Hopefully if it sells, the new owner gets half a clue about how advertising works. I watch a good bit of Hulu, and mostly see the same half-dozen commercials over and over and over again. I honestly wouldn't mind seeing a few more ads...just so long as they're different ads.
And yet, that would be the same PS/2 that gave us the mini-DIN connector in the context of connecting keyboards and mice, which is still found on many modern desktops and docking stations. A 20+ year old IBM Model M keyboard for those old systems can still be plugged-in to many modern computers, well over a decade after the superior USB interface came along.
Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. None of your pedantic "points" have diminished the point of the post you're replying to. IBM was the first computer manufacturer that brought all the elements together, published their ISA specs (rather than patenting them and keeping everything proprietary), and tried to unify the desktop PC industry rather than making yet another shitty, unique platform that required shitty, unique expansion cards, memory, and peripherals. Not all of their choices were good, some of the things they wanted to make into standards failed miserably (and rightly so), but IBM definitely deserves the credit for setting the trend that the "PC-compatible" means; even today, that pretty much all currently-manufactured desktop computers all conform to the same basic specifications and have a rather high degree of interoperability for software and peripherals.
I realize it's kind of hard to remember how bad things used to be, but the "PC compatible" architecture's primary competitor on the desktop was, just about 14 years ago, still rolling-out computers that had an oddball monitor connector, used proprietary expansion cards, ran a proprietary OS, and had proprietary connectors for almost all their peripherals. Imagine if nearly every computer manufacturer still did things that way, just as they did before IBM's 5150. Some clung to that model for a decade or so, but they all failed or conformed, because it's just stupid to "Think Different" when the only implication of doing so is that you actually just come across as being mentally-challenged..Not having to deal with all that foolishness and being a highly-available standard is what helped the PC reach critical mass and become ubiquitous.
Except for the woman who finally blew the whistle. At least she was suspicious enough to get a second opinion rather than doing any fool thing the computer asked her to do without question. That the guy was able to obtain "thousands" of photos (which implies that this was likely going on for some time), and that some of the women took the computer into the bathroom while they showered makes me fear for the future of the human race just a little more than I did a few minutes ago.
Take it back several centuries before the USSR, many artists and performers had patrons, basically making them employees (one could really consider them skilled servants) of some wealthy individual. If the individual wanted to share with the public to boost popularity, they'd put on a public show or build a public edifice. "Pan et circuses" and all that.
One good thing about the way the USSR did things, which also ties-in to one of the worst things about it too (which you mention, the "appropriate for the ideology" part), is that the state realized the value in the arts, and selected individuals who excelled at artistic things, put them through education and sponsored their careers. How that system worked in practice, I'm not sure, but in theory it sounds great to make it easy for someone who has the aptitude to be able to pursue that ability through to a career. "Liberal Arts degrees" are the sorts of things that just don't garner much respect since they're not pragmatic, and it's an uphill fight for anyone who earned one to make a name for him or herself and find a career relevant to the field. But that's the situation when patrons of the arts and state-sponsored art are regarded largely things of the past. I can't really blame artists or other IP holders for feeling that they've paid their dues and now they want every last penny, even though I think that approach is detrimental to the advancement of civilization.
But that's not how cancers work. Every time you're exposed to a carcinogen, there's a probability that it will cause damage to your DNA relative to its carcinogenic properties. There's a range of damage it can potentially do. There's a chance that the damage will be repaired. There's a chance that the damage won't really amount to anything, but it might also prove to be malignant. Roll all these probabilities together, but wind-up being pretty unlucky, you get life-threatening, malignant cancer. Carcinogens aren't really cumulative-damage sorts of things; you could chain-smoke for 50 years and not get lung cancer (in which case you'd probably be beating the odds in a death-defying manner), or you could possibly be unlucky enough to have some toxic particulate act on your lung tissue and start a cancer from one whiff of secondhand smoke when you're 5 years old. Every single exposure is a roll of the dice, with one of the static multipliers being the exposure's potential for causing damage to DNA. If that probability is "0", it doesn't matter how many times you roll the dice, you cannot get cancer from that exposure, period.
That leaves the only question, "What is the potential mechanism for radio waves to damage DNA?" There could be some element we don't understand, but from what we do understand, there is essentially zero chance that the radio transmitters in mobile phones can damage DNA in the skin of your ears, much less your brain cells. If it *could* be demonstrably proven to cause damage to any DNA, then there might be cause for concern. But there is no evidence at all to support such suppositions.
There's kind of a fine line between trojans and spyware. Both are really just malware that offers the user a handjob, and some users really like getting a handjob without considering the consequence that the handjob is really just a reach-around, and the malware is gonna pound them hard in ways that will probably be a bit uncomfortable; the level of potential discomfort (with or without lube and/or condom?) is the fundamental difference between spyware and trojans. The difference between those and a virus is that the virus doesn't ask, and it doesn't offer a reach-around. It also doesn't use lube or condoms, ever. That's why it's important to wear a digital chastity belt.
Some things that *I* would consider unacceptable malware that needed to be removed, such as shopping toolbar spyware, Weatherbug, Comet Cursor, and Gator, were crapplications that users wanted. I think this is the line that Apple is treading, just as I had to tread it with users who were willing to turn over their computer for smileys. Some would practically get offended at the suggestion that their cute cursors were malware, and contributing to their computer problems. If only I was morally bankrupt, and there was some value to soul contracts..I encountered so many users who I probably could've convinced to part with their eternal souls in exchange for stupid digital folderol.
But if a malware detection agent is telling the user that their precious trojan is malware, that's a more convincing argument than an Apple tech could make that it needs to go away.
I can only speak for myself, but I just ignore Ed Bott because he's a rabid Microsoft fanboy-apologist who has defended the indefensible (Windows Vista, need I say more?), and he only "covers" other operating systems to badmouth them. That's so tired, and why he's irrelevant whenever he speaks of something other than a Microsoft product. He might as well stick to just extolling the praises of the almighty Microsoft, because otherwise, he's just another overly-sensational troll in the Mac-vs-Windows-vs-Linux fanboy-fest. Yeah, he does have good thoughts about getting the most out of Windows sometimes, but his pretenses are pathetic and transparent, like when he "evaluated" Ubuntu a couple of years ago.
Well, that article is technically correct-- Apple systems running OS X *don't* get infected with the thousands of "PC viruses". That's technically true. It's also just more of the same, carefully-crafted, non-committal language that Apple uses to bamboozle the Macolytes into believing most of Apple's ridiculous claims on any number of things.
This story just goes to illustrate that even "dirty" incidents (not so much jobs, InfoWorld is reaching a bit for sensationalism, imagine that) in IT are really not all that dirty in the same way the rest of the workforce understands "dirty".
That Foxconn employees have a choice to work there (or not) speaks volumes of how far China has come with pseudo-capitalism. There was a day, not very long ago, when folks' career choices in China were limited, because the government decided where they should work, the government set wages, and the government decided what safe working conditions were. The government decided what they could buy, what the prices on consumer products were, and where they'd live. Because, of course, you can't choose where you'll live if you can't own any real property, because the government owns it all and distributes it as they see fit.
The important thing to remember is that choice is the essence of competition, which empowers people to make demands. Nothing poses more danger to a totalitarian or socialist government than people making demands rather than just accepting the commands.
Yeah, except that they haven't. Yet. It's still technically a command economy with a little pseudo-capitalism permitted to allow them to compete and take advantage of the global marketplace.
Actually, they are worlds apart, and anyone with even a little sense can see the differences.
Under capitalism, money talks. Everyone is technically free to determine their own value (i.e., the value of their time) and refuse to work for less. Or refuse to work at all, though that decision can have unfavorable consequences. In practice, there are of course more practical considerations (such as needing to make enough money to buy food and shelter), but the concept of labor unions is inherently capitalist because they consist of workers banding together to demand their fair market value. It's an inherently oppositional system, with the burden of determining one's worth placed on each individual, and each individual has to fight for what his or her time is worth on the market, because everyone who wants to hire them is going to be trying to haggle the compensation down. There is always a risk of pricing a product out of the range of the market, or labor pricing itself out of being able to get a job, but such things are easily remedied by adapting to the market.
Under socialism, you're worth what the government decides you're worth. If the government says your labor is worth the equivalent of $1 per day and your career will be to work in the slaughterhouse, that's simply your place, and if you protest, you'll probably find yourself on the train to the Siberian gulag for "re-education". Of course, privately owned businesses are an anathema, because they would lead to competition, which is problematic for a command economy. There can be no competition either amongst the labor force or production. You can have any car you want as long as it's a Trabant, and you will wait years to take delivery after placing your order, because the factory operates on the number of laborers the government decides it operates on. This also means that workers are never permitted to demand anything, not safer working conditions, not more compensation. Labor unions are never tolerated under a socialist state, unless they're simply a device to celebrate the Workers' Paradise that the government has created for the collective good.
So here's where the obvious difference is: While both capitalism and socialism can suck for workers at some level, capitalist societies ALWAYS rise above the abuses of industrial revolutions, while socialist societies NEVER do. It's a natural process of the rising tide of free money, it's not like the USA was anything special, or the USSR & China were failed aberrations of socialism. Capitalism is reliant on choice, which means that workers do have the ability to gain political power even if they don't hold the bulk of the economic power. Socialism demands that the government makes the choices for everyone, which means that only the cultural elites ever have any power, be it economic or political.
Unfortunately for us (but not necessarily a bad thing!), workers demanding more seems to have made industry in the USA largely go away overseas, where workers have yet to realize their value. Those in the labor force in the USA were virtual slaves for a while, the government and businesses tried to convince workers they were slaves and refused to recognize collective bargaining, but in the end, the workers did realize they were not slaves and that they have value and they stood-up for it, and made the reforms such as safer working conditions happen. The same thing will happen in China if we're just patient and continue to encourage them to subvert themselves with the weird pseudo-capitalism they think they're allowing now. It'll become real capitalism soon enough, and that will empower the workers to demand even more rights.
No, it's not called usery. Rentals are not loans. Renting-to-own is a stupid way to buy anything. Layaway might be a better choice, or better yet, buying from a thrift store. Payday loans often do seem like usery, but in most cases, the rates that seem so outlandish if they're extended out over the course of a year & converted into an APR don't seem terribly unreasonable for a cash advance. What are their fees, something like $25 to loan a couple hundred bucks for a week or two? Would you loan a couple hundred bucks to someone you don't know for such little money? I sure wouldn't. I probably wouldn't loan that kind of money at any price, since I'd kind of figure I wouldn't be paid back on time or in full, and it would also take entirely too much of my time to deal with it.
If you read the article, you'd realize it probably was the case, just not for reasons under either Aaron's or the customer's control:
"The couple had a signed receipt but later learned an employee who took their final cash payment was suspected of stealing customer payments, which is why the store manager believed they hadn't paid for the computer and came to repossess it."
So yeah, as far as Aaron's was concerned, the laptop was stolen and they were, in fact, trying to recover it. They may well have filed a police report, and showing the photo was a way of establishing that the manager knew the customer still had the computer. Having an employee who steals is obviously Aaron's problem, but the customer was just another victim of the lowlife employee.
Seems there should've been a way to avoid the confrontation simply by discussing the situation. Did Aaron's send default notices? Did the customer ignore the correspondence? Did anyone call? Or did the manager just show up a few weeks later to repo the computer?
I wonder if that's where my ex-roommate went after I kicked him out! I finally got tired of all the reasons he couldn't pay his share of rent & utilities and the other bad behavior, so I booted him a few years back. Smoking in my house was one of the aggravating factors, as was arguing with me about my house policies (which were simply "clean up after yourself because I'm not your mommy", and "trash goes in the trash can, no just chucked outside my front door") when he got drunk and argumentative. The dude could afford to buy 3-4 plastic 1.75l bottles of cheap vodka and several packs of cigarettes every week and new games for his console, and he could afford to go out clubbing too, but not rent? Yeah. He also was completely unable and unwilling to balance a checkbook, so much of his income went to pay bank fees. Even with a halfway decent job, he was still always broke, as you say, just with more stuff. One poor decision after another, and past a point, it wasn't so much tragic as it was really. fucking. annoying.
Sadly, there are plenty of people like this and we're probably not talking about the same idiot.
There are plenty of decent computers to be had on eBay for the neighborhood of $200 or less from well rated sellers. They may be a few years old, but probably would still be more serviceable than the rubbish the rent-to-own places push. Say, something like a Thinkpad T40 series laptop would probably fit the bill quite well.
I realize you were probably trying to make a funny, but just in case...some computers have either headers on the board or a cable into which an optional BT module may be plugged.
Too many people fail to run their finances like a business. They tend not to plan to any significant degree. See something you want? Buy it! Earned a little money? Spend it! Didn't you forget to pay off that other thing you bought, or maybe you have rent due in a week or two? So what! Just pay later!
And most failed dot-bomb companies tended to run their business finances like personal ones. Sweet! We just got a bunch of money from investors! Let's go on a spending-spree and buy an office-full of Herman Miller Aeron chairs! And a huge coffee machine! And big TVs EVERYWHERE! And hire a designer to set us up with edgy decor! Business plan? Who needs one, we have money now, might as well spend it!
Saying people should "Live within their means" is not unreasonable. When someone starts talking about how people should live it up even if that means not living within their means, well that money has to come from somewhere. This is where the poor (or ANYONE) really tend to get jacked. All those credit cards telling them to take a vacation on credit, to treat themselves and worry about the consequences later. That's what financial ruin is made of. There's no free money, there's always a price to pay later, whether it's shitty credit that makes it extremely difficult to qualify for prime home or auto loans, or paying back the money slowly and living below one's actual means for a long time to make those payments.
This culture of instant gratification and entitlement is frankly a bit shocking. It's like people have lost touch with the value they produce and with money itself. So many folks treat credit cards like magical plastic objects that just make the things they want appear. I think credit cards are a great invention, don't get me wrong, but people still need to be conscious of how they work and avoid spending money they don't have. There's also a need to put in the work to earn the standard of living you want. That includes sacrifices such as getting a job and working one's way up or going to college rather than being a self-indulgent brat until one hits 30 and realizes he or she is still living in mom's basement, has no career, and really not much of a future. I feel more for the people who tried hard and had setbacks, but I kind of see those who just kicked-back, partied, and played video games and never held down a job for more than a few months at a time as making their own bed, which they now have to sleep in.
Next up, the field trip to a big ranch with many bulls roaming around, where the unemployed can run around and play matador with their lovely red capes! That might thin the ranks on the unemployment rolls a bit.
Seriously, this is so ridiculous it seems like something a kindergarten SPED teacher dealing with profoundly mentally disabled children might dream-up. I mean, "Cape-a-bility"? Really? That's like something straight out of an SNL sketch.
Treating the unemployed like tards just doesn't seem like it would help the situation at all. If anything, it'd probably just make them feel worse.
Slashdot Mirror
Hopefully if it sells, the new owner gets half a clue about how advertising works. I watch a good bit of Hulu, and mostly see the same half-dozen commercials over and over and over again. I honestly wouldn't mind seeing a few more ads...just so long as they're different ads.
And yet, that would be the same PS/2 that gave us the mini-DIN connector in the context of connecting keyboards and mice, which is still found on many modern desktops and docking stations. A 20+ year old IBM Model M keyboard for those old systems can still be plugged-in to many modern computers, well over a decade after the superior USB interface came along.
Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. None of your pedantic "points" have diminished the point of the post you're replying to. IBM was the first computer manufacturer that brought all the elements together, published their ISA specs (rather than patenting them and keeping everything proprietary), and tried to unify the desktop PC industry rather than making yet another shitty, unique platform that required shitty, unique expansion cards, memory, and peripherals. Not all of their choices were good, some of the things they wanted to make into standards failed miserably (and rightly so), but IBM definitely deserves the credit for setting the trend that the "PC-compatible" means; even today, that pretty much all currently-manufactured desktop computers all conform to the same basic specifications and have a rather high degree of interoperability for software and peripherals.
I realize it's kind of hard to remember how bad things used to be, but the "PC compatible" architecture's primary competitor on the desktop was, just about 14 years ago, still rolling-out computers that had an oddball monitor connector, used proprietary expansion cards, ran a proprietary OS, and had proprietary connectors for almost all their peripherals. Imagine if nearly every computer manufacturer still did things that way, just as they did before IBM's 5150. Some clung to that model for a decade or so, but they all failed or conformed, because it's just stupid to "Think Different" when the only implication of doing so is that you actually just come across as being mentally-challenged..Not having to deal with all that foolishness and being a highly-available standard is what helped the PC reach critical mass and become ubiquitous.
Of their own stupidity and ignorance, maybe.
Except for the woman who finally blew the whistle. At least she was suspicious enough to get a second opinion rather than doing any fool thing the computer asked her to do without question. That the guy was able to obtain "thousands" of photos (which implies that this was likely going on for some time), and that some of the women took the computer into the bathroom while they showered makes me fear for the future of the human race just a little more than I did a few minutes ago.
Take it back several centuries before the USSR, many artists and performers had patrons, basically making them employees (one could really consider them skilled servants) of some wealthy individual. If the individual wanted to share with the public to boost popularity, they'd put on a public show or build a public edifice. "Pan et circuses" and all that.
One good thing about the way the USSR did things, which also ties-in to one of the worst things about it too (which you mention, the "appropriate for the ideology" part), is that the state realized the value in the arts, and selected individuals who excelled at artistic things, put them through education and sponsored their careers. How that system worked in practice, I'm not sure, but in theory it sounds great to make it easy for someone who has the aptitude to be able to pursue that ability through to a career. "Liberal Arts degrees" are the sorts of things that just don't garner much respect since they're not pragmatic, and it's an uphill fight for anyone who earned one to make a name for him or herself and find a career relevant to the field. But that's the situation when patrons of the arts and state-sponsored art are regarded largely things of the past. I can't really blame artists or other IP holders for feeling that they've paid their dues and now they want every last penny, even though I think that approach is detrimental to the advancement of civilization.
It also helped that folks like Jefferson and Franklin believed in inventing fantastic things for the common good, rather than personal enrichment.
But that's not how cancers work. Every time you're exposed to a carcinogen, there's a probability that it will cause damage to your DNA relative to its carcinogenic properties. There's a range of damage it can potentially do. There's a chance that the damage will be repaired. There's a chance that the damage won't really amount to anything, but it might also prove to be malignant. Roll all these probabilities together, but wind-up being pretty unlucky, you get life-threatening, malignant cancer. Carcinogens aren't really cumulative-damage sorts of things; you could chain-smoke for 50 years and not get lung cancer (in which case you'd probably be beating the odds in a death-defying manner), or you could possibly be unlucky enough to have some toxic particulate act on your lung tissue and start a cancer from one whiff of secondhand smoke when you're 5 years old. Every single exposure is a roll of the dice, with one of the static multipliers being the exposure's potential for causing damage to DNA. If that probability is "0", it doesn't matter how many times you roll the dice, you cannot get cancer from that exposure, period.
That leaves the only question, "What is the potential mechanism for radio waves to damage DNA?" There could be some element we don't understand, but from what we do understand, there is essentially zero chance that the radio transmitters in mobile phones can damage DNA in the skin of your ears, much less your brain cells. If it *could* be demonstrably proven to cause damage to any DNA, then there might be cause for concern. But there is no evidence at all to support such suppositions.
There's kind of a fine line between trojans and spyware. Both are really just malware that offers the user a handjob, and some users really like getting a handjob without considering the consequence that the handjob is really just a reach-around, and the malware is gonna pound them hard in ways that will probably be a bit uncomfortable; the level of potential discomfort (with or without lube and/or condom?) is the fundamental difference between spyware and trojans. The difference between those and a virus is that the virus doesn't ask, and it doesn't offer a reach-around. It also doesn't use lube or condoms, ever. That's why it's important to wear a digital chastity belt.
Some things that *I* would consider unacceptable malware that needed to be removed, such as shopping toolbar spyware, Weatherbug, Comet Cursor, and Gator, were crapplications that users wanted. I think this is the line that Apple is treading, just as I had to tread it with users who were willing to turn over their computer for smileys. Some would practically get offended at the suggestion that their cute cursors were malware, and contributing to their computer problems. If only I was morally bankrupt, and there was some value to soul contracts..I encountered so many users who I probably could've convinced to part with their eternal souls in exchange for stupid digital folderol.
But if a malware detection agent is telling the user that their precious trojan is malware, that's a more convincing argument than an Apple tech could make that it needs to go away.
I can only speak for myself, but I just ignore Ed Bott because he's a rabid Microsoft fanboy-apologist who has defended the indefensible (Windows Vista, need I say more?), and he only "covers" other operating systems to badmouth them. That's so tired, and why he's irrelevant whenever he speaks of something other than a Microsoft product. He might as well stick to just extolling the praises of the almighty Microsoft, because otherwise, he's just another overly-sensational troll in the Mac-vs-Windows-vs-Linux fanboy-fest. Yeah, he does have good thoughts about getting the most out of Windows sometimes, but his pretenses are pathetic and transparent, like when he "evaluated" Ubuntu a couple of years ago.
Well, that article is technically correct-- Apple systems running OS X *don't* get infected with the thousands of "PC viruses". That's technically true. It's also just more of the same, carefully-crafted, non-committal language that Apple uses to bamboozle the Macolytes into believing most of Apple's ridiculous claims on any number of things.
This story just goes to illustrate that even "dirty" incidents (not so much jobs, InfoWorld is reaching a bit for sensationalism, imagine that) in IT are really not all that dirty in the same way the rest of the workforce understands "dirty".
That Foxconn employees have a choice to work there (or not) speaks volumes of how far China has come with pseudo-capitalism. There was a day, not very long ago, when folks' career choices in China were limited, because the government decided where they should work, the government set wages, and the government decided what safe working conditions were. The government decided what they could buy, what the prices on consumer products were, and where they'd live. Because, of course, you can't choose where you'll live if you can't own any real property, because the government owns it all and distributes it as they see fit.
The important thing to remember is that choice is the essence of competition, which empowers people to make demands. Nothing poses more danger to a totalitarian or socialist government than people making demands rather than just accepting the commands.
Yeah, except that they haven't. Yet. It's still technically a command economy with a little pseudo-capitalism permitted to allow them to compete and take advantage of the global marketplace.
Actually, they are worlds apart, and anyone with even a little sense can see the differences.
Under capitalism, money talks. Everyone is technically free to determine their own value (i.e., the value of their time) and refuse to work for less. Or refuse to work at all, though that decision can have unfavorable consequences. In practice, there are of course more practical considerations (such as needing to make enough money to buy food and shelter), but the concept of labor unions is inherently capitalist because they consist of workers banding together to demand their fair market value. It's an inherently oppositional system, with the burden of determining one's worth placed on each individual, and each individual has to fight for what his or her time is worth on the market, because everyone who wants to hire them is going to be trying to haggle the compensation down. There is always a risk of pricing a product out of the range of the market, or labor pricing itself out of being able to get a job, but such things are easily remedied by adapting to the market.
Under socialism, you're worth what the government decides you're worth. If the government says your labor is worth the equivalent of $1 per day and your career will be to work in the slaughterhouse, that's simply your place, and if you protest, you'll probably find yourself on the train to the Siberian gulag for "re-education". Of course, privately owned businesses are an anathema, because they would lead to competition, which is problematic for a command economy. There can be no competition either amongst the labor force or production. You can have any car you want as long as it's a Trabant, and you will wait years to take delivery after placing your order, because the factory operates on the number of laborers the government decides it operates on. This also means that workers are never permitted to demand anything, not safer working conditions, not more compensation. Labor unions are never tolerated under a socialist state, unless they're simply a device to celebrate the Workers' Paradise that the government has created for the collective good.
So here's where the obvious difference is: While both capitalism and socialism can suck for workers at some level, capitalist societies ALWAYS rise above the abuses of industrial revolutions, while socialist societies NEVER do. It's a natural process of the rising tide of free money, it's not like the USA was anything special, or the USSR & China were failed aberrations of socialism. Capitalism is reliant on choice, which means that workers do have the ability to gain political power even if they don't hold the bulk of the economic power. Socialism demands that the government makes the choices for everyone, which means that only the cultural elites ever have any power, be it economic or political.
Unfortunately for us (but not necessarily a bad thing!), workers demanding more seems to have made industry in the USA largely go away overseas, where workers have yet to realize their value. Those in the labor force in the USA were virtual slaves for a while, the government and businesses tried to convince workers they were slaves and refused to recognize collective bargaining, but in the end, the workers did realize they were not slaves and that they have value and they stood-up for it, and made the reforms such as safer working conditions happen. The same thing will happen in China if we're just patient and continue to encourage them to subvert themselves with the weird pseudo-capitalism they think they're allowing now. It'll become real capitalism soon enough, and that will empower the workers to demand even more rights.
No, it's not called usery. Rentals are not loans. Renting-to-own is a stupid way to buy anything. Layaway might be a better choice, or better yet, buying from a thrift store. Payday loans often do seem like usery, but in most cases, the rates that seem so outlandish if they're extended out over the course of a year & converted into an APR don't seem terribly unreasonable for a cash advance. What are their fees, something like $25 to loan a couple hundred bucks for a week or two? Would you loan a couple hundred bucks to someone you don't know for such little money? I sure wouldn't. I probably wouldn't loan that kind of money at any price, since I'd kind of figure I wouldn't be paid back on time or in full, and it would also take entirely too much of my time to deal with it.
If you read the article, you'd realize it probably was the case, just not for reasons under either Aaron's or the customer's control:
"The couple had a signed receipt but later learned an employee who took their final cash payment was suspected of stealing customer payments, which is why the store manager believed they hadn't paid for the computer and came to repossess it."
So yeah, as far as Aaron's was concerned, the laptop was stolen and they were, in fact, trying to recover it. They may well have filed a police report, and showing the photo was a way of establishing that the manager knew the customer still had the computer. Having an employee who steals is obviously Aaron's problem, but the customer was just another victim of the lowlife employee.
Seems there should've been a way to avoid the confrontation simply by discussing the situation. Did Aaron's send default notices? Did the customer ignore the correspondence? Did anyone call? Or did the manager just show up a few weeks later to repo the computer?
I wonder if that's where my ex-roommate went after I kicked him out! I finally got tired of all the reasons he couldn't pay his share of rent & utilities and the other bad behavior, so I booted him a few years back. Smoking in my house was one of the aggravating factors, as was arguing with me about my house policies (which were simply "clean up after yourself because I'm not your mommy", and "trash goes in the trash can, no just chucked outside my front door") when he got drunk and argumentative. The dude could afford to buy 3-4 plastic 1.75l bottles of cheap vodka and several packs of cigarettes every week and new games for his console, and he could afford to go out clubbing too, but not rent? Yeah. He also was completely unable and unwilling to balance a checkbook, so much of his income went to pay bank fees. Even with a halfway decent job, he was still always broke, as you say, just with more stuff. One poor decision after another, and past a point, it wasn't so much tragic as it was really. fucking. annoying.
Sadly, there are plenty of people like this and we're probably not talking about the same idiot.
There are plenty of decent computers to be had on eBay for the neighborhood of $200 or less from well rated sellers. They may be a few years old, but probably would still be more serviceable than the rubbish the rent-to-own places push. Say, something like a Thinkpad T40 series laptop would probably fit the bill quite well.
I realize you were probably trying to make a funny, but just in case...some computers have either headers on the board or a cable into which an optional BT module may be plugged.
Discipline and planning are also key components of financial success.
EXACTLY. YES. THANK YOU.
Too many people fail to run their finances like a business. They tend not to plan to any significant degree. See something you want? Buy it! Earned a little money? Spend it! Didn't you forget to pay off that other thing you bought, or maybe you have rent due in a week or two? So what! Just pay later!
And most failed dot-bomb companies tended to run their business finances like personal ones. Sweet! We just got a bunch of money from investors! Let's go on a spending-spree and buy an office-full of Herman Miller Aeron chairs! And a huge coffee machine! And big TVs EVERYWHERE! And hire a designer to set us up with edgy decor! Business plan? Who needs one, we have money now, might as well spend it!
Same here.
Saying people should "Live within their means" is not unreasonable. When someone starts talking about how people should live it up even if that means not living within their means, well that money has to come from somewhere. This is where the poor (or ANYONE) really tend to get jacked. All those credit cards telling them to take a vacation on credit, to treat themselves and worry about the consequences later. That's what financial ruin is made of. There's no free money, there's always a price to pay later, whether it's shitty credit that makes it extremely difficult to qualify for prime home or auto loans, or paying back the money slowly and living below one's actual means for a long time to make those payments.
This culture of instant gratification and entitlement is frankly a bit shocking. It's like people have lost touch with the value they produce and with money itself. So many folks treat credit cards like magical plastic objects that just make the things they want appear. I think credit cards are a great invention, don't get me wrong, but people still need to be conscious of how they work and avoid spending money they don't have. There's also a need to put in the work to earn the standard of living you want. That includes sacrifices such as getting a job and working one's way up or going to college rather than being a self-indulgent brat until one hits 30 and realizes he or she is still living in mom's basement, has no career, and really not much of a future. I feel more for the people who tried hard and had setbacks, but I kind of see those who just kicked-back, partied, and played video games and never held down a job for more than a few months at a time as making their own bed, which they now have to sleep in.
I support this idea. In fact, if red capes were required attire for panhandlers...man, that'd be too awesome for words.
Next up, the field trip to a big ranch with many bulls roaming around, where the unemployed can run around and play matador with their lovely red capes! That might thin the ranks on the unemployment rolls a bit.
Seriously, this is so ridiculous it seems like something a kindergarten SPED teacher dealing with profoundly mentally disabled children might dream-up. I mean, "Cape-a-bility"? Really? That's like something straight out of an SNL sketch.
Treating the unemployed like tards just doesn't seem like it would help the situation at all. If anything, it'd probably just make them feel worse.