Looks like a cheap and nasty version of the cars in the Gerry Anderson "UFO" TV series.
141 posts • joined 8 Apr 2007
The article claims that one should include the effects of welfare spending on the wealth of an individual.
It's just a few more terms to add to the equation.
Should any of state pension, NHS, state education, etc. be reduced or fall to zero, then the contributions due to state pension, NHS, state education, etc. also fall. The effect is to simply reduce the total wealth.
"...will be able to add 200MB of data per month for $5, 1GB for $15, 3GB for $30, and 5GB for $50. Non-subscribers will pay $10, $20, $30, and $50 for the same bandwidth amounts.
GM cites AT&T's Data Calculator when saying that 200MB of bandwidth is "enough to stream more than 6.5 hours of music, surf the internet for 13 hours or send more than 10,000 emails without attachments."
Those numbers are not bandwidth.
I saw the same thing. THis is how I put it:
"But the idea that Gates would use his newfound free time to meddle with Microsoft's products might not sit well with those who argue that the software giant has remained mired in the past since Gates resigned as CEO in 2000."
Doesn't make sense. If MS was worse since he left, then wouldn't they think it would be better if he did meddle?
From the article (my emphasis)
"Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center, noted that this calving event marks a retreat of the Petermann Glacier “farther back than historical calving fronts.” A comparison of this event to the 2010 event shows that this iceberg broke off the glacier tongue farther upstream. The crack along the southern margin of this new iceberg, however, has been visible in satellite imagery for several years. That rift was first identified in 2001."
I wonder how far back "historical calving fronts" data go?
"So what you're saying is that Google and Microsoft will never be able to catch up with the iPad and therefore should just let Apple have free reign in the tablet market?"
I don't think AO is saying that Apple should have free reign. He is just saying that surface and nexus 7 don't pose a threat.
"You say that the reason the Kindle and iPad are successful is because of their content market - a point I agree with. But content does not grow on trees - device first, then the content grows. Expecting a device to launch an iPad-equivalent amount of content available is foolishness."
What content exclusively requires a Kindle or an iPad?
In the grand scheme of things.
The first parallel programming language I can remember is/ was OCCAM, introduced in 1983. That's nearly 40 years for parallel programming to take over and it hasn't.
I am not aware of any cross compiler that is generic enough to optimise for an arbitrary architecture. So to optimise, people are needed. People are the most expensive part of the bangs to the buck equation. There's a fine line between parallelise and paralyse.
Most software is "optimised" by upgrading the hardware it runs on.
Intel will win market share with MIC because it is a big company, because of the ease of porting code to the class of performance problems that can be addressed in this way without expensive rewrites but deliver nice performance multiples.
It will be interesting to see how Nvidia penetrate the various scales of the supercomputing market. But how big is that market in terms of shipped units? But to the investor in relatively small Nvidia, it might be higher earnings per share than MIC for Intel.
"Just because you don't understand the words, doesn't mean it's "wankword bingo"."
But is isn't a paradigm shift either based on the original Kuhnian meaning of the term.
OTOH it may just be "innovation". But as an innovation is supposed to be a significant improvement, the "improvement" part is so far subjective.
Any serious discussion of "Peak Oil" should talk about depletion rates, and how long the stuff is likely to last at such rates. Peak Oil is not even defined in the Citigroup paper.
Most cornucopians will, when pressed, admit oil is a finite resource. Then cognitive dissonance kicks in and they will wave their hands and say "but we don't have to worry for N decades" and revert to behaving as if oil was infinite.
Conventional economists may refuse to answer yes or no, but insist that somehow price will force oil to be created.
Go to here
Search for "#5. Economists are trained to believe" and read that section.
Economists as a class have very unphysical models of the world. In some areas these models are useful approximations. In others, not. If economics was a science, there would be be a lot of soul-searching going on in the profession as they struggled to understand why the major market crashes of this century occurred, and why they missed them, and why they don't know what to do about their aftermath. So in my eyes they are a profession with no more integrity or moral standing than estate agents, politicians or investment bankers.
The point is, the authors of the report cited by AO was produced by Economists working for an Investment Bank.
"Resurging North American Oil Production and the Death of the Peak Oil Hypothesis", I'm not sure if the Citigroup paper takes into account the recent significant downward revisions by the US GS of the amount of shale gas/ unconventional oil estimated to be under the ground in the mainland USA.
In these articles, we hear how a separate group of analysts at a bank (Barclays Capital) reach the opposite conclusion:
The simplistic economics argument as put forward os largely unphysical.
It assumes infinite supply (as if the cost can magically make oil appear).
It assumes infinite substitutability (e.g. synthetic oil for "real" oil).
It ignores the energy cost of mining a unit of energy.
Some economists are actually intelligent, yet they don't realise their ideas don't always apply properly. So one can forgive AO for not thinking too hard about it either - especially as to do so would hurt his cornucopian proclivities.
Since the stuff is finite, it will run out.
Peak Oil will be a supply problem first, irrespective the amount stil in the ground, known or unknown.
In terms of EROI, you are saying EROI = 1 = EIOI ?
We're not quite at 1:1 yet. It would become uneconomic to use oil as an energy source before we got to 1:1. Unconventional oil is reckoned to give you a 5:1. Conventional oil is a bit less than 20:1 these days.
AO is a cornucopianist. His reasoning is often clear. But he doesn't really understand, or chooses to ignore, all the salient data. As a journalist he is not very objective.
"Well done to Tesla for now building in a system to tell them when the car is neglected and the silly irresponsible customer needs a slap to remind them to plug it in."
Yeah. Very 'Merikin. Akin to McDonald's having to put "this is hot" warnings on their pop tarts.
Maybe I got it wrong, or confused that feature with another browser.
Annoyances that still remain:
1. Go to the Add-Ons screen. There is "Get Add-ons", but once you get an Add-On, it becomes an "Extension". Why two name sfor the same thing? And WTF are "Plugins" for anyway?
2. This dialogue box has always been broken. Else I carry round some Add-On/ Extension/ Plugins that are messing it up:
So suppose one checks "Do this automatically" and downloads, the next time, "Do this automatically" is checked, but I still get the damned dailogue box and I still have to click OK. Is this PICNIC or is this "Windows Automation" at work?
The psilocybin is not active until hydrolysed. Stomach acids do this. Hence the 30 - 60 minute delay before onset of "symptoms" and the feeling of having been ripped off if you didn't pick them yourself but bought them. Allegedly.
Apparently if you boil them in water, this will hydrolyse the stuff for you, so when it is imbibed it gets to work right away.
My friend tells me someone he knows would pinch his nose and drink the lot in one go. That way you only taste the last mouthful after you let go of your nose. Even Vimto doesn't render it palatable. Supposedly.
82 versus 420 is a lot as an absolute value. As a ratio it's not too bad.
Why would Apple start to issue a dividend before they run out of steam growth-wise and their stock price flatlines or goes into a stage 4 decline?
I don't think yesterday's figures are incorporated.Still
P/E is still about 15, which is considered by many to be fairly priced.
PEG is 0.64 is pretty low.
Benjamin Graham thought that if the ratio of (P/E) / (P/B) < 22.5, then the company represents reasonable value.
For AAPL that is 15 / 5.1 = 3
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020