Once upon a time, companies actually produced single and double sided, and single and double density 5.25" disks. As time passed, all were double sided, and also DD that failed would be sold as SD, and so forth. Fairly quickly there weren't enough that failed, and passing disks were sold as a lower configuration.
When you punched an extra hole, you were betting that the back side of the disk was good enough (unless you had actually bought DS disks). When you drilled that 3.5", you were betting that the disk was good enough to handle the higher density.
Mine didn't have them, but I've seen older appliances that did.
In my case, my DirecTivo took damage after I repaired the power supply post-warranty. Or so I thought. It was 12 rather than 6 months (or some such). They replaced it outside of the *real* warranty due to my having the warranty period wrong.
(If memory serves, at first I had to solder something back in. After that, a loose hard drive slipped and hit a thermal fuse. Then the hard drive failed, but they replaced the unit in spite of the modified power supply. Or some sequence vaguely like that; it's been a couple of years, and what stands out is that they just took the thing back when I assumed that they wouldn't).
Yes, check you link, particularly the sections that say "Formerly cooperative institutions" and and "Under a ruling of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, which regulates federally chartered savings and loan associations, associations need not rely only on individual deposits for funds. They can borrow from other financial institutions and market mortgage-backed securities, money market certificates, and stock."
Nope. For a while there was the "too big to fail" doctrine, in which the economic effects (particularly secondary failures) were considered in bailing out past the limits (Bail out this one for an extra $10M instead of coughing up $50M as later ones failed).
Then the "racial" effects were noted--small black banks with excess deposits (Bank of Harlem?) for payroll weren't covered. And then there was the moral hazard and competitive problems with people realizing that big enough banks couldn't fail and that they didn't need to worry about the big bank's risky behavior . . . I believe the doctrine is entirely dead now.
All in all, I'd only provide 100% coverage for the first $5k or so, and only 90% after that--this would protect people from being wiped out, but leave an incentive to monitor the behavior of management.
S&L's had shareholders prior to regulation. It's credit unions that were and are depositor owned. (The *very* early S&L's were in fact owned by the depositors--they pooled money so that one at a time could buy a house).
The change in S&L's was that the mortgage-lending limitation was dropped. In fact, substantially all of their limits were dropped, and they were for all intents and purposes banks with a different regulator. They were utterly unprepared for this, and not adequately regulated.
There is another type of entity called "mutual savings bank", but they're a regional creature.
I've usually had a through-the-roof credit score--when we bought the van, it was the second highest that the internet sales manager had *ever* seen (and the other wasn't when involved in cars). Until we bought that van, I had zero debt other than student loans, and a credit score way past 800. As an assistant professor.
I don't quite make three times as much now, but I have a rather substantial amount of revolving credit and another car loan (the van paid off 2 years ago). That debt, though, is at rates ranging from 0% to 3.99%. I could write a check and pay it all off--but it's the reason that my credit score is almost 200 points lower today. When I'm getting better than 5% on my Vanguard money market account, that makes no sense, though. (And much more in my other funds).
I'm a much better risk now, but the score doesn't cover that. It is almost (entirely?)oblivious to income and assets, but does look at the absolute amount of debt.
I don't have cites handy, but those were some of the things I picked up over the years as an economist. I remembered them because I was teaching at a penn state campus in an area hit with constant trade disruptions (west-central).
I *want* to say that the 2:1 was covered in an Economist article 3-4 years ago. I think that you can get the "better job" data from Department of Labor sites. (Part of the reason for the "better job on average" is plethora of retraining programs from the government. My gut says that it would probably be the case without those, but that the portion that end up with worse jobs would be significantly higher--and for older workers, might reverse the effect entirely).
The best bet for research would be economic journals focusing on trade, Department of Labor websites & publications, and possibly publications of the regional Federal Reserve Banks (they produce economic research you wouldn't expect at times). Avoid political websites; they'll be spinning the data one way or another--but you might find links to real work in those.
I wish I could offer you the sites, but it's the kind of data that's in my field but not my subfield, so I absorb the data if the source appears credible.
As for how it works: trade comes from "comparative advantage"--even though the US has an absolute edge over nearly all other nations in nearly all fields, the relative tradeoffs are different. If one of our workers can make 200 shirts or 50 televisions, it costs us a quarter of a television to make a shirt. If another country has workers that can produce 5 shirts or one television, it only costs them a fifth a television to make a shirt. The result will be that we ship them shirts and they send us televisions.
Overall, we get our best advantages in higher-end fields, such as technological development. The result is that we trade this for "stuff" from other countries. As a technology gets more widespread throughout the world, we shift to something newer.
Our technology multiplies the output of each worker, but the workers do need training for this. The more advanced the training, the more value the worker adds, and his wage increases.
Translating these clearly the importanter than raw Japanese.
I was stunned to still find this stuff in the manual for the new Miata I bought last year; with the amount of Mazda owned by Ford, you'd at least think Ford could sent someone to read the manuals . . .
Gibbon's Decline and Fall is a good place to start.
I don't have it handy, but he writes in detail (some would term it "endlessly") about the changes in the legions' equipment as the Romans softened. Some of the changes were technological in adjustment to the combat needs, but there is a multi-century decline as weak emperors gave into the demands for lighter loads--meaning less armor and less effective weapons (and less ranged weapons).
As the emperors came to depend upon the mood of the legions, the legions demanded more and more frequent "donatives" and softer conditions.
We've had the truly horrible stuff, but we also ended up with a pastel set years ago that worked remarkably well. Held the girls' interest better, too:)
>For what reason might software not be considered goods? \
Software isn't tangible. Buying it boxed would be governed by the ucc for most (all?) purposes--but I'm not certain that that would cover the software itself; perhaps just the media.
Intellectual property in general isn't a good.
>Do you think that the similar interpretation of licenses and contracts means that >Monsoon Multimedia has lost its license to distribute BusyBox code under the terms of >the GNU GPL, by previously violating those same terms?
Whether by breaching it as a contract or exceeding the terms of the license, they would be in breach by continuing to distribute. What the remedy would be I'm not certain--I can see solid reasoning behind the contractual limit of remedies that some courts have taken, eliminating copyright claims, but it would take significant research (hours!) to come to an opinion on that.
>Legos in sets have always gone for between 8 to 12 cents a piece.
One of my quests right now is to come up with at least a couple of cubic feet of lego for my little ones. The standard little blocks, not the sets that tell you what to build. I'm not wedded to Lego brand; the off-brand stuff would be fine (well, the non-crummy-chinese-soft ones:)
btw, I've been amazed at the differences in how little girls & boys play with lego. My daughters almost always make something for a doll, horse, or stuffed animal, rather than something that stands on its own. It will be interesting to see if that holds up with the mindstorms I just picked up (and how).
That's because the very principle of jury nullification is that it should stand when a jury reacts to the situation by refusing to convict. The point is that when following the law and instructions would be unconscionable, a jury's conscientious act will stand. To invite jury nullification would be a fundamental change.
The doctrine is intended for situations such as the old British cases where stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving family became a capital offense due to a lowering of the amount which made theft grand larceny rather than petit.
Additionally, the federal constitutional requirement for a grand jury indictment in a felony case is due to the colonial grand juries refusing to indict the patriots for their crimes (a grand jury veto).
Slashdot Mirror
Not really all that different.
Once upon a time, companies actually produced single and double sided, and single and double density 5.25" disks. As time passed, all were double sided, and also DD that failed would be sold as SD, and so forth. Fairly quickly there weren't enough that failed, and passing disks were sold as a lower configuration.
When you punched an extra hole, you were betting that the back side of the disk was good enough (unless you had actually bought DS disks). When you drilled that 3.5", you were betting that the disk was good enough to handle the higher density.
hawk
But it was so much easier to just use a hole punch on a 5.25" floppy . . .
hawk
Mine didn't have them, but I've seen older appliances that did.
In my case, my DirecTivo took damage after I repaired the power supply post-warranty. Or so I thought. It was 12 rather than 6 months (or some such). They replaced it outside of the *real* warranty due to my having the warranty period wrong.
(If memory serves, at first I had to solder something back in. After that, a loose hard drive slipped and hit a thermal fuse. Then the hard drive failed, but they replaced the unit in spite of the modified power supply. Or some sequence vaguely like that; it's been a couple of years, and what stands out is that they just took the thing back when I assumed that they wouldn't).
hawk
Actually, there were in-dash record players once upon a time. Used 45's, iirc. They were, though, expectably rough on your records.
hawk, suddenly remembering the "close and play" record players of his childhood
You insensitive clod!
:(
My Tandy 102, one of the earliest machines to have a built-in modem, is locked out, too!
Not to mention CP/M. But locking out TRS-80s is a good thing.
hawk, also discriminated against by those massive files that won't fit in his 24k of memory anyway
Yes, check you link, particularly the sections that say "Formerly cooperative institutions" and and "Under a ruling of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, which regulates federally chartered savings and loan associations, associations need not rely only on individual deposits for funds. They can borrow from other financial institutions and market mortgage-backed securities, money market certificates, and stock."
hawk
Nope. For a while there was the "too big to fail" doctrine, in which the economic effects (particularly secondary failures) were considered in bailing out past the limits (Bail out this one for an extra $10M instead of coughing up $50M as later ones failed).
Then the "racial" effects were noted--small black banks with excess deposits (Bank of Harlem?) for payroll weren't covered. And then there was the moral hazard and competitive problems with people realizing that big enough banks couldn't fail and that they didn't need to worry about the big bank's risky behavior . . . I believe the doctrine is entirely dead now.
All in all, I'd only provide 100% coverage for the first $5k or so, and only 90% after that--this would protect people from being wiped out, but leave an incentive to monitor the behavior of management.
hawk
Huh?
No, that's not right.
S&L's had shareholders prior to regulation. It's credit unions that were and are depositor owned. (The *very* early S&L's were in fact owned by the depositors--they pooled money so that one at a time could buy a house).
The change in S&L's was that the mortgage-lending limitation was dropped. In fact, substantially all of their limits were dropped, and they were for all intents and purposes banks with a different regulator. They were utterly unprepared for this, and not adequately regulated.
There is another type of entity called "mutual savings bank", but they're a regional creature.
hawk
I've usually had a through-the-roof credit score--when we bought the van, it was the second highest that the internet sales manager had *ever* seen (and the other wasn't when involved in cars). Until we bought that van, I had zero debt other than student loans, and a credit score way past 800. As an assistant professor.
I don't quite make three times as much now, but I have a rather substantial amount of revolving credit and another car loan (the van paid off 2 years ago). That debt, though, is at rates ranging from 0% to 3.99%. I could write a check and pay it all off--but it's the reason that my credit score is almost 200 points lower today. When I'm getting better than 5% on my Vanguard money market account, that makes no sense, though. (And much more in my other funds).
I'm a much better risk now, but the score doesn't cover that. It is almost (entirely?)oblivious to income and assets, but does look at the absolute amount of debt.
hawk
I don't have cites handy, but those were some of the things I picked up over the years as an economist. I remembered them because I was teaching at a penn state campus in an area hit with constant trade disruptions (west-central).
:)
I *want* to say that the 2:1 was covered in an Economist article 3-4 years ago. I think that you can get the "better job" data from Department of Labor sites. (Part of the reason for the "better job on average" is plethora of retraining programs from the government. My gut says that it would probably be the case without those, but that the portion that end up with worse jobs would be significantly higher--and for older workers, might reverse the effect entirely).
The best bet for research would be economic journals focusing on trade, Department of Labor websites & publications, and possibly publications of the regional Federal Reserve Banks (they produce economic research you wouldn't expect at times). Avoid political websites; they'll be spinning the data one way or another--but you might find links to real work in those.
I wish I could offer you the sites, but it's the kind of data that's in my field but not my subfield, so I absorb the data if the source appears credible.
As for how it works: trade comes from "comparative advantage"--even though the US has an absolute edge over nearly all other nations in nearly all fields, the relative tradeoffs are different. If one of our workers can make 200 shirts or 50 televisions, it costs us a quarter of a television to make a shirt. If another country has workers that can produce 5 shirts or one television, it only costs them a fifth a television to make a shirt. The result will be that we ship them shirts and they send us televisions.
Overall, we get our best advantages in higher-end fields, such as technological development. The result is that we trade this for "stuff" from other countries. As a technology gets more widespread throughout the world, we shift to something newer.
Our technology multiplies the output of each worker, but the workers do need training for this. The more advanced the training, the more value the worker adds, and his wage increases.
hmm, this may be more than you wanted
hawk
Be sure to hunt down an unabridged--chapters like this and the rise of the european states (???) tend to get left out of the abridged.
hawk
A *real* reason to hack your iPhone!
hawk
>That may be true for people who live by themselves.
:)
Those who read slashdot on their 55" television are unlikely to leave "live by themselves" status . . .
hawk
>In the course of your life, you will spend more time at work than will spend with your spouse,
:)
hmm. Where *do* you sleep at night?
hawk
Translating these clearly the importanter than raw Japanese.
I was stunned to still find this stuff in the manual for the new Miata I bought last year; with the amount of Mazda owned by Ford, you'd at least think Ford could sent someone to read the manuals . . .
hawk
If you take an honest look at it, you find things such as,
--there are two jobs "insourced" for each outsourced job
--on average, workers who lose their jobs to imports ultimately end up with a higher paying job
and so forth.
hawk
Gibbon's Decline and Fall is a good place to start.
I don't have it handy, but he writes in detail (some would term it "endlessly") about the changes in the legions' equipment as the Romans softened. Some of the changes were technological in adjustment to the combat needs, but there is a multi-century decline as weak emperors gave into the demands for lighter loads--meaning less armor and less effective weapons (and less ranged weapons).
As the emperors came to depend upon the mood of the legions, the legions demanded more and more frequent "donatives" and softer conditions.
hawk
>Grunts from the time of the Roman Legions have probably been complaining about excessive load.
Giving in to those complaints was a major factor in the drop in effectiveness of the legions . . .
hawk
Her, yes. But him???
hawk, not sure she wears anything *but* short black dresses
We've had the truly horrible stuff, but we also ended up with a pastel set years ago that worked remarkably well. Held the girls' interest better, too :)
hawk
>For what reason might software not be considered goods? \
Software isn't tangible. Buying it boxed would be governed by the ucc for most (all?) purposes--but I'm not certain that that would cover the software itself; perhaps just the media.
Intellectual property in general isn't a good.
>Do you think that the similar interpretation of licenses and contracts means that
>Monsoon Multimedia has lost its license to distribute BusyBox code under the terms of
>the GNU GPL, by previously violating those same terms?
Whether by breaching it as a contract or exceeding the terms of the license, they would be in breach by continuing to distribute. What the remedy would be I'm not certain--I can see solid reasoning behind the contractual limit of remedies that some courts have taken, eliminating copyright claims, but it would take significant research (hours!) to come to an opinion on that.
hawk, esq.
Well, *that* should justify an opening bid of seventeen cents and an empty lipstick cannister . . .
hawk
>Legos in sets have always gone for between 8 to 12 cents a piece.
:)
One of my quests right now is to come up with at least a couple of cubic feet of lego for my little ones. The standard little blocks, not the sets that tell you what to build. I'm not wedded to Lego brand; the off-brand stuff would be fine (well, the non-crummy-chinese-soft ones
btw, I've been amazed at the differences in how little girls & boys play with lego. My daughters almost always make something for a doll, horse, or stuffed animal, rather than something that stands on its own. It will be interesting to see if that holds up with the mindstorms I just picked up (and how).
hawk
I don't think I'd want to see him in one of her black dresses . . . :)
hawkk
That's because the very principle of jury nullification is that it should stand when a jury reacts to the situation by refusing to convict. The point is that when following the law and instructions would be unconscionable, a jury's conscientious act will stand. To invite jury nullification would be a fundamental change.
The doctrine is intended for situations such as the old British cases where stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving family became a capital offense due to a lowering of the amount which made theft grand larceny rather than petit.
Additionally, the federal constitutional requirement for a grand jury indictment in a felony case is due to the colonial grand juries refusing to indict the patriots for their crimes (a grand jury veto).
hawk, esq