Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Super desalination? (Score 1) 292

by ill dillettante (#38849097) Attached to: Graphene Membranes Superpermeable to Water
I drink Millli-Q water (ultra pure) water all the time and it does not taste awful. I agree it does not taste like tap water - the closest I can describe it as is liquid air, Actually I encourage all scientists to drink their own Milli-Q water as it is any easy way to pick up if there is a problem with your lab water. It is really easy to ruin experiments with bad water and drinking it will let you know when it has gone bad (i.e. time to change the filters).

Comment: Re:Why Kodak really failed - follow the money (Score 1) 309

by ill dillettante (#38646318) Attached to: Kodak Failing, But Camera Phones Not To Blame

They can't simply "wind down" the business because that would violate their fiduciary duty to the shareholders. You can't just tell your investors "I give up!" and go home. Besides, the moment they announced "we're winding down the business," the stock would immediately go to zero or close to it and the bankruptcy would be immediate.

Of course they can "wind down" the business. This is exactly what their fiduciary duty to their shareholders is if they know that the business is not viable (i.e. they are supposed to minimize the losses to the shareholders). Businesses do this all the time when continuing the business just destroys shareholder value. This is what Kodak should have done long ago.

Comment: Re:Why Kodak really failed - follow the money (Score 2) 309

by ill dillettante (#38636208) Attached to: Kodak Failing, But Camera Phones Not To Blame
Defined benefit programs like pensions and health insurance are not ponzi schemes if funded correctly, but they are if a business faces a major market change. Kodak knew what it need to do, but there is no way that it could create a viable digital business that could support the film legacy costs.

I do think this does come down to greed. Kodak's management has known all of this for decades. If they had any honor they would have wound down the business to minimize the inevitable loss rather than dragging out the death so that they could maximize the stripping of the remaining value in salaries and bonuses.

Comment: Why Kodak really failed - follow the money (Score 2) 309

by ill dillettante (#38636144) Attached to: Kodak Failing, But Camera Phones Not To Blame
I can't believe all the crap theories that people have posted. The real reason Kodak failed has nothing to do with not recognizing the coming age of digital photography, it is the simple fact that market size for digital photography is less than the old film business. This meant that their legacy costs (pensions and healthcare) could not be supported by the new digital revenue stream.

Kodak's management who are far smarter than 99.9% of the posters on /. (not difficult) knew this and have deliberately run the business into the ground so that they can dump the pension and healthcare costs onto the government and the retired workers all the while stripping the shareholders equity (i.e your 401k) out of the business into their own pockets.

Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed.

Comment: Re:mystery why mitochondria keep any DNA at all (Score 1) 113

by ill dillettante (#28555875) Attached to: The Incredible Shrinking Genome
We actually know the reason for why mitochondria have DNA. It is because three proteins that are needed on the inner membrane (part of the electron transport chain) can't be transported from the cytoplasm by the mitochondria protein import system. These three proteins are too hydrophobic and get stuck in the import system. If they can't be imported then they have to be synthesized in the mitochondria and hence the need for mitochondrial gene expression and protein synthesis.

+ - The sixty-five dollar click-> 2

Submitted by PessimisticLitigator
PessimisticLitigator writes "Adam Liptak wrote a great article, in the New York Times, on how competition in the legal field is driving the cost per click of Google ad to remarkable levels Phrases such as "Oakland personal injury lawyer," "Asbestos attorney," and "mesothelioma attorney Texas" are bringing in between $58 and $66 per click. Is this an example of commonsense left at the door, or is it a brilliant use of technology? It seems like the prior to me.

There is an interesting side note where the article calls Google a middle aged technology, and it cites the historically slow adaptation of technology by attorneys as evidence.


Link to Original Source
