Quotulatiousness

June 17, 2011

I’m glad I sold my RIM stock when I did . . .

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, Technology — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:10

. . . because if this analysis at the Guardian is accurate, the stock is going much, much lower:

Here’s what’s wrong: RIM’s platform is burning. Except that this isn’t the fully-fledged conflagration that Stephen Elop perceived at Nokia. It’s more of a smouldering. But it’s happening nonetheless, and it’s been happening for a long time: RIM hasn’t released a major new phone since August 2010. (Yes, that’s nearly as long as Apple.) It sort-of showed off a new version of the Torch in May; that will actually be released in September. (Way to kill the sales, people.)

[. . .]

My analysis: RIM is being pushed down in the smartphone market as the iPhone and high-end Android handsets (and perhaps even a few Windows Phone handsets) take away the top-end share it used to have. By my calculations (trying to align RIM’s out-of-kilter quarters with the usual Jan-March ones), Apple has outsold RIM for phones for the previous three fiscal quarters (July-Sep, Oct-Dec, Jan-Mar) and is all but sure to do the same this quarter. That’s an entire year in which it’s outselling RIM not only in numbers but also revenues (and profits). And of course Android is wiping the floor everywhere else, now being the largest smartphone OS by share.

RIM is getting hammered because its phones are now, in OS terms, old. RIM’s share of US smartphone subscribers dropped 4.7 percentage points to 25.7% in April compared to three months earlier, according to ComScore. None of that is good. And because the phones are old, it can’t persuade the carriers to buy them as it did before; so ASPs tumble. Matt Richman has a stab at calculating the phone ASP and reckons it fell from $302.26 (official, Q1) to $268.56 (est Q2).

[. . .]

So we’re going to see both Nokia and RIM come under incredible pressure over the rest of this year: Apple is going to have a new iPhone, Android is going to rage like a forest fire, and there doesn’t seem to be anything to really stop either of them. Although Stephen Elop talked about the prospect of three ecosystems — Android, iOS, and Windows Phone, completely discounting RIM — it’s looking like it’ll be more like a two-horse race, at least temporarily, by the end of this year.

Of course, even if RIM isn’t one of the market leaders, Apple will not have an easier time of it.

And yes, I did actually have a few hundred shares of RIM stock in my RRSP last year. I was lucky enough to sell at about what I paid for the stock . . . and it hasn’t been as high as that since I sold.

Sunspots and the Maunder Minimum

Filed under: Environment, History, Science — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 10:20

Don J. Easterbrook provides more background information on the historical situation at the time of the last low-to-no-sunspot period:

Galileo’s perfection of the telescope in 1609 allowed scientists to see sunspots for the first time. From 1610 A.D. to 1645 A.D., very few sunspots were seen, despite the fact that many scientists with telescopes were looking for them, and from 1645 to 1700 AD sunspots virtually disappeared from the sun (Fig. 1). During this interval of greatly reduced sunspot activity, known as the Maunder Minimum, global climates turned bitterly cold (the Little Ice Age), demonstrating a clear correspondence between sunspots and cool climate. After 1700 A.D., the number of observed sunspots increased sharply from nearly zero to more than 50 (Fig. 1) and the global climate warmed.


FIGURE 1. Sunspots during the Maunder Minimum (modified from Eddy, 1976).

The Maunder Minimum was not the beginning of The Little Ice Age — it actually began about 1300 AD — but it marked perhaps the bitterest part of the cooling. Temperatures dropped ~4º C (~7 º F) in ~20 years in mid-to high latitudes. The colder climate that ensued for several centuries was devastating. The population of Europe had become dependent on cereal grains as their main food supply during the Medieval Warm Period and when the colder climate, early snows, violent storms, and recurrent flooding swept Europe, massive crop failures occurred. Winters in Europe were bitterly cold, and summers were rainy and too cool for growing cereal crops, resulting in widespread famine and disease. About a third of the population of Europe perished.

Glaciers all over the world advanced and pack ice extended southward in the North Atlantic. Glaciers in the Alps advanced and overran farms and buried entire villages. The Thames River and canals and rivers of the Netherlands frequently froze over during the winter. New York Harbor froze in the winter of 1780 and people could walk from Manhattan to Staten Island. Sea ice surrounding Iceland extended for miles in every direction, closing many harbors. The population of Iceland decreased by half and the Viking colonies in Greenland died out in the 1400s because they could no longer grow enough food there. In parts of China, warm weather crops that had been grown for centuries were abandoned. In North America, early European settlers experienced exceptionally severe winters.

DARPA’s “National Cyber Range” on schedule

Filed under: Government, Technology, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 10:07

In order to determine ways to fend off or prevent attacks on the internet, DARPA is hoping to have their scale model of the internet ready sometime next year for testing:

The US defence agency that invented the forerunner to the internet is working on a “virtual firing range” intended as a replica of the real internet so scientists can mimic international cyberwars to test their defences.

Called the National Cyber Range, the system will be ready by next year and will also help the Pentagon to train its own hackers and refine their skills to guard US information systems, both military and domestic.

The move marks another rise in the temperature of the online battlefield. The US and Israel are believed to have collaborated on a sophisticated piece of malware called Stuxnet that targeted computers controlling Iran’s nuclear centrifuge scheme. Government-authorised hackers in China, meanwhile, are suspected to have been behind a number of attacks on organisations including the International Monetary Fund, French government and Google.

[. . .]

Darpa is also working on other plans to advance the US’s cyber defences. A program known as Crash — for Clean-slate design of Resilient, Adaptive, Secure Hosts — seeks to design computer systems that evolve over time, making them harder for an attacker to target.

The Cyber Insider Threat program, or Cinder, would help monitor military networks for threats from within by improving detection of threatening behaviour from people authorised to use them. The problem has loomed large since Bradley Manning allegedly passed confidential state department documents to WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy website.

Another is a Cyber Genome, aimed at automating the discovery, identification and characterisation of malicious code. That could help figure out who was behind a cyber-strike.

Argentina: British PM “stupid” about the Falkland Islands

Filed under: Americas, Britain, Military — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:39

Remember when the Royal Navy got gutted, reducing their ability to project force outside European waters? It appears that Argentina has drawn the obvious conclusion that the Falkland Islands are now back in play:

The Argentinian president has criticised David Cameron for insisting the Falkland Islands should remain a British territory.

Cristina Kirchner described the prime minister as “arrogant” and said his comments were an “expression of mediocrity and almost of stupidity”.

Cameron had been prompted by Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell during prime minister’s questions to remind Barack Obama that the British government would not accept any kind of negotiations over the south Atlantic islands, over which Argentina and Britain fought a 10-week war in 1982.

Cameron told the Commons: “I would say this: as long as the Falkland Islands want to be sovereign British territory, they should remain sovereign British territory — full stop, end of story.”

In her criticism of his comments, Kirchner said Britain “continues to be a crude colonial power in decline”.

Well, Mr. Cameron, you’ve given Argentina a ten-year window of opportunity here between your (in my opinion stupid) scrapping your last carriers and getting rid of their Harrier aircraft and the time that your next carrier comes into service. By the time you have HMS Queen Elizabeth in commission and with a full complement of aircraft, the Falkland Islands will likely be under Argentinian control.

If the government of Ronald Reagan had to be pushed into supporting Britain in 1982, there’s absolutely no chance that Barack Obama will lift a finger to help Britain in 2012 — in fact, it’s much more likely that Obama will decide that Argentina is more deserving of American help anyway.

BoingBoing on the new sunscreen regulations

Filed under: Health, Randomness, USA — Tags: — Nicholas @ 09:28

Maggie Koerth-Baker goes into some detail on four things you (probably) don’t know about sunscreen:

Starting next year, sunscreen — and the way its marketed — will change. This is good news. The changes correct some rather glaring examples of consumer misinformation. And it’s also important news … at least, from the perspective of this redhead.

New Food and Drug Administration regulations mean that, by the summer of 2012, there will be no such thing as “waterproof” sunscreen. That’s because, frankly, there already wasn’t such a thing. A sunscreen might be more water resistant than a competitor. But you can’t assume that one application of the “waterproof” stuff will stay with you through hours of pool time. Next year, sunscreen bottles will be honest about that fact, and they’ll tell you how long you can expect water resistance to last.

The other big change: What the sunscreen protects you from. Under the new regulations, only broad-spectrum sunscreens — the kind that protect you from both the UVA and UVB wavelengths of solar radiation — with SPF values of 15 and higher, can claim to prevent skin cancer. Anything else must tell you that it’s just for preventing sunburn.

Update: And, for a bit of balance, openmarket.org points out that this is probably a solution in search of a problem:

Unfortunately, this good/bad assessment comes from the bureaucrats of the FDA and not actual consumers, who are the ones that make this subjective assessment every time they make a purchase. This new labeling rule is akin to a customer review, which then begs the question as to why the FDA has the right to express its opinion on every bottle of sunscreen while the average consumer does not? Is it because those at the FDA are ostensibly smarter and more in-tune about what is in our best interest than we lowly plebeians are? I’m sure they certainly think so.

Finally, the FDA ignores that many consumers are already adequately informed and realize (when they buy an SPF 4 sunscreen, for example) that their desired sunblock may not strongly protect them from UVA or UVB rays — who actually believes an SPF 4 provides real protection? Much like who honestly believes that smoking isn’t hazardous to health and relies on the FDA-mandated labels to make him/her aware of this misconception? Consumers already weed out the good products from the bad through company reputation, trial and error, word of mouth, etc. This new regulation only serves to discourage and worry those who already buy sunscreen that they value and increase its cost of production. The notion that we’d all be ignorant consumers incapable of acting in our own best interest without the benevolent patriarchy of the FDA is absurd.

Powered by WordPress