Verizon says their contract was approved only for the location tracking of outside mobile phones called by prison inmates.
If that was truly the case, then shouldn't Verizon have detected them retrieving such a MASSIVE amount of location data for OTHER device IDs
90% of which probably never connected from anywhere near a prison?
Verizon backing off now reduces damage but DOESNT make up for the past abuse. For this level of privacy invasion.... executive managers of the involved Telcos should do hard prison time.
That's excessive, really unreasonably cruel, But any person that makes a false testimony or knowingly assists in framing someone or prosecuting someone for a crime knowing that the charge is false or overstated SHOULD have at least 2X the penalty applied to themself that would have applied to their attempted victim if the false charge had succeeded, well 2X for major crimes 4 to 5X the penalty for minor crimes.
Also, we should put Bodycams on all police officers and pass an act that no Police testimony can be admitted against an accused person without a copy of complete unedited bodycam footage of the occassion in evidence reviewed ahead of testimony --- and no unrecorded offense or other act of reported wrongdoing can be accepted in the police testimony; The police job then if they witness a crime is to make CERTAIN they create a recording or other verifiable documentation, so the matter can be shown to the court with conviction never relying on taking the Officer's "word for it", And since the court is likely to be biased into believing whatever an Officer would say, then they should be prohibited from making testimony in the first place ---- until they first provide detailed proof (Which is possible to make sure they record at the time they come into the scene) that their testimony is true.
It's ok to not sue because you're too busy or stressed or apathetic, but to not sue rogue cops out of "principle"
UGh... If you are able to sue, then it is wrong not to sue, because these evil villains dressed in Offiers' clothing will have other victims that Don't have the same knowledge or resources to protect themselves.
. Yes, they have to pay, however they can't cease retirement account funds and certain other assets.
Cannot seize or attach certain retirement accounts directly BECAUSE the legal owner is the employer or an irrevocable trust.
However, All retirement accounts are designed to payout to their owner (eventually). If they remain in default of payments to satisfy a judgement --- the very instant that retirement account pays out funds to the party, whether immediately or years down the road, the court can at that moment attach the payment and order those funds delivered to satisfy the judgement ---- the court can potentially even deliver an order to the retirement fund trustee garnishing all/future payments, or to the bank that will receive the payments from the retirement account.
Likely, however, the defendant with a significant pension or retirement account would have some other asset such as real property to
force sale to satisfy an order.
There is not even the slightest chance of this island getting a resort hotel; the mean temperature is below freezing, and the weather there is not conducive to human survival --- global warming isn't going to change that. It's a Volcanic island that is highly mountainous and almost completely covered by glaciers -- the geography is extremely treacherous, and it's said to be almost impossible for a boat to land people there or retrieve people most of the time -- there's basically one small point of potential access with an extremely steep coast.
The battery in heavy use cases can be thought of as giving the ability to move the machine
It's just a portable UPS, because the typical desktop UPS is too much to carry around, but these are more efficient since they work only on DC power. Because the power grid is almost always less than 99% reliable, and unexpected power outages of an hour or so are common: every computer should be used with an UPS in order to give the user enough time for a graceful shutdown after a power outage --- and to help protect the computer itself; for a laptop the battery provides the UPS, and the replaceable AC to DC power brick provides some surge protection.
This was already done YEARS ago. And the telcos delayed and deferred and never got it done.
Then the government should decide their delay/deferral constitutes Non-Performance, and assess them an immediate Bill for Taxes due on the return of tax dollars they had taken conditioned with the promise PLUS the interest of over all the years delayed PLUS a 10% penalty to be collected from the parties in question by the IRS using all means at their disposal.
Wrong. They were already found guilty. This is about preventing them from continuing to do damage
Not wrong. Any law singling out a person (including a company) and assigning them for punishment by name --- even if they are a foreigner who only does business in the US is by definition a Bill of Attainder, which is unconstitutional.
Also..... ZTE have not been given a trial and found guilty to any crime; there was some evidence of a violation, And according to the Department of Commerce, they had found violations on the part of ZTE, and initially sanctions were going to be imposed, which is the executive branch's prerogative that is their duty in the enforcement of border controls.
Just like border patrol agents who are in the executive can decide to refuse suspicious applicants a visa for entry into the US. HOWEVER, Congress does not have the power to decide they don't like how the executive allowed someone they wanted block and pass a law, that says something like "You in particular, Mr. John. A Doe are to be denied entry into the US for any future business."
The action MUST come from the courts or the judges enforcing the laws in an equal way. Laws that can be enforced without violating the constitution cannot single out particular people or entities for different treatment, for any reason..... doesn't matter if person X was so unpopular some people in congress wanted to pass a prejudicial law against person X. The prejudicial law specifically identifying person X is unconstitutional, even if person X had been found guilty of a crime before.
What's this odd amendment crap? The Executive branch has the inherent authority to decide who to prosecute or whether to prosecute or not, But the Congress does not.
An "amendment" to a bill, Or a law Naming a specific person or company such as ZTE and stating that person or company are guilty of a crime or misdeed and/or applying a punishment to a specific company or individual is called a Bill of Attainder, And it is an Unconstitutional action for Congress to try and pass an instrument such as this (US Constitution, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.").
Congress is specifically denied the ability to pass a law naming an Individual or Corporation (such as ZTE) and imposing a punishment ---- this authority is reserved to the courts and to the executive; Congress is specifically denied the authority to find anyone guilty of anything -- that's for other branches of government to handle. So I sure hope this gets challenged appropriately.
Yes but precious metals have actual intrinsic value
NOTHING is intrinsically or inherently worth a certain amount of USD or other fiat currency. The US government has and could again fix an arbitrary fiat price of their choosing for any precious metal, because they in effect decide how much fiat will be worth ---- they can also make the fiat worth 0 by invalidating it at any time and issuing new currency which they distribute in various proportions to people they like, their supporters, then the rest of the population in amounts as they see fit.
Vitalik reversed some transaction for some company that mistakenly dumped a bunch of ether. Immutability is BULLSHIT.
Your argument doesn't apply to Bitcoin itself.... effective Immutability is not Bullshit for Bitcoin itself. ONLY for pretender cryptocurrencies like Ether which are ACTUALLY centralized, despite their claims to be decentralized --- Ether is still centrally controlled by Vitalik who hold a huge fraction of coins which were pre-mined and their loyal supporters, as you observed.
When it gets too difficult to mine one coin, just go and invent a new one
No... there is a limited supply of Bitcoins which are secured by the high hashing power of the Bitcoin miners, and you can't just go out and "invent a new one" and have it be comparable to Bitcoin, because your new coin will have a very low hashrate, and thus it will be easy to target with a 51% attack, should your "new invented coin" ever become valuable enough to even be worth it to try attacking.
rankly, Bitcoin sucks for any legal transaction because the fees are too high and the processing times are too slow
The fees are lower than bank fees, and the transaction clearing time averages less than an hour, so it is faster than a Check or Overnight wire --- It's not like current banks support clearing transactions instantly. Even your credit card transactions are just pre-"Authorized", and the settlement process takes days before the merchant actually gets paid.
It is that day when bitcoin's price will dramatically fall to more commonsense levels.
Actually... that will probably be the day when Bitcoin's price would have dramatically increased to more commonsense levels, such as $0.0001 US per Satoshi.
Some forums will be locked, preventing users from helping each other as well.
This is outrageous.... if people are still using Windows 8, then don't interfere with the community supporting each other, Or, perhaps, people will stop trusting your forums in the future and setup their own or move to Linux.
History is irrelevant. What is important is the returns going forward. 10% seems unlikely.
Any given year has high variation over the markets, BUT the long term trend comes from growth of the overall economy and real property values which grow steadily and are not not highly variable over long periods of time. With a suitable allocation and appropriate fund choices, 10% average or more is highly probable over periods of time longer than 10 years, which is based on history and economic models.
And even in the event you don't reach 10%; if the fund choice and allocation are appropriate, you will be able to save up a respectable retirement over that period of time.
Also, better plan on a few major market crashes wiping out your savings.
No... Markets are cyclical, and crashes are part of it in fact: multiple market crashes are EXPECTED to happen over a period of 50 years, and they don't wipe out any savings --- they are a temporary decrease in market value - stock returns will be negative for that year, but on average adding up positive and negative years the result comes out 10% ahead annualized given a sufficiently long time horizon.
Crashes, the business cycles, and major events are the REASON people don't put 100% of portfolio value in an asset class. For example, you perhaps choose 75% of the savings in company stocks and 25% in Fixed-Income/Bonds, Real-Estate funds, Inflation-Protected Securities, other debt securities, convertibles, or Hedging options, and similar instruments.
During the years immediately after the "Crash"; the NAV of the Stock position shrinks, and the portfolio's Cash position then becomes overweight --- e.g. You will have less than 75% of the target allocation in stock and more than 25% in cash. Every 1, 3, 6 months, or 12 months, the manager rebalances the portfolio if it deviates from the target allocation by a sufficient threshold% and dollar amount (but usually just perhaps once a year or two to minimize fees), therefore, after a market crash the portfolio will be getting rid of Cash or selling the Hedging assets and BUYING stock to bring the portfolio back to the target percentages, which means you will get maximum advantage of the market crash by purchasing more stock while the price is still low ---- On the other hand, after a year when your funds perform extremely well, then the stock allocation will.exceed 75% of your portfolio value, therefore, when rebalance occurs you will be selling Stock mutual fund shares and buying into your other funds that Hedge the stocks risk
$600 per year x 50 years = $30,000. Where do you get interest rates that makes those savings become $1,000,000?
Your idea of multiplying each years' payments by 50 is invalid assuming the savings are being invested responsibly, please see Here for the formula regarding the future value
The answer is people buy in a combination of mutual funds that are selected to have an expected average annualized return of 10% or higher after fees for periods of 10 years or more with optimal risk, and that's not very difficult target, at least historically speaking; considering that is about what the overall stock market itself has been observed to earn on average for such periods -- a combination of stock market index + small amount of real-estate ETFs (or similar choice for inflation protection) pretty much fit the bill.
And ~10.4% annualized will more likely than not get the investor to more than $1 Million worth in 50 years.
It's a verifiable fact that Millennials are worse off than their parents and grandparents.
Not so fast... Millenials are worse off as a group by their own individual choices, because they buy more goods and services that are not really needed and make worse deals than their parents or grandparents --- for example, many of them are swindled into taking on student loan debts by allowing themself to incur expenses that are unjustifiably large VS benefit.
and sitting quietly waiting to go to work (or better yet, working 16 hours a day) then the nasty little heathens deserve what they get.
What kind of crap are you spewing? Nobody "deserves" to get anything from anybody other than the agreed upon goods, services, or compensation in exchange for $$$, work, or services provided.
All i'm saying is the people who claim to be living paycheck-to-paycheck and unable to afford to save at all for retirement or future needs are Full of Shit: if they are spending any money on non-essentials, then they are Not "unable", but they CHOOSE not to --- The fact they DO have the choice to spend the $$$ on Non-Essentials PROVES that the Money would be available to save for their future, BUT they choose to prioritize the Immediate non-essential Luxury as MORE IMPORTANT or PRIORITIZED over saving for Retirement and prioritized over saving to help build an emergency fund or improve their overall Financial well-being.
The $50 to $80 / Month Cable TV or Netflix bill PLUS exorbitant Smartphones with unnecessary features are GREAT examples, because the purchase is 100% on Audivisual entertainment. The equipment alone (such as Televisions) are luxury items, and so is cable service. Millenials' grandparents' likely never owned TVs or Smartphones, let-alone pay an equivalent of $60/Month for such items.
There are plenty of free ways to be entertained, such as taking walks down the street, or riding a bike to the nearest library, those are also activities that promote thought, higher productivity, and potential aid to professional development.
That's just two high-ticket examples.... Another example is: What kind of Vehicle people choose to buy. Don't claim to have no choice and be living paycheck-to-paycheck and having purchased a brand New $30K+ vehicle; that has a high loan-servicing cost, a high rate of interest that will be paid over the life of the vehicle, AND a higher insurance rate, when a used $12K vehicle of an appropriate type well-researched purchase (Including the expected lifecycle costs to insure and maintain) would have (A) Met the needs, and (B) Resulted in lower monthly costs: Again, this is a case where "Live paycheck-to-paycheck" was NOT dictated by the marketplace, or by the wage, But it was the result of management decisions made by the individual.
constant assault on Unions means they have no opportunity and with most living paycheck to paycheck they have no opportunity to save.
Very many, probably the vast majority of the people supposedly living paycheck to paycheck ARE overpurchasing discretionary items, such as Junk Food, Cable TV, Smartphone Plans/Cellular data, Netflix, extra Gas/Vehicle miles for non-essential travel such as to go out and socialize, other Toys/Games/Entertainment.
So, even for 99% that claim to live Paycheck-to-Paycheck it IS a choice; they could cancel their cable TV and save $50 a month and make sure NOT to substitute those savings by purchasing anything else, which is $600 a Year saved that will easily grow to a million$ if they keep consistently putting that $50/Month in for 50 years .
Cancel that non-essential cell smartphone plan and go back to a cheap featurephone, and save another $50. Get the discretionary reduced by $250/Month that go into savings, and the time until $1 Million is saved up goes down to about 37 years.
Trick question. The risk depends on the specific single stock and the specific Mutual Fund in question.
Some mutual funds are at a different level of risk than other funds, and some stocks at are a different level of risk than other stocks ---- the highest risk funds can very well have less safety than some of the lower risk stocks.
It is perfectly well known for which tasks quantum computing will be more efficient than conventional computing
False. They're not actually known to be more efficient. Today we can already build a quantum computer in the form of software simulators that stand on top of normal hardware. If quantum computation was truly inherently more efficient ---- then we could just a quantum algorithm rnning on top of the software simulator as our more-efficient implementation.
Quantum computers might turn out not be more efficient at all. Only one limited facets of efficiency is well-known/established; the space and number of basic computation steps, and the reduction in steps.
However; the steps being compared between types of computers are not an apples-to-apples comparison, more like apples and oranges, therefore what is known cannot show that a quantum computer will be as faster or more efficient than has been suggested.
Slashdot Mirror
Verizon says their contract was approved only for the location tracking of outside mobile phones called by prison inmates.
If that was truly the case, then shouldn't Verizon have detected them retrieving such a MASSIVE amount of location data for OTHER device IDs
90% of which probably never connected from anywhere near a prison?
Verizon backing off now reduces damage but DOESNT make up for the past abuse. For this level of privacy invasion.... executive managers of the involved Telcos should do hard prison time.
Now that malware can just by infecting someone's computer send SMS text messages using someone's phone......
That's excessive, really unreasonably cruel, But any person that makes a false testimony or knowingly assists in framing someone or prosecuting someone for a crime knowing that the charge is false or overstated SHOULD have at least 2X the penalty applied to themself that would have applied to their attempted victim if the false charge had succeeded, well 2X for major crimes 4 to 5X the penalty for minor crimes.
Also, we should put Bodycams on all police officers and pass an act that no Police testimony can be admitted against an accused person without a copy of complete unedited bodycam footage of the occassion in evidence reviewed ahead of testimony --- and no unrecorded offense or other act of reported wrongdoing can be accepted in the police testimony; The police job then if they witness a crime is to make CERTAIN they create a recording or other verifiable documentation, so the matter can be shown to the court with conviction never relying on taking the Officer's "word for it", And since the court is likely to be biased into believing whatever an Officer would say, then they should be prohibited from making testimony in the first place ---- until they first provide detailed proof (Which is possible to make sure they record at the time they come into the scene) that their testimony is true.
It's ok to not sue because you're too busy or stressed or apathetic, but to not sue rogue cops out of "principle"
UGh... If you are able to sue, then it is wrong not to sue, because these evil villains dressed in Offiers' clothing will have other victims that Don't have the same knowledge or resources to protect themselves.
. Yes, they have to pay, however they can't cease retirement account funds and certain other assets.
Cannot seize or attach certain retirement accounts directly BECAUSE the legal owner is the employer or an irrevocable trust.
However, All retirement accounts are designed to payout to their owner (eventually). If they remain in default of payments to satisfy a judgement --- the very instant that retirement account pays out funds to the party, whether immediately or years down the road, the court can at that moment attach the payment and order those funds delivered to satisfy the judgement ---- the court can potentially even deliver an order to the retirement fund trustee garnishing all/future payments, or to the bank that will receive the payments from the retirement account.
Likely, however, the defendant with a significant pension or retirement account would have some other asset such as real property to
force sale to satisfy an order.
There is not even the slightest chance of this island getting a resort hotel; the mean temperature is below freezing, and the weather there is not conducive to human survival --- global warming isn't going to change that. It's a Volcanic island that is highly mountainous and almost completely covered by glaciers -- the geography is extremely treacherous, and it's said to be almost impossible for a boat to land people there or retrieve people most of the time -- there's basically one small point of potential access with an extremely steep coast.
I've got a better and simpler solution - burn down some rich cunt's house.
That's what we have Prisons and insurance plans for.... help to protect people from psychopaths like yourself.
The battery in heavy use cases can be thought of as giving the ability to move the machine
It's just a portable UPS, because the typical desktop UPS is too much to carry around, but these are more efficient since they work only on DC power. Because the power grid is almost always less than 99% reliable, and unexpected power outages of an hour or so are common: every computer should be used with an UPS in order to give the user enough time for a graceful shutdown after a power outage --- and to help protect the computer itself; for a laptop the battery provides the UPS, and the replaceable AC to DC power brick provides some surge protection.
This was already done YEARS ago. And the telcos delayed and deferred and never got it done.
Then the government should decide their delay/deferral constitutes Non-Performance, and assess them an immediate Bill for Taxes due on the return of tax dollars they had taken conditioned with the promise PLUS the interest of over all the years delayed PLUS a 10% penalty to
be collected from the parties in question by the IRS using all means at their disposal.
Wrong. They were already found guilty. This is about preventing them from continuing to do damage
Not wrong. Any law singling out a person (including a company) and assigning them for punishment by name ---
even if they are a foreigner who only does business in the US is by definition a Bill of Attainder, which is unconstitutional.
Also..... ZTE have not been given a trial and found guilty to any crime; there was some evidence of a violation, And
according to the Department of Commerce, they had found violations on the part of ZTE, and initially sanctions were
going to be imposed, which is the executive branch's prerogative that is their duty in the enforcement of border controls.
Just like border patrol agents who are in the executive can decide to refuse suspicious applicants a visa for entry into the US.
HOWEVER, Congress does not have the power to decide they don't like how the executive allowed someone they wanted block
and pass a law, that says something like "You in particular, Mr. John. A Doe are to be denied entry into the US for any future business."
The action MUST come from the courts or the judges enforcing the laws in an equal way.
Laws that can be enforced without violating the constitution cannot single out particular people or entities for different treatment,
for any reason..... doesn't matter if person X was so unpopular some people in congress wanted to pass a prejudicial law against person X.
The prejudicial law specifically identifying person X is unconstitutional, even if person X had been found guilty of a crime before.
What's this odd amendment crap? The Executive branch has the inherent authority to decide who to prosecute or whether to prosecute or not, But the Congress does not.
An "amendment" to a bill, Or a law Naming a specific person or company such as ZTE and stating that person or company are guilty of a crime or misdeed and/or applying a punishment to a specific company or individual is called a Bill of Attainder, And it is an Unconstitutional action for Congress to try and pass an instrument such as this (US Constitution, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.").
Congress is specifically denied the ability to pass a law naming an Individual or Corporation (such as ZTE) and imposing a punishment ---- this authority is reserved to the courts and to the executive; Congress is specifically denied the authority to find anyone guilty of anything -- that's for other branches of government to handle. So I sure hope this gets challenged appropriately.
Yes but precious metals have actual intrinsic value
NOTHING is intrinsically or inherently worth a certain amount of USD or other fiat currency.
The US government has and could again fix an arbitrary fiat price of their choosing for any precious metal,
because they in effect decide how much fiat will be worth ---- they can also make the fiat worth 0 by invalidating it
at any time and issuing new currency which they distribute in various proportions to people they like, their supporters, then the rest of the population in amounts as they see fit.
Vitalik reversed some transaction for some company that mistakenly dumped a bunch of ether. Immutability is BULLSHIT.
Your argument doesn't apply to Bitcoin itself.... effective Immutability is not Bullshit for Bitcoin itself.
ONLY for pretender cryptocurrencies like Ether which are ACTUALLY centralized, despite their claims to be decentralized --- Ether is still centrally controlled by Vitalik who hold a huge fraction of coins which were pre-mined and their loyal supporters, as you observed.
When it gets too difficult to mine one coin, just go and invent a new one
No... there is a limited supply of Bitcoins which are secured by the high hashing power of the Bitcoin miners, and you can't just go out and "invent a new one" and have it be comparable to Bitcoin, because your new coin will have a very low hashrate, and thus it will be easy to target with a 51% attack, should your "new invented coin" ever become valuable enough to even be worth it to try attacking.
rankly, Bitcoin sucks for any legal transaction because the fees are too high and the processing times are too slow
The fees are lower than bank fees, and the transaction clearing time averages less than an hour, so it is faster than a Check or Overnight wire --- It's not like current banks support clearing transactions instantly. Even your credit card transactions are just pre-"Authorized", and the settlement process takes days before the merchant actually gets paid.
It is that day when bitcoin's price will dramatically fall to more commonsense levels.
Actually... that will probably be the day when Bitcoin's price would have dramatically increased to more commonsense levels, such as $0.0001 US per Satoshi.
Some forums will be locked, preventing users from helping each other as well.
This is outrageous.... if people are still using Windows 8, then don't interfere with the community supporting each other,
Or, perhaps, people will stop trusting your forums in the future and setup their own or move to Linux.
History is irrelevant. What is important is the returns going forward. 10% seems unlikely.
Any given year has high variation over the markets, BUT the long term trend comes from growth of the overall economy and real property values which grow steadily and are not not highly variable over long periods of time. With a suitable allocation and appropriate fund choices, 10% average or more is highly probable over periods of time longer than 10 years, which is based on history and economic models.
And even in the event you don't reach 10%; if the fund choice and allocation are appropriate, you will be able to save up a respectable retirement over that period of time.
Also, better plan on a few major market crashes wiping out your savings.
No... Markets are cyclical, and crashes are part of it in fact: multiple market crashes are EXPECTED
to happen over a period of 50 years, and they don't wipe out any savings --- they are a temporary decrease in market value - stock returns will be negative for that year, but on average adding up positive and negative years the result comes out 10% ahead annualized given a sufficiently long time horizon.
Crashes, the business cycles, and major events are the REASON people don't put 100% of portfolio value in an asset class. For example, you perhaps choose 75% of the savings in company stocks and 25% in Fixed-Income/Bonds, Real-Estate funds, Inflation-Protected Securities, other debt securities, convertibles, or Hedging options, and similar instruments.
During the years immediately after the "Crash"; the NAV of the Stock position shrinks, and the portfolio's Cash position then becomes overweight --- e.g. You will have less than 75% of the target allocation in stock and more than 25% in cash. Every 1, 3, 6 months, or 12 months, the manager rebalances the portfolio if it deviates from the target allocation by a sufficient threshold% and dollar amount (but usually just perhaps once a year or two to minimize fees), therefore, after a market crash the portfolio will be getting rid of Cash or selling the Hedging assets and BUYING stock to bring the portfolio back to the target percentages, which means you will get maximum advantage of the market crash by purchasing more stock while the price is still low ---- On the other hand, after a year when your funds perform extremely well, then the stock allocation will .exceed 75% of your portfolio value, therefore, when rebalance occurs you will be selling Stock mutual fund shares and buying into your other funds that Hedge the stocks risk
$600 per year x 50 years = $30,000. Where do you get interest rates that makes those savings become $1,000,000?
Your idea of multiplying each years' payments by 50 is invalid assuming the savings are being invested responsibly, please see Here for the formula regarding the future value
The answer is people buy in a combination of mutual funds that are selected to have an expected average annualized return
of 10% or higher after fees for periods of 10 years or more with optimal risk, and that's not very difficult target, at least historically speaking; considering that is about what the overall stock market itself has been observed to earn on average for such periods -- a combination of stock market index + small amount of real-estate ETFs (or similar choice for inflation protection) pretty much fit the bill.
And ~10.4% annualized will more likely than not get the investor to more than $1 Million worth in 50 years.
It's a verifiable fact that Millennials are worse off than their parents and grandparents.
Not so fast... Millenials are worse off as a group by their own individual choices, because they buy more goods and services that are not really needed and make worse deals than their parents or grandparents --- for example, many of them are swindled into taking on student loan debts by allowing themself to incur expenses that are unjustifiably large VS benefit.
and sitting quietly waiting to go to work (or better yet, working 16 hours a day) then the nasty little heathens deserve what they get.
What kind of crap are you spewing? Nobody "deserves" to get anything from anybody other than the agreed upon goods, services, or compensation in exchange for $$$, work, or services provided.
All i'm saying is the people who claim to be living paycheck-to-paycheck and unable to afford to save at all for retirement or future needs are Full of Shit: if they are spending any money on non-essentials, then they are Not "unable", but they CHOOSE not to --- The fact they DO have the choice to spend the $$$ on Non-Essentials PROVES that the Money would be available to save for their future, BUT they choose to prioritize the Immediate non-essential Luxury as MORE IMPORTANT or PRIORITIZED over saving for Retirement and prioritized over saving to help build an emergency fund or improve their overall Financial well-being.
The $50 to $80 / Month Cable TV or Netflix bill PLUS exorbitant Smartphones with unnecessary features are GREAT examples, because the purchase is 100% on Audivisual entertainment. The equipment alone (such as Televisions) are luxury items, and so is cable service.
Millenials' grandparents' likely never owned TVs or Smartphones, let-alone pay an equivalent of $60/Month for such items.
There are plenty of free ways to be entertained, such as taking walks down the street, or riding a bike to the nearest library, those are also activities that promote thought, higher productivity, and potential aid to professional development.
That's just two high-ticket examples.... Another example is: What kind of Vehicle people choose to buy. Don't claim to have no choice and be living paycheck-to-paycheck and having purchased a brand New $30K+ vehicle; that has a high loan-servicing cost, a high rate of interest that will be paid over the life of the vehicle, AND a higher insurance rate, when a used $12K vehicle of an appropriate type well-researched purchase (Including the expected lifecycle costs to insure and maintain) would have (A) Met the needs, and (B) Resulted in lower monthly costs: Again, this is a case where "Live paycheck-to-paycheck" was NOT dictated by the marketplace, or by the wage, But it was the result of management decisions made by the individual.
constant assault on Unions means they have no opportunity and with most living paycheck to paycheck they have no opportunity to save.
Very many, probably the vast majority of the people supposedly living paycheck to paycheck ARE overpurchasing discretionary items, such as Junk Food, Cable TV, Smartphone Plans/Cellular data, Netflix, extra Gas/Vehicle miles for non-essential travel such as to go out and socialize, other Toys/Games/Entertainment.
So, even for 99% that claim to live Paycheck-to-Paycheck it IS a choice; they could cancel their cable TV and save $50 a month and make sure NOT to substitute those savings by purchasing anything else, which is $600 a Year saved that will easily grow to a million$ if they keep consistently putting that $50/Month in for 50 years .
Cancel that non-essential cell smartphone plan and go back to a cheap featurephone, and save another $50. Get the discretionary reduced by $250/Month that go into savings, and the time until $1 Million is saved up goes down to about 37 years.
Making more money by putting it somewhere and not doing anything at all with it only works under very specific circumstances
Like converting it to physical gold and silver, and putting it in a personal vault.
Trick question. The risk depends on the specific single stock and the specific Mutual Fund in question.
Some mutual funds are at a different level of risk than other funds, and some stocks at are a different level of risk than other stocks ---- the highest risk funds can very well have less safety than some of the lower risk stocks.
It is perfectly well known for which tasks quantum computing will be more efficient than conventional computing
False. They're not actually known to be more efficient. Today we can already build a quantum computer in the form of software simulators that stand on top of normal hardware. If quantum computation was truly inherently more efficient ---- then we could just a quantum algorithm rnning on top of the software simulator as our more-efficient implementation.
Quantum computers might turn out not be more efficient at all. Only one limited facets of efficiency is well-known/established; the space and number of basic computation steps, and the reduction in steps.
However; the steps being compared between types of computers are not an apples-to-apples comparison, more like apples and oranges, therefore what is known cannot show that a quantum computer will be as faster or more efficient than has been suggested.