IBM opened a sprawling and sophisticated semiconductor factory here on Wednesday that cost more than $2.5 billion to build and equip, the largest single capital investment the company has ever made. The factory, which opens as the computer chip business is in a slump, is a costly and risky move for IBM. But it is also an expression of confidence by the company that it can remain a technology leader in the highly competitive global semiconductor industry, and a commitment that the best place to execute that strategy is in upstate New York. IBM is an exception among computer makers in that it still invests heavily in research to advance the design, manufacture and materials used in semiconductor chips. It is spending more than $500 million a year on semiconductor research and development. The factory will produce a wide range of specialized semiconductors used in everything from the largest mainframe computers to cell phones and video-game consoles. The new plant is part of IBM's push to gain a strong lead in chip-making beyond the personal computer business, where Intel and East Asian chip producers hold the advantage. "The core of our strategy is to lead in technology and attack the high-performance segments of the market," said John Kelly, senior vice president in charge of IBM's technology group. An advantage to having the semiconductor fabricating factory here, Kelly explained, was that it was very close to its research laboratories in nearby Westchester County, N.Y. To stay ahead in advanced chip technology, he said, moving innovations out of the labs and into the factory as fast as possible is crucial. "What we call the lab-to-fab time should be as close to zero as possible," Kelly said. "If our strategy were anything but to be on the leading edge, we'd have put the plant in Asia." The new factory, which will begin normal production early next year, will employ about 1,000 people.

Question: "Where will IBM be opening a new semiconductor factory and how much will it cost?"

Answer: "The factory will be located in upstate New York and will cost more than $2.5 billion dollars to build and equip"

Response: yes

Reducing resource use means just what it says using fewer resources. There are lots of ways to reduce our use of resources. Buy durable goods. Choose items that are well made so they will last longer. Youll buy fewer items in the long run, so youll save money as well as resources. Thats a win-win! Repair rather than replace. Fix your bike rather than buying a new one. Sew on a button instead of buying a new shirt. Youll use fewer resources and save money. Buy only what you need. Dont buy a gallon of milk if you can only drink half of it before it spoils. Instead, buy a half gallon and drink all of it. You wont be wasting resources (or money!) Buy local. For example, buy local produce at a farmers market, like the one in Figure 2.20. A lot of resources are saved by not shipping goods long distances. Products bought at farmers markets use less packaging, too! About a third of what we throw out is packaging.

Question: "How does buying local reduce resource use?"

Answer: "The prices are lower"

Response: no

Bin Laden and his aides did not need a very large sum to finance their planned attack on America. The 9/11 plotters eventually spent somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000 to plan and conduct their attack. Consistent with the importance of the project, al Qaeda funded the plotters. KSM provided his operatives with nearly all the money they needed to travel to the United States, train, and live. The plotters' tradecraft was not especially sophisticated, but it was good enough. They moved, stored, and spent their money in ordinary ways, easily defeating the detection mechanisms in place at the time. The origin of the funds remains unknown, although we have a general idea of how al Qaeda financed itself during the period leading up to 9/11. General Financing As we explained in chapter 2, Bin Laden did not fund al Qaeda through a personal fortune and a network of businesses in Sudan. Instead, al Qaeda relied primarily on a fund-raising network developed over time. The CIA now estimates that it cost al Qaeda about $30 million per year to sustain its activities before 9/11 and that this money was raised almost entirely through donations. For many years, the United States thought Bin Laden financed al Qaeda's expenses through a vast personal inheritance. Bin Laden purportedly inherited approximately $300 million when his father died, and was rumored to have had access to these funds to wage jihad while in Sudan and Afghanistan and to secure his leadership position in al Qaeda. In early 2000, the U.S. government discovered a different reality: roughly from 1970 through 1994, Bin Laden received about $1 million per year-a significant sum, to be sure, but not a $300 million fortune that could be used to fund jihad. Then, as part of a Saudi government crackdown early in the 1990s, the Bin Laden family was forced to find a buyer for Usama's share of the family company in 1994. The Saudi government subsequently froze the proceeds of the sale. This action had the effect of divesting Bin Laden of what otherwise might indeed have been a large fortune. Nor were Bin Laden's assets in Sudan a source of money for al Qaeda. When Bin Laden lived in Sudan from 1991 to 1996, he owned a number of businesses and other assets.

Question: "To fund a jihad, how much of Bin Laden's personal inheritance could have gone to the terrorists?"

Answer: "$30 million"

Response: no

Oscar-winning actress Joan Fontaine died Sunday, her longtime friend Noel Beutel said Monday. She was 96. Fontaine died "very peacefully" in her sleep of natural causes, Beutel said. She was in her Carmel, California, home. She is survived by her older sister, actress Olivia de Havilland -- with whom she had not spoken for decades. Fontaine was born Joan de Beauvoir de Havilland in 1916 in Tokyo, Japan, where her British father was a patent lawyer and teacher. She and her sister moved to Saratoga, California, with their mother in 1919 when her parents separated. Fontaine was a teenager when she began her acting career as Joan Burfield in the 1935 film "No More Ladies." She later adopted the stage name Fontaine -- the name of her mother's second husband. She wrote in her 1978 autobiography, "No Bed of Roses," that her mother, who was an actress, began encouraging the rivalry with her older sister at an early age. The feud extended to their careers when both sisters were nominated for best actress Oscars in 1942. Fontaine, who was nominated for Alfred Hitchcock's "Suspicion," beat her sister Olivia de Havilland, who was nominated for "Hold Back the Dawn." De Havilland won the first of her two Oscars in 1947 when she was given the best actress award for "To Each His Own." De Havilland and Fontaine remain the only sisters who have best-actress Academy Awards. The long-standing feud with de Havilland was at such a peak during one Oscar winners' reunion in 1979 that they had to be seated on opposite ends of the stage. "I was shocked and saddened to learn of the passing of my sister, Joan Fontaine ... and I appreciate the many kind expressions of sympathy that we have received," a statement released by Olivia de Havilland to CNN said.

Question: "How old was Joan Fontaine when she began her acting career?"

Answer: "Infant"

Response:
no