Sometime in the distant future, all of your golds silvers and platinums will be mined on other planets. These should be pretty common elements all across the galaxy.
I kinda compare it to "The New World". The first explorers from Europe were after what in the new world? Certainly not a new vacation spot. But, it is a good thing... new exploration has always been a result of pioneering greed.
They expect it to affect under 1 million of Intel's units, with the problem being fixed by the end of the fourth quarter.
When they have a solution they plan on sending out a "work around" or bug fix.
Interesting enough, this is not their frst problem with the Xeons... when first introduced in 98, many of them had bugs with their accompanying chipsets.
I was never trying to say that a population should be poised on the brink of revolt in order to keep their government in line.
of course i believe in civilized ways of keeping the government in check... always, as a first step. But believe it or not, civilized means do not always win out.
Amnesty's report - the US has one of the worst records in the industrial democratic world. All those armed citizens aren't making the US a less oppressive nation, while nations with gun control are less brutal. Why?
As I have said in an earlier post, this is like comparing apples to oranges. The U.S. has always had a higher crime rate than European Nations. The reason is you have such a high amount of immigration and mixing of cultures... this will always (and historically has) lead to higher crime.
I do not like to think of our history as only a century long when it comes to human nature... and that is what i am speaking of.
If I wanted to start a dictatorship, I would pick any European country before the U.S. I would have a lot more fun dealing with "civilized" protests than I would with violent and armed ones.
Humans have been around for about 200,000 years... there are countless cases of an armed minority taking the power away from the majority. If that majority were armed, I believe it would have occured less often.
One of the resons why you have not seen an example of a tyranical rule stopped by an armed citizenry is simply because there have not been any in an armed population! I think that says a lot right there. Switzwerland is completely armed... you have not seen anyone fuck with them this whole century. An armed population is one of those reasons!
Looks like there's a typo here somewhere... But, anyway, I'd like to point out that the best capital gains tax break actually does occur when the owner of the assets dies: the inheritor gets a stepped-up basis. No, that doesn't mean you can't get burned by inheritance taxes, but it's still one heck of a break.
yup, there was a typo. I suppose there is not a tax on the capital-gains tax... Though I wouldn't be suprised if that were in the works!!!:)
The transfer on death agreement which gives you the stepped up cost basis is actually a brand new thing (this year). It used to be a horrible tax burden on beneficiaries, when many people had securities that were held on to for 50 years or so!
I think the current estate tax laws are horrible, and I hope to see some reform in that area in the near future. While it is intended to bleed as much out of the extremely wealthy after they pass away, it has ended up hurting the small business owners the most.
Hold it. That certainly doesn't apply to tax-deffered investment situations like your IRA, 401(k) or 403(b). Moreover, index funds generally don't give you the nasty capital gains problems that some other managed funds do (and perform quite nicely, too).
While you will not be experiencing those capital gains taxes in a tax-deferred account, I would still much rather be invested in indivudual companies than mutual funds (where you have the yearly fees and hidden 12b-1 fees regaurdless). I would rather the CEO of a quality company be my money manager, than a so called profesional that tries to outguess the market.
I do believe that an index fund is a superior choice to most managed mutual funds (90% have lost to the S&P 500 over the past decade!), I still advocate being a direct owner of quality companies, than to owning shares in a fund.
Even if you are a beginning investor, and do not have enough money to diversify yourself widely... I believe you should start with a widely diversified company, and not a fund. There are many quality companies out there that own almost every product under the sun. As you have more money to invest down the road, invest in another diversified, quality company.... starting your portfolio that way, and more as you can. As oposed to sticking it into a mutual fund right away.
But, I am definitely in the minority with my opinions.... and hey, companies make a lot more money from you by selling mutual funds (they are products, afterall) over individual stock. So you are dealing with an industry lead belief as well.
And you think this corrupt army of the future is going to start nuking it's own land?
Ireland is not an armed population... In a stiuation like that, the populace is much less likely to rise up, because they are simply armed with nothing. Not that I am saying they have a great reason for rebelling, but I guarantee there would be more taking part in the rebellion if more of those civilians had guns.
My point is that, an armed and trained civilian body is a great deterrant to a forceful acquisition of power. Millions of widely dispersed, able, armed bodies is a powerful asset.
A gun is power.... even in today's world of stealth planes and nuclear warheads.
Are you insinuating that we should merely rest assure and be content that our government is good and will always take care of us?
Bad things happen, while it might not be much... a gun is a very useful tool, even in today's world.
I just said one reason... there is even an old preserved memo somewhere where the topic was discussed. The fact that it was an armed and trained populace was brought up.
This article was very impressive. I would also be interested to know who wrote it.
I believe many of the liberal idealists have only succeeded in masking "the truths about human beings and human society that it refuses to face". We are not all wonderful beings.
The majority of consumers out there are going to sign up with whomever gets to their doors first with high speed access. They are not going to give a rat's ass about any specs. So it pisses me off that the government is trying to regulate this process. A lot of people are putting the cart before the horse here... the main problem is that we simply do not have this available to consumers yet! Instead of worrying (right now) about the possibility of one high speed medium getting too popular, let these companies compete for my attention and get to me as fast as possible!
And that should make it clear how much of an anachronism the 2nd Amendment is. Even if you armed every single person with fully automatic weapons, do you think we could stand up to the government? They have tanks, helicopeters, fighter jets, bombers, cruise missles, etc.
Simple guns and sheer numbers go a long way. "Wolverines!!!":)
Any government that decided to take away the rights of an armed populace would be dealing with a very long, bloody, expensive, damaging and drawn out war. This would cause most to not even attempt it.
"When they kick in your front door, how you gonna come? With your hands on your head, or on the trigger of your gun"
-Paul Simonon (The Clash)
God, I sound like a militia fanatic... I really am not. But I do believe it is actually my responsibility as an American citizen to own, and know how to use, a gun.
Good point. However, like someone posted, times have changed.
Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that we have in place, such a wonderful system of government, that the chance of corruption is next to nil?
Look at the history of basic human nature... things have not changed that much at all. Power still corrupts. The history of the human race is full of instances where a well-armed minority has opressd the majority.
The US has been a nation for 213 mere years. That is a drop in the bucket... yes, things have been going well so far... but things can change. Hopefully, in the future, a deterrant from a military contingent trying to seize power through force would be that they would then be dealing with millions of angry and armed civilians.
Times have not changed so much that we can simply sit back and always count on our government to protect us. And I do not think you really believe that either.
actually, individuals are never in the constitution given the right to bear arms. the right is given specifically to well regulated militias. such things as the armed forces and the police are supposed to be protecting us. we should not need guns to protect ourselves.
And what protects us from the police and military if they ever become corrupt and power hungry? Impossible? Not in America? Looking at history, it certainly is very possible, for even the strongest of nations... where a well-armed minority seizes control.
Also, one of the main reasons Hitler never invaded Switzerland was because he would be dealing with a nation composed entirely of armed and trained individuals.
As for people trying to compare the crime rate in America to nations in Europe and others... this is like comparing apples and oranges. The crime rate in America has always been higher. You are dealing with close to an open door policy where a huge number of immigrants pass through our gates everyday. No other country in the world is comparable to this. Immigration and the mixing of cultures is a wonderful thing, and causes America to be responsible for the majority of the innovations our world now knows.... but with that, comes a high rate of crime, because not all people mix that well all the time.
Instead of concentrating so much on banning guns (yes they should be regulated, and i am in favor of the waiting period), we should be concentrating on educating people on how to properly use a gun. Many kids are brought up beliving the purpose of guns to be what they see in the movies and TV. We should change that.
If that were true, you could argue that the majority of your non-operational expenses were one-time and therefore should not count on the financial statements.
Most people simply do not understand that price does eventually correlate to actual earnings. They simply see a stock that has done very well and it sounds like a neat company that could run Microsoft out of business.
The advent of investing on the internet has encouraged a lot of uneducated decisions in recent years... fortunately the market has been such where they have not been too hurt yet.
Right... they do not care in the least bit what the actual earnings are and whether they were inline or not... the care what the buzz seems to be in the chat rooms. Often that buzz is "_____ is coming out with their earnings statement on _____, I have heard they will be beating estimates"
They just go on the momentum and charts. If you believe what they do, a certain event will trigger a certain reaction.
I often make the mistake of grouping heavy traders in with day-traders as well. These are not peolpe who are in and out of securities each day, but still invest through momentum... they just might hold on to the stock longer, with several trades each month.
I group them together because I think both groups base their decisions on a very flawed philosophy.
A lot of people argue that capital gains taxes should not be taxed as well (especially when it comes to estates).
But, being the way it is, a person who invests in stocks for the long haul (buying and holding), is in a much better position than someone who is investing interest bearing securities (bonds, cd's REIT's, etc...).
Investing in individual stocks is also a much better route than investing in mutual funds, which often have a capital gains tax every single year, not just when you realize a gain.
Taxes can cut into a huge portion of your savings and growth if you are not careful.
The part I find weird is not the market reaction, since earnings were below forecast, but that anybody put any weight in the forecast itself...
Insert day-traders into this equation and you should not be suprised at all.
These are momentum traders... the actual earnings, expectations, valuations or even companies are not important to them in the least bit. What is important is the perceived reaction to an event in the market place. And because there are so many day-traders out there now, this often becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.
I compare it to the number of people who might start leaving the stock market and invest in gold (or something stupid like that) before the year 2,000. These people do not really believe anything bad is going to happen, but they believe that there will be enough people who who will believe exactly what they believe.
Sometimes it works, more often it does not. But you sure hear about it when it does.
Stocks will rise on the rumor, and decline on the actual announcement. Just people taking profits typically.
When it comes to earnings statements, the rumor is always that they will do a little better than analyst expectations. Recently, Microsoft had been on a tear for a few weeks, their earnings came out and blew away analysts' expectations. The stock then proceeded to take a dive.
By many people's estimates (including Microsoft, who has been laying deals left and right), the hand-held PC market is going to be a huge growth area over the next decade. By spinning off the Palm division, 3com will still be maintaining a controling interest in the new firm, but more importantly, it will be able to financially benefit as their shares in the company rise to what I believe will be a very lofty height, as most "hot" items do.
In the article, it states that the first life requires photosynthesis... which would not be able to penetrate more than 15 meters of the frozen crust.
On Earth, isn't it now believed that the first life was formed from "hot beds" on the ocean floors. Where magma broker through the Earth's crust and warmed the water. Obviously, absolutely no rays from the sun are able to penetrate miles down to the bottom of the ocean either.
How are they implying that this could not happen on Europa?
Slashdot Mirror
Sometime in the distant future, all of your golds silvers and platinums will be mined on other planets. These should be pretty common elements all across the galaxy.
I kinda compare it to "The New World". The first explorers from Europe were after what in the new world? Certainly not a new vacation spot.
But, it is a good thing... new exploration has always been a result of pioneering greed.
I wonder how much Pepsi Co. would pay me to tattoo a pepsi logo on my forehead, in big, bright and bold colors.
Seriously.
They expect it to affect under 1 million of Intel's units, with the problem being fixed by the end of the fourth quarter.
When they have a solution they plan on sending out a "work around" or bug fix.
Interesting enough, this is not their frst problem with the Xeons... when first introduced in 98, many of them had bugs with their accompanying chipsets.
... I think we are in need of more rock stars than geeks right now.
The rock star genre is definitely hurting right now, and there has never been a better time for geeks.
I was never trying to say that a population should be poised on the brink of revolt in order to keep their government in line.
of course i believe in civilized ways of keeping the government in check... always, as a first step. But believe it or not, civilized means do not always win out.
Amnesty's report - the US has one of the worst records in the
industrial democratic world. All those armed citizens aren't making the US a less oppressive
nation, while nations with gun control are less brutal. Why?
As I have said in an earlier post, this is like comparing apples to oranges. The U.S. has always had a higher crime rate than European Nations. The reason is you have such a high amount of immigration and mixing of cultures... this will always (and historically has) lead to higher crime.
I do not like to think of our history as only a century long when it comes to human nature... and that is what i am speaking of.
If I wanted to start a dictatorship, I would pick any European country before the U.S. I would have a lot more fun dealing with "civilized" protests than I would with violent and armed ones.
Humans have been around for about 200,000 years... there are countless cases of an armed minority taking the power away from the majority. If that majority were armed, I believe it would have occured less often.
One of the resons why you have not seen an example of a tyranical rule stopped by an armed citizenry is simply because there have not been any in an armed population! I think that says a lot right there. Switzwerland is completely armed... you have not seen anyone fuck with them this whole century. An armed population is one of those reasons!
Remember I said guns served as a deterrant.
Looks like there's a typo here somewhere... But, anyway, I'd like to point out that the best capital
:)
gains tax break actually does occur when the owner of the assets dies: the inheritor gets a
stepped-up basis. No, that doesn't mean you can't get burned by inheritance taxes, but it's still one
heck of a break.
yup, there was a typo. I suppose there is not a tax on the capital-gains tax... Though I wouldn't be suprised if that were in the works!!!
The transfer on death agreement which gives you the stepped up cost basis is actually a brand new thing (this year). It used to be a horrible tax burden on beneficiaries, when many people had securities that were held on to for 50 years or so!
I think the current estate tax laws are horrible, and I hope to see some reform in that area in the near future. While it is intended to bleed as much out of the extremely wealthy after they pass away, it has ended up hurting the small business owners the most.
Hold it. That certainly doesn't apply to tax-deffered investment situations like your IRA, 401(k) or
403(b). Moreover, index funds generally don't give you the nasty capital gains problems that some
other managed funds do (and perform quite nicely, too).
While you will not be experiencing those capital gains taxes in a tax-deferred account, I would still much rather be invested in indivudual companies than mutual funds (where you have the yearly fees and hidden 12b-1 fees regaurdless). I would rather the CEO of a quality company be my money manager, than a so called profesional that tries to outguess the market.
I do believe that an index fund is a superior choice to most managed mutual funds (90% have lost to the S&P 500 over the past decade!), I still advocate being a direct owner of quality companies, than to owning shares in a fund.
Even if you are a beginning investor, and do not have enough money to diversify yourself widely... I believe you should start with a widely diversified company, and not a fund. There are many quality companies out there that own almost every product under the sun. As you have more money to invest down the road, invest in another diversified, quality company.... starting your portfolio that way, and more as you can. As oposed to sticking it into a mutual fund right away.
But, I am definitely in the minority with my opinions.... and hey, companies make a lot more money from you by selling mutual funds (they are products, afterall) over individual stock. So you are dealing with an industry lead belief as well.
And you think this corrupt army of the future is going to start nuking it's own land?
Ireland is not an armed population... In a stiuation like that, the populace is much less likely to rise up, because they are simply armed with nothing. Not that I am saying they have a great reason for rebelling, but I guarantee there would be more taking part in the rebellion if more of those civilians had guns.
My point is that, an armed and trained civilian body is a great deterrant to a forceful acquisition of power. Millions of widely dispersed, able, armed bodies is a powerful asset.
A gun is power.... even in today's world of stealth planes and nuclear warheads.
Are you insinuating that we should merely rest assure and be content that our government is good and will always take care of us?
Bad things happen, while it might not be much... a gun is a very useful tool, even in today's world.
I just said one reason... there is even an old preserved memo somewhere where the topic was discussed. The fact that it was an armed and trained populace was brought up.
This article was very impressive.
I would also be interested to know who wrote it.
I believe many of the liberal idealists have only succeeded in masking "the truths about human beings and human society that it refuses to face". We are not all wonderful beings.
great read.
The majority of consumers out there are going to sign up with whomever gets to their doors first with high speed access.
They are not going to give a rat's ass about any specs.
So it pisses me off that the government is trying to regulate this process.
A lot of people are putting the cart before the horse here... the main problem is that we simply do not have this available to consumers yet! Instead of worrying (right now) about the possibility of one high speed medium getting too popular, let these companies compete for my attention and get to me as fast as possible!
And that should make it clear how much of an anachronism the 2nd Amendment is. Even if you
:)
armed every single person with fully automatic weapons, do you think we could stand up to the
government? They have tanks, helicopeters, fighter jets, bombers, cruise missles, etc.
Simple guns and sheer numbers go a long way.
"Wolverines!!!"
Any government that decided to take away the rights of an armed populace would be dealing with a very long, bloody, expensive, damaging and drawn out war. This would cause most to not even attempt it.
"When they kick in your front door, how you gonna come? With your hands on your head, or on the trigger of your gun"
-Paul Simonon (The Clash)
God, I sound like a militia fanatic... I really am not. But I do believe it is actually my responsibility as an American citizen to own, and know how to use, a gun.
Good point. However, like someone posted, times have changed.
Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that we have in place, such a wonderful system of government, that the chance of corruption is next to nil?
Look at the history of basic human nature... things have not changed that much at all. Power still corrupts. The history of the human race is full of instances where a well-armed minority has opressd the majority.
The US has been a nation for 213 mere years. That is a drop in the bucket... yes, things have been going well so far... but things can change. Hopefully, in the future, a deterrant from a military contingent trying to seize power through force would be that they would then be dealing with millions of angry and armed civilians.
Times have not changed so much that we can simply sit back and always count on our government to protect us. And I do not think you really believe that either.
I so rarely agree with Kintanon, but I do here.
actually, individuals are never in the constitution given the right to bear arms. the right is given
specifically to well regulated militias. such things as the armed forces and the police are supposed
to be protecting us. we should not need guns to protect ourselves.
And what protects us from the police and military if they ever become corrupt and power hungry?
Impossible? Not in America?
Looking at history, it certainly is very possible, for even the strongest of nations... where a well-armed minority seizes control.
Also, one of the main reasons Hitler never invaded Switzerland was because he would be dealing with a nation composed entirely of armed and trained individuals.
As for people trying to compare the crime rate in America to nations in Europe and others... this is like comparing apples and oranges. The crime rate in America has always been higher. You are dealing with close to an open door policy where a huge number of immigrants pass through our gates everyday. No other country in the world is comparable to this. Immigration and the mixing of cultures is a wonderful thing, and causes America to be responsible for the majority of the innovations our world now knows.... but with that, comes a high rate of crime, because not all people mix that well all the time.
Instead of concentrating so much on banning guns (yes they should be regulated, and i am in favor of the waiting period), we should be concentrating on educating people on how to properly use a gun. Many kids are brought up beliving the purpose of guns to be what they see in the movies and TV. We should change that.
If that were true, you could argue that the majority of your non-operational expenses were one-time and therefore should not count on the financial statements.
It was never spectacular, but they were making money for a while.
... words of wisdom.
Most people simply do not understand that price does eventually correlate to actual earnings. They simply see a stock that has done very well and it sounds like a neat company that could run Microsoft out of business.
The advent of investing on the internet has encouraged a lot of uneducated decisions in recent years... fortunately the market has been such where they have not been too hurt yet.
Right... they do not care in the least bit what the actual earnings are and whether they were inline or not... the care what the buzz seems to be in the chat rooms. Often that buzz is "_____ is coming out with their earnings statement on _____, I have heard they will be beating estimates"
They just go on the momentum and charts.
If you believe what they do, a certain event will trigger a certain reaction.
I often make the mistake of grouping heavy traders in with day-traders as well. These are not peolpe who are in and out of securities each day, but still invest through momentum... they just might hold on to the stock longer, with several trades each month.
I group them together because I think both groups base their decisions on a very flawed philosophy.
A lot of people argue that capital gains taxes should not be taxed as well (especially when it comes to estates).
But, being the way it is, a person who invests in stocks for the long haul (buying and holding), is in a much better position than someone who is investing interest bearing securities (bonds, cd's REIT's, etc...).
Investing in individual stocks is also a much better route than investing in mutual funds, which often have a capital gains tax every single year, not just when you realize a gain.
Taxes can cut into a huge portion of your savings and growth if you are not careful.
It should be obvious that revenue and market capitalization aren't related.
But over time... it does start to correlate. Always has, always will. Because after all, what you do own, is shares of ownership in that company.
The part I find weird is not the market reaction, since earnings were below forecast, but that
anybody put any weight in the forecast itself...
Insert day-traders into this equation and you should not be suprised at all.
These are momentum traders... the actual earnings, expectations, valuations or even companies are not important to them in the least bit. What is important is the perceived reaction to an event in the market place. And because there are so many day-traders out there now, this often becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.
I compare it to the number of people who might start leaving the stock market and invest in gold (or something stupid like that) before the year 2,000. These people do not really believe anything bad is going to happen, but they believe that there will be enough people who who will believe exactly what they believe.
Sometimes it works, more often it does not.
But you sure hear about it when it does.
Stocks will rise on the rumor, and decline on the actual announcement. Just people taking profits typically.
When it comes to earnings statements, the rumor is always that they will do a little better than analyst expectations. Recently, Microsoft had been on a tear for a few weeks, their earnings came out and blew away analysts' expectations. The stock then proceeded to take a dive.
By many people's estimates (including Microsoft, who has been laying deals left and right), the hand-held PC market is going to be a huge growth area over the next decade.
By spinning off the Palm division, 3com will still be maintaining a controling interest in the new firm, but more importantly, it will be able to financially benefit as their shares in the company rise to what I believe will be a very lofty height, as most "hot" items do.
I will be able to net that Mermaid I have always desired!
In the article, it states that the first life requires photosynthesis... which would not be able to penetrate more than 15 meters of the frozen crust.
On Earth, isn't it now believed that the first life was formed from "hot beds" on the ocean floors. Where magma broker through the Earth's crust and warmed the water. Obviously, absolutely no rays from the sun are able to penetrate miles down to the bottom of the ocean either.
How are they implying that this could not happen on Europa?
How 'bout the ones now being made by Diebold that use retinal scans?