News Stories

[Frenchie]

Making a million now, ruining the economy, price drop, you'd get more for your buck?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I just hope the greed-freaks soon realize that if they were less greedy, they'd make more overall in the long run and not have to worry about possibly being tortured to death by an angry mob. Not to mention the obvious benefits an educated, fed, happy populace with money to burn on high-profit luxury goods would bring any business.

Well a number of these big corp owners are already in their fifties and sixties, so they won't be around in the long-term, hence their inclination towards short-term goals at the cost of the rest of US.

Then again, there is a need for the general population to wake up and start thinking of ways to buy back the market. Having a "let's get that elsewhere" attitude can serve in the long-term as they rely less and less on big corp and more on themselves for survival - it is going back to basics of needs instead of wants.

So long as Monsato doesn't corporatise heirloom seeds.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

The guy has some points on some issues, but he's wrong on others. And both right and wrong on some. Letting the banks fail for example would have caused a complete meltdown of the US economy, and made the great depression look like a minor market correction. However, he's also right about the banks encouraged to continue risky trading because of that. Really the banks should never have been allowed to grow so big that their failing would have such a disastrous effect on the economy. Further, while the banks needed to be saved, the people who ran them should have been punished. Unfortunately, we live in a land of due process, so the bank CEOs can't have their heads displayed on stakes on the white house lawn as a warning to the next 10 generations the price of fiscal irresponsibility.

It is difficult for banks not to grow big because it is a business of trust - people are willing to hand their money over to banks for safekeeping because they believed in them.

Then comes in the cumulative effect - everybody throws their trust behind a few banks, gives them too much power to do risky things due to an acquired sense of invincibility, then they fail with the monies of the people they trust. And they get bought up by the banks who didn't fail too badly, starting a oligopoly. Citi, BoA, Fannie and Freddie, etc.....they are the products of misplaced trust of the population.

Right now, people are being enticed to putting their money with BROKERAGES instead of BANKS. Unlike banks, brokerages don't have the obligation to keep funds secure, they can offer one man's capital as another man's leverage or margin.

All of that, makes trading and investing much riskier. And the GOP isn't doing anything to secure the investment of people, but still want people to invest so as to push them into spending more with that extra money they get.

[ganbaru]

Serbian police detain 180 in pro-Mladic violence
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...74S1GR20110530
Some seem to be still in denial...

[JMvS]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Serbian police detain 180 in pro-Mladic violence
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...74S1GR20110530
Some seem to be still in denial...

It thought that it was well known that for many Serbs, those guys are War Heroes who defended their country and peoples against all odds.

It's another version of the classic: one's freedom fighter is another's terrorist.

[MeoTwister5]

"There's not a lot of difference between heroes and madmen." - Solid Snake

[Xion Valkyrie]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

The guy has some points on some issues, but he's wrong on others. And both right and wrong on some. Letting the banks fail for example would have caused a complete meltdown of the US economy, and made the great depression look like a minor market correction. However, he's also right about the banks encouraged to continue risky trading because of that. Really the banks should never have been allowed to grow so big that their failing would have such a disastrous effect on the economy. Further, while the banks needed to be saved, the people who ran them should have been punished. Unfortunately, we live in a land of due process, so the bank CEOs can't have their heads displayed on stakes on the white house lawn as a warning to the next 10 generations the price of fiscal irresponsibility.

Hmm, looks like a fully stocked fallout bunker would be a better investment than a 401k.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Xion Valkyrie

Hmm, looks like a fully stocked fallout bunker would be a better investment than a 401k.

Problem is you don't know when the real shit will hit the fan....and fallout bunkers will always need to store food, which are perishables.

Over time, if your perishables are gone, you make a loss. Therefore a fallout bunker may not be the best option after all.

[ganbaru]

German government wants nuclear exit by 2022 at latest
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...74Q2P120110530

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

German government wants nuclear exit by 2022 at latest
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...74Q2P120110530

Then replace the power generation with what? And turn German energy into a rare commodity like REE?

EDIT :

EU probes two U.S.-Asian computer hardware deals

(Reuters) - EU regulators opened in-depth probes on Monday into two takeover bids in the computer hardware sector involving two Asian companies and two U.S. peers, saying it was concerned the deals would reduce the number of rivals.

U.S.-based Seagate Technology has said it wants to buy Samsung Electronics Co's loss-making hard disk drive unit for $1.4 billion -- a deal that will give Seagate access to Samsung's NAND-type flash chips for its solid-state drive products.

Western Digital plans to purchase Hitachi Ltd's hard disk drive business for $4.3 billion to give it an edge in developing next-generation storage technology.

The European Commission, the EU competition watchdog, which is now reviewing the two deals, said it wanted to take a closer look.

"Hard drives are the backbone of the digital economy. The sector has already experienced significant consolidation, and the proposed acquisitions will further reduce competition," Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said in a statement.

The EU executive said the Seagate and Samsung deal would consolidate the U.S. company's position in the hard disk drive market, leaving only two rivals, Western Digital and Hitachi.

The Western Digital and Hitachi transaction would result in only one company competing in desktop hard disk drives and just two rivals in mobile hard disk drives, the Commission said.

The respective deals would increase Seagate's market share to 40 percent, while Western Digital and Hitachi combined will have around half the market, according to analysts.

Western Digital said it was proceeding, on plan, with its integration-planning activities related to the proposed deal, and now expects the transaction to close in the fourth quarter of 2011.

The Commission will decide by October 10 whether to clear or block the two deals. The previous deadline for a decision on the Seagate and Samsung deal was Monday, while that for Western Digital and Hitachi was Tuesday.

Western Digital and Seagate have been struggling to adapt to a future where fewer consumers tote laptops. Flash drives, or solid-state drives, consume less power and are faster and are viewed by many as the future of the disk drive industry.

Wait, so is Big Corp from US trying to oligopolise the rest of the world too?

[Fahd]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Then replace the power generation with what? And turn German energy into a rare commodity like REE?

They're thinking wind power. It means laying down pylons from the North Sea to southern Germany, which doesn't seem to be a very popular move either:

The difficulty is that many of the threatened nuclear power stations are in the south, situated conveniently for the big energy users like the cities of Munich and Stuttgart and manufacturers like Volkswagen. If these southern nuclear generators are decommissioned, the idea is that wind farms in the north might take up the slack. But that implies new high-voltage cables with very high pylons to match.

...

The route goes through the Rennsteig, the beautiful ridge of deep-green, forested hills that stretches for more than 160km (100 miles) down the centre of the country. It is where Germans come to hike in what they feel is the idyllic embodiment of their country, a part of the essence of Germany. So there is much opposition to the energy highway. Different parts of the green movement pull against each other. Activists do not want nuclear power, but nor do they want a landscape disfigured by what they call "mega masts".

I guess if the nuclear plants do shut down, and those pylons don't go up, Germany might have to import energy from its neighbours or switch on coal/natural gas power stations?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Fahd

They're thinking wind power. It means laying down pylons from the North Sea to southern Germany, which doesn't seem to be a very popular move either:

Germany will have to reactivate the Third Reich and conquer more lands in order to lay down enough turbines to supply themselves. That plan is just plain illogical because the number of turbines placed into an area can never produce as much power consistently as the same total landmass that can hold a nuclear reactor.

Maybe if she quotes a thermosolar farm that uses the cold of the night and the sunlight of the day to generate electricity, there might just be enough. But wind power is a far possibility in generating as much power per acre taken up as compared to a nuclear reactor.

Germany never had a gigantic nuclear accident, and Fukushima's serves as a lesson to enforce greater safety and Q&M checks on the reactors, as well as to hang or shoot any directors found to neglect that aspect. If the reactor is to be decommissioned due to age, there should at least be some long-term energy policy planning in place to substitute it, not just "shut down NPPs because they are environmental hazards, as shown in Japan".

[Ithekro]

...

So...they need to construct additional pylons?

Logic suggests that they need something that is both space saving and able to generate power efficiently.

[Decagon]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Wait, so is Big Corp from US trying to oligopolise the rest of the world too?

More like East Asian companies trying to capitalize on getting rid of last-gen tech lines and focusing on their flash memory R&D.

[synaesthetic]

Spinning platters will never go away. NAND will always be more expensive per GB, at least until we reach a point of maximum platter density. That's still at least ten or fifteen years away.

Plus, the push for smaller node NAND means the number of write cycles go down. Intel's 25nm NAND has half the lifespan of its 34nm flash memory. Hard drives are more durable, more reliable and more sensible for large storage. SSDs may be flashier, newer, more "cutting-edge" but they're primarily useful for speed. HDDs win out in sheer capacity and reliability.

[ganbaru]

Yemen warplanes bomb Islamists who seized town
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...05-30-21-34-45

[Decagon]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Spinning platters will never go away. NAND will always be more expensive per GB, at least until we reach a point of maximum platter density. That's still at least ten or fifteen years away.

Plus, the push for smaller node NAND means the number of write cycles go down. Intel's 25nm NAND has half the lifespan of its 34nm flash memory. Hard drives are more durable, more reliable and more sensible for large storage. SSDs may be flashier, newer, more "cutting-edge" but they're primarily useful for speed. HDDs win out in sheer capacity and reliability.

I'm of the opinion that NAND will take over for mainstream consumer goods and HDDs will be relegated to server or porno storage duty. Probably before we see The Suprise of Suzumiya Haruhi animated, even. The drop in usable cycles will be less of a factor as disk capacity increases since there will be more blocks to spread the wear to and the relatively more TRIM space that accompanies. I think I read somewhere that manufacturers reevaluating how they test the drives has magically added a few thousand cycles to some drives. For most people I think their SSDs will die of other failures before they reach the cycle limit.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

...

So...they need to construct additional pylons?

Logic suggests that they need something that is both space saving and able to generate power efficiently.

Oy, reading this board here already gives me a headache ^_^; ... please guys, don't comment and speculate before you know what's actually planned.

In a nutshell, currently nuclear power is 23% of the German energy mix, renewable energies are 17%. The plan is to raise the amount of renewable energies to 35% within 11 years (studies indicate that 50% would be possible too). The rest will have to come from fossil sources and especially energy savings.

On an industrial level, onshore and offshore wind is easiest to deploy, but they will require some power grid upgrades to properly transfer the amounts of power (which is generated in low-density population spots) to the population centers where it's needed. Especially when offshore wind gains traction, this will be a challenge to tackle.

Solar power is a nice addition which will take off even more when some more state subsidies are offered. Particularly useful is the decentral form and the way hor common citizens are co-opted to place panels on their houses. When you do, you earn some money by adding power to the grid during day (and use power from the grid in the night). Also, there are initiatives like Desertec which are essentially industrial level solar power generation plants in southern Europe and Africa. Again, adding this power to the grid requires infrastructure which will be tackled first.

So yea, it's ambitious, but perfectly possible. Will cost us extra for 10 years until the infrastructure upgrade is in place. After that, we'll be sitting pretty.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Mentar

Oy, reading this board here already gives me a headache ^_^; ... please guys, don't comment and speculate before you know what's actually planned.

In a nutshell, currently nuclear power is 23% of the German energy mix, renewable energies are 17%. The plan is to raise the amount of renewable energies to 35% within 11 years (studies indicate that 50% would be possible too). The rest will have to come from fossil sources and especially energy savings.

On an industrial level, onshore and offshore wind is easiest to deploy, but they will require some power grid upgrades to properly transfer the amounts of power (which is generated in low-density population spots) to the population centers where it's needed. Especially when offshore wind gains traction, this will be a challenge to tackle.

Solar power is a nice addition which will take off even more when some more state subsidies are offered. Particularly useful is the decentral form and the way hor common citizens are co-opted to place panels on their houses. When you do, you earn some money by adding power to the grid during day (and use power from the grid in the night). Also, there are initiatives like Desertec which are essentially industrial level solar power generation plants in southern Europe and Africa. Again, adding this power to the grid requires infrastructure which will be tackled first.

So yea, it's ambitious, but perfectly possible. Will cost us extra for 10 years until the infrastructure upgrade is in place. After that, we'll be sitting pretty.

But will it be enough to feed Germany's population with regards to consumption? Electrical consumption is highly likely to increase within the next few decades, so will all these wind farms be sufficient to meet the energy needs of the country?

Renewable energy is a good thing, but if it is not able to sufficiently provide in the future, it will end up like carbon dollars on the market. Another issue is that Germany is still funding the PIGS, so setting aside part of the budget for renewable energy means that they have to cut something else.

Also, looks like we got an early Christmas present from Goldman Sachs :

Goldman traded $1.3 billion in Libyan funds: report

(Reuters) - Goldman Sachs invested more than $1.3 billion from Libya's sovereign-wealth fund in currency bets and other trades in 2008 and the investment lost more than 98 percent of its value, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing internal Goldman documents.

When the fund, controlled by Col. Muammar Gaddafi, made huge losses Goldman offered Libya the chance to become one of its biggest shareholders, the Journal said, citing people familiar with the matter.

Goldman Sachs was not available for comment, outside of normal U.S. business hours.

Among the different proposals put forward by Goldman Sachs to recoup the losses was one in which Libya would get $5 billion in preferred Goldman shares in return for investing $3.7 billion into the securities firm, the paper added.

The documents also show that company Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein, its finance chief David Viniar and top executive Michael Sherwood were involved in discussions in this regard, the Journal reported.

The Libyan fund had apparently paid $1.3 billion for options on a basket of currencies and on six stocks - Citigroup Inc (C.N), Italian bank UniCredit SpA (CRDI.MI), Spanish bank Banco Santander, German insurance giant Allianz (ALVG.DE), French energy company Électricité de France (EDF.PA) and Italian energy company Eni SpA (ENI.MI), the paper said.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

But will it be enough to feed Germany's population with regards to consumption? Electrical consumption is highly likely to increase within the next few decades, so will all these wind farms be sufficient to meet the energy needs of the country?

One would hope that the expert commission preparing the new energy plan would have thought of that

Seriously though, you're wrong. Electrical consumption has significantly DECREASED over the last years. That's why energy savings are one of the biggest factors in the mix. The trend is very likely to continue rather than reverse.

Renewable energy is a good thing, but if it is not able to sufficiently provide in the future, it will end up like carbon dollars on the market.

Rest assured that if there should ever be the risk of shortages, the power-down of the nuclear plants would rather be delayed than blacking out anyone ... in fact, for the time being, one large nuclear plant is supposed to remain on cold standby for some time, to make sure there's a fallback plan just in case.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Decagon

I'm of the opinion that NAND will take over for mainstream consumer goods and HDDs will be relegated to server or porno storage duty. Probably before we see The Suprise of Suzumiya Haruhi animated, even. The drop in usable cycles will be less of a factor as disk capacity increases since there will be more blocks to spread the wear to and the relatively more TRIM space that accompanies. I think I read somewhere that manufacturers reevaluating how they test the drives has magically added a few thousand cycles to some drives. For most people I think their SSDs will die of other failures before they reach the cycle limit.

The market's always slow to adopt things like this especially when for the average consumer sheer storage space is superior to performance. I hope it happens sooner as you predict, however. I'd really like to be able to get a fast 512GB SSD in my computer without spending a thousand bucks.

The problem is right now, a 128GB SSD costs many times as much as a 1TB 7200RPM HDD does. That's a huge difference and to the average consumer, they're going to balk at having only 128 gigabytes of space--plus it's actually not 128GBs, since there's the GB/GiB difference to account for as well as what's allocated as spare area.

We're not seeing SSDs in mainstream computers at all yet. Sure, ultrathin laptops like the MacBook Air have SSDs as their only storage option, but that's primarily for space saving reasons. Look at any average consumer laptop or desktop and you're not going to see an SSD at all.

Even in enthusiast desktop setups, you're not seeing SSD-only storage solutions. The common setup I notice is an 80 or 120GB SSD for OS and apps with HDD(s) for storage and game installs. Right now, the only place we see significant adoption of SSD-only storage solutions is in the enterprise market in DB servers and other applications where I/O performance is more important than capacity--and they've got the big bucks to make it happen.

Right on the money concerning SSD lifespans though; usually it's not the NAND that goes out, but the controller chip that dies in some way or another. With normal (non-enterprise) workloads, Intel's new 25nm MLC NAND, with somewhere around 3,000 write cycles, should last for far longer than the useful life of the device, assuming the write amplification doesn't suck and wear-leveling is working properly.