Monthly Archives: August 2017

When AWS today became a full-fledged member of the container standards body, the Cloud Native Computing Foundation, it represented a significant milestone. By joining Google, IBM, Microsoft, Red Hat and just about every company that matters in the space, AWS has acknowledged that when it comes to container management, standards matter.

AWS has been known to go the proprietary route, after all. When youre that big and powerful, and control vast swaths of market share as AWS does, you can afford to go your own way from time to time. Containers is an area it hasnt controlled, though. That belongs to Kubernetes, the open source container management tool originally developed inside Google.

AWS was smart enough to recognize that Kubernetes is becoming an industry standard in itself, and that when it comes to build versus buy versus going open source, AWS wisely recognized that battle has been fought and won.

Once it recognized Googles dominance in container management, the next logical step was to join the CNCF and adhere to the same container standards the entire industry is using. Sometimes its better to switch than fight, and this was clearly one of those times.

What we have now is aclearer path to containerization, a technology that is all the rage inside large companies for many good reasons. They allow you to break down the application into discrete manageable chunks, making updates a heck of a lot easier, and clearly dividing developer tasks and operations tasks in a DevOps model.

Standards provide a common basis for managing containers. Everyone can build their own tools on top of them. Google already has when it built Kubernetes, Red Hat has OpenShift, Microsoft makes Azure Container Service and so forth and so on.

Companies like standards because they know the technology is going to work a certain way, regardless of who built it. Each vendor provides a similar set of basic services, then differentiates itself based on what it builds on top.

Technology tends to take off once a standard is agreed upon by the majority of the industry. Look at the World Wide Web. It has taken off because there is a standard way of building web sites. When companies agree to the building blocks, everything else seems to fall into place.

A lack of standards has traditionally held back technology. Having common building blocks just make sense. Sometimes a clear market leader doesnt always agree. Today AWS showed why it matters, even to them.

See the rest here:

AWS just proved why standards drive technology platforms - TechCrunch

Every day, more than 10 Americans suffer amputations on what is by far the most dangerous woodworking tools: the table saw. Regulators in Washington, D.C., are moving closer to adopting a rule that would make new saws so much safer that they could prevent 99 percent of serious accidents.

But even after more than a decade of study, and the existence of a proven technology that all sides agree works astoundingly well to prevent injuries, it's unclear if the Consumer Product Safety Commission will finally pass a rule requiring all new saws to have an active injury prevention monitoring system built into them.

SawStop founder Steve Gass testifies at a Consumer Product Safety Commission. Chris Arnold/NPR hide caption

SawStop founder Steve Gass testifies at a Consumer Product Safety Commission.

We did our first story on this issue in 2004. I saw a small ad in the back of a woodworking magazine. It read something like: Sawstop: the table saw that won't cut off your fingers. That sounded like a pretty good innovation. A table saw has a big jagged metal blade that spins at 100 mph, and a lot of people get hurt using this type of saw.

I called the company and talked to inventor Steve Gass. He had this amazing story to tell. "I was just out in my shop one day, and I happened to look over at my table saw and thought, `You know, I wonder, if you ran your hand under the blade, if you could stop it quick enough that you wouldn't get a serious injury,' " Gass says. "And it seemed doable."

Gass is a physicist and he designed a saw that could tell the difference between when it was cutting wood and the instant it started cutting a human finger or hand. The technology is beautiful in its simplicity: wood doesn't conduct electricity, but you do. Humans are made up mostly of salty water a great conductor.

The SawStop senses an electrical current in the hot dog. Courtesy of SawStop hide caption

The SawStop senses an electrical current in the hot dog.

Gass induced a very weak electric current onto the blade of the saw. He put an inexpensive little sensing device inside it. And if the saw nicks a finger, within 3/1000ths of a second, it fires a break that stops the blade. Gass demonstrates this in an epic demonstration video using a hot dog in place of a finger. The blade looks like it just vanishes into the table.

There was a big need for this invention. Every year more than 4,000 Americans suffer amputations, get their hands mangled using table saws. Upwards of 30,000 people wind up in emergency rooms with lesser injuries. And Gass had figured out a safety brake that could prevent all those accidents.

A hot dog with a slight nick Courtesy of SawStop hide caption

A hot dog with a slight nick

He called all the major power tool companies telling them about his breakthrough but none of them wanted to buy his safety break. He says one company told him "safety doesn't sell." "I was just shocked," Gass said. "That's crazy."

Gass started his own saw company and proved the technology worked. In 2003, he petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Commission asking them to require the rest of the industry to make their saws safer too.

On Wednesday, Steve Gass was back in Washington at an SPSC hearing this time asking: why haven't you done this yet?

"You commissioners have the power to take one of the most dangerous products ever available to consumers and make it vastly safer," Gass said at the public hearing. "And yet, here we are over 14 years later after this petition was initially filed, still engaged in a glacial process with an uncertain end. There's no time left to waste."

Josh Ward Mollie Simon/NPR hide caption

Josh Ward

Earlier this year, the safety commission voted to take a key step toward a new safety rule for saws. The CPSC staff recommended creating a mandatory standard requiring saws to have sensing technology that could stop the blade to prevent injuries. And it has issued a draft of the proposed rule for public comment.

Gass told the commissioners that history has continued to prove his technology effective. To this day the company says Sawstop has never been involved in a serious table saw accident and has documented more than 5,000 "finger saves." He estimates his saws are "99 percent" effective at preventing injuries.

The hearing was also a chance for the broader industry and the public to weigh in. Joshua Ward from Oregon wanted to be there. In 2013, Ward was in a woodshop class in high school when the table saw he was using jerked the wood he was cutting in a way that sent his left hand smashing into the spinning blade. Four of his fingers were either cut off or badly mangled.

Beyond the surgeries and the pain, Ward says it's limited his life. His dad's a firefighter and he says he grew up in the firehouse with his dad everyday. It's kind of been a life-long dream of mine to be a firefighter, it's been in my family forever, and this injury has put that to an end," Ward said.

"As we speak it's about 12:30," Ward said adding that means, "Six people have already had fingers amputated today. And another 10 tomorrow. So I come with frustration and I'm really hoping that we adopt this mandatory standard."

Even after all this time, it's unclear if the CPSC will vote to adopt the rule. The industry for years has had a long list of complaints and concerns about mandating this kind of safety standard. For one, adding the safety technology will add cost to the saws. The industry has said the cost is too onerous. But those cost estimates have ranged over time.

Steve Gass says Sawstop is about to come out with a $400 saw with his injury prevention system. The cheapest table saws sell for a bit under $200. So that is double the price of those inexpensive saws.

CPSC commissioners in favor of the rule point out though that the $200 price difference is dwarfed by the financial cost and pain and suffering harm caused by 30,000 ER visits and more than 4,000 amputations every year. CPSC's analysis puts the annual cost of table saw accidents at around $4 billion.

Susan Young with the industry group the Power Tool Institute claimed at the hearing that some of the commissions' research in this area is flawed. She said the proposed rule needs even more study and "lacks essential data from critical studies currently being conducted and continuing throughout 2017."

CPSC Acting Chairman Ann Marie Buerkle said she was also concerned that the rule might force companies to license technology from Sawstop, which she said might create a monopoly. "As a regulator said, 'I am not comfortable creating a monopoly,' " Buerkle said.

Other commissioners said that the rule wouldn't create some kind of unfair monopoly. They said that's not the CSPC's concern anyway which companies win or lose because of a safety rule.

Sally Greenberg the executive director of the National Consumers League agrees, "That isn't their job, their job is to get safer products to the marketplace."

Meanwhile, Congress has thrown up a roadblock against safer saws.

The House Committee on Appropriations approved a bill for the 2018 fiscal year which includes a clause prohibiting CPSC from acting on table saw safety.

"None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to finalize any rule by the Consumer Product Safety Commission relating to blade-contact injuries on table saws," the rider on the budget bill reads.

Republican Rep. Tom Graves of Georgia, who chairs the Financial Services and General Government subcommittee where the rider originated, was unavailable for an interview.

The Power Tool Institute has already invested tens of thousands of dollars this year to lobby Congress against the CPSC rule.

But, the rider has not yet passed in the Senate, where Greenberg, of the National Consumers League, says it may be easier to remove.

But with uncertainty about how to move forward, CPSC Commissioner Elliot Kaye had a message for Joshua Ward who was injured in a woodshop class.

"Mr. Ward. I want to apologize to you personally that we failed you, and that we continue to fail the 10 victims a day that you mentioned earlier," Kaye said. "We should do better. We can do better."

For his part, CPSC Commissioner Robert Adler hopes his agency will push ahead with a final rule requiring safer standards for table saws. "Oh absolutely I do," Adler said. "These injuries are many, they are ghastly and I believe the technology will eliminate almost all of them."

For now, the Consumer Product Safety Commission will be analyzing public comments. It might revise its proposed rule after that. Then the commission could vote on whether to make table saws a whole lot safer.

Read this article:

Despite Proven Technology, Attempts To Make Table Saws Safer Drag On - NPR

The technology industry is a great place to find innovative stocks with the potential for huge gains, and many investors like to use index-tracking investments like exchange-traded funds to take advantage of opportunities in particular niches of the market. The most popular ETFs in the technology space are heavily weighted toward the behemoths of the industry, but for top returns, you have to drill down a bit deeper and find the most promising corners of technology. The funds below are among the top-performing index ETFs in technology in 2017, and they've all attracted at least $100 million in assets because of their success.

Technology Fund

Assets Under Management

Expense Ratio

Year-to-Date Return

Guggenheim China Technology (NYSEMKT:CQQQ)

$155 million

0.70%

49%

Global X Social Media Index (NASDAQ:SOCL)

$155 million

0.65%

39%

PowerShares Nasdaq Internet (NASDAQ:PNQI)

$467 million

0.60%

32%

iShares North American Tech-Software (NYSEMKT:IGV)

$1.07 billion

0.48%

29%

iShares Global Tech (NYSEMKT:IXN)

$1.26 billion

0.48%

27%

Robo Global Robotics and Automation Index (NASDAQ:ROBO)

$1.01 billion

26%

Data source: Fund providers.

Each of the funds above focuses on a different area of the technology sector, but they've all found ways to profit. The Guggenheim China fund concentrates its portfolio on Chinese stocks, with all of the nation's top e-commerce and internet companies represented among the portfolio's top holdings. The idea of the fund is to benefit from China's goal to become a digital nation both for enterprises and for ordinary citizens, and that theme has worked extremely well so far this year as investors rediscover the growth potential of the Chinese economy.

The Global X Social Media ETF has also benefited from the rise of Chinese tech companies, with about a third of its assets in emerging markets in the Asia-Pacific region. Yet this fund isn't afraid to tread in busier areas, with the two top social media plays in the U.S. also among its top holdings. You'll find a variety of approaches to social media, including microblogging and video-gaming companies, as well as more traditional social networking tools. Strong performance globally in this niche has sent shares of the ETF sharply higher in 2017.

The PowerShares Internet fund offers a more domestically focused equivalent of what the Guggenheim China fund does internationally, with broad-based exposure to companies that benefit from the internet. From social networks and video-streaming services to online travel and e-commerce websites, the PowerShares fund tracks Nasdaq-listed internet stocks, so about three-quarters of its holdings are U.S. companies, with most of the remainder giving it exposure to China.

Image source: Getty Images.

Internet stocks have been hot, but they aren't the only investment vehicles to make money in technology. The iShares North American Tech-Software ETF focuses on software development companies, and among its top holdings, you'll find some of the colossuses of the tech world. The top producers of database, publishing, office, customer relationship management, and video game software are all among the fund's top holdings, and solid performance from these stocks in general has helped lift the fund higher.

The iShares Global Tech fund goes even further, giving investors the who's who of technology companies around the world. U.S. companies dominate the list, making up all of the top five holdings and representing more than 75% of the fund's assets. Stocks from Japan, Korea, China, and various parts of Europe round out the portfolio, offering a well-diversified but megacap-heavy set of holdings to its investors.

Finally, the Robo Global ETF focuses on companies in the robotics and automation fields from various corners of the world. The fund has a decidedly smaller-company focus, with a third of its assets invested in small-cap stocks and another 42% in mid caps. You'll find producers of unmanned aerial vehicles, robotic surgical equipment, and autonomous vacuum cleaners among its holdings, along with makers of enabling technology to help further robotics and automation enterprises.

The technology sector is a fertile ground for high-growth companies, and there are many ways to position yourself to produce long-term gains. The six funds above have been among the most successful this year, but dozens of other tech ETFs have the potential to become the winners of tomorrow as well.

Dan Caplinger has no position in any stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Read this article:

These Technology Index Funds Are Crushing It in 2017 - Motley Fool

The technology sector continues to grow at a rapid pace even with all of the major markets at or near record levels. But the question arises, is there still room for growth for the remainder of 2017 and beyond? The answer is YES. Technology companies have posted solid earnings for the second quarter with the S&P 500 technology sector posting +16.5% year-over-year earnings growth. These positive earnings numbers combined with solid valuations give the sector strong upside growth opportunities. Moreover, low unemployment, an improving jobs picture, and international expansion act as further tailwinds for the sector.

This positive sentiment will help mutual funds that are overweighed in the technology sector produce outsized gains over the next several quarters. We have identified four such funds that are well-positioned to take advantage of the tech surge.

When looking for the best mutual funds, we need a method for narrowing down the universe of potential mutual fund options. This is easily accomplished by utilizing the Zacks Mutual Fund Screener; this tool enables the investor to filter out 60 different categories, and narrow down the scope of mutual fund options. For this writing we utilized 4 of the larger filters, Mutual Fund Rank = 1, Expense Ratio <= 1.1, % Stocks > 65%, and % Technology > 65%. These filters produced 7 funds, and from that list we chose the top 4. We wanted to find the top ranked funds with low expense ratios that are heavily weighted in technology stocks.

Please note, that there will be references to load fees, and expense ratios; if you click on the hyperlinks you will be directed to a brief article explaining in detail what those fees and expenses are, and how they impact your mutual fund returns.

Fidelity Select Computers Portfolio (MUTF:FDCPX) was incepted in July 1985 and is managed by the Fidelity Group. The objective of this technology fund is to seek capital appreciation. The fund normally invests at least 80% of assets in common stocks of companies principally engaged in research, design, development, manufacture, or distribution of products, processes, or services that relate to currently available or experimental hardware technology within the computer industry. The fund offers dividends and capital gains in April and December.

Cost specifics: The minimum initial investment is $2,500, it has no load fees, but does have a 0.55% management fee, a 0.75% redemption fee, and a total expense ratio of 0.81.

Performance and Management: YTD +16.49%, 1 year 37.72%, 5 year +12.04%, and 10 year +9.42%. FDCPX is managed by Christopher Lin who earned his economics degree from Harvard with honors. He has managed this portfolio since 2013.

Top Holdings: As of the most recent filing the portfolio held positions in Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL), Samsung (OTC:SSNLF), HP Inc. (NYSE:HPQ), Western Digital (NYSE:WDC), and Facebook (NASDAQ:FB).

Columbia Global Technology Growth (MUTF:CMTFX) was incepted in November 2002 and is managed by Columbia Management Advisors, Inc. The fund seeks capital appreciation. Under normal market conditions, the manager invests at least 80% of the fund's total assets in stocks of technology companies that may benefit from technological improvements, advancements or developments. The fund invests in companies of all sizes, and expects to invest a significant percentage of its assets in small and mid-cap companies. The fund may also invest, to a limited extent, in foreign securities, including American Depositary Receipts. Dividends and capital gains, if any, are distributed annually.

Cost specifics: There is a minimum $2,500 initial investment, with a 0.87% management fee, and a total expense ratio of 1.08. This fund does not have any load fees.

Performance and Management: YTD +20.95%, 1 year +37.03%, 5 year +22.10%, and 10 year +10.35%. CMTFX is managed by Rahul Narang who has won the Lipper Fund Award for the Best in three-year performance Science Technology fund category. He has managed this fund since 2012.

Top Holdings: As of the most recent filing the portfolio held some of the big tech names including Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOG) (NASDAQ:GOOGL), Apple, Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN), Facebook, Nvidia (NASDAQ:NVDA), and Applied Materials (NASDAQ:AMAT).

Fidelity Select Semiconductors Portfolio (MUTF:FSELX) was incepted in July 1985 and is managed by Fidelity Group. The objective of the fund is to seek capital appreciation. The fund normally invests at least 80% of assets in common stocks of companies principally engaged in the design, manufacture, or sale of electronic components (semiconductors, connectors, printed circuit boards, and other components); equipment vendors to electronic component manufacturers; electronic component distributors; and electronic instruments and electronic systems vendors. The fund offers dividends and capital gains twice a year in April and December.

Cost specifics: The minimum initial investment is $2,500, it has no load fees, yet it does have a 0.55% management fee, a 0.75% redemption fee, and a total expense ratio of 0.75.

Performance and Management: YTD +10.5%, 1 year +41.15%, 5 year 23.15%, and 10 year +10.61%. FSELX is managed by Steve S Barwikowski who has managed the portfolio since 2009.

Top Holdings: As of the most recent filing, the portfolio held Intel Corporation (NASDAQ:INTC), Qualcomm Inc. (NASDAQ:QCOM), Broadcom Limited (NASDAQ:AVGO), Analog Devices (NASDAQ:ADI), and Micron Technology (NASDAQ:MU).

Fidelity Select Technology (MUTF:FSPTX) was incepted on July 14, 1981, and is managed by the Fidelity Group. The objective of the fund is to seek capital appreciation. Normally the fund invests at least 80% of assets in common stocks of companies principally engaged in offering, using, or developing products, processes, or services that will provide or will benefit significantly from technological advances and improvements. The fund offers dividends and capital gains twice a year in the month of April and December.

Cost specifics: The minimum initial investment is $2,500, there are no load fees associated with the fund, but it does have a 0.55% management fee, and a total expense ratio of 0.76.

Performance and Management: YTD +27.83%, 1 year +44.45%, 5 year 18.42%, 10 year +11.42%. FSPTX is managed by Charlie Chai who is a CFA, with a BS degree in math and economics from Dartmouth College. Mr. Chai has been managing this fund since 2007.

Top Holdings: As of the most recent filing the portfolio consisted of companies like Apple, Facebook, Alphabet, Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA), Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT), and Autodesk (NASDAQ:ADSK).

Read the original:

4 Best Technology Mutual Funds With Low Expense Ratios - Seeking Alpha