One that Andy Grove is well aware of (although he does not mention it here), because it closely mirror's Intel's own evolution.
In the dark ages (i.e., in the 1980s), you could separate out the foundry (or the fab) from the design wings, and still make decent ICs. Thus, you could outsource your foundry to a lower wage country, while still retaining all the intellectual IP and the value add associaed with it.
You cant do that anymore...these days, the design is being governed by rules that emanate from the fab; and the trend is not about to change anytime soon. Thus, the companies that control the fab/foundry service will soon dominate all the IP and the value adds associated with it.
You can only outsource manufactring for so long, before the value add cycles also get outsourced.
I have never worked for a publicly traded company; and the executives I know are, for the most part, associated with privately held firms.
They all insist that the major disadvantage of the publicly held model is the obsession with the quarterly numbers, which (combined with the use of professional managers whose primary goal is to maximize the numbers in the next 4 yrs...corresponding to their vesting period) drives down investment that would take longer to come through.
There are only so many ways to invest money in yourself and have a short payoff (< 4 yrs) that is relatively secure etc.. Hence, there is a driving force against investments.
Your statistics supports that argument... I had never bought that arguyment because it is anathema to the concept of a corporation (The first principle of forming a corporation is that the corporation believes it can use money more effectively than having that money invested anywhere else).
One potential solution would be to have a substantial fraction of the stock (options + grants) be vested over a longer period of time..say >7 yrs.
I would disagree with your take somewhat. It may be hard to prove fraud from statistical analysis; but that does not mean you cannot determine fraud from other methods.
Jerome claims that he knew r2k was fraud back in 2008, based on other factors. (and if I recall, Charles Lemos had once made a similar suggestion). There is no reason to dispute that, simply because statistica evidence was hard to come by.
In fact, his argument sorta makes sense...if a pollster is systematically leaning left (presumanly to satisfy left leaning customers), and lurching back to the center just before the elections (presumably to avoid being caught), then that pattern looks mighty suspicious.
However, the experiment is taught (or should be taught) to all budding engineers/scientists for the ethics lesson it offers. He was manipulating data, but where he had good reason to do so (he thought some of his experiments were bad).
The more important ethics lesson is about what happened next (and the reason it should be taught to all budding engineers/scientists). Over the years, other scientists emulated Millikan's experiment, and skewed their results to match his. That was an example of data manipulation, simply to make your data more consistent with a preconceived notion of what the final answer should be.
Millikan had, it appears, been selectively highlighting some of his results... while rejecting others. The global average of all his measurements would have yielded a value for e (charge of an electron) somewhat closer to what is the real value. Instead, he selectively highlighted some of his results (cooked the books), and came up with a value that was slightly less right (but still got him a Nobel).
Some things that detract from his legacy.... include his claim that "It is to be remarked, too, that this is not a selected group of drops but represents all of the drops experimented on during 60 consecutive days, during which time the apparatus was taken down several times and set up anew"
But, before I criticize, I should remember that I will be happy to achieve 0.01% of what he accomplished before I die.
I waded through the statistical analysis of the r2k data. It is fairly impressive, but not conclusive of fraud...until you see the plots that the researchers make with point #3.
For instance, point #1 does not prove fraud. It just means that something very unlikely happened (which is happenstance), or was made to happen (fraud). If kos had based his article based on point #1 alone, he likely would have lost easily.
However, it is hard to dispute point #3; with a large enough sample size, the distribution had better be centered on one value. The binomial distribution cannot happen without fraud....if the sample size is large enough. One can quibble that a sample size of 60 is too small to make definite conclusions (rough rule of thumb is you need 100 in the sample (wish they had waited another year!!), before the number becomes "large enough" to satisfy the "fluctuation dissipation theorem", and make Gaussian analysis valid.) But, they had 3 examples of 60 samples each...for a total of 180 in the lot. 180 is definitely enough.
Under the circumstances, it would be nearly impossible to conclude that someone didn't cook the books.
From <a href=http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/21-kamran-shafi-peace-talks-in-shimla-560-sk-04> this link </a>
The Afghans, as usual, and to a man, were critical of Pakistan’s not looking out for Afghanistan’s interests, in so many ways: alleging for example the two extremes of facilitating the presence of Afghan Taliban on the Pakistani side of the border who then attack targets in Afghanistan; and not facilitating the easy movement of fruits across the border, which rot in their trucks while the drivers wait for visas at Torkham. If true, it is a crying shame. The government must do all it can to remove any bottlenecks in this regard.
It is said by our government that this happens because of smuggling of luxury goods such as refrigerators and air-conditioners which are purportedly meant for Afghanistan but which find their way into Pakistan’s smuggling markets.
Well, if this is so, it is entirely our fault is it not, that we cannot control smuggling. Why take it out on the Afghan people who already have more than anyone’s fair share of troubles on their plate? I do think the time has come for our country to do far more than it is in helping Afghanistan in every way possible.
because I am enjoying your back and forth with Jerome; and you do have a sense of passion for your arguments.
However, I also think you have missed one fundamental. Historically, the Afghan region's prosperity has been derived from trading, and not from guns or minerals or opium. Thus, there is a reasonable likelihood of trading being the source of prosperity, if/when it returns to Afghanistan. This is because the Afghanistan/Pakistan region is the crossroads for the historical silk road.
And while it is true that you cannot have trading without some semblance of security, security is not a sufficient condition for trading; and oftentimes security becomes counterproductive to trading. The reality is that the trade routes have been closed for over 50 years because of Pakistan's fears vis-a-vis India having too much influence on Afghanistan... this was true even when security was not an issue (such as pre-1978). It is more true now, with so many soldiers in place to ensure that the flow of arms/money/people is restricted.
Guess what...when you restrict the flow of people because you want to restrict the flow of terrorists, you also restrict trade. Over time, this strengthens the terrorists (by which I mean people who use guns to earn a living); which leads to a demand for more soldiers etc... that is the vicious cycle we are in now.
Here statements are inaccurate in that not all Jews came from Poland and Germany; but your statement is hyperbole in that she is not advocating for another holocaust. And the use of language such as "get out of Palestine" should be avoided at all times.
And no, most people dont have a right to choose where they live. We are fortunate if we have the right to be able to live where we are born, but I am sure you can think of quite a few people who (you would) have that right be denied to.