Having said what I did above, I should acknowledge you certainly have a point for people who pay high fees during times if low returns, like the last five years. A 1% fee and 2% gross growth means the broker gets half of the INCREASE just on that fee.
I'm thinking more in terms of an index fund with 0.03% expenses and over the long term, which averages 7%-9% returns.
Whatever happens to the return, or increase, ships, factories, and fiber networks don't build themselves. They are built with investor capital - retirement money.
Interesting comments. You mentioned RF power functions. The main function for radio, also called far field, is that power drops with the square of distance.
I'd like to point out card readers do not work using radio waves, not like these devices do. At distances less than about 1 wavelength, the primary effect is what's called "near field", commonly referred to as induction. This is the same way transformers work. Near field power drops at distance to the SIXTH power. That means that while it's very strong within a few millimeters, it basically dissapears within a few centimeters or meters.
The new devices are using RADIO energy from arbitrary far away sources. Card readers use near field induction, a completely different mechanism.
It sounds like we're making progress. I don't dispute that some traders make a lot of money, BTW. That's clear. (Though it seems damn few are that successful for more than a few years.)
We agree that putting money into the market - well, puts money into the market. Maybe the person selling you the stock uses that money to buy bonds, handing capital directly to the company or whatever.
It is your assertion, though, that brokers and traders take home not 0.030 - 1% as shown in the filings, but approximately 100%. Therefore all the money put in is taken right back out, correct?
If so, I have three questions:
why is the asset value of the DJIA 15 times higher today than in 1980? Where did those trillions of dollars come from, if not from investment?
How did my mom invest about $100k, then twenty years later sell most of it for $1 million, if the traders took all the money? It's sitting in her bank account now.
Perhaps most importantly, how do YOU think ships get built? There are trillions of dollars of capital assets like ships, stores, factories, machines, planes, warehouses, etc. owned by stockholders. Where do you think the $100,000,000 to build a large ship/office complex / fiber network comes from? The traders walked away with the cash, then the fiber backbones magically appeared from nowhere?
> He sells that $100 to you. You don't put $100 into the market; instead, $100 leaves your pocket and goes to his pocket, and you get a $100 of Facebook stock.
He's a trader. He doesn't sell one stock and walk away from the market. He sells the FB and buys something else. So your $100 goes into the market, his $100 moves around the market.
It's really, really not complicated - adding to something makes more of it. It really doesn't matter how you stir it around while you're adding, adding is adding. You add capital to the market, they'll be more capital in the market. You could buy and sell fifty times. No matter how you move it around, putting more money in means there's more money there.
If only it were so easy. TFS said: "the final goal is to develop animals that act as barrier reactives to produce beneficial molecules in their milk that can be cheaply extracted, especially in countries that can not afford big pharma plants that make drugs, that usually cost $1bn to build"
That BILLION dollars to build a plant meeting FDA style standards might have something to do with the cost. Figure one plant produces medicine for what, maybe a million people who need the drug(s) it produces? That would be $1 billion / 1 million = $1,000 / person just to build the thing. If you had 10 million people buying the medicine and one plant could produce enough for 10 million people, that's $100 / customer.
Add to that, 90% of medications don't make it through all of the trials and testing and get FDA approved. The one that gets approved needs to cover the cost of the nine that didn't make it. What does that R&D cost? Here are the numbers from all of the big pharma companies (All numbers are in millions, so 4,000 means $4 billion)/; http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/02/10/the-truly-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs/
So I'm curious, how do you plan on covering the four or five billion dollar cost of developing a drug, if not buy patenting and selling it? Dollar cost COULD be drastically reduced by reducing safety regulations. Obviously that's trading for human cost, which sounds scary. On the other hand, consider that if the cost was cut by 30%, more people could get the medicine they need. That's the human cost of regulations that make it difficult to get medicine approved - when it costs $5 billion to make a new medicine, people suffer and die from things less expensive medicine could cure. Reducing regulations somewhat might very well reduce a lot of suffering. It's a hard problem. It sure would be nice if there was an easy answer, if you could just call the people who make new medicines evil and that would magically cause medicine to be developed, tested, and produced at no cost.
IF someone sells one stock to buy another, there's no change in the available capital - it just moves from one person to another. However, if someone puts 12% of their paycheck into the capital market as opposed to spending it, that's money being newly added to the capital pool. Capital is money available for building stores, semiconductor fabs, ships, etc. That's why it's called capitalism - the capital is being put to work. So when money is added to the capital market, that's more money for building stuff. It really doesn't matter whether the new money passes through a broker, a mutual fund, or a pigs rear end - taking money form the consumption stream (paychecks) and adding it the capital market does just that - ADDS to the capital market. In the end, it doesn't matter if it's an IPO or a bond - more investment of capital funds ($) means more investment in capital assets (ships, stores, etc.)
Despite what's being told to pawns who don't know about financial markets, most of the money in the market is that 12% that ordinary people save, mostly buy and hold which means their buys are adding to the capital market, not moving it around. Sure, there are a few hundred mega-wealthy people moving their money around, but their are a few MILLION buy and hold savers. So mostly, it's new investment, not day trading.
> The funds manager skims 1% regardless, so doesn't care much about you... > $250 of his dollars go into my pocket, and I give him $50 worth of stock.
Not too good at percentages for someone who thinks he knows investing, are you? The management company gets 1% you said, (0.030% for some index funds), and that 1% is most of it. Have you noticed that if the management costs are 1%, that means 99% is invested is capital assets, in producing stuff? You seem awfully focused on the 1% and you're totally ignoring the 99%. That's understandable if the 1% was going in your pocket. I too am much more interested in money that's headed or my pocket than money that's not. It seems to have distorted your point of view, though.
> It's like poker: a game of luck and chance, to anyone who's looked at the odds.
To anyone who has focused on short term, day trading style odds. For most of us, we know that only ONCE has the broad market failed to provide a good return over any ten year period. There's no poker here for most Americans, we know if you invest, ten years later when you want to retire or send your kid to school, the money will have grown considerably (more than doubled, typically). Obviously the 2008-2009 crash was a big exception. Still, if you've invested since Oct 10 2008 you've made money. (invested, as in index, not gambled).
> As someone who lives in a country with universal health care (albeit I'm male, so the right to choose doesn't directly effect me),
I've always thought that was the strangest statement. Killing your son wouldn't affect you? It would affect me deeply, permanently. I don't suppose that's actually happened to you yet, has it? You spend a few months getting ready for your new baby, all excited to be a dad, then she kills your baby, saying she doesn't want to feel fat for another few months? That would most definitely affect me in the most extreme way.
The complaint alleges that Microsoft's first quarter 2013 financial reports were false and misleading. Much of $900 million write down they acknowledged in the second quarter should have been included in the first quarter statements, they say. If it's true that Microsoft executives knew about the problem and concealed it in from the investors / potential investors (the owners of the company), that's unlawful, as it should be. That's a fraud on people trying to save for retirement.
The lawyers will take half the money, so people who were victims of the fraud won't recoup their loss, but punishing fraudulent behavior may tend to discourage Microsoft and other companies from perpetrating similar lies in the future.
Of course it'll be up to the judge or jury to decide if Microsoft actually did know about the problem by the end of March, in such a way that concealing it in the first quarter reports mislead investors.
I don't know about you, but I can switch health insurance in about 20 minutes. Switching presidents take eight years, and even then I don't get to pick.
I had health insurance I liked just fine. The president, and more so the speaker of the the house, took it away. The previously affordable cost jumped because now I have to buy coverage for aromatherapy or whatever other crap lobbyists and unions got included into the requirements.
For me, I'd rather choose between dozens of very different plans than have the government, ANY government, tell me what I have to buy.
The AC said quote "in the coming years". That would never happen, just like the government would never track all of your emails and phone calls and certainly they wouldn't outlaw soft drinks.
Now that they have the capability to prevent "hackers" from doing things like installing scary unauthorized operating systems, and multi billion dollar companies stand to profit billions from new regulations it's not impossible. I understand did you take the rejection Microsoft has had to layoff two of their congressmen, but they still own a couple of senators
Do you want financial institutions such as banks and currency traders to be thoroughly regulated? I'm betting many here would say "yes". "I mean yes, if it's a USD bank. Not if a Bitcoin bank or trader." "Let me rephrase, regulate traders who trade in dollars, euros, pesos and yen, but not in bitcoin".
What about the ones who trade in dollars, euros, yen AND bitcoin? Do you want Obama to come down hard on them?
The cognitive dissonance is thick in here .
Bitcoin exchanges do PRECISELY the same things that the "evil" Wall Street firms do. (Most of Wall St. is simply your mom's retirement savings being put to use building stores and such to earn her enough to retire.)
* autocorrect corrected "bitcoin" to "buffoon". Does the machine know something?
It also showed "virgin" as a possible correction for "bitcoin".
I use CentOS for those unless I have no choice
on
Fedora Core May Be Reborn
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Fedora isn't really targeted to those environments anyway. That's where you want stability, well proven packages and long term maintenance. Fedora is the cutting edge, better suited to an enthusiast desktop or maybe a development environment.
In the past I used Fedora for office and servers. That was an error. Switching to CentOS (which is Fedora stabilized) was a much better decision.
The exception was one case in which I needed a brand new subsystem - kernel plus userspace. For that, Fedora made sense because the brand new version I needed was not on RedHat / CentOS yet.
Do you think having Palin or Jeb Bush running the healthcare system, making health decisions for you, would be a good idea? How about Chris Christie? Ron Paul? Do you want them tracking your emails and phone calls?
One of them, or someone like them, will be president. If you decide to give the feds power over your life, you are deciding to let Palin, Christie, or Paul make those decisions.
Ron Paul might issue an executive order that condoms have to have aluminum tips - your little head needs a tinfoil hat too.;)
His involvement with Staples included financing the very FIRST store, and was early in his Bain capital career. So "after he was long gone" is the exact opposite of the facts. He got rich largely from Staples, investing $650,000 to get it started and growing it to a major national chain.
I tend to agree on scruples. I don't KNOW of specific examples, but he's got a sleazy vibe that reminds me of Clinton. On the other hand, he gives away 18% of his income. That suggests that he's a lot nicer guy than anyone in Washington.
I don't know, I might load 200 pages per day. My mom loads four per MONTH.
I have servers that do thousands of hits per MINUTE. I've priced wholesale bandwidth. I'm getting a good deal at $650 with a quarter rack. I don't WANT to pay $650 / month for my home connection because pricing has to cover people running servers on non-commercial home internet connections.
Browsing the web and such, a person will use full bandwidth for about a second, look at the page, load another in about a second, look at it, etc. Between the time they get home from work and the time they go to bed, the typical web user might load a hundred pages in a day. 100 page loads of bandwidth is what a typical customer costs the ISP, do their bill is based on.
A server can easily serve up 100 pages per MINUTE, 24/7. That's 3600 times as much bandwidth cost than a surfer. If you want to use thousands of times as much, costing the ISP thousands of times as much, you're going to pay more. You're paying more because you cost a lot more. I pay $650 / for the connection I use for my servers, because I use $650 worth of resources.
TFS says "Some heavy BitTorrent users also use a lot of bandwidth, costing more than they pay."
So since they use more, they should pay more, is the logical conclusion.
It always surprises me that people forget - if you allow the president a power grab, you're giving that power to a future President Palin or whoever. Don't want Palin making your healthcare choices, including contraceptives? Keep the federal government out of health care.
I know that's the joke you heard on the Daily Show. The fact is, when Bain invested in Staples, they hadn't yet managed to open a store. using his money, the opened their first store and 2,300 others.
Ampad, formerly American Pad & Paper, did $107 million in sales before Bain. After Bain, $584 million. With the help of Bain, Totes Isotoner is now the world's largest seller of umbrellas and gloves. Bain bought Experian for $1 billion. Afer less than a year of Bain management, it as worth $1.7 billion. In five years of Bain management, Steel Dynamics grew 500%
The companies Bain helped manage hired tens of thousands of people. There are things to not like about him, sure. He's slick, squirrely, like Bill "Slick WIlly" Clinton, for example. To say he didn't successfully grow businesses is like saying Mohammed Ali couldn't fight. Ali might suck at a lot of things, but he sure knew how to fight, and Romney sure knew how to grow businesses.
Ah, 'successful', why your mom HAS a basement for you to live in. Because she's successful, add you're a whiner.
One day, you might decide to quit bitching and go do the things successful people do, like show up to work SOBER. Then you can have your very own basement to smoke up.
I know that's the joke you heard on the Daily Show. The fact is, when Bain invested in Staples, they hadn't yet managed to open a store. using his money, the opened their first store and 2,300 others.
Ampad, formerly American Pad & Paper, did $107 million in sales before Bain. After Bain, $584 million. With the help of Bain, Totes Isotoner is now the world's largest seller of umbrellas and gloves. Bain bought Experian for $1 billion. Afer less than a year of Bain management, it as worth $1.7 billion. In five years of Bain management, Steel Dynamics grew 500%
You can come up with plenty of things to not like about Romney. He darn sure knows how to make a business successful, though. When a business, like Steel Dynamics, gets five times larger, they have to sell five times as much stuff and hire five times as many people, so he knows something about economics. You can could complain that some of the companies aren't union jobs if unions are your thing or whatever, but the guy damn sure knows how to get it done.
Right now a lot of Dems probably feel the same way most republicans felt during Bush's final year or two. Voting face palm in both cases.
> How were we supposed to know he was going to pull this crap
For me, Obama's own radio ads were what convinced me he'd be very bad for the country. Until he started running ads were I lived, I was hopeful he'd be inspiring ala JFK.
I pay attention to people who have managed to get something I want, who have succeeded in something I want to do. I ask them "how did you do that"? So for me, Obama's message of attacking success was alarming. I see that people who show up ten minutes early, so I TRY to follow their example. Obama's message indicated if he punctual people who dress nice get ahead, he'd put an 80% tax on watches to knock down those selfish punctual people. He SHOULD look at the presidential portraits and ask "what would Kennedy do?". In the campaign, he seemed more likely to look at the Kennedy portrait and flip Kennedy off for doing better than him. So that's how I knew he'd pull a bunch of crap.
Combined with that, about a year before he started his campaign he said it would be "irresponsible" for him to run for president because "I believe in knowing what you're doing when you apply for a job." He was correct in stating that he wouldn't know what to do as president, but that might have been okay IF he'd recognized that and followed the examples of successful presidents.Unfortunately, that's his number one flaw - he doesn't learn from successful people, he envies them and attacks whatever is successful.
> and how would voting for the other asshole have been any better?
It couldn't have been much worse. You might say 2008 was worse, but even awful Bush, in his first six years, looks better than Obama's first six years by most objective measures. That's comparing Obama to one of the worst presidents in history.
Romney at least appeared COMPETENT, though kind of slimy. He really reminds me of Bill Clinton in that way. On the economy, for example, everybody wants for there to be more jobs. Romney, having something of a clue, would probably create more jobs. He wouldn't be focused on union jobs, if that matters to you, but non-union jobs are better than no jobs.
Thanks for the citation. Yeah I had a moment of going to 57 states there with CO vs CO2. I realized that just after posting it and hoped this thread was dead enough that no-one would read it.
See what I mean about 4:30, for example? I don't see any objective reason to include those high readings on either side of a volcano event. For many of the highest readings, it's just not clear if that's the beginning of the breeze shifting to include the volcanic CO2 or not.
I suppose to be on the safe side, one could exclude an hour on either side of the part that's obviously volcanic. If you do that, it excludes a lot of high readings and gives a different result. The readings you provided from other places help. I'm assuming those other places aren't also active volcanos!
Having acknowledged the sometimes extreme security issues PHP has had in the past, I have to say it's getting a LOT better. PHP was designed as something like a blogging system, not a general purpose programming language. Because people are using it for general programming, they have made huge improvements.
Now if only people would read the giant warning at the top of the SuExec documentation: "SuExec can result in severe security risks. Do not consider using SuExec unless you are knowledgeable about...". That warning is there for a reason. SuExec / suPHP really is dangerous as hell, just like it's documentation says.
No, he "admitted" than any 3rd grader can reboot Windows. $4 hosting companies don't get server admins, the get phone monkeys. I used to get frustrated with their "admins" being clueless, but then it happened. I was working with HostGator, a top hosts who has the same business model as GoDaddy hosting, and I found out their "admins" don't have access to the datacenter. They are literally just a phone bank and marketing company, with The Planet running the servers. So yeah, it's easier to hire Windows phone monkeys than Linux phone monkeys. (Maybe because Linux users tend not to be the phone monkey type?)
If you want actual qualified admins, people who know the difference between a gigabit and a gigabyte, you're going to pay no matter which OS. (Though I do know a _certified_ Windows admin who doesn't know the difference between bits and bytes...)
Slashdot Mirror
Having said what I did above, I should acknowledge you certainly have a point for people who pay high fees during times if low returns, like the last five years. A 1% fee and 2% gross growth means the broker gets half of the INCREASE just on that fee.
I'm thinking more in terms of an index fund with 0.03% expenses and over the long term, which averages 7%-9% returns.
Whatever happens to the return, or increase, ships, factories, and fiber networks don't build themselves. They are built with investor capital - retirement money.
Interesting comments. You mentioned RF power functions. The main function for radio, also called far field, is that power drops with the square of distance.
I'd like to point out card readers do not work using radio waves, not like these devices do. At distances less than about 1 wavelength, the primary effect is what's called "near field", commonly referred to as induction. This is the same way transformers work. Near field power drops at distance to the SIXTH power. That means that while it's very strong within a few millimeters, it basically dissapears within a few centimeters or meters.
The new devices are using RADIO energy from arbitrary far away sources. Card readers use near field induction, a completely different mechanism.
It sounds like we're making progress.
I don't dispute that some traders make a lot of money, BTW. That's clear. (Though it seems damn few are that successful for more than a few years.)
We agree that putting money into the market - well, puts money into the market. Maybe the person selling you the stock uses that money to buy bonds, handing capital directly to the company or whatever.
It is your assertion, though, that brokers and traders take home not 0.030 - 1% as shown in the filings, but approximately 100%. Therefore all the money put in is taken right back out, correct?
If so, I have three questions:
why is the asset value of the DJIA 15 times higher today than in 1980? Where did those trillions of dollars come from, if not from investment?
How did my mom invest about $100k, then twenty years later sell most of it for $1 million, if the traders took all the money? It's sitting in her bank account now.
Perhaps most importantly, how do YOU think ships get built? There are trillions of dollars of capital assets like ships, stores, factories, machines, planes, warehouses, etc. owned by stockholders. Where do you think the $100,000,000 to build a large ship/office complex / fiber network comes from? The traders walked away with the cash, then the fiber backbones magically appeared from nowhere?
> He sells that $100 to you. You don't put $100 into the market; instead, $100 leaves your pocket and goes to his pocket, and you get a $100 of Facebook stock.
He's a trader. He doesn't sell one stock and walk away from the market. He sells the FB and buys something else.
So your $100 goes into the market, his $100 moves around the market.
It's really, really not complicated - adding to something makes more of it. It really doesn't matter how you stir it around while you're adding, adding is adding.
You add capital to the market, they'll be more capital in the market. You could buy and sell fifty times. No matter how you move it around, putting more money in means there's more money there.
If only it were so easy.
TFS said:
"the final goal is to develop animals that act as barrier reactives to produce beneficial molecules in their milk that can be cheaply extracted, especially in countries that can not afford big pharma plants that make drugs, that usually cost $1bn to build"
That BILLION dollars to build a plant meeting FDA style standards might have something to do with the cost. Figure one plant produces medicine for what, maybe a million people who need the drug(s) it produces? That would be $1 billion / 1 million = $1,000 / person just to build the thing. If you had 10 million people buying the medicine and one plant could produce enough for 10 million people, that's $100 / customer.
Add to that, 90% of medications don't make it through all of the trials and testing and get FDA approved. The one that gets approved needs to cover the cost of the nine that didn't make it. What does that R&D cost? Here are the numbers from all of the big pharma companies (All numbers are in millions, so 4,000 means $4 billion)/;
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/02/10/the-truly-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs/
So I'm curious, how do you plan on covering the four or five billion dollar cost of developing a drug, if not buy patenting and selling it? Dollar cost COULD be drastically reduced by reducing safety regulations. Obviously that's trading for human cost, which sounds scary. On the other hand, consider that if the cost was cut by 30%, more people could get the medicine they need. That's the human cost of regulations that make it difficult to get medicine approved - when it costs $5 billion to make a new medicine, people suffer and die from things less expensive medicine could cure. Reducing regulations somewhat might very well reduce a lot of suffering. It's a hard problem. It sure would be nice if there was an easy answer, if you could just call the people who make new medicines evil and that would magically cause medicine to be developed, tested, and produced at no cost.
IF someone sells one stock to buy another, there's no change in the available capital - it just moves from one person to another.
..
However, if someone puts 12% of their paycheck into the capital market as opposed to spending it, that's money being newly added to the capital pool.
Capital is money available for building stores, semiconductor fabs, ships, etc. That's why it's called capitalism - the capital is being put to work.
So when money is added to the capital market, that's more money for building stuff. It really doesn't matter whether the new money passes through a
broker, a mutual fund, or a pigs rear end - taking money form the consumption stream (paychecks) and adding it the capital market does just that -
ADDS to the capital market. In the end, it doesn't matter if it's an IPO or a bond - more investment of capital funds ($) means more investment in capital assets (ships, stores, etc.)
Despite what's being told to pawns who don't know about financial markets, most of the money in the market is that 12% that ordinary people save, mostly
buy and hold which means their buys are adding to the capital market, not moving it around. Sure, there are a few hundred mega-wealthy people moving their
money around, but their are a few MILLION buy and hold savers. So mostly, it's new investment, not day trading.
> The funds manager skims 1% regardless, so doesn't care much about you.
> $250 of his dollars go into my pocket, and I give him $50 worth of stock.
Not too good at percentages for someone who thinks he knows investing, are you? The management company gets 1% you said,
(0.030% for some index funds), and that 1% is most of it. Have you noticed that if the management costs are 1%, that means 99% is
invested is capital assets, in producing stuff? You seem awfully focused on the 1% and you're totally ignoring the 99%. That's
understandable if the 1% was going in your pocket. I too am much more interested in money that's headed or my pocket than money
that's not. It seems to have distorted your point of view, though.
> It's like poker: a game of luck and chance, to anyone who's looked at the odds.
To anyone who has focused on short term, day trading style odds. For most of us, we know that only ONCE has the broad market failed to
provide a good return over any ten year period. There's no poker here for most Americans, we know if you invest, ten years later when you want to
retire or send your kid to school, the money will have grown considerably (more than doubled, typically). Obviously the 2008-2009 crash was
a big exception. Still, if you've invested since Oct 10 2008 you've made money. (invested, as in index, not gambled).
> As someone who lives in a country with universal health care (albeit I'm male, so the right to choose doesn't directly effect me),
I've always thought that was the strangest statement. Killing your son wouldn't affect you? It would affect me deeply, permanently.
I don't suppose that's actually happened to you yet, has it? You spend a few months getting ready for your new baby, all excited to be a dad,
then she kills your baby, saying she doesn't want to feel fat for another few months? That would most definitely affect me in the most
extreme way.
The complaint alleges that Microsoft's first quarter 2013 financial reports were false and misleading. Much of $900 million write down they acknowledged
in the second quarter should have been included in the first quarter statements, they say. If it's true that Microsoft executives knew about the problem and
concealed it in from the investors / potential investors (the owners of the company), that's unlawful, as it should be. That's a fraud on people trying to save
for retirement.
The lawyers will take half the money, so people who were victims of the fraud won't recoup their loss, but punishing fraudulent behavior may tend to
discourage Microsoft and other companies from perpetrating similar lies in the future.
Of course it'll be up to the judge or jury to decide if Microsoft actually did know about the problem by the end of March, in such a way that concealing it
in the first quarter reports mislead investors.
I don't know about you, but I can switch health insurance in about 20 minutes. Switching presidents take eight years, and even then I don't get to pick.
I had health insurance I liked just fine. The president, and more so the speaker of the the house, took it away. The previously affordable cost jumped because now I have to buy coverage for aromatherapy or whatever other crap lobbyists and unions got included into the requirements.
For me, I'd rather choose between dozens of very different plans than have the government, ANY government, tell me what I have to buy.
The AC said quote "in the coming years". That would never happen, just like the government would never track all of your emails and phone calls and certainly they wouldn't outlaw soft drinks.
Now that they have the capability to prevent
"hackers" from doing things like installing scary unauthorized operating systems, and multi billion dollar companies stand to profit billions from new regulations it's not impossible. I understand did you take the rejection Microsoft has had to layoff two of their congressmen, but they still own a couple of senators
You make a great point. It's a simple question:
Do you want financial institutions such as banks and currency traders to be thoroughly regulated?
I'm betting many here would say "yes". "I mean yes, if it's a USD bank. Not if a Bitcoin bank or trader." "Let me rephrase, regulate traders who trade in dollars, euros, pesos and yen, but not in bitcoin".
What about the ones who trade in dollars, euros, yen AND bitcoin? Do you want Obama to come down hard on them?
The cognitive dissonance is thick in here .
Bitcoin exchanges do PRECISELY the same things that the "evil" Wall Street firms do. (Most of Wall St. is simply your mom's retirement savings being put to use building stores and such to earn her enough to retire.)
* autocorrect corrected "bitcoin" to "buffoon". Does the machine know something?
It also showed "virgin" as a possible correction for "bitcoin".
Fedora isn't really targeted to those environments anyway.
That's where you want stability, well proven packages and long term maintenance.
Fedora is the cutting edge, better suited to an enthusiast desktop or maybe a development environment.
In the past I used Fedora for office and servers. That was an error. Switching to CentOS (which is Fedora stabilized) was a much better decision.
The exception was one case in which I needed a brand new subsystem - kernel plus userspace. For that, Fedora made sense because the brand new version I needed was not on RedHat / CentOS yet.
Do you think having Palin or Jeb Bush running the healthcare system, making health decisions for you, would be a good idea? How about Chris Christie? Ron Paul? Do you want them tracking your emails and phone calls?
;)
One of them, or someone like them, will be president.
If you decide to give the feds power over your life, you are deciding to let Palin, Christie, or Paul make those decisions.
Ron Paul might issue an executive order that condoms have to have aluminum tips - your little head needs a tinfoil hat too.
His involvement with Staples included financing the very FIRST store, and was early in his Bain capital career. So "after he was long gone" is the exact opposite of the facts. He got rich largely from Staples, investing $650,000 to get it started and growing it to a major national chain.
I tend to agree on scruples. I don't KNOW of specific examples, but he's got a sleazy vibe that reminds me of Clinton. On the other hand, he gives away 18% of his income. That suggests that he's a lot nicer guy than anyone in Washington.
I don't know, I might load 200 pages per day. My mom loads four per MONTH.
I have servers that do thousands of hits per MINUTE.
I've priced wholesale bandwidth. I'm getting a good deal at $650 with a quarter rack. I don't WANT to pay $650 / month for my home connection because pricing has to cover people running servers on non-commercial home internet connections.
Browsing the web and such, a person will use full bandwidth for about a second, look at the page, load another in about a second, look at it, etc. Between the time they get home from work and the time they go to bed, the typical web user might load a hundred pages in a day. 100 page loads of bandwidth is what a typical customer costs the ISP, do their bill is based on.
A server can easily serve up 100 pages per MINUTE, 24/7. That's 3600 times as much bandwidth cost than a surfer. If you want to use thousands of times as much, costing the ISP thousands of times as much, you're going to pay more. You're paying more because you cost a lot more. I pay $650 / for the connection I use for my servers, because I use $650 worth of resources.
TFS says "Some heavy BitTorrent users also use a lot of bandwidth, costing more than they pay."
So since they use more, they should pay more, is the logical conclusion.
It always surprises me that people forget - if you allow the president a power grab, you're giving that power to a future President Palin or whoever. Don't want Palin making your healthcare choices, including contraceptives? Keep the federal government out of health care.
Or the Obama administration could you know, follow the law.
I couldn't believe he unilaterally decided to ignore Obamacare, the law named after him!
I know that's the joke you heard on the Daily Show. The fact is, when Bain invested in Staples, they hadn't yet managed to open a store.
using his money, the opened their first store and 2,300 others.
Ampad, formerly American Pad & Paper, did $107 million in sales before Bain. After Bain, $584 million.
With the help of Bain, Totes Isotoner is now the world's largest seller of umbrellas and gloves.
Bain bought Experian for $1 billion. Afer less than a year of Bain management, it as worth $1.7 billion.
In five years of Bain management, Steel Dynamics grew 500%
The companies Bain helped manage hired tens of thousands of people. There are things to not like about him, sure. He's slick, squirrely, like Bill "Slick WIlly" Clinton, for example. To say he didn't successfully grow businesses is like saying Mohammed Ali couldn't fight. Ali might suck at a lot of things, but he sure knew how to fight, and Romney sure knew how to grow businesses.
Ah, 'successful', why your mom HAS a basement for you to live in. Because she's successful, add you're a whiner.
One day, you might decide to quit bitching and go do the things successful people do, like show up to work SOBER. Then you can have your very own basement to smoke up.
I know that's the joke you heard on the Daily Show. The fact is, when Bain invested in Staples, they hadn't yet managed to open a store.
using his money, the opened their first store and 2,300 others.
Ampad, formerly American Pad & Paper, did $107 million in sales before Bain. After Bain, $584 million.
With the help of Bain, Totes Isotoner is now the world's largest seller of umbrellas and gloves.
Bain bought Experian for $1 billion. Afer less than a year of Bain management, it as worth $1.7 billion.
In five years of Bain management, Steel Dynamics grew 500%
You can come up with plenty of things to not like about Romney. He darn sure knows how to make a business successful, though.
When a business, like Steel Dynamics, gets five times larger, they have to sell five times as much stuff and hire five times as many people, so he knows something about economics. You can could complain that some of the companies aren't union jobs if unions are your thing or whatever, but the guy damn sure knows how to get it done.
Right now a lot of Dems probably feel the same way most republicans felt during Bush's final year or two. Voting face palm in both cases.
> How were we supposed to know he was going to pull this crap
For me, Obama's own radio ads were what convinced me he'd be very bad for the country. Until he started running ads were I lived, I was hopeful he'd be inspiring ala JFK.
I pay attention to people who have managed to get something I want, who have succeeded in something I want to do. I ask them "how did you do that"?
So for me, Obama's message of attacking success was alarming. I see that people who show up ten minutes early, so I TRY to follow their example. Obama's message indicated if he punctual people who dress nice get ahead, he'd put an 80% tax on watches to knock down those selfish punctual people. He SHOULD look at the presidential portraits and ask "what would Kennedy do?". In the campaign, he seemed more likely to look at the Kennedy portrait and flip Kennedy off for doing better than him. So that's how I knew he'd pull a bunch of crap.
Combined with that, about a year before he started his campaign he said it would be "irresponsible" for him to run for president because "I believe in knowing what you're doing when you apply for a job." He was correct in stating that he wouldn't know what to do as president, but that might have been okay IF he'd recognized that and followed the examples of successful presidents.Unfortunately, that's his number one flaw - he doesn't learn from successful people, he envies them and attacks whatever is successful.
> and how would voting for the other asshole have been any better?
It couldn't have been much worse. You might say 2008 was worse, but even awful Bush, in his first six years, looks better than Obama's first six years by most objective measures. That's comparing Obama to one of the worst presidents in history.
Romney at least appeared COMPETENT, though kind of slimy. He really reminds me of Bill Clinton in that way. On the economy, for example, everybody wants
for there to be more jobs. Romney, having something of a clue, would probably create more jobs. He wouldn't be focused on union jobs, if that matters to you, but non-union jobs are better than no jobs.
Thanks for the citation. Yeah I had a moment of going to 57 states there with CO vs CO2. I realized that just after posting it and hoped this thread was dead enough that no-one would read it.
See what I mean about 4:30, for example? I don't see any objective reason to include those high readings on either side of a volcano event. For many of the highest readings, it's just not clear if that's the beginning of the breeze shifting to include the volcanic CO2 or not.
I suppose to be on the safe side, one could exclude an hour on either side of the part that's obviously volcanic. If you do that, it excludes a lot of high readings and gives a different result. The readings you provided from other places help. I'm assuming those other places aren't also active volcanos!
Having acknowledged the sometimes extreme security issues PHP has had in the past, I have to say it's getting a LOT better. PHP was designed as something like a blogging system, not a general purpose programming language. Because people are using it for general programming, they have made huge improvements.
...". That warning is there for a reason. SuExec / suPHP really is dangerous as hell, just like it's documentation says.
Now if only people would read the giant warning at the top of the SuExec documentation: "SuExec can result in severe security risks. Do not consider using SuExec unless you are knowledgeable about
No, he "admitted" than any 3rd grader can reboot Windows. $4 hosting companies don't get server admins, the get phone monkeys. I used to get frustrated with their "admins" being clueless, but then it happened. I was working with HostGator, a top hosts who has the same business model as GoDaddy hosting, and I found out their "admins" don't have access to the datacenter. They are literally just a phone bank and marketing company, with The Planet running the servers. So yeah, it's easier to hire Windows phone monkeys than Linux phone monkeys. (Maybe because Linux users tend not to be the phone monkey type?)
...)
If you want actual qualified admins, people who know the difference between a gigabit and a gigabyte, you're going to pay no matter which OS. (Though I do know a _certified_ Windows admin who doesn't know the difference between bits and bytes