I agree with #2 and #3. But, you could actually clean up the theaters in between showings, and that would take care of #1. #4 is silly; why wouldn't children be expected to be as quiet in a theater as the adults? Unless you're going to G-rated movies, but in that case, you get what you get.
Anything that "creates jobs" makes no sense to get rid of, no matter how pointless or financially bloated.
However, government never seems to get smaller nor can it realize a mistake. It only perpetuates (in this case) an unnecessary bureaucracy.
I hate it when facts get in the way of a "Gub'ment is bad!" rant, but at least since 2008:
"Private payrolls have added 7 million jobs over Obama’s presidency, while government payrolls (federal, state and local) have contracted by a combined 634,000 jobs."
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
So you're betting that he's one of those people that's more informed than you?
Seems like a good bet, even if you're just strictly playing the odds of a random person being more informed than yourself, given your post history of highly right-leaning rhetoric. I don't trust the opinions of anyone that believes so fervently in any single ideology, be it conservative or liberal. You've lost all perspective.
Also from Project Fi. Yes, they use the networks of three other carriers, but they charge for data in a completely different way. You pay exactly 1 cent per MB, plus the $20/month for the service and unlimited talk/text. As you said, plenty of competition.
Yeah from the dealership - of course, then you're paying full price. But if you pay cash, or bring the money from your own bank (where you're paying interest) you can get a huge discount off the sticker price. If you finance at 0% from the dealer, you're not going to get as good a price. What do you think, they're in the habit of giving money away?
It amazes me how many so-called "nerds" have only the most basic understanding of how car pricing and financing works.
I do run my own business. The day I need to drive a new BMW or Mercedes in order to get clients is the day I know I suck at my job.
As for your faulty math - $60/month over 6 years is $4320 - but that's if you got a loan for ZERO PERCENT. Even with excellent credit you're looking at 4.5%.
For my finale, here's my numbers - the car I bought in 2012 retailed for about $21K in 2010. I got it for $14,500 - when it had 18K miles on it. There's no way you're going to convince me I would've been better off buying the new version. It's a ridiculous concept.
That's ridiculous. If you do your research, you can get a used car that's much more reliable than many new cars. Consumer Reports puts out tons of information to help used car buyers, and I've been extremely satisfied with the track record of my last three cars. I put over 100k miles on each of them, except for my current one which is still at 84k miles and going strong.
And while I know how to, I don't even change my own oil. You're just looking at the wrong cars.
Do you? Where are they? Because saying "used piece of shit FWD Dodge" doesn't qualify as intelligent or informed to me. Maybe you have a different definition of that phrase.
Yes, his broad generalizations about those pesky millenials are all absolutely true and backed up by evidence, as is his contention that only the 50+ age group is buying new cars.
Sounds like you need to look up the definition of "independent evidence".
Why does everyone have to find a new car? I could easily afford a new car, but my last 3 purchases have all been for cars that are 2-4 years old. You save thousands of dollars that way, and you still have a very good car that will last you for years (provided you've done your research).
As soon as I saw the headline I thought "since when does the typical family buy a new car?" Upper middle class families can do that, but smarter upper middle class people aren't obsessed with being the first owner of a car, since you have to pay a huge premium for that privilege.
Human nature is one thing. Politics, which is what we're talking about here, differs wildly from country to country. And yes, the political mindset, as a whole, is very different in Norway (and all over Europe) than in the US. We've been trained here to think that money is the most important thing there is, and more importantly, that SHORT-TERM monetary gain is even more important than the long view. After all, why worry about the long-term costs of burning fossil fuels? We'll be dead, and we won't have to care, because people being born now will have to pay for it, and fuck 'em, right?
You assume that the people, and politicians, in Norway are of exactly the same mindset as the ones in the USA. I can assure you that is a faulty assumption.
You appear to referencing a study with the small sample size of 50 self-driving cars that were involved in 11 accidents. You should also say that all 11 accidents were the fault of the other party involved (the human-driven car), and the damage was very minor in each case.
I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say they "ignore the rules of the road", but apparently you don't like self-driving cars very much, despite evidence that the roads would probably be safer if all cars were self-driving.
Oh look, a fourth Slashdot foreign policy expert rears his head and knows all about the motivations behind the Saudis' current policy of keeping oil prices low. Pity that you're typing on a web forum rather than working in the State Dept.
The "they" in my post referred to the Slashdot users, not the Saudis, but thanks for cramming in the off-topic religious opinion of a random Muslim cleric. As if we don't have Christians in the good ol' USA claiming pretty much the exact same thing?
They're trying to squeeze small US and Canadian producers out of business as well as hit Russia.
They are actually trying to squeeze Daesh,
They're mostly trying to squeeze their mortal enemy Iran
Interesting that these three Slashdot foreign policy experts all disagree on the Saudis' motives. It's almost as if they have no fucking idea what they're talking about.
Right, I think the idiots in this thread misunderstood you and thought you meant "win money" when what you meant was "pick the winners" more than someone who bet the bottom 3. It amazes me that there's this many people reading and posting on Slashdot that don't understand basic math when it comes to odds and gambling. But then again, I guess that's why Vegas exists in the first place.
Everyone is missing the fact that the top four horses to finish were 2-1, 5-1, 10-1, and 12-1, respectively, before the race. They were the four lowest-payout (or likeliest to win, however you want to look at it) horses in the field. Yes, you could pick the top four favorites in every race to finish 1, 2, 3, 4 in that order every time (and I suspect this fake AI would do exactly that, a lot). The crazy thing is that in this Kentucky Derby, that's exactly how the top four came in. That's extremely rare.
Also, 540-1 for a superfecta payout is really low - again, due to the fact that the four favorites came in, in order. Make this same bet on every race and over time, you would lose money just like everybody else.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with #2 and #3. But, you could actually clean up the theaters in between showings, and that would take care of #1. #4 is silly; why wouldn't children be expected to be as quiet in a theater as the adults? Unless you're going to G-rated movies, but in that case, you get what you get.
Anything that "creates jobs" makes no sense to get rid of, no matter how pointless or financially bloated.
However, government never seems to get smaller nor can it realize a mistake. It only perpetuates (in this case) an unnecessary bureaucracy.
I hate it when facts get in the way of a "Gub'ment is bad!" rant, but at least since 2008: "Private payrolls have added 7 million jobs over Obama’s presidency, while government payrolls (federal, state and local) have contracted by a combined 634,000 jobs." http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
Anyone who would eat a burger that costs $1 deserves the diarrhea that comes with the bargain price.
So you're betting that he's one of those people that's more informed than you?
Seems like a good bet, even if you're just strictly playing the odds of a random person being more informed than yourself, given your post history of highly right-leaning rhetoric. I don't trust the opinions of anyone that believes so fervently in any single ideology, be it conservative or liberal. You've lost all perspective.
What's with your "..." ? Is that some kind of hint that you have more to say, but you aren't willing to say it yet?
Also from Project Fi. Yes, they use the networks of three other carriers, but they charge for data in a completely different way. You pay exactly 1 cent per MB, plus the $20/month for the service and unlimited talk/text. As you said, plenty of competition.
Yeah from the dealership - of course, then you're paying full price. But if you pay cash, or bring the money from your own bank (where you're paying interest) you can get a huge discount off the sticker price. If you finance at 0% from the dealer, you're not going to get as good a price. What do you think, they're in the habit of giving money away?
It amazes me how many so-called "nerds" have only the most basic understanding of how car pricing and financing works.
I do run my own business. The day I need to drive a new BMW or Mercedes in order to get clients is the day I know I suck at my job.
As for your faulty math - $60/month over 6 years is $4320 - but that's if you got a loan for ZERO PERCENT. Even with excellent credit you're looking at 4.5%.
For my finale, here's my numbers - the car I bought in 2012 retailed for about $21K in 2010. I got it for $14,500 - when it had 18K miles on it. There's no way you're going to convince me I would've been better off buying the new version. It's a ridiculous concept.
Yeah but then you have to be seen driving a Miata.
That's ridiculous. If you do your research, you can get a used car that's much more reliable than many new cars. Consumer Reports puts out tons of information to help used car buyers, and I've been extremely satisfied with the track record of my last three cars. I put over 100k miles on each of them, except for my current one which is still at 84k miles and going strong.
And while I know how to, I don't even change my own oil. You're just looking at the wrong cars.
Do you? Where are they? Because saying "used piece of shit FWD Dodge" doesn't qualify as intelligent or informed to me. Maybe you have a different definition of that phrase.
Yes, his broad generalizations about those pesky millenials are all absolutely true and backed up by evidence, as is his contention that only the 50+ age group is buying new cars.
Sounds like you need to look up the definition of "independent evidence".
A new car could break any moment. Got any other stupid arguments against buying a used car? Because that one was terrible.
I work for a local car dealership.
Yes, let's take the word of a car salesman on all this.
Why does everyone have to find a new car? I could easily afford a new car, but my last 3 purchases have all been for cars that are 2-4 years old. You save thousands of dollars that way, and you still have a very good car that will last you for years (provided you've done your research).
As soon as I saw the headline I thought "since when does the typical family buy a new car?" Upper middle class families can do that, but smarter upper middle class people aren't obsessed with being the first owner of a car, since you have to pay a huge premium for that privilege.
Human nature is one thing. Politics, which is what we're talking about here, differs wildly from country to country. And yes, the political mindset, as a whole, is very different in Norway (and all over Europe) than in the US. We've been trained here to think that money is the most important thing there is, and more importantly, that SHORT-TERM monetary gain is even more important than the long view. After all, why worry about the long-term costs of burning fossil fuels? We'll be dead, and we won't have to care, because people being born now will have to pay for it, and fuck 'em, right?
You may feel that way, but not everyone does.
You assume that the people, and politicians, in Norway are of exactly the same mindset as the ones in the USA. I can assure you that is a faulty assumption.
Hopefully manufacturers will eventually get the range to a reasonable "all day driving" distance
You mean, like, by 2025?
This entire discussion may be moot, as it appears there won't be a 5K monitor coming from Apple at all; at least, not in the near future.
Way to be up-to-date on the Mac rumors, Slashdot.
You appear to referencing a study with the small sample size of 50 self-driving cars that were involved in 11 accidents. You should also say that all 11 accidents were the fault of the other party involved (the human-driven car), and the damage was very minor in each case.
I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say they "ignore the rules of the road", but apparently you don't like self-driving cars very much, despite evidence that the roads would probably be safer if all cars were self-driving.
Oh look, a fourth Slashdot foreign policy expert rears his head and knows all about the motivations behind the Saudis' current policy of keeping oil prices low. Pity that you're typing on a web forum rather than working in the State Dept.
The "they" in my post referred to the Slashdot users, not the Saudis, but thanks for cramming in the off-topic religious opinion of a random Muslim cleric. As if we don't have Christians in the good ol' USA claiming pretty much the exact same thing?
They're trying to squeeze small US and Canadian producers out of business as well as hit Russia.
They are actually trying to squeeze Daesh,
They're mostly trying to squeeze their mortal enemy Iran
Interesting that these three Slashdot foreign policy experts all disagree on the Saudis' motives. It's almost as if they have no fucking idea what they're talking about.
Right, I think the idiots in this thread misunderstood you and thought you meant "win money" when what you meant was "pick the winners" more than someone who bet the bottom 3. It amazes me that there's this many people reading and posting on Slashdot that don't understand basic math when it comes to odds and gambling. But then again, I guess that's why Vegas exists in the first place.
Everyone is missing the fact that the top four horses to finish were 2-1, 5-1, 10-1, and 12-1, respectively, before the race. They were the four lowest-payout (or likeliest to win, however you want to look at it) horses in the field. Yes, you could pick the top four favorites in every race to finish 1, 2, 3, 4 in that order every time (and I suspect this fake AI would do exactly that, a lot). The crazy thing is that in this Kentucky Derby, that's exactly how the top four came in. That's extremely rare.
Also, 540-1 for a superfecta payout is really low - again, due to the fact that the four favorites came in, in order. Make this same bet on every race and over time, you would lose money just like everybody else.