Is not an overloaded server (or router, or any other stop along the way) a "clog"?
I still don't see how he was ever that far off.
Young people just made fun of him because he was old, basically, and he didn't have a technical understanding of the internet (then again, most who think they do are wrong on most of what they think they know).
For what they were paying the guy, and what he was bringing in for the company, $20,000 was a drop in the bucket. Hurd was making millions every year, and he was earning every penny of it.
It's about the same as firing your best programmer because he took a notebook home with him and didn't use it for work. Yeah, it was stealing, but it was gray area stealing (it would have been fine if he were using it for work) and it was a $20 item. His skills bring in a million dollars a year for your company, yet you only pay him $100,000.
Are you really sure it's a good idea to give up $899,995 profit every year because he took a notebook home?
It's the same thing. $20,000 is, by itself, a lot of money, but in the scheme of things it really isn't. Hurd has saved HP hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, and took it from falling fast to rising again in in just a few years.
Are you really dumb enough to get rid of him for a piddly $20,000 "error in judgement"?
And to be honest, pretty much all hard-line lefties and righties vote their principals also, it's just those principals are scary as shit.
It's the flip-floppers who disgust me, and I'm not talking about those who hold a position and then realize they've been wrong. I'm talking about those who vote in the direction of the political wind, or who seem to only stand up for their principals when it gets their name in the cable news spotlight for a few days.
Still, I'm so fed up with the government in general that I would vote for a "remove all" option if it were on the bill.
It's common practice for Congress to ask major industry players to basically write the laws for them, since the industry players know a hell of a lot more about the situation than the Congressmen do.
They generally look it over for bullshit, and if nobody screams bloody murder they enact the law.
The problem is this leaves out a huge portion of the population that may be affected by the law - the people the congress critters are supposed to be looking out for - and the industry players don't always have the general population's best interest at heart (though I wouldn't say they are generally trying to screw the people over either, they simply have a natural bias that is hard to get past).
How the hell do you think copyright got all screwed up? The music and movie industries have been writing the copyright law for the last hundred years.
I'd say this arrangement is generally necessary, simply because for a lot of issues Congress simply doesn't know what needs to be done. They know something needs to be done, just not what. The relevant industry leaders are the best competent source for information about what needs to be done. On the other hand, Congress seems to abdicate all responsibility for the laws to these people, and simply sign on the dotted line. That's just plain wrong.
I don't play Eve, so pardon my ignorance, but did he not just say you could auction/contract these from anywhere and activate them from anywhere? In that case, I don't see how location is a barrier to the trade (but then, at the same time the price shouldn't vary much either, so I'm obviously missing something).
Someone paid for the PLEXes the hardcore players are getting for free. The PLEXes keep players with lots of in game cash happy (generally the hardcore players who get bored and pissed that they have all this money and nothing to spend it on), and players who suck get to have lots of in game cash legally, without having to be hard core.
It's a win win, because CCP still gets cash money for each player who plays. In fact, they probably get more, since the PLEXes are $20 each, and a subscription is what, $12?
It would be an interesting lawsuit if the player tried to claim they were equivalent and that by allowing them to be permanently "destroyed" the company was cancelling/expiring the certificates
That's a huge stretch.
For one, it's not a gift card. Arguing that it is convincingly will be one hell of a challenge. Chances are it will be treated like exactly what it is: an in-game item that allows you to continue playing the game. Furthermore, the company didn't destroy it, a third party did, and that third party and the guy who lost his PLEXes were both operating withing the rules of the game.
It would be easier to argue that the third party vandalized the player's property than to argue that CCP canceled his subscriptions, but that seems like a harder argument than arguing that these PLEXes are gift cards.
You figured wrong, at 100,000 miles you only saved about $1500 ([100,000/40]*$3 - [100,000/50]*$3). You need about 150,000 more miles to break even on $4,000. By then you'll have had an out of warranty replacement for your battery, which is roughly $4,000.
In other words, unless you're driving 30,000+ miles a year, you'll never break even. Ever.
That $4,000 is going to take you another 20 years to make up in gas savings, too.
Hybrids are a waste of money. The only good thing about them in my mind is they've managed to spur new research into battery technologies (though that was moving anyway, it's just moving faster now, which is good).
When I get a 100% EV car that can take me 300 miles, I might make the switch. I'm not going to muck about with hybrids unless something magical happens with them and they start getting 100+mpg.
There is still a price gap of a couple thousand dollars, which will still take about a decade to make up. Buying a used civic hybrid instead of a used civic will only take you 10 years to make up the difference, instead of a new civic hybrid vs a new civic, which takes 30+ years, but it's still a long time, and the car already has wear now.
Did you buy new or used? Because I'm calling you a liar right now if you say new. You say you don't have to pay excise tax, but nobody pays excise on used cars, so that's moot. Even buying used, I doubt you save anything at 27,000 miles, that's only $400 difference. Edmunds puts the difference between a used 2005 EX and a Hybrid at about $1,500-$2,000, or a break even point of 135,000 miles.
The $1500 tax rebate is negligible, because it's a deduction, not an outright check. It will save you about $150 in the 20% tax bracket (less the higher your bracket).
Honestly, I think you are fooling yourself. I doubt you'll ever actually save any money on that thing.
I don't see why it's misleading, the summary talks about cost to own and operate, not just cost to own.
If you want to work out for yourself whether or not a hybrid is worth it for you to buy, it's pretty simple. Look for what you want in a car within your budget, pick both a gas and a hybrid that meet your criteria. Take the difference in price between them - the hybrid will almost certainly be more expensive, but if not, stop there and take the hybrid (it's a magical case that will save you a crapton of money). Divide the price difference by the cost of gas per gallon in your area. What you're left with is the amount of gas you need to save in the life of the car to make it worth buying the hybrid over straight gas.
So, if the hybrid costs $5,000 more, and gas costs $2.77, you need to save about 1800 gallons over the life of the car to make it worth it. Divide 1800 (or whatever number you came up with) by the number of years you intend to use the car, and that's the number of gallons you need to save per year to make the hybrid a practical choice. Divide your average yearly mileage by the mpg of the hybrid, then divide your mileage by the mpg of the gas. Take the difference between the two to get your yearly gas savings on the hybrid. Compare that to the number you came up with for the needed yearly gas savings - chances are it's a lot lower than it needs to be.
If the non-hybrid gets 35mpg (which is common for gas cars the size of hybrids), and the hybrid gets 50mpg (there are only two that are higher than that), and you average 12,000 miles a year, it will take 18 years to make up the $5,000 difference in price at 12,000 miles a year. To get that down to a reasonable 9 years, the hybrid needs to get a whopping 84mpg.
There is no car on the market that will do that, period.
Now if your option is a 25mpg gas car and a 45mpg hybrid, you're in luck. In nine years that will save you 1900 gallons of gas, which is $277 more than the $5,000 price tag difference.
Unfortunately, I gave pretty rosy conditions for the price and gas differences for the hybrid. For example, the Honda Civic Sedan gets 40mpg, while the Honda Civic Hybrid gets 51mpg. These cars are virtually identical in every other way - the hybrid costs $7500 more. It will take about 35 years to recoup that money in gas savings. That's a long ass time.
He doesn't need direct, written permission. Implied permission is more than good enough.
Giving someone copyrighted material with the expectation that they will share it (which the Discovery Channel certainly did), then attempting to sue for sharing that same material is entrapment, and it's illegal.
Honestly, if the guy had the money to fight this the Discovery Channel could lose their shirts on this one. As it is, he needs some help, or he's toast.
If I were him I'd make a new site, called "TheDiscoveryChannelSucksMonkeyDick.com" and redirect DeadliestCatchTV.com to it.
Slashdot Mirror
His part in the destruction of American politics
I'm sorry, I missed that part in his career, could you clarify?
Last I heard five others (or maybe it was 5 total) died as well, though who specifically the others were I don't know.
Is not an overloaded server (or router, or any other stop along the way) a "clog"?
I still don't see how he was ever that far off.
Young people just made fun of him because he was old, basically, and he didn't have a technical understanding of the internet (then again, most who think they do are wrong on most of what they think they know).
b) may not have actively revelled in his own evil.
I hope you don't mean the "evil" that he was completely exonerated of.
He was railroaded for political gain, and that's it.
I don't understand, how is being really, really good at your job, and being well known for being really, really good at your job, a bad thing?
You must live in backwards-land.
You should quit looking to Dilbert for your career advice.
They managed to overlook the data center for his kids school, for chrissake. He just had more juice at that time.
They overlooked it because the guy railroading him helped him put that data center in place.
For what they were paying the guy, and what he was bringing in for the company, $20,000 was a drop in the bucket. Hurd was making millions every year, and he was earning every penny of it.
It's about the same as firing your best programmer because he took a notebook home with him and didn't use it for work. Yeah, it was stealing, but it was gray area stealing (it would have been fine if he were using it for work) and it was a $20 item. His skills bring in a million dollars a year for your company, yet you only pay him $100,000.
Are you really sure it's a good idea to give up $899,995 profit every year because he took a notebook home?
It's the same thing. $20,000 is, by itself, a lot of money, but in the scheme of things it really isn't. Hurd has saved HP hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, and took it from falling fast to rising again in in just a few years.
Are you really dumb enough to get rid of him for a piddly $20,000 "error in judgement"?
Joe Leiberman votes his conscience as well.
And to be honest, pretty much all hard-line lefties and righties vote their principals also, it's just those principals are scary as shit.
It's the flip-floppers who disgust me, and I'm not talking about those who hold a position and then realize they've been wrong. I'm talking about those who vote in the direction of the political wind, or who seem to only stand up for their principals when it gets their name in the cable news spotlight for a few days.
Still, I'm so fed up with the government in general that I would vote for a "remove all" option if it were on the bill.
Are not corporations made up of "citizens", "people", and "persons"?
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. A corporation is a group of people. They have the same rights as any other group of people.
It's common practice for Congress to ask major industry players to basically write the laws for them, since the industry players know a hell of a lot more about the situation than the Congressmen do.
They generally look it over for bullshit, and if nobody screams bloody murder they enact the law.
The problem is this leaves out a huge portion of the population that may be affected by the law - the people the congress critters are supposed to be looking out for - and the industry players don't always have the general population's best interest at heart (though I wouldn't say they are generally trying to screw the people over either, they simply have a natural bias that is hard to get past).
How the hell do you think copyright got all screwed up? The music and movie industries have been writing the copyright law for the last hundred years.
I'd say this arrangement is generally necessary, simply because for a lot of issues Congress simply doesn't know what needs to be done. They know something needs to be done, just not what. The relevant industry leaders are the best competent source for information about what needs to be done. On the other hand, Congress seems to abdicate all responsibility for the laws to these people, and simply sign on the dotted line. That's just plain wrong.
... and didn't commit suicide.
That's true, if they did that it would be a total wash.
I don't play Eve, so pardon my ignorance, but did he not just say you could auction/contract these from anywhere and activate them from anywhere? In that case, I don't see how location is a barrier to the trade (but then, at the same time the price shouldn't vary much either, so I'm obviously missing something).
Someone paid for the PLEXes the hardcore players are getting for free. The PLEXes keep players with lots of in game cash happy (generally the hardcore players who get bored and pissed that they have all this money and nothing to spend it on), and players who suck get to have lots of in game cash legally, without having to be hard core.
It's a win win, because CCP still gets cash money for each player who plays. In fact, they probably get more, since the PLEXes are $20 each, and a subscription is what, $12?
Nah, it's more like you put 4 quarters in to continue on Tekken, then get your ass kicked and lose in two rounds.
This guy sucks at Eve, there's not much else you can say.
It would be an interesting lawsuit if the player tried to claim they were equivalent and that by allowing them to be permanently "destroyed" the company was cancelling/expiring the certificates
That's a huge stretch.
For one, it's not a gift card. Arguing that it is convincingly will be one hell of a challenge. Chances are it will be treated like exactly what it is: an in-game item that allows you to continue playing the game. Furthermore, the company didn't destroy it, a third party did, and that third party and the guy who lost his PLEXes were both operating withing the rules of the game.
It would be easier to argue that the third party vandalized the player's property than to argue that CCP canceled his subscriptions, but that seems like a harder argument than arguing that these PLEXes are gift cards.
They stuck to cars you can buy. Scooters aren't cars, and you can beat them with a bicycle - mine gets about a billion miles to the gallon!
Seriously man, wake up. The Aptera would hardly count as a car anyway, it's an enclosed, two-seater trike with no cargo space.
You figured wrong, at 100,000 miles you only saved about $1500 ([100,000/40]*$3 - [100,000/50]*$3). You need about 150,000 more miles to break even on $4,000. By then you'll have had an out of warranty replacement for your battery, which is roughly $4,000.
In other words, unless you're driving 30,000+ miles a year, you'll never break even. Ever.
Most people don't keep their car for 3 years, let alone 5. 5 is a perfect number for the study.
Look here: http://personalfinanceresources.com/44/does-it-pay-to-buy-a-hybrid-car/
5 years or 30 years, it doesn't matter. Hybrids suck.
That $4,000 is going to take you another 20 years to make up in gas savings, too.
Hybrids are a waste of money. The only good thing about them in my mind is they've managed to spur new research into battery technologies (though that was moving anyway, it's just moving faster now, which is good).
When I get a 100% EV car that can take me 300 miles, I might make the switch. I'm not going to muck about with hybrids unless something magical happens with them and they start getting 100+mpg.
No, they still resell higher, but the gap is smaller.
It only takes a decade to make up the price difference, instead of a third of a century when buying new. ;)
Seriously, not kidding about the third-century business. Check it: http://personalfinanceresources.com/44/does-it-pay-to-buy-a-hybrid-car/
There is still a price gap of a couple thousand dollars, which will still take about a decade to make up. Buying a used civic hybrid instead of a used civic will only take you 10 years to make up the difference, instead of a new civic hybrid vs a new civic, which takes 30+ years, but it's still a long time, and the car already has wear now.
Did you buy new or used? Because I'm calling you a liar right now if you say new. You say you don't have to pay excise tax, but nobody pays excise on used cars, so that's moot. Even buying used, I doubt you save anything at 27,000 miles, that's only $400 difference. Edmunds puts the difference between a used 2005 EX and a Hybrid at about $1,500-$2,000, or a break even point of 135,000 miles.
The $1500 tax rebate is negligible, because it's a deduction, not an outright check. It will save you about $150 in the 20% tax bracket (less the higher your bracket).
Honestly, I think you are fooling yourself. I doubt you'll ever actually save any money on that thing.
I don't see why it's misleading, the summary talks about cost to own and operate, not just cost to own.
If you want to work out for yourself whether or not a hybrid is worth it for you to buy, it's pretty simple. Look for what you want in a car within your budget, pick both a gas and a hybrid that meet your criteria. Take the difference in price between them - the hybrid will almost certainly be more expensive, but if not, stop there and take the hybrid (it's a magical case that will save you a crapton of money). Divide the price difference by the cost of gas per gallon in your area. What you're left with is the amount of gas you need to save in the life of the car to make it worth buying the hybrid over straight gas.
So, if the hybrid costs $5,000 more, and gas costs $2.77, you need to save about 1800 gallons over the life of the car to make it worth it. Divide 1800 (or whatever number you came up with) by the number of years you intend to use the car, and that's the number of gallons you need to save per year to make the hybrid a practical choice. Divide your average yearly mileage by the mpg of the hybrid, then divide your mileage by the mpg of the gas. Take the difference between the two to get your yearly gas savings on the hybrid. Compare that to the number you came up with for the needed yearly gas savings - chances are it's a lot lower than it needs to be.
If the non-hybrid gets 35mpg (which is common for gas cars the size of hybrids), and the hybrid gets 50mpg (there are only two that are higher than that), and you average 12,000 miles a year, it will take 18 years to make up the $5,000 difference in price at 12,000 miles a year. To get that down to a reasonable 9 years, the hybrid needs to get a whopping 84mpg.
There is no car on the market that will do that, period.
Now if your option is a 25mpg gas car and a 45mpg hybrid, you're in luck. In nine years that will save you 1900 gallons of gas, which is $277 more than the $5,000 price tag difference.
Unfortunately, I gave pretty rosy conditions for the price and gas differences for the hybrid. For example, the Honda Civic Sedan gets 40mpg, while the Honda Civic Hybrid gets 51mpg. These cars are virtually identical in every other way - the hybrid costs $7500 more. It will take about 35 years to recoup that money in gas savings. That's a long ass time.
He doesn't need direct, written permission. Implied permission is more than good enough.
Giving someone copyrighted material with the expectation that they will share it (which the Discovery Channel certainly did), then attempting to sue for sharing that same material is entrapment, and it's illegal.
Honestly, if the guy had the money to fight this the Discovery Channel could lose their shirts on this one. As it is, he needs some help, or he's toast.
If I were him I'd make a new site, called "TheDiscoveryChannelSucksMonkeyDick.com" and redirect DeadliestCatchTV.com to it.
See? Not infringing copyright now, motherfuckers!