Four thousand pounds is not what you could call cheap, at least for a PC, but if you see what kind of revolution it brings, it is not even that expensive.
It could help to process scientific results much faster, allowing scientists to find more easily cures for diseases or processing results of brain and body scans much more quickly.
Till now you could reach the same results with supercomputers, massive systems made up of thousands of machines taking up entire rooms.
"These supercomputers can improve the time it takes to process information by 1,000 times.
"If you imagine it takes a week to get a result [from running an experiment], you can only do it 52 times a year. If it takes you minutes, you can do it constantly, and learn just as much in a day."
The only thing the normal user needs is time.
Soon, when they will begin mass production, the price will fall and the supercomputer will be available to the "man on the road".
Saturday, December 06, 2008
Buy to rent could be a profitable investment right now.
If there was a moment in which it was convenient investing in Real Estate this is it.
We will have a good inflation, since the State will borrow more and more to rescue the economy, but for this reason (the reason it is the State who is the borrower) we can be sure that the interest rates won't grow.
On the contrary of what one could think, (just for mathematical reasons) that a high inflation would bring high interest rates, we will see the opposite.
And what is going to happen to the hardly saved money?
Not only that it will bring home nothing, but on the nothing's sake it will also loose its value.
In this disastrous situation, I myself, do not see any better investment that in a home.
It could bring a good ROI either as a saving of the rent or as the income from renting it and you can bet that after a period of high inflation, you will keep the value of the money invested in it.
To that you can add the fact that most people want to get rid of their homes fearing to loose the money they invested and the subsequent fall of the houses' price, and the result is: buy and you'll be soon happy you did.
The only restriction could be buying in a place where you are sure the demand will grow in the near future.
For example, what proposed by Austin Real Estate, that is Round rock tx homes for sale, in my opinion could be the right choice.
"Round Rock, 20 miles north of Austin, is one of the fastest growing cities in the country."
This itself would be the right reason to invest there, but you can add to it the fact that it is also a touristic place and has numerous family style amenities of the area.
You could think of a seasonal renting use of your property.
That means more opportunities to make a good profit out of your investment
We will have a good inflation, since the State will borrow more and more to rescue the economy, but for this reason (the reason it is the State who is the borrower) we can be sure that the interest rates won't grow.
On the contrary of what one could think, (just for mathematical reasons) that a high inflation would bring high interest rates, we will see the opposite.
And what is going to happen to the hardly saved money?
Not only that it will bring home nothing, but on the nothing's sake it will also loose its value.
In this disastrous situation, I myself, do not see any better investment that in a home.
It could bring a good ROI either as a saving of the rent or as the income from renting it and you can bet that after a period of high inflation, you will keep the value of the money invested in it.
To that you can add the fact that most people want to get rid of their homes fearing to loose the money they invested and the subsequent fall of the houses' price, and the result is: buy and you'll be soon happy you did.
The only restriction could be buying in a place where you are sure the demand will grow in the near future.
For example, what proposed by Austin Real Estate, that is Round rock tx homes for sale, in my opinion could be the right choice.
"Round Rock, 20 miles north of Austin, is one of the fastest growing cities in the country."
This itself would be the right reason to invest there, but you can add to it the fact that it is also a touristic place and has numerous family style amenities of the area.
You could think of a seasonal renting use of your property.
That means more opportunities to make a good profit out of your investment
The Graduate
I guess yesterday wars the third time I have seen it...
The film is always the same, but it looks different to me.
It is a forty years backward look.
It is "How we were" and what we "hoped" and how we saw the "future".
Luckily it is ages apart from what we are and what we hoped to be.
It is a society that has grown a lot, not always in the right direction, but in many ways yes.
It is a society that has widened its view of life and the part that has not will have to in a very near future.
How much easier life looked then, in that movie at least.
No worries for a job.
Richness and a granted future, so that the main concern is who am I going to marry and what is going against my will...
Love, of course, wins, but leaves quite a few unanswered questions.
And a few quite granted answers.
The film is always the same, but it looks different to me.
It is a forty years backward look.
It is "How we were" and what we "hoped" and how we saw the "future".
Luckily it is ages apart from what we are and what we hoped to be.
It is a society that has grown a lot, not always in the right direction, but in many ways yes.
It is a society that has widened its view of life and the part that has not will have to in a very near future.
How much easier life looked then, in that movie at least.
No worries for a job.
Richness and a granted future, so that the main concern is who am I going to marry and what is going against my will...
Love, of course, wins, but leaves quite a few unanswered questions.
And a few quite granted answers.
Democrats Set to Offer Loans for Carmakers: the verge of a "no future" future
This is a quite interesting article on the The New York Times today.
I am not even considering the need or the fact that in my humble opinion it is a wrong move, I am looking into it and seeing a very interesting aspect, which goes unseen by most of the people.
In 1989 in Europe we had the final step towards the end of the Communist ideal of a society.
"The communist point of view is an unrealistic and inefficient way of ruling today's world".
Of course it began some years before, with the scarcity of money and subsequent scarcity of power.
People live and work for survival, not for ideals.
Even in China they are embracing a new way to rule, much closer to capitalism than to Communism.
Let's summarize it in this way: they take from both what is more convenient without thinking and choosing for people's sake...
What I found more interesting in the article I mention is:
"the money would most likely come from $25 billion in federally subsidized loans intended for developing fuel-efficient cars."
and:
"The auto companies will have to submit to strict government oversight to make sure that the bailout funds are used to carry out the reorganization plans they delivered to Congress this week. The auto company chiefs testified this week that they were willing to accept such regulation."
This is a step toward a communist vision of the society, where the State helps in exchange of rules and especially for rescuing and creating jobs that wouldn't have ANY reason to survive without the State's help.
This didn't bring that far the DDR.
They thought it could bring proselytes, votes and richness.
It brought poverty, un satisfaction and the end of the ideal of Communism.
I do not think there is an ideal way to guarantee a safe and profitable job to all.
I think that surviving is a tough job and it is getting more difficult since the slice of the cake is getting smaller with globalisation.
I think that helping the car industry to survive on the condition to keep it as it is a dream and an unnecessary step.
I think that the public money should be spent more carefully and on the sake of the people's future and NOT on the sake of a party's future.
I think we are on the verge of a "no future" future.
I am not even considering the need or the fact that in my humble opinion it is a wrong move, I am looking into it and seeing a very interesting aspect, which goes unseen by most of the people.
In 1989 in Europe we had the final step towards the end of the Communist ideal of a society.
"The communist point of view is an unrealistic and inefficient way of ruling today's world".
Of course it began some years before, with the scarcity of money and subsequent scarcity of power.
People live and work for survival, not for ideals.
Even in China they are embracing a new way to rule, much closer to capitalism than to Communism.
Let's summarize it in this way: they take from both what is more convenient without thinking and choosing for people's sake...
What I found more interesting in the article I mention is:
"the money would most likely come from $25 billion in federally subsidized loans intended for developing fuel-efficient cars."
and:
"The auto companies will have to submit to strict government oversight to make sure that the bailout funds are used to carry out the reorganization plans they delivered to Congress this week. The auto company chiefs testified this week that they were willing to accept such regulation."
This is a step toward a communist vision of the society, where the State helps in exchange of rules and especially for rescuing and creating jobs that wouldn't have ANY reason to survive without the State's help.
This didn't bring that far the DDR.
They thought it could bring proselytes, votes and richness.
It brought poverty, un satisfaction and the end of the ideal of Communism.
I do not think there is an ideal way to guarantee a safe and profitable job to all.
I think that surviving is a tough job and it is getting more difficult since the slice of the cake is getting smaller with globalisation.
I think that helping the car industry to survive on the condition to keep it as it is a dream and an unnecessary step.
I think that the public money should be spent more carefully and on the sake of the people's future and NOT on the sake of a party's future.
I think we are on the verge of a "no future" future.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
If people wouldn't trust, how could they be cheated again?
"shit happens and all the regulation in the world can't prevent or predict it"... (Tom Evslin)
I do not agree.
Shit happens daily and we should be used to it.
Where I disagree is that we WERE used to shit happening somewhere else than in a Bank.
That is the reason why so many people trusted their own bank.
And they were right to do so.
Because USUALLY Banks were supposed to be, if not entirely on the customer's side, at least not against him.
Nobody will ever convince me that this situation was not known and forecasted long ago.
As usual the man on the road is like the faithful husband or wife, they are ALWAYS the last to know.
Because the idea of being cheated by somebody they trusted for many years is unthinkable.
There was a time in which banks and Institutions were ruled by honest people and things like what happened, couldn't happen.
At that time thoughts like "you are in more danger from the unknowable than the knowable risk; the past is an extremely misleading guide to the future." were out of any question.
Regulation is not good.
What would be good would be that the responsible would pay for what he did.
If the customer was sure that he would have to deal with trustable people (like it was some years ago) we wouldn't need any regulation.
And Regulation won't bring back the trust, because as we say in Italy, the rules are made to be broken.
We have so many SMART people, they do not care about rules, they welcome rules if they can give trust to investors.
Otherwise, if people wouldn't trust, how could they be cheated again?
I do not agree.
Shit happens daily and we should be used to it.
Where I disagree is that we WERE used to shit happening somewhere else than in a Bank.
That is the reason why so many people trusted their own bank.
And they were right to do so.
Because USUALLY Banks were supposed to be, if not entirely on the customer's side, at least not against him.
Nobody will ever convince me that this situation was not known and forecasted long ago.
As usual the man on the road is like the faithful husband or wife, they are ALWAYS the last to know.
Because the idea of being cheated by somebody they trusted for many years is unthinkable.
There was a time in which banks and Institutions were ruled by honest people and things like what happened, couldn't happen.
At that time thoughts like "you are in more danger from the unknowable than the knowable risk; the past is an extremely misleading guide to the future." were out of any question.
Regulation is not good.
What would be good would be that the responsible would pay for what he did.
If the customer was sure that he would have to deal with trustable people (like it was some years ago) we wouldn't need any regulation.
And Regulation won't bring back the trust, because as we say in Italy, the rules are made to be broken.
We have so many SMART people, they do not care about rules, they welcome rules if they can give trust to investors.
Otherwise, if people wouldn't trust, how could they be cheated again?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Stumble It!