He did provide PE ratios for competitors as well, and HP is the largest PC maker. He isn't valuing them the same as Apple, just that the PE ratio should be similar.
The line of reasoning applied here escapes me. In what way are the hardware and consulting business lines distractions to one another? It's like saying a car company's manufacturing business is going to get distracted by the company racing team, because it's possible to draw up different P/E ratios for the two. This overlooks the fundamental and inextricably interlinked business relationships between the two. And it casts aside all kinds of follow-on benefits, such as market & mind share, the halo effect, cross-pollination of new business ideas and seeding of innovation.
One limitation of non-team accounts is that you can't easily run multiple accounts on one machine. (It's possible with some hackery involving multiple OS user accounts.) I would hope that Dropbox for Teams makes it easy to run the team account in parallel with a personal Dropbox account.
This is inaccurate, isn't it? The whole point of working in teams is to share files. Any file that is being shared with everyone is being counted against everyone's space. At least that's my understanding of how Dropbox works based on sharing a few folders with friends on free accounts.
Yes we initially did that, bought a 50gb account and shared that folder with everyone, but it counts against their free 2Gb shares - so everyone needs their own 50Gb plan
You don't need scientific facts anymore - just a lawyer
"FAA released what it called a legal interpretation, which finds that directing a laser beam into an aircraft cockpit could interfere with a flight crew performing its duties while operating an aircraft"
If only they would release a legal interpretation that aircraft can fly without engines we would save a fortune in fuel, reduce noise and GHG emmisions.
Sigh. You know, there are some topics on which I might agree with your jaded view. But a topic like this? Where there is real risk of harm? And where the FAA is trying to figure out which laws they might use to protect people from such harm? I think your sarcasm is misplaced in this instance.
The study found that shining eye-safe levels of laser light into the eyes of pilots in a simulator affected their performance - it didn't show that it's possible to shine a mW laser pointer from the ground up into the cockpit of an aircraft and keep lock on a pilots eye for long enough to have any effect.
If it did then somebody is wasting an awful lot of money on air superiority fighters when the country could be defended by a grid of laser pointers from Staples.
Read the other posts in the thread. artmageddon's in particular. For an aircraft on landing approach, it's low enough that even a small fraction of a second's exposure can cause flash blindness.
The same FAA that forces you to put liquid in your checked baggage unless you label it saline - yet insists that you only put Li-Ion batteries with the energy capacity of a grenade in the cabin.
That has for years resisted smoke hoods being required while deciding that aircraft that only fly upto 300mi offshore aren't really over water and don't need life rafts.
That increases spending on staff moral while cutting local ATC and is so far behind in it's plans for radar at small airports that it's not funny.
That's things like flammables, combustibles, weapons and more insidiously dangerous things like mercury (eats away at aluminium, which is common in airplane bodywork).
You'd also need mawk instead of gawk, imake instead of make, etc. etc. - there's loads of those little programs which don't have 100% compatible replacements.
My city Vancouver, has the average life expectancy in Canada - but this is due to the population mix (lots of Japanese centenarians) not due to the medical benefits of rain.
It typically takes two generations.
The first generation of women that have the chance of higher education and a professional job have a much lower birth rate.
Then once these women get into positions of power they show that it's possible for women to have children and a career introduce maternity leave, women's rights etc and the birth rate recovers with the next generation.
It's interesting to plot the position of each country in Europe in this cycle, from Scandanavia through Italy/Spain to Greece/Portugal.
For the 3rd world or 'human resource rich countries' - it's different. You have to look at the population in the industrial revolution 200years ago.
People living on farms in the countryside had lots of children to run the farm, to provide for them in their old age and because many wouldn't survive.
They move to the cities and have the same number of children - but more of these survive (however bad conditions in the 18C towns were - they were better than the countryside!)
Then as people become more prosperous they have less children and the population stabilizes - but at the new higher level
That's like claiming if it spun off it's discount coupon business it would be worth the same as groupon.