An outstanding blog of photos covering various topics published by the Sacramento Bee.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
100 Places A Risk Of Disappearing or Radical Change
Pictures of 100 locations around the world at risk of disappearing or radical change due to rising sea levels, rising temperatures, change in weather patterns and other disruptions. There are some surprises on this list. Kind of light on background for each case.
How Much Does A Smart Phone Cost Per Month?
An interesting chart showing the annual and monthly cost of use and ownership of various smart phones. Is this expense really necessary?
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Beautiful Photomicrography
35 years of winning photomicroscopy images from Nikon's Small World competition.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Galileo & Gravity
Video of Astronaut David Scott from Apollo 15 dropping a hammer and a feather at the same time on the moon. Which will hit the ground first?
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Interesting John Lennon Interview
From Flixxy.com: In 1969, a 14-year-old Beatle fanatic named Jerry Levitan, armed with a reel-to-reel tape deck, snuck into John Lennon's hotel room in Toronto and convinced John to do an interview about peace. 38 years later, Jerry has produced this film about it, which was nominated for the 2008 Academy Award for Animated Short.
Using the original interview recording as the soundtrack, director Josh Raskin has woven a visual narrative which tenderly romances Lennon's every word in a cascading flood of multipronged animation. Raskin marries the terrifyingly genius pen work of James Braithwaite with masterful digital illustration by Alex Kurina, resulting in a spell-binding vessel for Lennon's boundless wit, and timeless message.
Basic Corporate Governance
One of the important things I look at before investing in a company are the corporate governance policies of the company. Here are several things to look for in a company with strong corporate governance:
1. Separation of the CEO and Chairman positions: This immediately removes a conflict of interest and allows the holders of each position to concentrate on their job. For the CEO, that means running the firm. For the Chairman, that means looking out for the interests of the shareholders.
I'd also go farther and stipulate that the Chairman be truly independent and not be the ex-CEO of the firm.
2. Allow shareholders to approve the compensation packages of senior management: If you accept that aligning the interests of senior management toward the long-term growth and profitability of a firm is in the best interests of the shareholders of that firm, then allowing shareholders to approve the compensation packages of senior management serves as a means of insuring that the compensation incentives of senior management are structured to best reflect shareholder's interests.
3. All Members of the Board should be elected annually (or some other shareholder approved term that could be longer) and must win over 50% of the votes of shares outstanding: If a director knows that they must win over 50% of the shares outstanding, then their interests would most likely be aligned with the interests of a majority of the share outstanding. Please note that I'm not pitching for approval by a majority of the shareholders themselves. One shareholder may own 100 shares and another may own 1000 shares. They don't have an equal vote. Please note that I'm also not pitching for a threshold of 50% of the votes cast. I advocate the threshold be over 50% of all shares outstanding. I also prefer to have all Director's elected at the same time to prevent the staggering of terms that can often prevent a change in the Board's behavior.
4. Shares without a formal proxy given to the Board cannot be voted by the Board or shares not voted cannot be assumed to be in favor of the Board's recommendations: It is fairly common practice for shares that are not voted to be counted by Boards as shares in favor of whatever the Board recommends. Please see my prior post on this matter.
5. Allow nominations of Directors to be made by groups of longtime shareholders representing an agreed upon percentage of all shares outstanding to using the firm's own proxy material: If you take a look at the Boards of many companies, you'll notice that the same names seem to come up over and over. This is because of the tendency for senior management and Boards to nominate Directors based on criteria which has nothing to do with the expertise of that individual in the business of the firm or how that Director could best serve the interests of the shareholders. By making it easier for established groups of long term shareholders to nominate Directors, then it levels the playing field and could result in a Board that is more closely aligned with the interests of the shareholders. Of course, the length of time and amount of shares that a group holds that is putting up Directors for nomination should be established to prevent short-term interests from infecting the process. Furthermore, these groups must make a full disclosure of who they are and what are their short-term and long-term positions are in terms of shares, derivatives, options and other financial connections with the firm in question.
6. Members of the Board must meet minimum requirements including limiting the number of other Board positions or other jobs they hold and they must have a credible amount of their wealth invested in the firm on whose Board they sit: The danger of not requiring Directors to at least fulfill these requirements are best illustrated with the example of recent corporate implosions including Lehman Brothers, AIG, etc. Boards at these companies were stuffed with people whose time and attention were divided between their day jobs or other Boards that they served on and had little or none of their personal wealth associated with the firm on whose Board they sat. Directors must put their money and time where their mouths are. In doing so, then they would most likely align their personal interests more closely to the interests of a majority of all shares outstanding.
7. Independent or outside Directors would lead or chair the Compensation, Audit and Risk Management Committees of the Board: If a fundamental duty of a Board is to manage risk, then it is crucial that the rewards of senior management, the reporting of financial results and the assessment of the risks of the business be overseen by members of the Board not closely associated with the senior management of the firm. This could prevent situations where long shot bets are placed with shareholder's money with no consequences to the people placing those bets without prior knowledge of the risks of placing those bets. Some would argue that this would stifle innovation and recruitment. But I counter: wouldn't this encourage a more open appreciation of the risks senior management takes with the shareholder's money?
How would these provisions be enforced? Because they would need to be enforced to achieve the aim of more open governance of a firm. Depending on a government agency such as the SEC or the Fed enforcing laws subject to the whims of the political winds blowing through Congress would certainly be a part of this scheme. However, ultimately, it would be each shareholder's responsibility to actively exercise their own oversight of the firms they have invested in.
1. Separation of the CEO and Chairman positions: This immediately removes a conflict of interest and allows the holders of each position to concentrate on their job. For the CEO, that means running the firm. For the Chairman, that means looking out for the interests of the shareholders.
I'd also go farther and stipulate that the Chairman be truly independent and not be the ex-CEO of the firm.
2. Allow shareholders to approve the compensation packages of senior management: If you accept that aligning the interests of senior management toward the long-term growth and profitability of a firm is in the best interests of the shareholders of that firm, then allowing shareholders to approve the compensation packages of senior management serves as a means of insuring that the compensation incentives of senior management are structured to best reflect shareholder's interests.
3. All Members of the Board should be elected annually (or some other shareholder approved term that could be longer) and must win over 50% of the votes of shares outstanding: If a director knows that they must win over 50% of the shares outstanding, then their interests would most likely be aligned with the interests of a majority of the share outstanding. Please note that I'm not pitching for approval by a majority of the shareholders themselves. One shareholder may own 100 shares and another may own 1000 shares. They don't have an equal vote. Please note that I'm also not pitching for a threshold of 50% of the votes cast. I advocate the threshold be over 50% of all shares outstanding. I also prefer to have all Director's elected at the same time to prevent the staggering of terms that can often prevent a change in the Board's behavior.
4. Shares without a formal proxy given to the Board cannot be voted by the Board or shares not voted cannot be assumed to be in favor of the Board's recommendations: It is fairly common practice for shares that are not voted to be counted by Boards as shares in favor of whatever the Board recommends. Please see my prior post on this matter.
5. Allow nominations of Directors to be made by groups of longtime shareholders representing an agreed upon percentage of all shares outstanding to using the firm's own proxy material: If you take a look at the Boards of many companies, you'll notice that the same names seem to come up over and over. This is because of the tendency for senior management and Boards to nominate Directors based on criteria which has nothing to do with the expertise of that individual in the business of the firm or how that Director could best serve the interests of the shareholders. By making it easier for established groups of long term shareholders to nominate Directors, then it levels the playing field and could result in a Board that is more closely aligned with the interests of the shareholders. Of course, the length of time and amount of shares that a group holds that is putting up Directors for nomination should be established to prevent short-term interests from infecting the process. Furthermore, these groups must make a full disclosure of who they are and what are their short-term and long-term positions are in terms of shares, derivatives, options and other financial connections with the firm in question.
6. Members of the Board must meet minimum requirements including limiting the number of other Board positions or other jobs they hold and they must have a credible amount of their wealth invested in the firm on whose Board they sit: The danger of not requiring Directors to at least fulfill these requirements are best illustrated with the example of recent corporate implosions including Lehman Brothers, AIG, etc. Boards at these companies were stuffed with people whose time and attention were divided between their day jobs or other Boards that they served on and had little or none of their personal wealth associated with the firm on whose Board they sat. Directors must put their money and time where their mouths are. In doing so, then they would most likely align their personal interests more closely to the interests of a majority of all shares outstanding.
7. Independent or outside Directors would lead or chair the Compensation, Audit and Risk Management Committees of the Board: If a fundamental duty of a Board is to manage risk, then it is crucial that the rewards of senior management, the reporting of financial results and the assessment of the risks of the business be overseen by members of the Board not closely associated with the senior management of the firm. This could prevent situations where long shot bets are placed with shareholder's money with no consequences to the people placing those bets without prior knowledge of the risks of placing those bets. Some would argue that this would stifle innovation and recruitment. But I counter: wouldn't this encourage a more open appreciation of the risks senior management takes with the shareholder's money?
How would these provisions be enforced? Because they would need to be enforced to achieve the aim of more open governance of a firm. Depending on a government agency such as the SEC or the Fed enforcing laws subject to the whims of the political winds blowing through Congress would certainly be a part of this scheme. However, ultimately, it would be each shareholder's responsibility to actively exercise their own oversight of the firms they have invested in.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Hubble Ultra Deep Field Video
NASA has pointed the Hubble Telescope twice to seemingly empty patches of sky. See what comes up!
Saturday, May 30, 2009
When Does Not Voting Mean You've Voted For Something?
If you are a shareholder in a public company in the United States and do not cast your votes or proxy when given an opportunity, current SEC rules and interpretations of these rules are that non-votes or abstentions are counted as supporting whatever the board or management of that company has determined what is supposedly in the best interests of the company.
But I think we've seen enough examples amongst entrenched management and do-nothing or incestuous boards who've confused what they purport to be the best interests of the company with what is in their best interests and not in the best interest of the shareholders.
If the purpose of voting in any sort of election is to ascertain the mind of the majority, then any voting rule or interpretation of the voting rule that takes away one or more of the choices that a voter naturally has in an election destroys the integrity of that election. Voters are typically given at least three choices in a typical election: for, against or abstain. The current SEC rule of allowing management or the board of a company to count non-votes or abstentions as for that management's or board's favor therefore misrepresents the intention of the voter.
To put this in perspective, imagine an election in your town for mayor. Imagine that the current mayor is complete bum and should be fired by the voters from his or her job for the greater benefit of all. However, using SEC rules, those registered voters in this election who do not cast a vote would be counted as having voted for the incumbent bum!
There are many reasons not to vote: apathy, laziness, principle, forgetfulness, etc. But the choice of whether to vote or not and how to use that vote should in all cases remain the exclusive right of the voter.
Petition 4-583 is currently before the SEC requesting a change in the rules and interpretations of rules regarding the counting of shareholder votes and non-votes. The title of this post links you with the SEC webpage where you can read the petition. If you agree with my argument above, I urge you to send your comments to the SEC regarding shareholder voting rights to rule-comments@sec.gov. Be sure to mention petition 4-583.
But I think we've seen enough examples amongst entrenched management and do-nothing or incestuous boards who've confused what they purport to be the best interests of the company with what is in their best interests and not in the best interest of the shareholders.
If the purpose of voting in any sort of election is to ascertain the mind of the majority, then any voting rule or interpretation of the voting rule that takes away one or more of the choices that a voter naturally has in an election destroys the integrity of that election. Voters are typically given at least three choices in a typical election: for, against or abstain. The current SEC rule of allowing management or the board of a company to count non-votes or abstentions as for that management's or board's favor therefore misrepresents the intention of the voter.
To put this in perspective, imagine an election in your town for mayor. Imagine that the current mayor is complete bum and should be fired by the voters from his or her job for the greater benefit of all. However, using SEC rules, those registered voters in this election who do not cast a vote would be counted as having voted for the incumbent bum!
There are many reasons not to vote: apathy, laziness, principle, forgetfulness, etc. But the choice of whether to vote or not and how to use that vote should in all cases remain the exclusive right of the voter.
Petition 4-583 is currently before the SEC requesting a change in the rules and interpretations of rules regarding the counting of shareholder votes and non-votes. The title of this post links you with the SEC webpage where you can read the petition. If you agree with my argument above, I urge you to send your comments to the SEC regarding shareholder voting rights to rule-comments@sec.gov. Be sure to mention petition 4-583.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
The Aim of Computer Technology
Please see this interesting video presented at the Wharton Business Tech Conference by Stephen Elop of Microsoft about a vision of 2019. Of course the gadgets are amazing and all of the actors are very attractive and seem well-to-do. And that's what a vision of future ought to be. But it got me thinking about what was the common thread connecting all of the scenarios beyond the basic premise that by 2019 we'll be completely wired.
I believe it's all about finding things: information, your car, evidence of a medical condition, a product in a store, your bank balance, your friends, a restaurant and so on. And before you can find the things you want, you must decide what it is you wish to find. In other words you must define your search. If you accept that ongoing convergence of networks, computing, information storage, data management and most forms of communications that can use these tools provide the primary advantage of delivering information at blazing speeds, then we must ask how best to use this advantage.
There are two means of attacking this problem. Most strategies near as I can tell depend on at least some of both means. The things you're looking for must be cataloged in such a manner that they can be found and accessed by whatever system you're using. But the ideal system must also know a lot about you to cache the information you most likely would wish to find most often, how you prefer it to organized, when you want the information and how you wish it to be sent to you. It is this side of a search that I wonder about.
In many situations, an efficient search is one where the parameters of what you wish to find are very well defined. I don't mean exactly to the dotted 'i' or the crossed 't' but in a contextual basis that narrows your search to not the single best choice of what you're looking for but to the top 10 or 20 choices. Efficient searches would also build on the experience of prior searches. Various search engines strive to accomplish this based on very little information input from the searcher. But the vision of 2019 presented in this video will require a lot more input from the searcher to complete the real time, mobile and continuous searches the user would make as they go about there business in this brave new world.
So where is all of the information from the searcher side accumulated? Who stores this information, authorizes access and secures it? What rights do we sacrifice to gain such convenience and power of this world? Where will the line between our personal privacy and society's collective need to know be drawn in 2019? Now that's a video I'd like to see.
I believe it's all about finding things: information, your car, evidence of a medical condition, a product in a store, your bank balance, your friends, a restaurant and so on. And before you can find the things you want, you must decide what it is you wish to find. In other words you must define your search. If you accept that ongoing convergence of networks, computing, information storage, data management and most forms of communications that can use these tools provide the primary advantage of delivering information at blazing speeds, then we must ask how best to use this advantage.
There are two means of attacking this problem. Most strategies near as I can tell depend on at least some of both means. The things you're looking for must be cataloged in such a manner that they can be found and accessed by whatever system you're using. But the ideal system must also know a lot about you to cache the information you most likely would wish to find most often, how you prefer it to organized, when you want the information and how you wish it to be sent to you. It is this side of a search that I wonder about.
In many situations, an efficient search is one where the parameters of what you wish to find are very well defined. I don't mean exactly to the dotted 'i' or the crossed 't' but in a contextual basis that narrows your search to not the single best choice of what you're looking for but to the top 10 or 20 choices. Efficient searches would also build on the experience of prior searches. Various search engines strive to accomplish this based on very little information input from the searcher. But the vision of 2019 presented in this video will require a lot more input from the searcher to complete the real time, mobile and continuous searches the user would make as they go about there business in this brave new world.
So where is all of the information from the searcher side accumulated? Who stores this information, authorizes access and secures it? What rights do we sacrifice to gain such convenience and power of this world? Where will the line between our personal privacy and society's collective need to know be drawn in 2019? Now that's a video I'd like to see.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Manage Your Virtual Presence
The many means of communicating using the cable, wireless and phone systems are magnificent. The dream of the convergence of these many streams into a great river of information in such a brief period of time is surely one of the greatest ongoing achievements of the human race. E-mail, blogs, websites, cell phones, social networks, text messages, twitter: the list of the means to communicate in a virtual way are many. That being said, it's the responsibility each user of the river to protect themselves from those who would do harm to the river and the users of the river. To this end, I recommend that you should consider doing the following:
1. Actively manage your online presence. Establish and grab control of your own profiles on the various social networking websites before somebody does it for you. Even if you insert only minimal information, at least it's you doing it. And check it ever so often. If I were a crook bent on finding a new identity, the first place I'd look would be on a social network site.
2. Maintain strong firewall and other security software on your various machines, keep them upgraded/patched and monitor their performance. So what if your performance is slightly degraded; its still better than what you had just a few years ago.
3. Use strong passwords and encrypt your most sensitive information.
4. Google yourself and see what comes up. If you see something fishy, check it out.
5. Monitor your credit reports. There are three major providers of this service. You're entitled to one free report per year from each. So get one every four months.
6. Remember that anything you put out there is potentially out there forever. Those old college pictures that were fun and appropriate when you were 19 can come back and haunt you when you're interviewing for that dream gig when you're 28.
7. If you buy stuff online, use a one time credit card number. You can get them from all of the major credit card companies. Don't save credit card information at sellers websites. Sure it reduces the convenience of the 'one click' experience. Show a little patience and enter the credit card info each time. You might even save some money doing this as the extra time gives you an opportunity to reconsider that impulse purchase.
8. Don't download stuff or click on links unless you a absolutely sure they are from a trusted source. If you are not sure, don't do it.
However the most important thing that many experts advocate is to think before you click.
I'm sure there are many other things one can do to safely enjoy the information river. And I'll add them as they occur to me or are brought to my attention.
1. Actively manage your online presence. Establish and grab control of your own profiles on the various social networking websites before somebody does it for you. Even if you insert only minimal information, at least it's you doing it. And check it ever so often. If I were a crook bent on finding a new identity, the first place I'd look would be on a social network site.
2. Maintain strong firewall and other security software on your various machines, keep them upgraded/patched and monitor their performance. So what if your performance is slightly degraded; its still better than what you had just a few years ago.
3. Use strong passwords and encrypt your most sensitive information.
4. Google yourself and see what comes up. If you see something fishy, check it out.
5. Monitor your credit reports. There are three major providers of this service. You're entitled to one free report per year from each. So get one every four months.
6. Remember that anything you put out there is potentially out there forever. Those old college pictures that were fun and appropriate when you were 19 can come back and haunt you when you're interviewing for that dream gig when you're 28.
7. If you buy stuff online, use a one time credit card number. You can get them from all of the major credit card companies. Don't save credit card information at sellers websites. Sure it reduces the convenience of the 'one click' experience. Show a little patience and enter the credit card info each time. You might even save some money doing this as the extra time gives you an opportunity to reconsider that impulse purchase.
8. Don't download stuff or click on links unless you a absolutely sure they are from a trusted source. If you are not sure, don't do it.
However the most important thing that many experts advocate is to think before you click.
I'm sure there are many other things one can do to safely enjoy the information river. And I'll add them as they occur to me or are brought to my attention.
Standard Wisdom
Failure is simply the opportunity to begin again, this time more intelligently.Henry Ford
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Severe Space Weather
NASA has recently come out with a report that imagines the effect on our way of life of a large geomagnetic storm that could occur after a super solar flare. Follow this link to a short article that summarizes the conclusions.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Winners of The Nature Conservancy Photo Contest Announced
Winners of The Nature Conservancy Photo Contest were announced on February 15. Please have a look and make a donation while you're at it.
Are We A Republic Or A Democracy?
This links to a very interesting video about a new way to view the spectrum of types of government. It shows some of the advantages and disadvantages of each as well as how one form of government may lead to another, sometimes with unexpected results. The best takeaway from this video is the contrast between a democracy and a republic. This is very important because the use of the term democracy to describe our form of government is not entirely correct. A far better description of our form of government is a republic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
