Avaya Boosted By Buyout Talk

Speculation that the telecom equipment maker Avaya could be a buyout target for a private equity firm or a competitor boosted its shares Tuesday.

Avaya (nyse: AV ) shares jumped $2.11, or 15.4%, to $15.78, on indications the company is in deal talks. The company first raised hopes that it could be in preliminary talks for a sale when it postponed an analyst day scheduled for May 31. The company's also drawn speculation due to its attractive fundamentals, as it has high cash flow and low debt.

As telecom equipment makers look to consolidate, other candidates for purchase include Avaya's larger competitors. In the Internet-based phone service niche, the company competes with tech giants like Cisco Systems and Microsoft.

Another larger competitor is network equipment provider Nortel Networks (nyse: NT ). The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that people familiar with the matter say that Nortel is interested in acquiring Avaya. Avaya did not return a phone call seeking comment.

The report also said that the company is in talks with private-equity firm Silver Lake Partners about a leveraged buyout plan.

In addition to its strong fundamentals, Avaya could be drawing attention because of some of its assets. Standard & Poor's analyst Ari Bensinger said the company's private branch exchange and services support businesses could be catching the attention of potential bidders.

Nortel was up 13 cents, or 0.5%, to $25.92, on Tuesday.

The Avaya speculation was just part of a batch of acquisition news that helped push the markets higher Tuesday. Investors have drawn some of their confidence that stocks are still reasonably priced from the massive appetite of public companies and private firms for U.S. equities. (See:Good Deals.)

Buying a house... how much home $1 million buys

A cool million sounds like it should afford you an impressive estate or at least a starter mansion. But in some areas of the U.S., you'd be lucky to score a second bedroom.

A million dollars was once a measure of immense wealth in the U.S. It was a sum attainable by only a few and could buy a hilltop mansion, a city penthouse or a waterfront manor.

Not anymore. Today, million-dollar bungalows or two-bedroom condos are more like it -- at least, in highly sought-after American locales. (View the Forbes.com slideshow of what $1 million will buy you across the U.S.)
Most Americans still consider $1 million a large sum of money, regardless of what their real estate agents would have them believe -- and well, they should. The problem is, in the hottest real estate markets, there seems to be an utter disconnect between property value and the buying power of a dollar.

The result? Million-dollar homes seem to be a dime a dozen these days. According to a Census Bureau survey published in 2005, the number of million-dollar, owner-occupied homes in this country has nearly doubled since 2000. In fact, this segment of the housing market has grown so large that the Census changed its top home-value category from "$500,000 or more" in 1990, to "$1 million or more" in 2000.

A one-bedroom for a million?Topping that Census list was the state of California, with 4.1% -- almost one out of every 25 -- of its homes priced at or above the $1 million mark. Both Connecticut and the District of Columbia had 3.3%, and Massachusetts and New York trailed closely behind with 2.2% and 2.1%, respectively. In New York, that figure may seen surprisingly low, but we're not even talking about apartments, because the figures exclude residences in multiunit buildings.

In downtown Manhattan, you can get a great one-bedroom for a million, says Sean Turner, a broker with high-end real estate agency Stribling and Associates. "A two-bedroom would be a little tough."

"If you’re looking in prime neighborhoods like the West Village or TriBeCa, a million dollars will buy you a very nice one-bedroom," she adds. "But if you’re looking in an off location (more of a neighborhood on the perimeter) you can get a two-bedroom for a million -- a small two-bedroom."

Vacation hotspots and popular second-home locales have hardly been immune to the rapid price growth either.
Asked what you can buy in Park City, Utah, for $1 million, Wendy Harrison, a broker with Signature Group Real Estate there, chuckles. "Not much," she says.

"You’d have to come outside of the Park City area, anywhere between seven to 10 miles to be at the million-dollar mark," she explains. "Homes right now in that particular area start at about $1.7 million."
The good life -- on less than seven figuresThe good news: Not everyone has to fork over seven-plus figures to live grandly. Indeed, you can still get a bang for your (million) buck in desirable markets like Raleigh, N.C. or Shaker Heights, Ohio.

And then, of course, if you’re willing to venture a little further afield and explore the less-hot locations, you may find you can get even more value for your dollar. Sure, this may mean smaller towns or longer commutes to a city -- but what areas like Tallahassee, Fla., or Akron, Ohio lack in cachet, they may make up for in space and amenities. Not to mention price.

View the Forbes.com slideshow of what $1 million in real estate will buy you across the country. Depending on where you live, your money may not go nearly as far as you'd hoped.

Article courtesy : Lacey Rose, Forbes.com

Candid Camera Sh*t

CNN.com news story on a candid camera slip by Bush where he fires off a dirty word...

Come for some cussing, stay for the news.....

Thought for the day - Helen Keller

The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched; they must be felt with the heart.

Oops

This had most of the state of Michigan laughing for 2 days and a very embarrassed female news anchor who will, in the future, likely think before she speaks.

What happens when you predict snow but don't get any!

We had a female news anchor that, the day after it was supposed to have snowed and didn't, turned to the weatherman and asked: "So Bob, where's that 8 inches you promised me last night?"

Not only did HE have to leave the set, but half the crew did too they were laughing so hard!

Parental upbringing ?

Families, parents and guardians in particular, play a significant role in the occupational aspirations and career goal development of children.

Without parental approval or support, a student is often reluctant to pursue, let alone explore diverse career possibilities.

Fortunately, when in school, we did our own jig and being a boarding school nobdody really bothered you at all, but things were different once in college.. Medical school was the norm ... once again the family influence

Once in college we had a chance to meet and interact with a lot of seniors and professors who provided that much need perceived degree of influence for future career decisions.

It is certain that those who emphasize that their fathers encouraged them to make their own decisions, would certainly have behavioral patterns similar to those of their parents, atleast in my case it was so and even now I find it difficult to shake of some off the oddities.

However, most children today are highly influenced by the television medium as it provides them easy models for a make-believe.

Basically, TV presents them a closed universe which understands their rules. It encourages kids to look forward to endings, and to accept the endings as if it were handed to them.

In short, it appears that the television was made for providing models for reality, and as result, the television seems to dictate the basic moral values.

The kids of today have to learn to differentiate between virtual reality and the percieved connections it provides.... and not to accept them as if it was decided for them.

I grew up listening to radio and stereo, and not watching television and hence have been spared from this blast... but, ofcourse, there has been lot, a lot of videos and movies to make up for that loss...

Television hit our side only in the late 80’s by which time, videos were far more popular. It didn’t actually prove to be any excitement and to make matters worse, there were only few channels.

The cable guy hit us in the late 90’s which obviously provided more excitement than the former, mainly because of the huge number of channels. In fact, there was so many and so little time to watch

Nonetheless, it did have some influence on our upbringing but it is far minimal in line with the progeny of today...

Television decides, television moves the industry, nation and the general mindset.....

This is just way above the prescribed limit or "dosage"..... not that it leaves a negative influence, as that is entirely another discussion.....

However, there seems to be a subliminal one-way and a percieved two-way communication.. Not very healthy I suppose.. as I personally would encourage them to masturbate as it is an easier form of stress release..... It would be nice to call the kids, give them a copy of Hustler or a similar magazine, and advise them to go to their rooms and do the jig, rather than watching television ! Ha!

Ofcourse the online is another release..... please play safe on the masturbation that was quite a litle out of line....

Online interaction aleast has a two-way communication, despite the trash being exchanged...Despite all this I like the media, not because of the above but the very ability it has to communicate, change and alter decisions... but to a teen that sounds way out dude..... and his participation in altering decisions should be limited..

Now what do parents have to play in this.....For instance, a parent may comment nonchalantly that it is acceptable to pursue a position with a nonprofit agency, but then counter it with such comments about low pay and long hours. In a way, these types of references imply that it’s more important to earn a high salary than to pursue a satisfying position.

Whatever said and done, ones’ background and one’s parents have a large influence in determining their levels of satisfaction in the future, and there is no questioning that.

So rock on dudes... as you may never get this chance later...

The Market vs. God

Is the market (in the broad sense of the term) influencing us for the worse? Making us dishonest? Making us materialistic? Making us fat and lazy? Making us shallow? And all in the process, is it displacing God?

Bad Market

Among the most common arguments in criticism of the market with intent to give us pause is the one that points out all the so-called business or corporate “scandals.” This argument is typically given in justification for increased governmental or bureaucratic regulation in one form or another. But ought it not first be determined which institution, government or corporate, is more steeped in scandal and corruption than the other?

Which institution is more prone to promise more and deliver less?

Which institution’s directors are less accountable to its constituency?

In which institution is it easier to get rid of dead weight, or worse, corruptive or destructive weight?

In which institution does inefficiency and mediocrity become more entrenched?

In which institution are we most likely to find cost cutting while increasing service levels?

Which side of the bribe is worse, the side where you promise favorable legislation (or lack of unfavorable legislation) in exchange for “contributions,” or the side where you promise “contributions” in exchange for favorable legislation (or lack of unfavorable legislation)?

To some, the answers to the above questions are rather obvious. One of the main problems with those who argue for increased regulation is the implicit assumption that government is at all effective in making and enforcing regulations, and that such regulations have the desired effects. So, which institution do you trust more, government or corporate? Those who would answer that they trust government more because they believe that they have more control over government than they do over a corporation should ask themselves what the fundamental difference is between their tax bill and their other bills…

The Power of the Market

Another problem faced by pro-regulation advocates is their assumption that when the market performs in desirable ways, that success is owed to governmental regulation and not to ordinary and very complex market forces. Do drug companies refrain from marketing generally unsafe medications primarily because of the FDA, or primarily because they would go out of business if they acted otherwise? Are banks generally a safe place to put your money primarily because of the mass of government regulations, or primarily because if they weren’t, almost nobody would put money in them?

Ok, so then some would argue that the above is just simply evidence of the power of the market over our lives, that indeed, the market is even a stronger force than government, whether we recognize it or not. It’s all a shell game. We believe that government is reigning in “Big Business,” but that’s just what they all want us to think. After all, is power not best assured when those over whom you wield it don’t even recognize that you’re wielding it, or that you even have it?

In the aftermath of 9/11, it’s difficult to make the argument that government has any meaningful limit on the influence it can wreak in our lives. How easy is it to get rid of a corrupt politician, or even just an ineffective one? According to opensecrets.org, in the 2000 election, 79% of incumbents in the Senate and 98% of incumbents in the House were reelected. But, we’ve passed Campaign Finance “Reform.” In some circles, such “reform” is seen as nothing more than measures to further protect incumbency.

The market is not some mechanism that pertains only to the sphere of business. The market, fundamentally, is how a modern world operates in the business sphere, in the political sphere, and to a large extent, in the social sphere. Perhaps people don’t recognize it, but they are exchanging various things all-day and everyday, and the logic that increasingly guides those exchanges is market logic. “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.”

In this sense, one might consider thanking God that we have a market tradition that restrains politicians too. Because, by God, that’s the only thing restraining them at all. It’s certainly not the writings of Thomas Paine, Claude Frédéric Bastiat, or the United States Constitution.

Will science involving cloning, genetic engineering and the like be opened up to inquiring minds because prudes in Washington suddenly saw the light of reason over superstition, or because the logic of the market dictates that they must, in some way, let it go forth?

Efficiency vs. Tradition

So, those who would criticize the market for de-spiritualizing our society and our culture have a point. They’re right. But why they’re right isn’t nearly as interesting a question as why this is happening. Why can politicians stay in power? Why can corporations get what they want from politicians? Why do people in America and elsewhere increasingly seem to be material and consumption oriented?

It’s the logic of markets. There are those who don’t really grasp how markets work, who wring their hands over what they perceive is happening to our culture. Then, there are those who understand the power of markets, and just don’t like the result. Then there are the rest of us who while understanding markets, don’t necessarily see any problem.

The market is a tool. Long before sufficient capital existed in which to utilize this tool effectively, life was dictated by traditions, customs, taboos, beliefs. This was the framework in which things were decided. If one wanted to know how long a woman’s dress should be, it wasn’t the market that decided (which is just the sum total of what the largest market segment want to buy), it was to consult some text, or make reference to some arbitrary dictate, or consult with an “authority.”

So, over the last hundreds of years, there has grown up a great conflict. But, wherein does this conflict lie? Have people suddenly dumped their convictions in favor of whim, or were most really just paying lip service to conviction all this time, and when given the choice between a tradition they really never found much value in, and the value of something they really want, like a bikini or miniskirt, well, it took the relentless power of the market to eventually deliver to them what they wanted.

So, the market controls people, right? The cart leads the horse. Ok, maybe it doesn’t control us, but it influences us. Well, sure it does. Grandma “influences” you too, when she temps you with that second piece of pie. But do we want to advocate “reforms” where we are preemptively not enticed, where we dare not allow ourselves to be tempted?

The market is a value delivery system that works within a logic of maximum efficiency. It is a mechanism whereby we strive to deliver what the most people want, at the lowest cost, in the shortest time. So, if it is that our traditions and culture are being radically modified as a result, does this not simply mean that people value what the market provides them above what tradition provides them?

Culture has always evolved. From the advent of human history it has never remained static. The only difference is that within the framework of the market, people experience cultural changes in terms of years and decades rather than centuries.

But What About God?

So this really gets down to the crux of the issue. There’s an interesting essay on What You Can’t Say.

The parallel is what you can’t do. For instance, at a place in time, you could not say that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

There was a time when you could not go off and do something that you uniquely find enjoyable on a Sunday.

We are now in a time when biologists must be very quiet about the research they are doing in areas of cloning and genetic engineering, for fear of being shut down.

What do all these things have in common? Well, the Earth does revolve around the Sun. Spending a leisurely Sunday doing something other than observing the Sabbath is rational enjoyment for millions of people. Scientific advancements hold the real possibility of profoundly changing the very fabric of our lives very rapidly, such as some gene therapy that turns off aging and allows an immediate lifespan increase to several hundreds of years.

So, in addition to being true, rationally desirable, or scientifically feasible, they also have a more fundamental commonality. At their respective times in history, they all threatened and threaten status quo perceptions of God and man’s relationship to God.

Enter the market. What is the market if not a means by which individuals can achieve their heart’s desires without checking with some arbitrary text, or considering some tradition, or checking with an authority, or praying about it? Of course, that’s not to say that most people don’t try to integrate their belief systems into the acquisition of some value via the market. But increasingly, it appears that people are acquiring first and asking questions later.

Indeed, the market is becoming so fast and efficient that people haven’t time to pay much tribute to their traditions, customs, and taboos. After all, the “Sale Ends Sunday!” And so we are left to consider whether that is a good thing, or a bad thing. I think it’s a good thing.

The tragedy, according to some, is that man’s spiritual side is being starved. The market feeds only the material, cold, rational side--leaving the spiritual side to whither and die. In answer, I would ask if there has ever in history been a shortage of shallow people, of gluttons, of slobs, of the uncultured? I would argue that the market simply brings what was always been, up to the surface for close examination. The market is exposing the shallow-minded. I would further argue that it is the market that will be there and best suited to cure such shallow-mindedness as people wake up to the fact that they have zero depth to their being—some of them anyway—and one must ask whether in the end, this process or traditional dogmatism will be more effective in motivating people in some generally straight and narrow appreciation of values and depth.

And if in the end, it turns out that God is forgotten, it will only be through a recognition that perhaps he never really existed at all, and is no longer needed.

A closing note.... John Stuart Mill on his father

His aversion to religion, in the sense usually attached to the term, was of the same kind with that of Lucretius: he regarded it with the feelings due not to a mere mental delusion, but to a great moral evil. He looked upon it as the greatest enemy of morality: first, by setting up factitious excellencies -- belief in creeds, devotional feelings, and ceremonies, not connected with the good of human kind -- and causing these to be accepted as substitutes for genuine virtue: but above all, by radically vitiating the standard of morals; making it consist in doing the will of a being, on whom it lavishes indeed all the phrases of adulation, but whom in sober truth it depicts as eminently hateful. ......... hoooooohhaaaaa...... talk about overhead transmission..... !


Article courtesy..... Richard Nikoley on Uncommon Sense

A very good article written sometime back..... but as they say, people rarely recognise the goodness or quality or whatever you may call it..... immediately..... it needs age to mature it, before people can either appreciate or grasp it.... If the person has exprired, the value of a written piece, a work of art or whatever.. increases manifold.... fortunately, Nikoley continues to bark out his Uncommon Nonsense......

With apologies on the ocassional one-liners....

Let sleeping dogs lie……

What are dreams? Do they have a purpose, and do they have a significant meaning?

Existing theories are the Freudian theory that attributes disguised meanings to dream content, and the Hobsonian theory that reduces them to experiences of disordered brain activity. The Freudian theory gives dreams hidden meanings, and the Hobsonian theory denies that they have any significant meaning at all. Y

Yet our immediate intuition about dreams is that they are little movies that we experience and take part in. If dreams are movies, do they have producers and script-writers and directors and all the other personnel required to make one?

Dreams are normally non-lucid. Dreams are often bizarre and incoherent. And finally, most of them are completely fforgotten bt the time we awake.

We can compare those characteristics to those of a cinematic movie. The creation of a cinematic movie is a purposeful activity. We can ascertain an overall purpose, which is something like: to give the movie-goer an exciting, emotional, disturbing or satisfying experience.

Can we ascribe a similar purpose to dreams?

The possibility that dreams are purposefully constructed by a dream-maker suggests an alternative interpretation of non-lucidity: dreams are non-lucid because this intensifies the experience.

One specific phenomenon that is given an interesting interpretation by this theory is that of realizing that you are dreaming and then dreaming that you are awake…. Dreaming that you wake up is the same thing as no longer realising that you are dreaming.

If there is a dream-maker, who or what is it ? If we are not to believe in supernatural beings accompanying us in our sleep, the dream-maker must reside in some part of our own brains. Presumably it is found in some or all of those regions specially active during dreaming.

What is the overall purpose of the dream-maker's dreams? I have given some reasons why we can believe that dream-making is a purposeful activity, and whatever the purpose is, it is one that requires dreams to be experienced as if they were real. Unfortunately I can only speculate as to what this purpose actually is. It may for example be some sort of testing or rehearsal

Careful study of dream content may shed more light on this question. Better understanding of the mechanisms that hold the dream-maker accountable for the success of its dream-making may also give some clues.

But all of us need dreams and the need to dream. They are the first stage to satisfying our innate hopes and desires. Desires, which one may be embarassed to express in front of others…

As indicated earlier….if there was a dreammaker, things would have been very convinient. But since we still have yet to identify one, what does one do.

We watch movies, cinemas, serials, and identify the themes, the stories the actors and actresses enact with our unsatisfied desires, thus being able to fill that void

Now there is an advantage for this as well….. it also fills that void for those real-life dramas, one is unable to enact with the reel-life ones, and which can be filed and enacted at any stage with a definite result. There is satisfaction for both sides, hopefully, we never know….. but at least they are being paid for it…..

We might have some disagreement here, but every cinematic or a serial plot has some link to some real-life drama who knows where…… but it’s better that neither the script writer nor the innocent role-players who enact that drama are unaware about it….. mainly because, it is the connection that the viewer makes during the movie, that make the movie more exciting, and that leaves a sense of déjà vu behind…….

Basically, it keeps the wheels of the society churning…. In other that separates a good scriipt writer from a bad one….

Fortunately, by the time a script is written, edited and made into a movie, the drama process for the role player would have changed considerably…otherwise it could have devastating efffects

He dreams about his hereoine, his perfect woman and likewise the woman, her perfect charmer and the process goes on…..

If not for them, where would we be……

The proverbial masturbators

Recently, stole this from a blog which I took a fancy to…..

The last day I was goin through the articles and news reports on violence in Bangalore at Rajkumar's death. Due to a quirk of fate, Salman Khan got released from jail on the same day too. The reactions of common people to these 2 news got me quite uncomfortable - people were willing to risk their lives and security for some person they see in a cinema hall.

But thinking a bit more in detail about the issue made me realize that its not the hero they are willing to sacrifice their lives for, its the character he plays and the dreams he helps the audience to dream.

Entertainment is all about a willing suspension of disbelief, of helping the audience to be what they could not be in real life. So when Rajni, an auto driver becomes a crorepati one day in a movie, the audience laps it up with full fervour. We do not see Mohanlal as a person, we see Dasan, we see Induchoodan and we see Mangalasery Neelakantan. This is also true with Amitabh Bachan in north India.

But how ethical is this dream weaving? I started thinking along these lines because a couple of weeks down the line, i will be doin the same thing for a living. Use a deo and patao a girl; use a cream and u can make a career; use a soap and u can be like a movie star.....

All these ads might seem like useless to the educated audience like us [hopefully]... But think about a farmer or a daily wage labourer.. who uses these products and spends that much extra money which he could have spent for his kids or family... Are these companies doing the right thing by creating these "emotional and experiential attributes" for products and selling them at a premium?

However this issue has an other side too... It is definitely true that the customer has the right to choose. More importantly the issue is that products like these and films like that of Rajkumar or Rajnikant help the poor farmer to become a crorepati or an Aiswarya Rai by spending 5 bucks or 10 bucks.

Every individual has a right to dream irrespective of the living standards he is in.. and as society moves towards a materialistic one, products and services like these help the poor to satisfy their dreams within their limitations... Something worth discussion??

No let sleeping dogs lie……