SIEMENS DX CONTINUES LAYOFF SCHEDULE

Siemens DX is far from ending its employee layoff schedule and it's rumored most sites will once again be hit before end of 2012.
USA-Sacramento was just hit and we in the UK were told pending layoffs will start here by next week.
The madness continues.

How many major Al-Quaeda

How many major Al-Quaeda leaders did Bush get in 7 years? How many has Obama gotten in 4? You can argue that Bush put an organization in place that developed alot of the intelligence networks and information. I accept that. I'm fair. But all the necessary information wasn't there when Bush left office. Had it been, I have little doubt that Bush would have used it effectively. So more information needed to be developed, analyzed, and then turned into a series of plans to wipe out our enemies. And that all happened on Obama's watch. Someone had to get it all together in the end and analyze all the information and options (attack with Seals, drop bombs, let the Pakistani's handle it, etc). Someone had to make the right choice and understand the plan, etc. and finally say: I, the President of the United States am willing to take this risk. If you can't see that and give credit where it's due, it says far more about you than the President you hate so much and yet can't really say why. Calling him a socialist is a vague meaningless statement. You think half the country is socialist, at least. Saying that he is going to ruin the country (your personal prediction of the future), etc. is meaningless when you base that claim on worn out old slogans. You ignore tons of data that suggests that the so-called leftist, commie Obama approach has worked alot better than the Bush-Romney approach of cutting taxes. The theory is fine, but it just hasn't worked in practice. Worse yet, you support a person who won't say what he will cut to not only balance out the tax cuts, but also work towards decreasing the national debt. You really have issues with data and facts and details.

"Just as equally qualified as

"Just as equally qualified as your man Obama so this is at worst a push situation, no?"

Now this is what I call an intelligent answer. Nice to know that Romney has been secretly decimating our enemy, Al-Quaeda, for the past 4 years. I wonder why he hasn't publicized his successes.

You could have made your argument 4 years ago had it been Obama-Romney in 2008. Obama now has a 4 year lead in both experience and success.

Do you at least give credit to MC for having invented the hammer?

FINALLY !!!! Details of

FINALLY !!!!

Details of Romney Tax Plan have now been released. Check it out for yourselves at:

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

Be careful though. There are numbers there if you can find then.

In the absence of a 'job

In the absence of a 'job description' for commander in chief, I will attempt to provide an opinion. But, first, I am going to torture you with a few more facts.

A brief overview of previous Presidents with significant military (leadership) positions can be instructive for those of you who enjoy history and facts:

1. George Washington: Our first President was an incredibly effective military leader. He was a pioneer in black ops. The great American victory at Trenton, NJ and the subsequent retreat over the Delaware River was primarily a result of the mis-information that Washington and his allies spread among the British and Hessian troops. His leadership at the Constitutional Convention was another of his great achievements. (For what it's worth, he never chopped down a cherry tree -- it was a myth created by one of his biographers during the 1830's. The REAL truth is that when his father asked, who chopped this tree down, George lied and said: Popeye did it). However, when one looks at the rankings by most historians, Washington is not rated highly as a President.

2. William Henry Harrison: Poor old Tippecanoe. Didn't live long enough to have a Presidential record.

3. Zachery Taylor: War hero from the Mexican American war, but almost invisible as a President. He is probably best remembered for his VP, Millard Fillmore, and that pretty much says it all.

4. U.S. Grant: Great civil war general. Great leader in promoting the emerging American bourbon business. Presidential terms most remembered for corruption and incompetance.

5. Theodore Roosevelt: Thought of as a military hero for the charge up San Juan Hill. Not really a military man and the charge itself, while gaining much positive publicity, is viewed by most military experts as a wreckless act with a good outcome.

6. Dwight Eisenhower: Great military leader who's big contribution was being able to bring the British, French and American forces together as a fighting force, much to the consternation of one Bernard Law Montgomery and his immense ego. As President, however, Eisenhower is not ranked terribly high.

Based on the above, it appears that major military leadership experience is not a great ticket to becoming a great President. So what are some important characteristics that would make a President a great leader and commander in chief. Keeping in mind that the President has a large base of military minds to advise him on both policy and tactics, it is not necessary that the President be a world class expert on the military. What is necessary is that a President knows how to listen to all the options, question his advisors carefully and critically, and be capable of analytical thinking. Weighing the different options, integrating them into foreign policy, and understanding how other countries will react to our policies is critical to being a good leader. The last thing we need is a President who shoots from the hip. Should we have followed John McCain's advice and gotten involved with the Libyan 'revoluton' with American troops as McCain suggested? Should we send our military into Syria without an exit plan or even a geographically acceptable way to invade? Should we simply bomb-bomb-bomb Iran? John McCain is a great American hero who deserves to be honored for his time and behavior as a POW. However, to keep the record straight, remember that the reason that his plane was shot down and he was captured is that he violated specific orders and flew his plane into unauthorized territory.

Let's look at your boy, Romney. In the midst of a chaotic situation, when very few facts were known, there was old Mitt, making purely political accusations. Can you imagine if Democrats had done the same thing immediately after 9/11 or during the time when the towers were crashing down? There is a time to put politics aside and Mitt clearly doesn't understand that. His rash statements lead me to conclude that he is not fit to run our military in a well thought out manner. I'll take someone like no-drama-Obama any day.

We have one person here who won't give Obama credit for getting OBL. The actual effort took years of detective work, under two different adminstrations and this work was carried out by agencies that are generally considered, and always hoped to be, non-political. But when push came to shove, someone had to ask for action; someone had to ask the military to come up with a plan; someone had to train the Navy Seals in the plan, and someone had to oversee and make the final go-no-go decision based on his understanding of the chance of success. When the Israeli's took out Entebbe, their leadership got credit; when they knocked out Saddam Hussein's nuclear development facilities, they got credit; and when Carter tried and failed to rescue our prisoners in Iran, he got the blame because the plan failed. Had the Navy Seals suffered the same fate as the Iran rescue, people would have been justified in criticizing Obama for a bad plan, but not for trying. However, he and we succeeded against OBL. Obama has found ways to attack Al-Quaeda and wipe out most of it's leadership in the past few years. He is leading our country to one military success after another. What else do you want in terms of qualitication?

I would also point out that not every battle in a war gets won. Would you have recalled Eisenhower and put him in front of Congress for intense partisan grilling, after the failure at the Battle of the Bulge? If you really demand perfection from our leaders, then none of the candidates come close. Right now, all I hear from Romney is alot of talk and criticism, but when it comes down to the limited details from Romney, it sure sounds like he would be doing nothing different from what our current President is doing. Maybe I've missed something and you can fill me in. What has Romney said he would do that is a) different from Obama, b) is more than just generalize rhetoric like 'we can't let Iran have nuclear weapons', and c) actually makes sense and is feasible.

Finally, your continued ridiculing of my use of data and facts is more of a reflection on you and your refusal to deal with facts, prefering instead to live in your own little fantasy world. Calling me 'data-man' is a compliment ... I've got my 'stuff' together. Your disdain for facts says alot about you too and does nothing to add to the credibility of your off-the-cuff, wild assertions.

"Still waiting, though on if

"Still waiting, though on if you can figure out why I do not like your response to the question of why you felt Obama was qualified to run the military."

Before answering a question like that, please tell us, oh wise Mr. Republican, what do YOU consider to be the qualifications. Is military service required (it isn't in the Constitution, but it might be in your mind)? If so, does that mean we need to be in a constant state of war just to train future Presidents? Was Nixon in the military? Well, sort of ... he had a desk job in procurement, I think. How about LBJ or Reagan (both had very limited, non-combat records)? How about your boy, W? With the help of daddy, he got out of regular service (translate as Viet Nam) and seems to have had a somewhat contraversial bit of service in the national guard (another point on which I will not debate further since it is a minor point and quite irrelevant to most things). Would you rather have a guy who served for two weeks on so on a nuclear (you may know it as nucular) sub and went around claiming he was a nuclear physicist (Carter)? Was Eisenhower a better president as a result of his military experience? He sure didn't manage the U-2, Gary Powers thing too well, now did he?

I need the parameters of your choosing prior to responding. However, I think any objective person would have an hard time claiming that our current President has done a poor job in running the military. His success, to date, against Al-Quaeda pretty much speaks for itself.

What more do you need to respond to the data I keep producing here. How about starting with my last question about the various contributors to the national debt or the data on job creation from the Reagan adminstration to the current time. I await a clear, lucid response ... but I'm sure not holding my breath. My guess is that expecting a direct response without obfuscation is an exercise in futility and that the request is simply beyond your limited or biased capability.

How is Mitch Romney qualified

How is Mitch Romney qualified to run the military?
They don't allow leveraged buyouts and mass closings and layoffs.
On second thought, maybe he is qualified.

"Once again, I request that

"Once again, I request that you respond directly to a specific question based on specific data. And once again, you change the subject, and this time, with one of the dumbest statements I've heard to date."

Data man I did not that (the "dumb" statement, I mean) post. There are more than one people reasponding to your quips, I might add.

Still waiting, though on if you can figure out why I do not like your response to the question of why you felt Obama was qualified to run the military.

After tonights debate, Obama

After tonights debate, Obama is gone anyway.

Thomas Edison should not get

Thomas Edison should not get credit for the lightbulb or his other inventions. Samuel BF Morse should not get credit for the telegraph and Marconi should not get credit for the radio.

After all, if they hadn't invented those things, someone else would have.

IDIOT !!!!!!!!!

"One should not give Obama

"One should not give Obama credit for getting Osama Bin Laden".

Yes, you are right. One should not ... and only one does not. The rest of the country gives Obama alot of the credit; you may or may not remember the demonstrations of pride and support for the President after the announcement.

How does it feel to be THE ONE ... the one and only sad, sorry holdout, still tilting at windmills?

Pathetic and disgusting.

"One should not give Obama

"One should not give Obama credit for getting Osama Bin Laden. Any President would have given the same instructions to the military. Get OBL. Obama just happened to be in office at the time. We would have gotten him no matter what, or who was in office. It just took time."

Pure and utter partisan nonsense. Bush had the chance in Tora Bora and failed. He pulled the troops out and didn't follow up, but, rather, took us into a completely unnecessary war in Iraq. Wasn't Bush the President who said the following: "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - Sept 13, 2003 and then later said at a press conference referring to OBL: "Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not. We haven’t heard from him in a long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. He’s just a person who’s been marginalized. … I don’t know where he is. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you." But those people like you, who have hearts and heads filled with hatred and anger wouldn't give Obama credit for anything, no matter how good or obvious the accomplishment was. Your mind is so closed that your opinion is basically meaningless. You continue to treat facts as useless and only deal with them when they fit your preconceived notions. The idea that Obama should not get credit for getting OBL is completely absurd.

Once again, I request that you respond directly to a specific question based on specific data. And once again, you change the subject, and this time, with one of the dumbest statements I've heard to date.

One should not give Obama

One should not give Obama credit for getting Osama Bin Laden. Any President would have given the same instructions to the military. Get OBL. Obama just happened to be in office at the time. We would have gotten him no matter what, or who was in office. It just took time.

Does this mean my net worth

Does this mean my net worth increases dramatically when I have sex?
No wonder people find it hard (no pun intended)to hold on to wealth; after the blessed event it always shrinks.

" Do you want to talk about

" Do you want to talk about the military experience it took to get bin Laden? How about all of the other Al-Quaeda leadership that Obama wiped out? You definitely picked the wrong arguement on this one....."

Lets just focus on one topic so we don't get lost in the shuffle. Well I am dumbfounded, and simply have trouble responding to this. Can you put yourself in my shoes for a moment and guess why I feel this way? Your response to such a simple question defies explanation. Just focus and tell me why you think I might be dumbfounded by your answer.

From the BLS: Jobs created

From the BLS:

Jobs created using September figures based on Presidential budgets rather than dates of term in office.

Reagan term 1: 6.55 million
Reagan term 2: 10.30 million
Bush: 3.03 million
Clinton term 1: 12.06 million
Clinton term 2: 8.11 million
Bush term 1: 2.72 million
Bush term 2: -4.51 million
Obama to date: 3.77 million

This appears to not support the idea that tax cuts result in higher employment. Note that Bush did better in his first term after being handed the 'Clinton' tech bubble bust and 9/11. Also note that from 2001-2007, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Can you tell me what I'm missing here without the hystrionics, name calling, and your other usual distracting tactics? If you can't stay on subject and keep it civil, don't bother to reply.

I think there may be a bit of

I think there may be a bit of wishful thinking involved among those who long for DX employing a new mount AND superior IQ. The most important problem with small, compact sensors is angle of incidence in the corners, “telecentric” optics has long been the dominating construction because of this. The retrofocus designs, introduced first because of the mirror, have proven themselves useful. There is a reason why, for example, the brilliant Zeiss 25/2 looks like it does.

So yes, large sensor designs may be likely to imply new mounts, but no, don’t expect high end glass to be very small and compact, unless future sensors are tailored for this – which they may or may not be.

For this reason, I think that today, it is more likely that we will see new mounts first in larger formats, like the rumored “MX”, and I think they may be planning – very small and compact.

Using multiple sensor readouts, it will also in many cases be possible to get around the full well capacity limitations of tiny pixels when needed, and therefore, we may well see around 50 MP as a practical upper limit for DX. (Think of an improved sensor augmented with more exposure modes.) Which in itself makes any mentioning of the “death” of DX rather silly to me.

PS: The national debt data I

PS: The national debt data I just quoted is from the Congressional Budget Office. I think that is the same group that said it can't 'score' the Romney budget or tax plan due to lack of details.

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze don't try the tactic that the CBO is dominated and controlled by left wing socialists. You and I both that would be pure and utter nonsense and not worthy of future response.

(I wonder what bore-head will say next to change the subject).

"At least Bush was apart of

"At least Bush was apart of the military and served duty."

Emphasis on 'part', make that a very small part. We all know how daddy kept him away from Viet Nam by getting him into the National Guard and how be barely, served. I won't even get into starting a war in Iraq with no plan to deal with the aftermath (even daddy Bush knew better which is why he got in, got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and left. He specifically warned against trying to overthrow the Iraqi government and trying to deal with a power vacuum. But did the boy listen? No way. Do you want to talk about the military experience it took to get bin Laden? How about all of the other Al-Quaeda leadership that Obama wiped out? You definitely picked the wrong arguement on this one. Should we talk about how the generals told Rummy (Rumsfeld) that they would need more troops and money to accomplish the goals in Iraq and how Rummy wanted to go to war on the economy plan? These facts are all part of the record. You have no basis for your claims.

Maybe, on the other hand, you can explain why running a company for profit, and a company that makes nothing, provides no service, but just buys companies like race horses, and running a government and an economy (no, my friend, a company budget is not an economy)? Can you explain how his shoot-from-the hip style will work when it comes to diplomacy? Or should I just ask the Brits how they liked his comments on the Olympics or the people in the middle east how they liked his comments made at the infamous '47%' meeting in which he said that an American president can't do anything for peace other than kick the can down the road and hope for a miracle to occur that leads to peace? He didn't exactly wow people in Poland either. The spouting off about Libya before anyone knew what was going on there or that anyone had died is symptomatic of his lack of understanding of security, diplomacy, or our national interest. This is a man who is used to running things and having the final say. In case you missed it, a President must deal with a Congress that he doesnt' control and foreign governments that have their own agenda which is usually not the same as ours. Romney may have been a rock star at a company like Bain, but I ask you seriously ..... would you want Mick Jagger or Keith Richards to be running America?

How about commenting on the FACT that the three largest contributors to our current national debt are:

1. The Bush era tax cuts.
2. The economic downturn at the end of the Bush era
3. Two unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The recovery measures taken by Obama to stop the freefall we were in account for less than any of the above (about half the cost of the wars, and roughly 1/3 of the Bush era tax cuts.

You can stop with the 'tax and spend' nonsense now. It's old and compared to the 'borrow and spend' Republicans (and I didn't even add in the huge influence of an unfunded Medicare Part D plan). I gave you the data on the percent increase in national debt by President and, friend, you have no leg to stand on when it comes to the national debt. It's all hot air and bluster and name calling. Grow up already if you want an honest discussion. Your baloney won't sell here.

Exactly what qualified Obama

Exactly what qualified Obama tp be president if I may ask? You guy's are too much, claiming limited or poor performing experience for the other side. Please explain exactly (w/ real facts and data, please) how Obama should have been even considered to be qualified to run the largest and most complex economy on the entire planet. Exactly what experience can you detail that let you know that he would know anything about this most important aspect of the executives branches resonsibility, excepting of course the military. And don't even start with how Obama was qualified to direct the most powerful military the world has ever known. At least Bush was apart of the military and served duty.

OK, go ahead explain in detail whay Obama was qualified to direct the military. But please no off topic rants, I want some specific details like you ask of me........come on know lets not be shy about it.

"It is NOT the nature of the

"It is NOT the nature of the American government to 'hire' leaders with a 50 % track record...."

No sir indeed, we would rather elect presidents with zero % experience running anything resembling a business or economic government environment. OOPS I forgot, Community Organizer, yeah that really gets me going. Like I said I'm pigheaded but I see straight to the heart of the matter. You my friend are the one with the rose tinted glasses.

Data man is still here. But

Data man is still here. But what's the point? You never directly respond to data. You either change the subject, get into a he-said-she-said mode, or go on another one of your right wing rants.
You have already admitted to being closed minded and now you are claiming you're not really a right wing extremist. Where do you place yourself then? A moderate? Ain't no such thing as a moderate Republican any more. Sadly, the last of that breed died yesterday. Your childish name calling and labeling of people is unacceptable. Happily for you, you can go a debate with your man Romney. Since he has been on just about every side of every issue, I'm sure there will plenty of Romneyisms to argue with. As for me, I am not capable of debating Romney since I don't know how to deal with a moving target.

If do still wish to continue, I await your brilliant comments on the FACT that half of the Bain investments failed. It's the nature of Bain's business. It is NOT the nature of the American government to 'hire' leaders with a 50 % track record. 50 % is great for an OBP in baseball, but that's about it. And plese set us all straight (with some data) .... did Romney create 10,000 jobs or 100,000? I think he's claimed both. Now it's your turn to do some work and get some facts. I refuse to be your robo-google searcher.

What happened to data

What happened to data man?

I'd like to further discuss Bush, Palin, the Iraqi war and more on the liberal's tax and spend policies. I'm sure there is more data ("facts") that you would like to share with the rest of us. I put "facts" in parentheses by the way because "facts" misinterpreted, become lies; something uniquely the talent of the left.

By the way I disliked much from the Bush years, Palin and the Iraqi war, so I'm not a flaming right winger. These things just are not as bad as what the Obama years have represented.

"my lack of proper toilet

"my lack of proper toilet training....."

Now we know what the problem was, all of this time.

Guessing is more fun and

Guessing is more fun and facts only confuse the issue. The point was that Siemens DX is not raking in 23 B in revenue. The earlier poster just misread the slide and my lack of proper toilet training compelled me to point that out.

Why guess at the numbers? DX

Why guess at the numbers? DX results are reported in the Flashlight reports on the Siemens web site:
Healthcare,then right below it "therein Diagnostics".

"From slide, score is as

"From slide, score is as follows for FY11 Siemens Healthcare Market numbers (in euros): DX - 23B"

This number refers the the entire worldwide market for DX. An earlier slide shows total Siemens Healthcare revenues of 12.5 B for the same year. Diagnostics is a small part of healthcare and if Siemens had 20 % of the overall market, that would be 4.6 B or 37 % of healthcare which is more reasonable. Note that the overall Imaging market is 16 B and if Siemens had 50 % of that business, that would be 8 billion, which works out perfectly. You can play around with the numbers a bit for fun, if you want. But Siemens could not have had revenue that exceeded what they paid for the DX by a significant amount.

Exactly what I said. IMAGING,

Exactly what I said.
IMAGING, by its size, is so much more profitable than DX to Siemens I don't expect much of the 1600 layoffs to come from that Division. DX on the other hand continues to do poorly and I seriously doubt that to change.
Yes, DX will grow but not in US. Siemens will shift more and more manufacturing to China.
Financially, DX continues to be an embarrassment to Siemens overall.

Guess the guy in earlier post

Guess the guy in earlier post comparing Imagining to DX didn't see these slides yet, and still like to think Imagining as "golden goose". Before you comment next time, do some basic homework.

Previous post: The imaging

Previous post:
The imaging business side of Healthcare is humungous in comparison to DX.
-----

Not true. Check out slide 24 in the following presentation:
http://www.siemens.com/investor/pool/en/investor_relations/financial_pub...

From slide, score is as follows for FY11 Siemens Healthcare Market numbers (in euros):
DX - 23B
Imaging & Therapy - 16B
IT - 14B
Clinical Products (includes X-ray and ultrasound) - 8B
Audiology (hearing aides, which Siemens is trying to sell) - 3B

Even if you combine I&T and CP above, DX still is bigger!

Head of Healthcare (HR) has also stated that he spends 33% of his time on DX, which is justified by the shear market numbers above.

DX IS a big deal to Siemens - and it has been dragging down the profitability and ROI on Siemens
Healthcare. Some posts point to fact that DX will have better numbers for FY12 - let's wait and see! And also hope so for employees at DX. However, if you go through all the slides, DX will try to shift more production to lower cost countries (i.e. China), so good numbers may still not help the US and UK based employees...

BTW, Healthcare within all of Siemens is < 20% revenue, so you can make the argument that DX does not have such a big impact on overall Siemens stock price - but out of Healthcare, it DOES have the biggest impact.

Give some credit to Siemens - when they jumped into the Diagnostics business, they jumped in BIG!!!

My friend has worked at

My friend has worked at Siemens dx for a few years now. I work at Abbott. He told me that he heard a week ago that there might be a celebration due to their fiscal numbers looked good but they didn't have the tally yet. He said people were smiling etc.

Then I read the Bloomburg report and I have to say "What happened"?

Quit spouting insults just to

Quit spouting insults just to try to help your cause... because that is the most pathetic way to do it. I find it funny how you know all of this stuff about plagiarism, even though it isn't remotely close to the numbers you are saying. You're blinded by some sense of pride.
END QUOTE

We have no idea what you're talking about.

Segue malfunction moment?

Segue malfunction moment?

Quit spouting insults just to

Quit spouting insults just to try to help your cause... because that is the most pathetic way to do it. I find it funny how you know all of this stuff about plagiarism, even though it isn't remotely close to the numbers you are saying. You're blinded by some sense of pride.

A cynic could argue that

A cynic could argue that shutting down systems that are no longer in demand would leave them with nothing to sell. They may still be selling, but that's not the same as having demand. The bottom line is that Siemens pretty much have all their eggs in one basket with their new system. If they don't get it right, it's hard to see where they could go.

It doesn't. Many millions of

It doesn't.

Many millions of dollars was spent on a failed Integration as well. To this day the different players still refer to themselves as Bayer, Dade or DPC. Well, DPC, is basically gone now anyway.

This was a game Siemens was never going to win. DX went from #1 in size and maketshare six years ago to less than #4 now.
Employee's don't trust the company and the smart ones have left already.
Agenda 2013 will just exasperate the problem.
Eventually, Germany will be forced to streamline the DX Division by eliminating platforms no longer in demand. This will also include shutting down certain Sites which are far to expensive to maintain.

One problem that Siemens has

One problem that Siemens has is they seem to think there is an administrative solution to everything. They got into imaging fairly early in the game, had to know and understand the equipment and technology and have the experience of developing relatively new and leading edge products. With DX, they bought into a mature market. What was really the last truly revolutionary product in DX and how many of them have there been in the 50+ years of the business? Just a few, not much recently. Most of the small players are gone now. Highly competitive market in which many assay performance characteristics are tightly defined by the market and organizations such as the AACC, IFCC, etc. Not meeting these requirements is a recipe for disaster. In many cases, simply exceeding the has little benefit. Siemens has to compete on things like overall cost in a world where the finance guys have an increasing role in decision making and lab directors have less influence, customer convenience, in a world where technical ability is declining at the operator level, reliability, and overall capability (menu, interface with other devices, etc). Siemens has been fighting fires for the last 5 years in DX. They will still probably put all they can into their new system. At this point, it's pretty much an all or nothing gamble. Making it all come together as a system takes alot more than administration. It takes a tremendous amount of technical competance, and an incredible amount to teamwork. It isn't just designing a machine like a car. It's making sure that the machine works with dozens of different kinds of 'fuel' (reagents) which you design and manufacture yourself. The managers need to be both techincally knowledgeable as well as non-territorial. They have to work together closely and find ways to help and support each other rather than protecting their turf and blaming others when things go wrong which they inevitably do. They have to work closely with marketing who, in turn, must be in constant touch with the customers.

It is hard to imagine that Siemens DX has the team to accomplish all of that.

DX has been a calamity from

DX has been a calamity from the beginning.
Did you see the internal survey results?
Worse than the previous year by as much as 6%
depending on catagory.
Siemens isn't feeling the love.

It will be interesting to see which sites get hit this time around.

Ask Reitmann before you

Ask Reitmann before you pretend to know DX.

IMAGING is cleaning up.
DX contiues to just mess up.

November and December will, once again, see a cleaning house at several DX sites.

Ask holger before you pretend

Ask holger before you pretend to know imaging.

Don't forget, those 1600 jobs

Don't forget, those 1600 jobs are from all of healthcare, not just DX. The imaging business side of Healthcare is humungous in comparison to DX.
END QUOTE

I'm sure IMAGING is quite large but no business wants to mess with their "Golden Goose". For Siemens Healthcare that is IMAGING.
DX on the other hand is barely making a profit and has more problems than even Siemens realized six years ago.
They'll leave their Golden Goose alone but the DX Turkey is in for a major trimming.

Well, it’s irrelevant to what

Well, it’s irrelevant to what I’ve written but sure… just like not everyone wanted to go from horse and buggy to cars, tubes to solid state, manual to automated, yada, yada, yada. Point?

All that may be true but FX sensors are still better than DX. I’m apparently hitting a nerve here by pointing this out. Interesting.

Don't forget, those 1600 jobs

Don't forget, those 1600 jobs are from all of healthcare, not just DX. The imaging business side of Healthcare is humungous in comparison to DX.

"not until the fat lady

"not until the fat lady sings"
END QUOTE

Depends on your Site location.
Remember, 1600 layoffs are scheduled through end of this year.
These people gotta come from somewhere.

In regards to new DX

In regards to new DX products, don't count us dead yet. I have heard there will be new products coming out. You may think you have had the last laugh but as the old saying goes "not until the fat lady sings" and she ain't singing yet.

"You've been peddling too

"You've been peddling too much of your baloney here. "

Ya know, I've been trying to peddle my meat here, that is true. What I'm trying to get across, and I guess it is not working too well, are the conservative ideas that will set one apart from the dependency of government for economic security. Lets try a different tact, one that directly addresses the difference in attitude that makes for entirely different approaches to life's biggest issue---economic freedom---meaning, having enough critical mass to secure ones future regardless of what or what not government can provide for you once you stop working.

Let's look at a real life example because predicting future wages is a crapshoot. Let's take a 66 year old guy who is ready to retire. Lets us assume he is your average joe who earned an average salary of $40K for 45 years. He might have started at $15K and ended at $75K, but a $40K average is pretty typical. Saving 10% of this salary for every one of the 45 years would be tough for most, so let's say he does 5% a year, every year. Even this would be tough for the average person to do EVERY ONE of those years. That is only $90K after 45 years if no interest or equities gains are included, but given the iffy stock market returns recently, he may have been lucky to have doubled his retirement funds to $180K. That is simply not enough, unless he depends on SS benefits. What this means is that w/o SS being solvent, his retirement is a disaster. So for the average guy making for an average salary and saving 5% EVERY YEAR for 45 years he will be dependant on a government entitlement program. This is why liberals want so much government involvement------you guys all think it has to be there.

The conservative on the other hand realizes that getting a degree, working hard and saving your whole life will not get one wealthy; it is mathematically impossible for most. Only professionals, CEO's etc. can expect to be millionaires by depending on salary alone. So what does one do? You invest; either in equities, real estate, businesses, collectables, whatever; anything that will give you a chance to accelerate wealth accumulation. That is why lower tax rates on businesses, cap gains etc, are so important to Republicans-----we want to work any angle possible, besides working for someone else.

The guy who works hard every day, 40+ hrs a week, but does no investing is cooked/ done; he will never attain wealth. BS you say? Go the other way and look at the migrant field worker who works 60hrs a weekk in the fields to make as much as he can by just working harder than the next guy. Think he has a chance at wealth? You are doing the exact same thing on a slightly higher scale, but it will still lead you to mediocrity. Most millionaires in this country did not inherit it nor did they have rich parents to kick start them. They just invested while working the day job, and quit as soon as it was possible to devote 100% of their efforts on their investments. I know, I am one of them. So if you think lower taxes are not a big deal, you are not investing. We all have the same opportunities, the smart people just take better advantage of them. This very different vision on economic endeavors is what drives the wedge between liberals and conservatives. The left will never understand how much better it feels when you have total control over your financial security, and the less government bothers us the more we are able to focus. Take this to heart or be stuck in government dependency and with the cloud of corporate (Siemens?) layoffs always on your mind.

I just like this thread -

I just like this thread - seems nothing is off the topic. Here are some of my thoughts about DX. Comments are welcome.

In the past few weeks, after the latest announcement I received many emails asking me about any upcoming DX products. I have no reliable information at that point, but I think the next logical step is to concentrate on their DX product line. I also believe we will see some "serious" new DX products soon.

How about new replacements? With the latest rumors about a new APS-C model coming in early 2013, I think it is safe to assume that our announcement will not be far off. After the PDN Plus Expo in New York at the end of this month (scheduled to start right after the announcement on October 24th), two other major shows are coming in early 2013 (CES+PMA in Las Vegas and CP+ show in Japan) - there is a very good chance that we may see some new DX products by then. DX format is not dead yet.

And of course I'm talking about Nikon.

After much contemplation and

After much contemplation and hard thinking and evaluating the political situation, I have decided to cast my vote for either Pat Paulsen or the man in the moon. One good thing is I don't have to sit through a debate that is biased and listen to the candidates tell you what they are going to do for you. Promises, promises, Just like a man - they never do s t* for you.

So, how's that double

So, how's that double standard thingy working out for you now?

Romney should avoid the danger of being too specific because he won't be able to ensure that Congress will do his bidding. OK, fair enough. You have just waived your 'right' to criticiae Obama for not accomplishing all the things he set out to do. Did you listen to that hypocrite Ryan last night saying that the Democrats controlled the House and Senate for two years and criticizing Harry Reid when everyone knows that it was the Republicans (Sen. McConnell to be exact) who stated quite bluntly that any significant legislation, going forward, would require 60 votes and the Democrats never had that kind of majority. Another distortion; another lie. I agree that it is one thing to say what you want to do and quite another to get it done. The problem is that Romney and Ryan won't even disclose what it is they would like to do. GOP = Great Obfuscation Party. Since when did the Constitution create a new math that requires that 60% for a majority? Will you expect anything different if Romney wins and the Republicans take the Senate? If you do, you are crazier than I thought. (Not a threat, just a prediction based on understanding human nature.)

As for your nasty little habit of trying to categorize everyone with whom you do not agree as socialists, traitors, freeloaders, etc. I could respond equally by calling all Republicans reactionary, racist, sexist, and self absorbed with no social consciousness or values. I prefer to take people as individuals and not lump them all together. You obviously don't. Maybe that's because you are, by your own admission, anti-intellectual, anti-fact ..... actually anti-anything that doesn't fit with your preconceived notions. And worse than all of that ... you actually got me to use the word 'jerk' to describe you.

Well for once I may agree

Well for once I may agree with you a bit. The Romney camp would be much better served to be a bit more forthcoming. At the same time I think it disingenuous to set forth very specific details as they never can be predicted so far ahesd of time as conditions and congressional passage all have a way of changing things. However, when Obama and Biden do get specific, what they say is generally impossible to implement fairly or is economically unfeasible. So if I hear specifics and I don't agree with them then it just makes the alternative a still better choice between two "evils".

"You my friend are the exact

"You my friend are the exact kind of liberal taker not maker....."

More ignorant personal attacks. More childish name-calling and labeling. You don't know me at all. You are just an hateful, viscious jerk who lashes with your anger and small mind without any thought or substance. You keep telling us what Mitt will do. The big problem here is that Mitt himself, and his VP choice, won't talk about anything except vague generalities with no details. They have yet to provide a shred of evidence that they have any kind of math behind them when it comes to their budget, their tax plans, and their debt reduction plans. No details, no sale. Same thing with Mitt's taxes. If it's all legal, why won't he release more information? What are these guys trying to hide? Why should Americans trust them when they won't trust us with details or what they are really going to do if elected. He's asking us to buy a pig in a poke and you are just like him. All assertion, all 'I know it all and I am right', but no substance.

You've been peddling too much of your baloney here. Why not just take it all and try selling it to your local delicatessen where it belongs. Seems like the perfect job for a pig-headed person like you. Maybe I should call you the boar-head, or would that be bore-head? A match made in heaven.

Please hold the mustard ... and the rest of your nonsensical rants. They contribute nothing to an healthy discussion of issues.

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.