> You would fail Constitutional Law 101 with that opinion.
You might want to educate the Supreme Court about that. The court says; "The legislative power of Congress cannot be delegated"
United States v. Shreveport Grain & Elevator Co., 287 U.S. 77, 85 (1932). also Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 692 (1892).
That makes perfect sense because a) the Constitution says legislative power is vested in the Congress, which is elected every two years. It does not say "the Congress, the FCC, the FBI, the CIA, and every government bureaucrat".
Also see:
Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935).
61 A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935).
If "the legislative power of Congress cannot be delegated" isn't clear enough, John Locke gave a more lengthy explanation: -- The Legislative cannot transfer the Power of Making Laws to any other hands. For it being but a delegated Power from the People, they, who have it, cannot pass it over to othersâ¦And when the people have said, We will submit to rules, and be governâ(TM)d by Laws made by such Men, and in such Forms, no Body else can say other Men shall make Laws for them; nor can the people be bound by any Laws but such as are Enacted by those, whom they have Chosen, and Authorised to make Laws for them. The power of the Legislative being derived from the People by a positive voluntary Grant and Institution, can be no other, than what the positive Grant conveyed, which being only to make Laws, and not to make Legislators, the Legislative can have no power to transfer their Authority of making laws, and place it in other hands. --
What CAN Congress legitimately grant to departments? SCOTUS has ruled it "constitutionally sufficient if Congress clearly delineates the general policy, the public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this delegated authority", "only if the statute delegating the power provides definite standards or proceduresâ.
Here Congress did NOT "clearly delineate the general policy" of network neutrality. In fact, they considered doing so and decided NOT to. They decided that is NOT the general policy.
The 2005 ruling is that the FCC has the authority to decide a factual matter - whether or not a specific service meets the definition of "information service" that Congress put in the law. That's a determination of fact, with Congress having created the law, the definition.
Further reading:
State v. Union Tank Car Co., 439 So. 2d 377 (La. 1983)
In re Judgment & Sale of Delinquent Properties for the Tax Year 1989, 167 Ill. 2d 161, 177 (Ill. 1995)
ACT-UP Triangle v. Commission for Health Servs., 345 N.C. 699, 707 (N.C. 1997)
Citizensâ(TM) Util. Ratepayer Bd. v. State Corp. Commâ(TM)n, 264 Kan. 363 (Kan. 1998)
> regulations, which are details about how the law is to be implemented
That's the way that comports with the Constitution. Congress makes laws, the executive *implements* the law passed by Congress. Which includes details of *how* the Congressional law is implemented. How, not *what* the law is.
> the FCC has... the power to make law.
The Constitution, and common sense, disagree with you on this. IF Congress passed a NN law, we could discuss at what level of detail Congress should act and what level the can legitimately leave to the FCC. In fact Congress chose NOT to make NN law. Therefore the FCC cannot possibly be implementing NN law, since there is no such law. If and when Congress passes a NN law, the FCC can implement it, so long as the FCC is making determinations of HOW it's implemented, not unilaterally deciding WHAT the law is.
Agreed, the Constitution gives Congress the power to make law, not Ajit Pai. Pai's contention that the FCC doesn't have the authority to make NN laws isn't completely unfounded. There are arguments both ways, but any time it's unclear whether an unelected bureaucracy has the authority to do X, I'd rather them not do X. I get a chance to vote for or against my Congressman every two years. I don't get to vote on FCC commissioners.
I hope whatever does get passed, whenever that happens, has a lot of input from people who really understand carrier-grade networks. One draft bill proposed in Congress would have actually made it illegal to block spam. "Treat every packet the same" would be disastrous, making VoIP virtually impossible. Some of the goals related to NN are certainly good, and I'd like to see them happen, but writing a law will be tricky because the technical details are very complex.
It seems to me that inflation may be directly tied to the ratio of stuff being sold to the amount of money used to purchase stuff.
Imagine a simple economy, where the only thing being sold is "bag of groceries". There are 100 bags of groceries for sale. In this economy, there are $1,000 in checking accounts, $1,000 that people seek to spend. If $1,000 is spent, and 100 units are purchased, the average purchase price is $10 each.
If someone shows up with a truckload of of groceries, so there are 1,000 bags of groceries for sale, and still $1,000 being spent, the average price paid will be $1.
I note that we can arrive at the current price level in each scenario without asking about the homes the consumers live in. Whether they have $50,000 homes or $500,000 homes doesn't enter the equation. The price level is what's being sold this year divided by the dollars being spent.
This tells me that the price level is based, primarily, on current economic activity, buying ad selling, and only tangentially affected by goods, such as houses, that people have, if they aren't selling at the moment. This society may be preppers, with each consumer having a stockpile of 100 bags of groceries they maintain at home. It could be Manhattan, where few people have more than a couple bags in reserve. Either way, if 1,000 bags are sold, and $1,000 is spent, the price is $1 per bag. The amount of goods *sold* in the period matters, not the amount of goods in existence.
In real economies, we talk about the savings rate. The US savings rate is tiny, something like 2%-3%, so almost all of the money consumers get is available for trade. Some countries have a savings rate of over 50%, though. That's half the income not available for purchasing.
It can of course get very complicated - the total tax depends on what portion you spend on housing, how much you spend on gas, etc. There are thousands of pages of tax law (between 4,500 and 75,000, depending on how you count), so my quick explanation can't be accurate for any given person's actual liability in a given year. That being obvious, I did take a short cut with the math.
The point being your money is taxed:
Before it's written on your pay stub (the "secret" 7.5% + more the employer isn't allowed to mention on your pay stub).
When you get paid (FICA and income tax).
When you spend the money (sales tax, gas tax, phone taxes, etc).
Every year after you spend it, repeatedly (car taxes, property taxes, business personal property taxes).
That's an interesting observation and it has me thinking.
It didn't seem right at first, yet it did. I had to ponder it a bit. I thought about money flowing in and out of the country. I thought about the the companies in the index can outperform the economy as a whole. Still, those factors didn't seem to fully explain how for 100 years returns have SIGNIFICANTLY outpaced economic growth.
Then it occurred to me we must carefully distinguish between RETURNS and growth. There's no reason a five-pound chicken can't keep producing 300 eggs every year. A cow keeps producing 2,000 gallons of milk each year long after it's finished growing. General Mills has made money paid out dividends every year for the last 120 years. They don't have to grow any bigger to be a good investment.
The market can't *grow* bigger than the economy, but companies can certainly continue to make money, and returns can very well stay at 10% while the economy grows at 3.2%. How big a company is, or how fast it's growing, has little to do with how profitable it is, and therefore how much is returns to investors. Often enough, making a company *smaller* can be part of making it more profitable, by either cutting unnecessary expenses or focusing on what the company does best.
> The overall tax rate for these people was maybe 45-50%.
I'm not sure about the overall tax rate on that specific group at that time, but 45% is one to the average overall tax rate today, for taxpayers.
You make $100, the government first takes 7.5% (really 15%) FICA tax, then an additional 25% income tax. You use some of that money to buy a gallon gas for $3, the government takes another 13%. That's 45.5% total tax.
The gas goes in your car which is taxed every year. I put $24,000 into buying a house, after earning $36,000 and paying $12,000 tax. On that house I used $24,000 to buy, I pay $2,000 taxes each and every year, forever. Over my lifetime, the total tax on the house will be over 100%, more than I paid for the house.
About 40% of people pay no income tax, or negative income tax (their "refund" is more than they paid), but there are a LOT of taxes, income tax is just one part of it. For many years, I even paid annual taxes for owning a desk and a laptop, which I used in self-employment. Not only was my income taxed both when I earned it and when I spent it, but every year I paid to pay taxes (again) for continuing to own a deal, a chair, some pencils, etc.
If you read their page, which you so helpfully linked to, you'll see phrases like "built from sources provided by Redhat".
I clicked on a random post on their blog and it said: -- Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 was released today. Here is the press release.
ClearOS 7 development is already well underway and an alpha release is already running on a handful of systems. Once we start to dig into the RPM/package rebuilding process, we will have a better idea of ClearOS 7 release dates. Please stay tuned --
The primary differences between ClearOS and CentOS are: Clear removes the desktop UI Different logos
Close to retirement, yes you should still have your stock investments in low-expense index funds. You should ALSO have bonds and maybe some other types of investments. As you get nearer to retirement, you should typically buy more and more bonds, but your stock choices shouldn't change much.
I say typically - there are times when the rates on safe bonds are so low that it's hard to justify buying them, even close to retirement. I suppose it also depends on what "close to retirement" means - when you'd LIKE to retire, or when you MUST retire? For many people, they plan to retire in eight years, but they could work two extra years if the market goes to shit. That's different from a 60-year old airline pilot, who MUST retire at 65, like it or not.
The long-term average return with a low-fee index fund is around 9%-10% per year. About the same as the AVERAGE return from individual stocks - which makes sense because index funds are composed of many individual stocks.
The risk and volatility is much lower - you can almost guarantee you won't make much more than 10% or much less than 9%, over the long term.
A lot of the volatility of index funds is actually volatility of inflation - they tend to have higher nominal returns when inflation is higher, so the real returns are more stable than the nominal returns.
To mine an AC-Coin, you currently have to find the last four bits that correspond to the hash.
As you might imagine, finding four bits is easy (just guess 16 times). What do you think the current value of AC-Coin is? What will YOU pay for a 10,000 AC coin? I have some to sell you.
That is another important and common case, having stock solely in the company one works for. That's uniquely high risk because if something goes bad with the company you can lose your job and your savings, at the same time.
I will probably soon have an opportunity to get into my employer's stock pre-IPO, and it will probably jump right after the IPO, so it would be a good idea for me to get in. BUT I don't want both my job and my savings to subject to whatever happens with this company, so I'll be looking to get out pretty quick. I'll have to look at the plan details to see how I can do that, and when. I may well keep the stock and switch jobs.
Some countries now have more debt than they have economic production. They could institute a 100% tax and still go bankrupt, even if that tax didn't effect the domestic economy. So the choice involved is taking on the debt in the first place. Once you have unsustainable debt, the country is going to go bankrupt and there's nothing they can do to prevent that.
Of course the tax rate DOES effect the economy, making the situation even more dire. Would YOU spend your life savings to open a business in a country with a 100% tax rate, so you're guaranteed to never make any money from your business? Would you even bother going to work, and showing up on time, if your take-home pay was $0 because of taxes?
Maximum government revenue occurs at a tax rate somewhere between 15% and 65% (arguing about the exact number is a significant part of economics). Once the tax rate is higher than the revenue-optimal number, government revenue goes down.
The difference in risk is so much that it's a fundamentally different activity, for the most common types of "single stock" people buy, and the most common type of mutual fund.
Typically when people buy a single stock they choose a new company with a lot of hype. The "value" of the stock is based on the hype. The most common mutual funds are index funds and the like, where you're invested in not only 100 different companies, but 100 different *mature*, profitable companies. It's very, very likely that in a big group of companies which have been making money for 100 years, most of them will keep doing what they've been doing - making money.
Investing in an index fund is just that - investing, putting money aside now so you'll have it later, and have more. Trying to guess which new company will do best, indeed trying out OUTguess everyone else, is fundamentally *gambling*, not investing.
Even if you guess right that Fitbit or Tesla will do well in the future, that expectation os already built into the current stock price. For that investment to be good long term, the company has to do BETTER than everyone expected them to. That's straight up gambling when you buy a single stock and it's a young company.
You're correct "that's not how stocks work", yet incorrect in concluding "nobody has been handing Musk money".
If Tesla were like most companies, they would have used the money from their IPO in 2010 to invest in building a profitable, stable company, and they wouldn't issue any more stock. Many years later, they might buy back their stock, and then sell again later.
Tesla is not an ordinary company, and certainly not an ordinary stock. Tesla has been making new issues, averaging $2 billion per year. Mostly stock, though recently they've started issuing junk bonds.
Yes, ordinarily a stock represents a partial ownership of a business. Once the business "goes big" with the IPO, stock transactions don't involve the company directly, at least not until they mature enough over several decades that they have bought some back. Tesla stock value doesn't represent the value of the business, the business isn't worth 10% of the stock price; and they do continue to issue stock. Tesla depends on a steady flow of new investor cash to keep things afloat. Most companies depend on revenue from SALES.
You know what kind of financial scheme DOES depend on continually getting more and more investors, there is a name for that arrangement.
Re giving money to Musk, while Tesla has been losing money, investors' money, Musk's personal fortune has been increasing by $1 billion each year. Where do you think that money is coming from?
Yep, nearly every day the headlines on the front page of major media say "Trump tweets..." whatever. Yesterday the top story was he tweeted that he was looking forward the unemployment numbers coming out, which he did two hours before they were officially realised.
Being in the headlines daily has to be very good to Twitter.
Yes, I assume that EVENTUALLY people will tire of handing money to Musk for him to lose, that eventually the hype will wear off. The difficult part is determining WHEN that will happen. It may be a long time. More likely, I think, Tesla will make a major mistake or release very bad news in the next couple of years, and the hype will have begun to want, so a measure of sanity will return.
I would get a put option on Tesla, but an option typically expires in a month. Tesla stock could very well go up in the next 30 days. In the next ten years, it's almost certain to go down.
Again I'm not saying that Tesla can't possibly be successful. I'm pointing out that the current stock price assumes they'll be more successful than Toyota, Honda, GM, or Ford. If Tesla becomes as successful as Toyota, today's investors will have overpaid.
Tesla may very well become profitable. Maybe not, maybe so.
The current stock price has Tesla valued as already being the world's biggest car company. They aren't even in the top ten. Buying Tesla stock isn't a bet that the company will survive. To make money long time Tesla has to become bigger and more profitable than any car company ever has.
Shorting Tesla will (eventually) make money if Tesla becomes as large and successful as General Motors or Toyota, because the current price is justified only for a company much bigger than Toyota.
I would definitely short Tesla if I didn't have my funds tied up in another investment, because even if Tesla does remarkably well, shorts will still make money. Long term, shorts can only lose if Tesla is among the most successful companies ever. While Musk is great at publicity, the evidence suggests operations management at Tesla isn't even good, much less record-breaking incredible.
> if you need a certain number of instructions per second, it is likely that 8 full Intel systems, even though the cpus cost more, would be cheaper than 10 full AMD systems.
Server clusters have different requirements. AMD may still be a good choice, but the analysis is very different. You don't add two more DESKTOPS in order to have higher IPS. The number of systems for desktops is determined by the number of users. The question is which CPU to put in the system. Either a Ryzen or a Core i9 is going to be sufficient for any desktop, so it'll be a single system with a single CPU whether you choose AMD or Intel. For $850, you can either get a top-of-the-line CPU from AMD, or a much lower performing CPU from Intel.
In a server cluster, you'll probably find that you'd end up with the same number of systems, maybe slightly fewer with the AMD Ryzen processors. That's a completely different analysis, though.
Performance is measured as "X per Y", such as "miles per hour", "miles per gallon", etc.
In a phone, the most important measurement is "instructions per watt", how fast can you go for the amount of power you use. Per dollar is also important in a phone. If you didn't' care about power usage / heat, and didn't care about dollar cost, your phone might have four Core i7 CPUs. It would have a ten pound battery and cost $2,000, and it would be fast.
On the desktop, power usage isn't nearly so important - it's plugged in. Your budget isn't a power budget on the desktop, it's a dollar budget. The main measure is instructions per dollar. AMD gives you better performance. If you didn't care about dollar cost, if what you cared about was instructions per second, you'd have a $97 million Cray OLCF-3 at your home office. You don't choose the OLCF-3 because cost is the primary measurement of interest. You want the performance for the $500 you intend to spend.
My current phone bill is $35/month. That's an all-inclusive price, I don't pay $1-$2 per minute for long distance like I did in 1980. Don't pay extra for call waiting, caller ID, etc. Of course that also includes internet; I'm posting this on my phone.
That's less than half of the *minimum* you could pay in 1980, if you didn't make any long distance calls. Calls from one side of Dallas to other were long distance. The average cost for basic phone service, without any long distance, caller ID, call waiting, etc was $64 in constant dollars ($19.64 in 1980 dollars).
If you had basic features like call waiting, call forwarding, and called ID, the cost would be about $77. No long distance, though - dad will be so SO pissed if you make a long distance call.
Ten years ago we charged $2.50/GB and we were cheap. My old business partner still has the page up: http://xcite.net/hosting/
Current. Pricing is about 8 cents / GB.
When I was a kid long distance calls were about $1/minute. That was the "fair, minimal profit" price set by the government. Then long distance rates were deregulated and Sprint dropped their price to 10 cents per minute - a 90% reduction in price right away. Current pricing is about a penny per minute, unless you pay $30 for unlimited minutes.
Whoever you've been listening to, whoever has been giving you ideas about how the economy works, has clearly been lying to you, telling you the exact opposite of the truth. Might be time to get some new sources of information.
Slashdot Mirror
> You would fail Constitutional Law 101 with that opinion.
You might want to educate the Supreme Court about that. The court says;
"The legislative power of Congress cannot be delegated"
United States v. Shreveport Grain & Elevator Co., 287 U.S. 77, 85 (1932).
also Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 692 (1892).
That makes perfect sense because a) the Constitution says legislative power is vested in the Congress, which is elected every two years. It does not say "the Congress, the FCC, the FBI, the CIA, and every government bureaucrat".
Also see:
Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935).
61 A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935).
If "the legislative power of Congress cannot be delegated" isn't clear enough, John Locke gave a more lengthy explanation:
--
The Legislative cannot transfer the Power of Making Laws to any other hands. For it being but a delegated Power from the People, they, who have it, cannot pass it over to othersâ¦And when the people have said, We will submit to rules, and be governâ(TM)d by Laws made by such Men, and in such Forms, no Body else can say other Men shall make Laws for them; nor can the people be bound by any Laws but such as are Enacted by those, whom they have Chosen, and Authorised to make Laws for them. The power of the Legislative being derived from the People by a positive voluntary Grant and Institution, can be no other, than what the positive Grant conveyed, which being only to make Laws, and not to make Legislators, the Legislative can have no power to transfer their Authority of making laws, and place it in other hands.
--
What CAN Congress legitimately grant to departments?
SCOTUS has ruled it "constitutionally sufficient if Congress clearly delineates the general policy, the public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this delegated authority", "only if the statute delegating the power provides definite standards or proceduresâ.
Here Congress did NOT "clearly delineate the general policy" of network neutrality. In fact, they considered doing so and decided NOT to. They decided that is NOT the general policy.
The 2005 ruling is that the FCC has the authority to decide a factual matter - whether or not a specific service meets the definition of "information service" that Congress put in the law. That's a determination of fact, with Congress having created the law, the definition.
Further reading:
State v. Union Tank Car Co., 439 So. 2d 377 (La. 1983)
In re Judgment & Sale of Delinquent Properties for the Tax Year 1989, 167 Ill. 2d 161, 177 (Ill. 1995)
ACT-UP Triangle v. Commission for Health Servs., 345 N.C. 699, 707 (N.C. 1997)
Citizensâ(TM) Util. Ratepayer Bd. v. State Corp. Commâ(TM)n, 264 Kan. 363 (Kan. 1998)
> regulations, which are details about how the law is to be implemented
That's the way that comports with the Constitution. Congress makes laws, the executive *implements* the law passed by Congress. Which includes details of *how* the Congressional law is implemented. How, not *what* the law is.
> the FCC has ... the power to make law.
The Constitution, and common sense, disagree with you on this. IF Congress passed a NN law, we could discuss at what level of detail Congress should act and what level the can legitimately leave to the FCC. In fact Congress chose NOT to make NN law. Therefore the FCC cannot possibly be implementing NN law, since there is no such law. If and when Congress passes a NN law, the FCC can implement it, so long as the FCC is making determinations of HOW it's implemented, not unilaterally deciding WHAT the law is.
Agreed, the Constitution gives Congress the power to make law, not Ajit Pai. Pai's contention that the FCC doesn't have the authority to make NN laws isn't completely unfounded. There are arguments both ways, but any time it's unclear whether an unelected bureaucracy has the authority to do X, I'd rather them not do X. I get a chance to vote for or against my Congressman every two years. I don't get to vote on FCC commissioners.
I hope whatever does get passed, whenever that happens, has a lot of input from people who really understand carrier-grade networks. One draft bill proposed in Congress would have actually made it illegal to block spam. "Treat every packet the same" would be disastrous, making VoIP virtually impossible. Some of the goals related to NN are certainly good, and I'd like to see them happen, but writing a law will be tricky because the technical details are very complex.
It seems to me that inflation may be directly tied to the ratio of stuff being sold to the amount of money used to purchase stuff.
Imagine a simple economy, where the only thing being sold is "bag of groceries". There are 100 bags of groceries for sale. In this economy, there are $1,000 in checking accounts, $1,000 that people seek to spend. If $1,000 is spent, and 100 units are purchased, the average purchase price is $10 each.
If someone shows up with a truckload of of groceries, so there are 1,000 bags of groceries for sale, and still $1,000 being spent, the average price paid will be $1.
I note that we can arrive at the current price level in each scenario without asking about the homes the consumers live in. Whether they have $50,000 homes or $500,000 homes doesn't enter the equation. The price level is what's being sold this year divided by the dollars being spent.
This tells me that the price level is based, primarily, on current economic activity, buying ad selling, and only tangentially affected by goods, such as houses, that people have, if they aren't selling at the moment. This society may be preppers, with each consumer having a stockpile of 100 bags of groceries they maintain at home. It could be Manhattan, where few people have more than a couple bags in reserve. Either way, if 1,000 bags are sold, and $1,000 is spent, the price is $1 per bag. The amount of goods *sold* in the period matters, not the amount of goods in existence.
In real economies, we talk about the savings rate. The US savings rate is tiny, something like 2%-3%, so almost all of the money consumers get is available for trade. Some countries have a savings rate of over 50%, though. That's half the income not available for purchasing.
It can of course get very complicated - the total tax depends on what portion you spend on housing, how much you spend on gas, etc. There are thousands of pages of tax law (between 4,500 and 75,000, depending on how you count), so my quick explanation can't be accurate for any given person's actual liability in a given year. That being obvious, I did take a short cut with the math.
The point being your money is taxed:
Before it's written on your pay stub (the "secret" 7.5% + more the employer isn't allowed to mention on your pay stub).
When you get paid (FICA and income tax).
When you spend the money (sales tax, gas tax, phone taxes, etc).
Every year after you spend it, repeatedly (car taxes, property taxes, business personal property taxes).
That's an interesting observation and it has me thinking.
It didn't seem right at first, yet it did. I had to ponder it a bit. I thought about money flowing in and out of the country. I thought about the the companies in the index can outperform the economy as a whole. Still, those factors didn't seem to fully explain how for 100 years returns have SIGNIFICANTLY outpaced economic growth.
Then it occurred to me we must carefully distinguish between RETURNS and growth. There's no reason a five-pound chicken can't keep producing 300 eggs every year. A cow keeps producing 2,000 gallons of milk each year long after it's finished growing. General Mills has made money paid out dividends every year for the last 120 years. They don't have to grow any bigger to be a good investment.
The market can't *grow* bigger than the economy, but companies can certainly continue to make money, and returns can very well stay at 10% while the economy grows at 3.2%. How big a company is, or how fast it's growing, has little to do with how profitable it is, and therefore how much is returns to investors. Often enough, making a company *smaller* can be part of making it more profitable, by either cutting unnecessary expenses or focusing on what the company does best.
> The overall tax rate for these people was maybe 45-50%.
I'm not sure about the overall tax rate on that specific group at that time, but 45% is one to the average overall tax rate today, for taxpayers.
You make $100, the government first takes 7.5% (really 15%) FICA tax, then an additional 25% income tax. You use some of that money to buy a gallon gas for $3, the government takes another 13%. That's 45.5% total tax.
The gas goes in your car which is taxed every year. I put $24,000 into buying a house, after earning $36,000 and paying $12,000 tax. On that house I used $24,000 to buy, I pay $2,000 taxes each and every year, forever. Over my lifetime, the total tax on the house will be over 100%, more than I paid for the house.
About 40% of people pay no income tax, or negative income tax (their "refund" is more than they paid), but there are a LOT of taxes, income tax is just one part of it. For many years, I even paid annual taxes for owning a desk and a laptop, which I used in self-employment. Not only was my income taxed both when I earned it and when I spent it, but every year I paid to pay taxes (again) for continuing to own a deal, a chair, some pencils, etc.
If you read their page, which you so helpfully linked to, you'll see phrases like "built from sources provided by Redhat".
I clicked on a random post on their blog and it said:
--
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 was released today. Here is the press release.
ClearOS 7 development is already well underway and an alpha release is already running on a handful of systems. Once we start to dig into the RPM/package rebuilding process, we will have a better idea of ClearOS 7 release dates. Please stay tuned
--
The primary differences between ClearOS and CentOS are:
Clear removes the desktop UI
Different logos
Close to retirement, yes you should still have your stock investments in low-expense index funds. You should ALSO have bonds and maybe some other types of investments. As you get nearer to retirement, you should typically buy more and more bonds, but your stock choices shouldn't change much.
I say typically - there are times when the rates on safe bonds are so low that it's hard to justify buying them, even close to retirement. I suppose it also depends on what "close to retirement" means - when you'd LIKE to retire, or when you MUST retire? For many people, they plan to retire in eight years, but they could work two extra years if the market goes to shit. That's different from a 60-year old airline pilot, who MUST retire at 65, like it or not.
The long-term average return with a low-fee index fund is around 9%-10% per year. About the same as the AVERAGE return from individual stocks - which makes sense because index funds are composed of many individual stocks.
The risk and volatility is much lower - you can almost guarantee you won't make much more than 10% or much less than 9%, over the long term.
A lot of the volatility of index funds is actually volatility of inflation - they tend to have higher nominal returns when inflation is higher, so the real returns are more stable than the nominal returns.
To mine an AC-Coin, you currently have to find the last four bits that correspond to the hash.
As you might imagine, finding four bits is easy (just guess 16 times). What do you think the current value of AC-Coin is? What will YOU pay for a 10,000 AC coin? I have some to sell you.
Making mining easy doesn't mean people do it.
That is another important and common case, having stock solely in the company one works for. That's uniquely high risk because if something goes bad with the company you can lose your job and your savings, at the same time.
I will probably soon have an opportunity to get into my employer's stock pre-IPO, and it will probably jump right after the IPO, so it would be a good idea for me to get in. BUT I don't want both my job and my savings to subject to whatever happens with this company, so I'll be looking to get out pretty quick. I'll have to look at the plan details to see how I can do that, and when. I may well keep the stock and switch jobs.
Nope, few people are buying Bitcoin anymore. That's why the value has dropped in half in the last six months.
You're overstating a bit. ClearOS is based on CentOs, and installed on large servers by HP. Not exactly IOT.
Some countries now have more debt than they have economic production. They could institute a 100% tax and still go bankrupt, even if that tax didn't effect the domestic economy. So the choice involved is taking on the debt in the first place. Once you have unsustainable debt, the country is going to go bankrupt and there's nothing they can do to prevent that.
Of course the tax rate DOES effect the economy, making the situation even more dire. Would YOU spend your life savings to open a business in a country with a 100% tax rate, so you're guaranteed to never make any money from your business? Would you even bother going to work, and showing up on time, if your take-home pay was $0 because of taxes?
Maximum government revenue occurs at a tax rate somewhere between 15% and 65% (arguing about the exact number is a significant part of economics). Once the tax rate is higher than the revenue-optimal number, government revenue goes down.
Thanks for posting the question.
The difference in risk is so much that it's a fundamentally different activity, for the most common types of "single stock" people buy, and the most common type of mutual fund.
Typically when people buy a single stock they choose a new company with a lot of hype. The "value" of the stock is based on the hype. The most common mutual funds are index funds and the like, where you're invested in not only 100 different companies, but 100 different *mature*, profitable companies. It's very, very likely that in a big group of companies which have been making money for 100 years, most of them will keep doing what they've been doing - making money.
Investing in an index fund is just that - investing, putting money aside now so you'll have it later, and have more. Trying to guess which new company will do best, indeed trying out OUTguess everyone else, is fundamentally *gambling*, not investing.
Even if you guess right that Fitbit or Tesla will do well in the future, that expectation os already built into the current stock price. For that investment to be good long term, the company has to do BETTER than everyone expected them to. That's straight up gambling when you buy a single stock and it's a young company.
You're correct "that's not how stocks work", yet incorrect in concluding "nobody has been handing Musk money".
If Tesla were like most companies, they would have used the money from their IPO in 2010 to invest in building a profitable, stable company, and they wouldn't issue any more stock. Many years later, they might buy back their stock, and then sell again later.
Tesla is not an ordinary company, and certainly not an ordinary stock. Tesla has been making new issues, averaging $2 billion per year. Mostly stock, though recently they've started issuing junk bonds.
Yes, ordinarily a stock represents a partial ownership of a business. Once the business "goes big" with the IPO, stock transactions don't involve the company directly, at least not until they mature enough over several decades that they have bought some back. Tesla stock value doesn't represent the value of the business, the business isn't worth 10% of the stock price; and they do continue to issue stock. Tesla depends on a steady flow of new investor cash to keep things afloat. Most companies depend on revenue from SALES.
You know what kind of financial scheme DOES depend on continually getting more and more investors, there is a name for that arrangement.
Re giving money to Musk, while Tesla has been losing money, investors' money, Musk's personal fortune has been increasing by $1 billion each year. Where do you think that money is coming from?
Yep, nearly every day the headlines on the front page of major media say "Trump tweets ..." whatever. Yesterday the top story was he tweeted that he was looking forward the unemployment numbers coming out, which he did two hours before they were officially realised.
Being in the headlines daily has to be very good to Twitter.
Yes, I assume that EVENTUALLY people will tire of handing money to Musk for him to lose, that eventually the hype will wear off. The difficult part is determining WHEN that will happen. It may be a long time. More likely, I think, Tesla will make a major mistake or release very bad news in the next couple of years, and the hype will have begun to want, so a measure of sanity will return.
I would get a put option on Tesla, but an option typically expires in a month. Tesla stock could very well go up in the next 30 days. In the next ten years, it's almost certain to go down.
Again I'm not saying that Tesla can't possibly be successful. I'm pointing out that the current stock price assumes they'll be more successful than Toyota, Honda, GM, or Ford. If Tesla becomes as successful as Toyota, today's investors will have overpaid.
Tesla may very well become profitable. Maybe not, maybe so.
The current stock price has Tesla valued as already being the world's biggest car company. They aren't even in the top ten. Buying Tesla stock isn't a bet that the company will survive. To make money long time Tesla has to become bigger and more profitable than any car company ever has.
Shorting Tesla will (eventually) make money if Tesla becomes as large and successful as General Motors or Toyota, because the current price is justified only for a company much bigger than Toyota.
I would definitely short Tesla if I didn't have my funds tied up in another investment, because even if Tesla does remarkably well, shorts will still make money. Long term, shorts can only lose if Tesla is among the most successful companies ever. While Musk is great at publicity, the evidence suggests operations management at Tesla isn't even good, much less record-breaking incredible.
> run hotter, have a higher TDP
You realize TDP is the measurement of heat, right?
So you sad "hotter, and hotter".
> if you need a certain number of instructions per second, it is likely that 8 full Intel systems, even though the cpus cost more, would be cheaper than 10 full AMD systems.
Server clusters have different requirements. AMD may still be a good choice, but the analysis is very different. You don't add two more DESKTOPS in order to have higher IPS. The number of systems for desktops is determined by the number of users. The question is which CPU to put in the system. Either a Ryzen or a Core i9 is going to be sufficient for any desktop, so it'll be a single system with a single CPU whether you choose AMD or Intel. For $850, you can either get a top-of-the-line CPU from AMD, or a much lower performing CPU from Intel.
In a server cluster, you'll probably find that you'd end up with the same number of systems, maybe slightly fewer with the AMD Ryzen processors. That's a completely different analysis, though.
> If you want to factor cost then, maybe
Performance is measured as "X per Y", such as "miles per hour", "miles per gallon", etc.
In a phone, the most important measurement is "instructions per watt", how fast can you go for the amount of power you use. Per dollar is also important in a phone. If you didn't' care about power usage / heat, and didn't care about dollar cost, your phone might have four Core i7 CPUs. It would have a ten pound battery and cost $2,000, and it would be fast.
On the desktop, power usage isn't nearly so important - it's plugged in. Your budget isn't a power budget on the desktop, it's a dollar budget. The main measure is instructions per dollar. AMD gives you better performance. If you didn't care about dollar cost, if what you cared about was instructions per second, you'd have a $97 million Cray OLCF-3 at your home office. You don't choose the OLCF-3 because cost is the primary measurement of interest. You want the performance for the $500 you intend to spend.
My current phone bill is $35/month. That's an all-inclusive price, I don't pay $1-$2 per minute for long distance like I did in 1980. Don't pay extra for call waiting, caller ID, etc. Of course that also includes internet; I'm posting this on my phone.
That's less than half of the *minimum* you could pay in 1980, if you didn't make any long distance calls. Calls from one side of Dallas to other were long distance. The average cost for basic phone service, without any long distance, caller ID, call waiting, etc was $64 in constant dollars ($19.64 in 1980 dollars).
If you had basic features like call waiting, call forwarding, and called ID, the cost would be about $77. No long distance, though - dad will be so SO pissed if you make a long distance call.
Ten years ago we charged $2.50/GB and we were cheap. My old business partner still has the page up:
http://xcite.net/hosting/
Current. Pricing is about 8 cents / GB.
When I was a kid long distance calls were about $1/minute. That was the "fair, minimal profit" price set by the government. Then long distance rates were deregulated and Sprint dropped their price to 10 cents per minute - a 90% reduction in price right away. Current pricing is about a penny per minute, unless you pay $30 for unlimited minutes.
Whoever you've been listening to, whoever has been giving you ideas about how the economy works, has clearly been lying to you, telling you the exact opposite of the truth. Might be time to get some new sources of information.