I generally liked the article but this drone part is totally off the hook.
Consider something like the drones shot down by Iran. The reason is that they are designed to be cheap, to be frequently lost while flying over the enemy. Thus, it's likely that one of these FPGAs was inside the drone shot down by Iran. While it's unlikely the FPGA had any secrets worthwhile, issues like this make it easier for Iran to reverse engineer the drone and manufacture their own.
The RQ-170 Sentinel was developed by Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works as a stealth Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)... Few details of the UAV's characteristics have been released, but estimates of its wingspan range from approximately 65 feet (20 m)[6] to 90 feet (27 m).
Even US public doesn't know pretty much anything about it, not even wingspan, as it probably stems straight from some Black Project out of Area 51.
So it is not only VERY expensive, it also includes some of the most TOP SECRET technologies developed by USAF, like stealth and what not. In military jargon it's called high-value asset!
Indeed. The geological effects of mining are much more serious than solar energy, which are not zero still (you need mining to produce solar panels/mirrors).
Most side effects are focused on local biosphere I'd guess.
No, but I live in a country where this is how it works. Drivers here in sweden are responsible for cleaning the bus during the day (with a more thorough cleaning at the garage that the driver isn't responsible for, afaik), and he has enough authority to eject people off the bus if they are violating rules, or to not let them on if they would violate rules.
As I understand it, aside from the cleaning, it's the same in America. But if a driver pulled over in the middle of rush hour traffic to kick someone off a bus because they put down an empty can of soda, they'd be torn to shreds before they made it back to the driver's seat.
Amazon also has a multi faceted business model. Distribution, SaaS and PaaS offerings, Hardware sales, and probably some more I'm overlooking.
Facebook sells ad space to people on their chat platform that have little to zero intent to buy. The last time I saw a company (AOL) try to stuff ads in a chat client... well we all know how that went.
I don't understand that at all. I assume your point is that Google only makes money from "ads", and that makes it a single source of revenue despite being well-diversified advertising products across a big segment of the tech industry (Youtube ads aren't the same as search ads, which are different from Android ads, etc...)
But... how is facebook any different? They have ads. And... more ads, as far as I can see. What's the "more than one" source of revenue you're referring to?
Facebook has ads and Facebook Credits. S-1 shows about 18% of Facebook revenue comes from Facebook Credits, so Facebook is better than Google in "diverse source of revenue" metric.
That's fair; I didn't realize the fraction was so high. So, I guess the question then would be do freemium sales by affiliated apps constitute a meaningfully "diversivied" revenue stream? I'd argue that they don't, honestly. Downturns in the market that reduce eyeballs will hit them both. Both scale more or less directly with disposable income in the facebook user demographic.
Normally you talk about diversification in the sense of risk management: i.e. "It's OK if the social media market tanks because we still sell phone service." (or whatever: hardware, concert tickets, coal mine permitting services, etc...).
From that perspective, both Facebook and Google are very exposed. Though if anything I'd still say that Google is better situated due their presence in pretty much all of online advertising. As long as there is anything worth advertising to someone on the internet, Google has an answer for that.
Google sells Hardware, Software, SaaS, PaaS and Ads.
HW: Google Search Appliance, Google Nexus
SW: Google Earth Pro, Google Sketchup Pro
SaaS: Google Docs for Business, Google API's (Maps, Google+)
Paas: Google App Engine
Ads: Google Ads
I know that 96% of GOOG's 2011 Revenue came from Ads, but GOOG is at least trying other markets. I personally wouldn't be surprised if FB released a phone.
>and it still generates $4b p.a and climbing, imagine how good they would be if they actually figured this stuff out
Please also consider a counter case, what if $4b revenue i.e. roughly $4 per user per year, is the best you can have for such a product. And the potential for growth of no. of users is not high, then what?
The point is that as long as Ron Paul is out there on the political flank of plausible candidates with a small committed support base, the more centrist candidates will tack towards his position to try and capture some of his support.
do you have any example to support this claim? Ron Paul isn't running for the first time. Which of his positions got anywhere close to mainstream candidate's agenda previously?
Witness how Santorum pulled Romney towards more socially conservative positions just by existing.
Santorum was Romney's runner-up if not outrunning him during several moments.
Not saying Paul was completely transformative, but his take on the Federal Reserve which I think was largely considered "extreme" started to become more of a mainstream GOP topic.
Clarium's assets under management grew to $8 billion in 2008 after which a series of unprofitable investments and client redemptions resulted in its assets declining below $1 billion as of 2011
