As Jon Huntsman Jr . steps into the crowded field of Republican presidential contenders, his path to the White House may not seem clear to many.A glass bottle is a bottle created from glass.
He's not well known in some early primary states. He has yet to gather the piles of cash some candidates have amassed. And his campaign is trying to attract supporters and even staffers.
So how does Utah's former governor win?
"By being authentic, by being honest, by being forthright in terms of our nation's spending and debt and the unsustainable nature of it," Huntsman said during a recent interview.
Huntsman resigned as President Barack Obama's ambassador to China 51 days ago, returning stateside and exploring whether he wanted to make a White House bid. Tuesday morning, from a state park overlooking the Statue of Liberty, Huntsman will tell the world he's running.
He is a late entry into a wide-open race for the GOP nomination, but Huntsman said that's OK. His experience and his vision, he said, will help carry his message.
"People are going to look at three things primarily."
One: private-sector experience.
"If we're going to get to a job-creating posture [it's going to be by] having somebody who actually understands the environment and the dynamic of the private sector," said Huntsman, who served as a business executive in the family's Huntsman Corp.
Two: governing experience.
"More than that," he added, "[someone who has created] an environment in a state that spoke to an expanded economy and job creation." Utah's jobless rate rose under Huntsman but at a much smaller clip than surrounding states,In addition to hydraulics fittings and Aion Kinah, and Huntsman has touted bringing several new businesses to the state.
Third: foreign-policy expertise.
"In what is in an increasingly troubled world, having someone who has actually been in the world and understands it and can make sense of it in the country" is critical, said Huntsman, who has twice served as an ambassador in Asia and also as a deputy trade representative.
Huntsman believes his background -- once voters know about it -- will propel him to the nomination and the White House.
But Utah Democratic Party Chairman Wayne Holland said Monday that Huntsman is anything but the genuine article.
Although Huntsman was embraced by many Democrats as governor, Holland said Huntsman is now running from previous positions supporting climate change, a health insurance mandate and an economic stimulus.
"When he announces his candidacy tomorrow, he'll launch a political-reinvention tour the likes of which we have not seen in our state, at least since Mitt Romney used the Salt Lake Olympics" to redefine himself, Holland said. "It's somewhat saddening to see a governor that many people respected appear to be pandering to what we call the tinfoil-cap crowd of the Republican Party."
In the end, according to Curtis Gans, director of American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate, the nomination battle comes down to whether the Republican Party is run by those who align themselves with the tea party or by more independent conservatives.
Obama "is vulnerable," Gans said.The newest Ipod nano 5th is incontrovertibly a step up from last year's model, "If the Republicans don't nominate a tea party person, they have a shot and a good shot."
If Huntsman sticks by his mantra to be "authentic," he might grab the attention of Republicans who see him as the best one to beat Obama.
"Contrary to a lot of people, I take Huntsman's candidacy seriously," Gans said.Largest Collection of billabong boardshorts, "He is the most authentic person who is not a tea party clone."
After his announcement, Huntsman plans a cross-country tour to grab headlines and excite potential supporters, starting with a swing through New Hampshire on Tuesday afternoon for a rally and back to New York for a private fundraiser.
On Wednesday, Huntsman heads to Columbia, S.C.From standard Cable Ties to advanced wire tires,, and then off to Florida. At each stop, Huntsman's job is to make a splash among Republicans who have yet to pick a candidate.
His pitch is pretty simple.
"I am first and foremost a father of seven kids who cares deeply about their future," the former governor said. "Second of all, I'm an American who wants to ensure the next generation is given the same kind of America we've got. I'm a passionate public servant. I'm someone who cares deeply, emotionally and passionately about our position in the world in what will be a highly competitive 21st century."
2011年6月22日 星期三
2011年6月9日 星期四
Gov signs Ore. bottle deposit system revamp
Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber signed a bill Thursday revamping the state's bottle deposit system, making the system apply to nearly every glass, metal or plastic beverage container.the Injection mold fast!
Oregon's so-called bottle bill is credited with significantly boosting recycling in Oregon and in the nine other states that eventually adopted variations. But proponents say it's time to modernize the 40-year-old bill, which requires a deposit for plastic water and soda bottles but not for nearly identical iced tea bottles.
The change could also result in a hike of the deposit, from a nickel to a dime,This is interesting cube puzzle and logical game. if redemption falls below 80 percent for two consecutive years. It's currently just below that level.
"By making more of these containers eligible for redemption, we're going to have a significant impact not just on our roadways and in our landfills but also increase our recycling rate,Free DIY Wholesale pet supplies Resource!" Kitzhaber said before signing the bill in his ceremonial office at the state Capitol.From standard Cable Ties to advanced wire tires,
The new law expands an experiment with centralized redemption centers, which allow people to redeem bottles in specialized locations instead of at the local grocery store. Proponents say the centralized centers make redemption more convenient and will help ensure the collection rate rises back above 80 percent.
"The bottle bill is really about more than recycling," said Rep. Ben Cannon, D-Portland, a chief sponsor of the measure. "It's about the culture of Oregon.In addition to hydraulics fittings and Aion Kinah, It's about who we are as Oregonians. It's about the ethos we pass on to our children."
Oregon's so-called bottle bill is credited with significantly boosting recycling in Oregon and in the nine other states that eventually adopted variations. But proponents say it's time to modernize the 40-year-old bill, which requires a deposit for plastic water and soda bottles but not for nearly identical iced tea bottles.
The change could also result in a hike of the deposit, from a nickel to a dime,This is interesting cube puzzle and logical game. if redemption falls below 80 percent for two consecutive years. It's currently just below that level.
"By making more of these containers eligible for redemption, we're going to have a significant impact not just on our roadways and in our landfills but also increase our recycling rate,Free DIY Wholesale pet supplies Resource!" Kitzhaber said before signing the bill in his ceremonial office at the state Capitol.From standard Cable Ties to advanced wire tires,
The new law expands an experiment with centralized redemption centers, which allow people to redeem bottles in specialized locations instead of at the local grocery store. Proponents say the centralized centers make redemption more convenient and will help ensure the collection rate rises back above 80 percent.
"The bottle bill is really about more than recycling," said Rep. Ben Cannon, D-Portland, a chief sponsor of the measure. "It's about the culture of Oregon.In addition to hydraulics fittings and Aion Kinah, It's about who we are as Oregonians. It's about the ethos we pass on to our children."
2011年5月25日 星期三
Where the Rubber Meets the Skype
In the early days of my company, one of our first big customers described our system as "where the rubber meets the sky:" wildly visionary yet entirely practical. It was a great complement.
In 2003, the founders of Skype had a vision that was both wild and practical: "free" phone service. They realized that PC's had become powerful enough to run packet-switching protocols for handling voice calls. Different packet-switching protocols had been used inside the telephone system for decades, but required expensive, special equipment owned and operated by the phone company. Skype's founders realized that the user had already paid for both the PC and the Internet connection, so computer-to-computer voice calls needed no new spending by the user, hence the perception of being "free."
It gets better. The Skype founders realized that with the PC and the Internet doing almost all of the work of handling the call, their business would require only a tiny amount of capital compared to building out a new telephone system. Further, users would recommend the system to other users, so it would cost almost nothing to attract new customers. A handful of employees and a small fleet of computer servers could handle millions of users.
It seemed like the Estonian founders discovered a new gold mine. In 2005, eBay snapped up the burgeoning enterprise for a reported $2.6 billion. Their timing could not have been worse. Wall Street's love affair with Internet stocks was already over; the champagne toasts turned to a long, nasty hangover.
Despite management turmoil, write-downs, and divestitures, Skype kept growing, reaching 663 million signed-up users by 2009 and handling 13% of all international calls by 2010. Skype kept adding services, including calls to and from ordinary wire-line and wireless phones, for a fee. Most of Skype's revenues ($525M in 2008; $575M in 2009) are for those calls, and most of its expenses are settlements to ordinary phone companies for those same calls ($225M in 2008; $290M in 2009).
These figures illuminate Skype as a money-making engine. With almost 50% gross margin, few employees (less than 1,000), and relatively low capital investment, Skype should be a solid money-maker.
But a limited one. While Skype is valuable to its users, they already paid their PC manufacturer and Internet provider for all of the resources that deliver that value. Skype recovers none of this in their business model. Zip. Zero. Nada.
The sizzle is that Skype is the world's largest voice carrier, largest international operator, largest video conferencer, etc. The steak, or more exactly the hamburger, is that Skype is a reseller of conventional telephone minutes. A solid and profitable reseller, but a modest one by telecommunications industry standards. The thing is that other companies get the revenue for most of Skype's sizzling services.
If you think of Skype as a phone company with 663 million customers, it should be enormously valuable. The entire US telecommunications industry, with less than half as many customers, has an aggregate market capitalization of $383 billion. If that were the case, Microsoft's $8.5 billion buy-out offer would be a steal.
But Skype is not a phone company. It's cash business is to resell conventional phone minutes. That cash business might, in a stretch, be worth one-third of Microsoft's offer. So what it is?
Perhaps the customer base? But a Skype account does Microsoft no good by itself. They will have to figure out how to invest even more money to follow up on that contact to sell them something else.
The going rate on Facebook is about $1 per click-through. A click-through means that the user already has interest in the offer and wants to learn more, a big step ahead of where Microsoft will be with Skype users when the deal closes.
Steve Ballmer is paying almost $13 per user. Make that $10 if you take out the value of Skype's minute-reselling business. So it's hard to see how Microsoft could possibly sell enough product to enough people to justify this heady price. Microsoft would have to sell an additional Xbox machine or Office license to each and every one of Skype's 663,000,000 users for the deal to make sense.
Ballmer does have an easier go than Meg Whitman. She spent almost $35 per user on Skype in 2005, and eBay never figured out how to leverage it. I don't see it.
In 2003, the founders of Skype had a vision that was both wild and practical: "free" phone service. They realized that PC's had become powerful enough to run packet-switching protocols for handling voice calls. Different packet-switching protocols had been used inside the telephone system for decades, but required expensive, special equipment owned and operated by the phone company. Skype's founders realized that the user had already paid for both the PC and the Internet connection, so computer-to-computer voice calls needed no new spending by the user, hence the perception of being "free."
It gets better. The Skype founders realized that with the PC and the Internet doing almost all of the work of handling the call, their business would require only a tiny amount of capital compared to building out a new telephone system. Further, users would recommend the system to other users, so it would cost almost nothing to attract new customers. A handful of employees and a small fleet of computer servers could handle millions of users.
It seemed like the Estonian founders discovered a new gold mine. In 2005, eBay snapped up the burgeoning enterprise for a reported $2.6 billion. Their timing could not have been worse. Wall Street's love affair with Internet stocks was already over; the champagne toasts turned to a long, nasty hangover.
Despite management turmoil, write-downs, and divestitures, Skype kept growing, reaching 663 million signed-up users by 2009 and handling 13% of all international calls by 2010. Skype kept adding services, including calls to and from ordinary wire-line and wireless phones, for a fee. Most of Skype's revenues ($525M in 2008; $575M in 2009) are for those calls, and most of its expenses are settlements to ordinary phone companies for those same calls ($225M in 2008; $290M in 2009).
These figures illuminate Skype as a money-making engine. With almost 50% gross margin, few employees (less than 1,000), and relatively low capital investment, Skype should be a solid money-maker.
But a limited one. While Skype is valuable to its users, they already paid their PC manufacturer and Internet provider for all of the resources that deliver that value. Skype recovers none of this in their business model. Zip. Zero. Nada.
The sizzle is that Skype is the world's largest voice carrier, largest international operator, largest video conferencer, etc. The steak, or more exactly the hamburger, is that Skype is a reseller of conventional telephone minutes. A solid and profitable reseller, but a modest one by telecommunications industry standards. The thing is that other companies get the revenue for most of Skype's sizzling services.
If you think of Skype as a phone company with 663 million customers, it should be enormously valuable. The entire US telecommunications industry, with less than half as many customers, has an aggregate market capitalization of $383 billion. If that were the case, Microsoft's $8.5 billion buy-out offer would be a steal.
But Skype is not a phone company. It's cash business is to resell conventional phone minutes. That cash business might, in a stretch, be worth one-third of Microsoft's offer. So what it is?
Perhaps the customer base? But a Skype account does Microsoft no good by itself. They will have to figure out how to invest even more money to follow up on that contact to sell them something else.
The going rate on Facebook is about $1 per click-through. A click-through means that the user already has interest in the offer and wants to learn more, a big step ahead of where Microsoft will be with Skype users when the deal closes.
Steve Ballmer is paying almost $13 per user. Make that $10 if you take out the value of Skype's minute-reselling business. So it's hard to see how Microsoft could possibly sell enough product to enough people to justify this heady price. Microsoft would have to sell an additional Xbox machine or Office license to each and every one of Skype's 663,000,000 users for the deal to make sense.
Ballmer does have an easier go than Meg Whitman. She spent almost $35 per user on Skype in 2005, and eBay never figured out how to leverage it. I don't see it.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)