi members, so we're talking the top of the class) to the Dean of Students over such an issue (both language and severe lack of teaching skill). His advice was to talk to the department chairman, which we did. After a bit more work (and some more time with the Dean of Students), this particular professor was permanently removed from teaching responsibility. It worked for us, but only because we b>.
I suspect the point is: Are you happy with where you are, are you pleased with what you've accomplished and would you do it over again?
People spend far too much time comparing themselves to other people rather than looking after their own happiness. Keeping up with the Joneses isn't worth it.
Literally, his answer was no. It has to be: We haven't had a major incident in order to raise the issue to an election crisis for Congress. Thus, the ROI perceived (stress this is a perception issue, not a reality issue) by politicians on spending more for military cyber-security is dwarfed by the ROI companies can actually return from new products. Thus, private industry will employ the experts.
Having said that, the implication in "It's not just our military members either, it's all those who partner with us . . . academia and private industry, our civilians and contractors, too." is that they can - and must (for practical financial reasons) partner with private industry. It's not like the world's experts in aircraft design are in the Air Force: they work at Boeing, Northrop, EDS, etc.
I believe he's saying the same thing here. He can't expect to afford the experts, as they should be working for the companies developing the tools used by the military. However, he can still leverage their expertise, as those companies can be partners to the military, and those well-paid workers in private industry should expect to be helping and training the members of his command (and perhaps even developing new features that the military gets first access to).
Occasionally this is also quoted as ending with 'Hmm, that's funny'.
Yea, it's surprisingly complete, but woefully inadequate. Near me, the facility I work in (controlled access roads with gates) is shown, along with all of our parking lot access roads. Not that you can get to them. humorously, the road through the local dump is also shown, even though it is also controlled access... and the local shopping center is shown with only one entrance, when there are actually 3 different entrances. Very strange.
If you transport the sodium borohydrate and not the hydrogen, you can do the conversion at a central location (at the solar or nuclear plant) and not have the refilling in the car, thus very different issues with cooling and heating cost in the conversion. Simply make the fuel a removable cartridge rather than a liquid or gas. The "tank" (or more accurately "tanks", to make them transportable by humans) can be swapped as fast as you can swap propane tanks at any "Blue Rhino" facility today, which is to say, a lot faster than 10 minutes.
You're also refuting my point with a lot of "we need to do X today" arguments, which completely miss the point of my earlier post. I'm not discussing what we should be doing tactically, I'm refuting your point about what is "pointless" to consider and what you think will "never" happen.
"Pointless" and "Never" are strong words, especially as you're ignoring the metal hydrates. There are fuel cells that would use the hydrogen in the reversing reaction, but wouldn't attempt to transport it as a gas or liquid.
If you don't want the government to become involved, then you need to get federal laws changed so individuals (not just an attorney general) have the legal standing to bring anti-trust cases against companies.
You are basing your assessment off us US law, where copyright is based on the "Promote the progress of the useful arts" clause of the Constitution. The EU contains no equivalent that I can find.
In fact, the EU specifically states in its directive that:
"(10) If authors or performers are to continue their creative and artistic work, they have to receive an appropriate reward for the use of their work..."
Thus implying that their copyright is not rooted in producing progress, but in protecting property.
This is reinforced elsewhere: "(9) ... Intellectual property has therefore been recognised as an integral part of property."
2. If the purpose is to give a life-long income to composers and musicians, then surely record companies and other companies should be excluded.
Again, their view is one of property protection first, progress as a result of protection.
3. If the purpose is to give a life-long income to composers and musicians, then we should say so.
While they don't make statements about life-long income, the EU is focused on return on investment: "(10) ... Adequate legal protection of intellectual property rights is necessary in order to guarantee the availability of such a reward and provide the opportunity for satisfactory returns on this investment."
Then it is your job to either educate those users or to architect the system in such a way that those weaknesses are designed out of the system. The problem is not in the users, it is in the security guidelines you are issuing and your expectations of adherence to those guidelines.
Often, to respond to requirements like those you mention, we use things like: 1qAz@wSx
followed by 3eDc$rFv ... when the first one expires after 90 days (and what is the specific and measurable basis in computer security for why the password is forced to expire, especially so rapidly???)
As one can't use the last 4 passwords, you'll find these conveniently rotate...
The problem here is that the folks in charge of security either don't understand or don't care that the "bestest, most strongest, most frequently changed" password system isn't the one with the most complicated and longest password requirements. Security is rooted in passwords that are the hardest to guess OR access. If you are forcing rotation too frequently, or forcing really complicated rules (no dictionary words, must include symbols, etc.), then you will find users will simply resort to patterns or post-it notes, and your security has been defeated. Personally, the password requirements to my e-mail system at work are now so complicated that I have run through dozens of combinations to have them all fail. The ONLY solutions I have found that work are patterns on the keyboard (which IMHO, are less secure than many of the other passwords I tried to use)
I will repeat: This is NOT a user problem, it is an administrative rules and security architecture problem. If you really require security beyond passwords people can remember and type easily (and are willing to do), then you need a security system that goes beyond passwords - e.g. go buy a ThinkPad with an integrated Fingerprint reader.
But it's not really that easy, either. If you really believe you should measure Google, Microsoft, Intel, GE, P&G, Citibank, and Caterpillar using the same method, then I *guarantee* your formula isn't simple or isn't accurate.
Revenue as measured in GAAP is an accounting construct, not necessarily a great measurement of the prospects of a company. This becomes particularly apparent in cases where revenue must be recognized over time due to support contracts. It also gets modified in strange ways due to reserves for non-payment and the like (note the recent impact on financial companies due to insufficient loss reserves for the risk they were bearing)
These issues result in various differences between cash flow and revenue. In the case of software support, you end up with a revenue stream that is more predictable than it would be with a company that only sells a physical item without support (because the sale event already occurred, and you are recognizing deferred revenue; the cash flow may also differ depending on the contract).
Anyway, the greater predictability of revenue reduces the risk of that revenue, which should alter the value of the company. Note that it can alter it BOTH up and down - there are places where reduced risk implies no upside (think government bonds) and places where the increased predictability of revenue can support a higher valuation (software support contracts)
Having said that, your point about hard assets, meaning one should be invested for deflationary slowdowns (or however you wish to refer to situations where prices drop, job growth is slow or negative and credit is hard to get), is appropriate.
However, you completely lose me on your logic with respect to OSS.
Open Source is likely the sector MOST hurt by a credit crunch. Those without a connection to the IP-monopolized software sector will have a tough time borrowing to develop new software, pay for payrolls, or expand their marketing budgets.
I don't think this reflects how the OSS world works. It may reflect how some small businesses that market and deploy OSS systems work, but the OSS developers and projects are not completely dependent (and in many cases not dependent at all) on companies that are paid to install OSS solutions.
For example, the Mozilla foundation has positive cash flow because it's receiving income from search requests (from the search box in toolbar). Other projects run completely on shoe-string budgets, and the risk (as others have pointed out) is really in the underlying infrastructure (e.g. SourceForge) than in the project's own finances. Asterisk strikes me as another project that would be hard to negatively impact (although you could probably lose a lot of companies deploying the system, the project wouldn't disappear or magically become less useful).
For much of the base software infrastructure where it is hard to differentiate, it makes economic sense for companies to continue to pay to develop OSS, regardless of the macroeconomic environment. It allows them to more effectively compete on the aspects of the software where it is possible to differentiate (For an example of how this works, take a look at either Apache or Eclipse and note the commercial infrastructure surrounding and enhancing those projects)
I guess my point - being an open source developer myself - is that credit isn't necessarily useful to us. We don't have anyone on payroll, and we don't have a marketing budget. We're successful because of the software... especially in my case, where we aren't trying to support ourselves from the project. In fact, I don't even support myself as a programmer, because I have better hours, less stress, more respect and more income from being in sales.
Yes, there is personal risk I have from a "recession" (losing my job, et al.), but given the waxing and waning of companies in any market, it doesn't take a recession to put my job at risk. Even if I lost my job, I would it would change my level of participation in the project, which is why I don't understand the association you make.
1) Something tells me it's far more likely that Toshiba is trying to find something to do with their extra parts. They manufacture it, too, since Sony sold them the fab. IBM is not a sole-source supplier for Sony.
2) Some yield loss, especially with a chip the size of Cell, is expected. No chip will ever yield 100% (it's not worth the engineering effort to get there). So to presume that the sale of a product like this indicates "problems" is a false assumption. Since it's statistically likely that the failures occur in an SPE (due to their size) and it seems like Cell has the ability to individually control which SPEs are active, this makes great sense, as an incremental sale of a product that would otherwise not be sold.
The article is making a statement on $/drive. You're referring to $/bit. The problem is that $/drive is also impacted by bit/drive.
Thus, your case is not necessarily what the report says, since it's only measuring the average drive price, and not the price per bit.
The scenario could just as easily be:
One year you get a 20GB drive for $100, the next year you get a 40GB for $100, the next year 40GB for $50, since you can't justify the need for an 80GB drive, because you didn't fill the 40GB drive on the old laptop.
There isn't enough data in the article to determine the magnitude of the two effects ($/bit and bit/drive), but it's surely a combination of the two.
My concern has rarely been what I put online. It's what others put online about me that I can't control or remove.