How absurd. Banking literally requires zero skill and zero talent. It just requires money.
The minute you threaten the death penalty, all the criminals leave the market, along with a ton of risk. The remaining honest banks will clean up with less competition and no lawbreaking.
You have it backwards: it is the LACK of regulation which allows companies to merge, thus depriving consumers of choice and competitive prices, and henceforth becoming too big too fail.
Right, but normally the Fed would just have to deal with sluggish demand, which would be bad enough, but now they're having to do a lot of selling when demand is low, which is going to make their job (controlling interest rates) that much harder.
I'm not saying QE was a bad idea, I think it was a good idea. I just think that the Fed is always late to the party: they wait too long to lower interest rates and inject money into the economy, and then they wait too long to raise interest rates and pull money out of the economy. They should have begun slowing their purchase of treasuries years ago, not wait until there's another bubble.
Until we again separate banking from investment banking, we're going to continue with these boom/bust cycles, and people are going to get hurt.
The Fed affects the economy by raising or lowering interest rates, but this is different. The Fed is trying to unload $4.5T in treasuries that it has bought since 2009, but China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia have all cut back on their purchase of treasuries, so rates are rising to make them more attractive. But this is also going to cause rates on everything else to rise, including corporate debt, with many corporations will be unable to shoulder those higher rates.
No, I think the market was down because the bond market is taking a hit now that the Fed is trying to sell all those treasuries, which is going to drive up insurance rates, which cools down the economy, which causes the market to fall. Round and round we go.
You can shear a sheep many times, but skin him only once. At some point, Apple's customers are going to realize that the iPhone has become less reliable, and isn't worth the $1,000 they're spending.
I'm not seeing quality decreases in iPhones or iPads, but I sure am seeing them in Macs, particularly the MacBook Pro. If the battery swells or needs to be replaced in recent MacBook Pros, it's a $200 to $400 repair, because the top case becomes malformed, and now you have to replace that, which contains the keyboard, trackpad, AND the battery, or so I've been told by a repair center.
It seems to me that Apple should design its products so the failure of a consumable doesn't require replacing half the device. That kind of abuse can't go on forever.
Right, but the whole point of OS X Server/Server.app was ease-of-use, and the issues with permissions, SMBX, password server, Profile Manager, and Open Directory weren't ever really fixed, so that vision was never realized.
Apple management just doesn't understand: if you want to keep people in the ecosystem, then you need to provide and maintain ALL PARTS of the ecosystem: cloud, network, server, desktop, mobile. They depend on each other, but Apple mistakenly focuses all its efforts on mobile, to the detriment of the other components.
And the shortsightedness isn't just restricted to Server. Have you used the latest versions of macOS or iOS? They are the buggiest versions in years. I'm tired of telling clients they need to wait until nine months after release before they should upgrade.
It is past time for Apple to move to alternate year releases; they just don't have what it takes to release updated, reliable versions of four OSes every year.
Apple stopped offering a server certification years ago, but it didn't stop Apple Stores from recommending a Mac Mini with a single drive to customers who wanted a file server. Apple's SMBX doesn't really work well with anything but a Mac, and Profile Manager is just about the least reliable MDM out there.
And who is really using Open Directory these days? If you want Netboot, you can do it from Linux. If you want VPN, use your firewall or an appliance.
So, when people want a server for use with their Macs, we'll recommend a Synology or a QNAP. They offer dozens of services, including DNS, practically any other service you could want, and they have RAIDs and SSD caching as well. Some of the Synology units can even be configured to provide Active Directory.
As Apple has now built the caching service and file sharing into High Sierra, I don't really see that there is much reason for Server any more. Oh wait..
MAYBE you don't want to trust your data to someone else? Maybe you figure YOU are the best person to manage your data and services, so you won't be down a day or two while Google fixes G Suite? And as Google thinks they're the world expert on who is and who isn't sending spam, what could go wrong there?
Server was great because it enabled the end user to run his/her own mail server, DNS, file sharing, software update server, and more, rather than outsourcing everything to companies which may or may not give a damn when something goes wrong with "the cloud".
We need a law to require all data collected be anonymized to protect our privacy, and it's not going to be easy because I'd doubt 1 in 10 members of Congress would understand the technology. In addition, Google, Facebook, Verizon, and GM will all lobby Congress to prevent this from happening.
If we're going to recapture our privacy, the data has to be anonymized at the source, we can't leave it up to companies like Apple, just trusting that they're assigning us a token rather than tying the data collected to our actual identity.
Now, I know that requesting a new token is likely to reset what the company knows about our behavior, which is likely to negatively affect the services they're providing us. I just think that each customer should be able to decide whether they want privacy or convenience from each company.
I'm not sure that's true any more. Under Dodd Frank, can't insolvent banks seize depositors' funds, effectively turning them into unsecured creditors, in order to stay solvent? See http://www.publicbankinginstit...
It might be safer to keep some of your money in a credit union rather than a big bank.
Banks are a systemic threat to the economy. The top four (or is it five?) banks are now so large that the failure of any one of them could destroy the country.
But there is another way: every state could charter its own bank, just like North Dakota has. With that much competition, fees would fall, the big banks would lose marketshare, and shrink to a size which didn't threaten the country with their failure.
Apple has a smaller share of the smartphone market than Android. Has Google prevented anyone from coming up with a superior search technology? Is Google forcing Mozilla or Apple to make Google the default search engine? Google is capturing everything it can about all of us, but have they ever sold that information, or let it loose through negligence? I can think of several government agencies which have compromised private data more than Google ever has.
Facebook might be another story. They've lied repeatedly to their users about what information they're collecting, but given the platform's popularity, it doesn't seem that their users care. If you're not paying for a service, and the provider of that service lies to you, what are your damages?
Amazon is the worst offender. They intentionally lose money, and they use their market clout to enter new markets and drive existing competition under so they can capture marketshare, and so we assume they will raise prices once the competition is gone. Isn't this just like the semiconductor dumping of the '70s?
I don't like that Amazon rules online shopping, I don't like that Google rules search, but should we really break companies up just for being successful? If that's what's best for the consumer, maybe I could see that, but not when the notion is coming from a single academic rather than the public or their representatives.
You can't have it both ways. If you want parity, then we can split California, but only if all states agree to award electoral votes proportionally, and not winner-take-all. We outlaw gerrymandering, and citizens are automatically registered to vote by mail when they get a driver license or ID card.
With that done, Republicans won't be able to win an election for dog catcher. So fine, split as many states as you like, but absent interference, liberals will still win.
Let's review: Wilson couldn't fix California, and neither could the Governator. But Governor Moonbeam did, and now the state is out of the hole, growing again, and projecting a surplus, all from RAISING TAXES.
States like Kansas, Wisconsin, and Iowa cut taxes and are now failing, increasing their deficits.
Sure looks like "Commiefornia" did it right, and those red states full of morons did it wrong.
You clearly have no idea just how bad Musk is at running Tesla. One hand doesnâ(TM)t know what the other is doing, injuries are occurring and arenâ(TM)t being reported, operational roles have been outsourced at great expense, employee turnover is high, and the Fremont factory is a dinosaur, completely inappropriate for Teslaâ(TM)s needs. And that doesnâ(TM)t even begin to describe the issues Tesla has with its suppliers.
The company is a zombie, and with no cash, there is no reason for anyone to come in and buy them. Itâ(TM)s possible they arenâ(TM)t even turning a profit in the Model 3.
Tesla is worth ZERO. NOTHING. In the end, the bond holders will lose nearly everything, while the shareholders actually lose all their money.
I question whether Tesla will still be solvent a year from now.
It is not a boon to those corporations bribing our politicians, and so I can see a situation in which it costs $2,000 a month for a fixed number of unique visitors. Those large companies can afford it, but the little guy cannot, so he never gets off the ground.
Will the ISPs no longer enjoy common carrier protection? And if that is so, does that give them the right to install a certificate on my device so they can inspect all my HTTPS traffic? If they are now ultimately liable for everything on their network, they might have that right.
And now I wonder if this is all nothing but a ruse to eliminate the security of encrypted packets.
Nah, that is just crazy. I mean, what government agency could possibly want visibility into all data, everywhere?
Honestly, where do you come up with this drivel? Article I. Article II. Article VI. The Thirteenth Amendment. Each of these contains rules the Federal government imposes on the states, and the American citizens within those states.
Sure. What if they charge less for Fox News because they own the website? Or, what if they slow down news sites in general to force customers into signing up for a cable bundle of several channels, all owned by their network, which is far more profitable than providing bandwidth?
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody? The Apple Watch is the top selling watch in the world. Millions of buyers isnâ(TM)t nobody to most people.
Have you tried AirPods? Theyâ(TM)re not perfect, but theyâ(TM)re much better than the half dozen other Bluetooth headphones Iâ(TM)ve wasted money on.
Really? Skydiving requires zero skill? OK, if you've never been, let's both go. I'll live. You'll die.
Banking is for talentless C student losers who are too dumb to sell insurance.
How absurd. Banking literally requires zero skill and zero talent. It just requires money.
The minute you threaten the death penalty, all the criminals leave the market, along with a ton of risk. The remaining honest banks will clean up with less competition and no lawbreaking.
You have it backwards: it is the LACK of regulation which allows companies to merge, thus depriving consumers of choice and competitive prices, and henceforth becoming too big too fail.
Right, but normally the Fed would just have to deal with sluggish demand, which would be bad enough, but now they're having to do a lot of selling when demand is low, which is going to make their job (controlling interest rates) that much harder.
I'm not saying QE was a bad idea, I think it was a good idea. I just think that the Fed is always late to the party: they wait too long to lower interest rates and inject money into the economy, and then they wait too long to raise interest rates and pull money out of the economy. They should have begun slowing their purchase of treasuries years ago, not wait until there's another bubble.
Until we again separate banking from investment banking, we're going to continue with these boom/bust cycles, and people are going to get hurt.
The Fed affects the economy by raising or lowering interest rates, but this is different. The Fed is trying to unload $4.5T in treasuries that it has bought since 2009, but China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia have all cut back on their purchase of treasuries, so rates are rising to make them more attractive. But this is also going to cause rates on everything else to rise, including corporate debt, with many corporations will be unable to shoulder those higher rates.
This isnâ(TM)t good.
Is the NHS costing you $2,000 a month for a family of four? Because that's pretty common here.
No, I think the market was down because the bond market is taking a hit now that the Fed is trying to sell all those treasuries, which is going to drive up insurance rates, which cools down the economy, which causes the market to fall. Round and round we go.
You can shear a sheep many times, but skin him only once. At some point, Apple's customers are going to realize that the iPhone has become less reliable, and isn't worth the $1,000 they're spending.
I'm not seeing quality decreases in iPhones or iPads, but I sure am seeing them in Macs, particularly the MacBook Pro. If the battery swells or needs to be replaced in recent MacBook Pros, it's a $200 to $400 repair, because the top case becomes malformed, and now you have to replace that, which contains the keyboard, trackpad, AND the battery, or so I've been told by a repair center.
It seems to me that Apple should design its products so the failure of a consumable doesn't require replacing half the device. That kind of abuse can't go on forever.
Right, but the whole point of OS X Server/Server.app was ease-of-use, and the issues with permissions, SMBX, password server, Profile Manager, and Open Directory weren't ever really fixed, so that vision was never realized.
Apple management just doesn't understand: if you want to keep people in the ecosystem, then you need to provide and maintain ALL PARTS of the ecosystem: cloud, network, server, desktop, mobile. They depend on each other, but Apple mistakenly focuses all its efforts on mobile, to the detriment of the other components.
And the shortsightedness isn't just restricted to Server. Have you used the latest versions of macOS or iOS? They are the buggiest versions in years. I'm tired of telling clients they need to wait until nine months after release before they should upgrade.
It is past time for Apple to move to alternate year releases; they just don't have what it takes to release updated, reliable versions of four OSes every year.
Apple stopped offering a server certification years ago, but it didn't stop Apple Stores from recommending a Mac Mini with a single drive to customers who wanted a file server. Apple's SMBX doesn't really work well with anything but a Mac, and Profile Manager is just about the least reliable MDM out there.
And who is really using Open Directory these days? If you want Netboot, you can do it from Linux. If you want VPN, use your firewall or an appliance.
So, when people want a server for use with their Macs, we'll recommend a Synology or a QNAP. They offer dozens of services, including DNS, practically any other service you could want, and they have RAIDs and SSD caching as well. Some of the Synology units can even be configured to provide Active Directory.
As Apple has now built the caching service and file sharing into High Sierra, I don't really see that there is much reason for Server any more. Oh wait..
MAYBE you don't want to trust your data to someone else? Maybe you figure YOU are the best person to manage your data and services, so you won't be down a day or two while Google fixes G Suite? And as Google thinks they're the world expert on who is and who isn't sending spam, what could go wrong there?
Server was great because it enabled the end user to run his/her own mail server, DNS, file sharing, software update server, and more, rather than outsourcing everything to companies which may or may not give a damn when something goes wrong with "the cloud".
We need a law to require all data collected be anonymized to protect our privacy, and it's not going to be easy because I'd doubt 1 in 10 members of Congress would understand the technology. In addition, Google, Facebook, Verizon, and GM will all lobby Congress to prevent this from happening.
If we're going to recapture our privacy, the data has to be anonymized at the source, we can't leave it up to companies like Apple, just trusting that they're assigning us a token rather than tying the data collected to our actual identity.
Now, I know that requesting a new token is likely to reset what the company knows about our behavior, which is likely to negatively affect the services they're providing us. I just think that each customer should be able to decide whether they want privacy or convenience from each company.
I'm not sure that's true any more. Under Dodd Frank, can't insolvent banks seize depositors' funds, effectively turning them into unsecured creditors, in order to stay solvent? See http://www.publicbankinginstit...
It might be safer to keep some of your money in a credit union rather than a big bank.
Banks are a systemic threat to the economy. The top four (or is it five?) banks are now so large that the failure of any one of them could destroy the country.
But there is another way: every state could charter its own bank, just like North Dakota has. With that much competition, fees would fall, the big banks would lose marketshare, and shrink to a size which didn't threaten the country with their failure.
Apple has a smaller share of the smartphone market than Android. Has Google prevented anyone from coming up with a superior search technology? Is Google forcing Mozilla or Apple to make Google the default search engine? Google is capturing everything it can about all of us, but have they ever sold that information, or let it loose through negligence? I can think of several government agencies which have compromised private data more than Google ever has.
Facebook might be another story. They've lied repeatedly to their users about what information they're collecting, but given the platform's popularity, it doesn't seem that their users care. If you're not paying for a service, and the provider of that service lies to you, what are your damages?
Amazon is the worst offender. They intentionally lose money, and they use their market clout to enter new markets and drive existing competition under so they can capture marketshare, and so we assume they will raise prices once the competition is gone. Isn't this just like the semiconductor dumping of the '70s?
I don't like that Amazon rules online shopping, I don't like that Google rules search, but should we really break companies up just for being successful? If that's what's best for the consumer, maybe I could see that, but not when the notion is coming from a single academic rather than the public or their representatives.
You can't have it both ways. If you want parity, then we can split California, but only if all states agree to award electoral votes proportionally, and not winner-take-all. We outlaw gerrymandering, and citizens are automatically registered to vote by mail when they get a driver license or ID card.
With that done, Republicans won't be able to win an election for dog catcher. So fine, split as many states as you like, but absent interference, liberals will still win.
Let's review: Wilson couldn't fix California, and neither could the Governator. But Governor Moonbeam did, and now the state is out of the hole, growing again, and projecting a surplus, all from RAISING TAXES.
States like Kansas, Wisconsin, and Iowa cut taxes and are now failing, increasing their deficits.
Sure looks like "Commiefornia" did it right, and those red states full of morons did it wrong.
Is anyoneâ(TM)s autopilot as good as Teslaâ(TM)s? The feature on the Model S/X has a great interface.
I am a Tesla hater. But I donâ(TM)t think anyone does autopilot better right now.
You clearly have no idea just how bad Musk is at running Tesla. One hand doesnâ(TM)t know what the other is doing, injuries are occurring and arenâ(TM)t being reported, operational roles have been outsourced at great expense, employee turnover is high, and the Fremont factory is a dinosaur, completely inappropriate for Teslaâ(TM)s needs. And that doesnâ(TM)t even begin to describe the issues Tesla has with its suppliers.
The company is a zombie, and with no cash, there is no reason for anyone to come in and buy them. Itâ(TM)s possible they arenâ(TM)t even turning a profit in the Model 3.
Tesla is worth ZERO. NOTHING. In the end, the bond holders will lose nearly everything, while the shareholders actually lose all their money.
I question whether Tesla will still be solvent a year from now.
It is not a boon to those corporations bribing our politicians, and so I can see a situation in which it costs $2,000 a month for a fixed number of unique visitors. Those large companies can afford it, but the little guy cannot, so he never gets off the ground.
Will the ISPs no longer enjoy common carrier protection? And if that is so, does that give them the right to install a certificate on my device so they can inspect all my HTTPS traffic? If they are now ultimately liable for everything on their network, they might have that right.
And now I wonder if this is all nothing but a ruse to eliminate the security of encrypted packets.
Nah, that is just crazy. I mean, what government agency could possibly want visibility into all data, everywhere?
Maybe Congress should exercise its oversight authority over the FCC? You know, because that is part of their job and all.
Honestly, where do you come up with this drivel? Article I. Article II. Article VI. The Thirteenth Amendment. Each of these contains rules the Federal government imposes on the states, and the American citizens within those states.
Sure. What if they charge less for Fox News because they own the website? Or, what if they slow down news sites in general to force customers into signing up for a cable bundle of several channels, all owned by their network, which is far more profitable than providing bandwidth?
Why does the right always haul out the Tenth Amendment? It has no relevancy here.