I readily admit to being pedantic. However, in this case, I don't think I'm being unreasonably so. As long as there is a lien against a thing I own, I do not truly own it. I suppose it would be more accurate to say that I am not the sole owner of it, since the lien holder also has property rights over it.
when you set out to debunk something you are biased against it from the start.
Yes, which in this sort of thing is exactly the right stance to take. you want to intentionally look for ways that the theory is incorrect because, if the theory is correct, it doesn't matter how biased you are. The theory will survive.
However if you don't start off with the intention of disproving it, then you might miss the critical bit that show the theory to be wrong.
The article doesn't give the answer because, right now, nobody knows. People are working on determining if his proof is correct or not. That's pretty much all the article is saying.
Oh and yes, you can dispose/damage/destroy whatever property/item that has a lien on it (think of getting into an accident and it is total).
If you can do this, you must be getting exceptional contracts from your lender. What's standard around here is that you can't do any of that without the permission of the lien holder. Accidents are covered by the lien holder's requirements that you carry comprehensive insurance.
Inanimate objects and software can't be good or evil -- but they can be security threats. Android itself is no more or less of a security threat than any other OS -- but the Google apps that usually ship with Android are very definitely a such a threat.
Fortunately, you can have Android without Google. Unfortunately, you have to be either tech-savvy or wealthy to accomplish that.
Yes, I was surprised to hear that there are Pizza Huts that make great pizzas. Again, in my part of the US (these things can and do differ in different parts of the country), I would say that the worst pizza you can buy is Little Caesars, followed by Pizza Hut, then Domino's.
Several years ago, the same three populated the list, but Domino's ranked at #1 in it. It was so bad that Domino's made a major effort to change their ways and engaged in a media blitz where they literally were saying "our pizzas don't suck anymore". And they did improve, moving to the third worst position.
I've usually kept my iPhones for three years or more. At that time, if the battery is failing, I can get the battery replaced. Why does it have to be user-replaceable for that?
Obviously it doesn't have to be. But if it isn't, then replacing the battery goes from being a cheap and trivial thing to a more expensive thing that's a pain in the ass.
I could say that an external battery is more convenient than a replaceable one, since I can plug it in without having to go through a boot cycle.
Your phone takes longer to boot than to charge? Weird! I can replace the battery and be up and running in under 2 minutes. I can't charge the battery that fast.
Why are so many people so insistent on a user-removable battery? Why would I want to remove it? If it's to extend use between charges, I can get an external battery that works fine. (My son has one.) If the battery lasts three years before it needs replacement, why would I worry about the cost of having it replaced?
A removable battery is pretty close to mandatory for me primarily so that I can get a reasonable life span out of the phone. I wear through a battery in about 2 years. If I can't replace the battery, that means the phone gets replaced. If I can, then that's another 2 years before I have to replace the battery for another 2 years of life, etc.
Also, and this is purely on the "convenience" side of things, being able to replace a spent battery with a fresh one is so much better than having to carry around a battery bank that there's no comparison. Just carrying the battery is a lot less space and weight.
As this is Slashdot, I feel obliged to say my first action would be to find that device and attempt to remove it myself. I would keep that box as a trophy.
Yes, this is what I would have done too, pretty much the moment that the final payment cleared.
The problem in the US has never been lack of or availability of health care.
This is not true as a blanket statement. In my area, there is such an extreme shortage of doctors and nurses that people often have to sit for months, sometimes years, just to get a primary care physician. It's been this way for at least a decade now.
And, the medical costs are mind-numbing, even if you have insurance.
It is unquestionable a crisis situation that is causing people to die.
That is not how it works at all! At least not in the US and I doubt it works that way anywhere else in the world. When you purchase a car, even if the manufacturer loans you the money, the car is yours. You do not own it free and clear. There is a lien against it
That has nothing to do with this situation, since it was a leased car originally.
However, what you say is very misleading. In the US, as you correctly say, you have title but, until it's paid off, there is a lien on it.
That lean means that you don't really own it yet. You can't dispose of it as you see fit, you can't modify it as you wish, etc. You can't even sell it without getting permission from the lien holder.
If you "own" something without having any of the rights that comes with ownership, you don't actually own it.
You know what, I just contacted the dealer, and they say it is not THEM that disabled the vehicule, but the financing company.
That smells like bullshit to me. Perhaps it's technically true, but it's still on the dealer for tacking an unagreed-to fee onto an already established financing agreement. (And how is that even possible?)
If these devices did not exist interest rates would have to be higher and people who represent higher credit risks simply could not be financed.
Oh, please. The presence of these devices don't bring down interest rates, unless you're arguing that interest rates for high credit risk people could be higher than the ~25% they currently tend to be.
Those sorts of loans don't actually help people who are poor. It hurts them.
Slashdot Mirror
I readily admit to being pedantic. However, in this case, I don't think I'm being unreasonably so. As long as there is a lien against a thing I own, I do not truly own it. I suppose it would be more accurate to say that I am not the sole owner of it, since the lien holder also has property rights over it.
when you set out to debunk something you are biased against it from the start.
Yes, which in this sort of thing is exactly the right stance to take. you want to intentionally look for ways that the theory is incorrect because, if the theory is correct, it doesn't matter how biased you are. The theory will survive.
However if you don't start off with the intention of disproving it, then you might miss the critical bit that show the theory to be wrong.
The article doesn't give the answer because, right now, nobody knows. People are working on determining if his proof is correct or not. That's pretty much all the article is saying.
Yes, I'm really sure.
Yes, you own it even with a lien.
As I said: legally, yes. Practically, no.
Oh and yes, you can dispose/damage/destroy whatever property/item that has a lien on it (think of getting into an accident and it is total).
If you can do this, you must be getting exceptional contracts from your lender. What's standard around here is that you can't do any of that without the permission of the lien holder. Accidents are covered by the lien holder's requirements that you carry comprehensive insurance.
And they have a book telling them how. It's called "To Serve Man".
Inanimate objects and software can't be good or evil -- but they can be security threats. Android itself is no more or less of a security threat than any other OS -- but the Google apps that usually ship with Android are very definitely a such a threat.
Fortunately, you can have Android without Google. Unfortunately, you have to be either tech-savvy or wealthy to accomplish that.
Yes, I was surprised to hear that there are Pizza Huts that make great pizzas. Again, in my part of the US (these things can and do differ in different parts of the country), I would say that the worst pizza you can buy is Little Caesars, followed by Pizza Hut, then Domino's.
Several years ago, the same three populated the list, but Domino's ranked at #1 in it. It was so bad that Domino's made a major effort to change their ways and engaged in a media blitz where they literally were saying "our pizzas don't suck anymore". And they did improve, moving to the third worst position.
That could very well be. I retract my assertion. :)
I've usually kept my iPhones for three years or more. At that time, if the battery is failing, I can get the battery replaced. Why does it have to be user-replaceable for that?
Obviously it doesn't have to be. But if it isn't, then replacing the battery goes from being a cheap and trivial thing to a more expensive thing that's a pain in the ass.
I could say that an external battery is more convenient than a replaceable one, since I can plug it in without having to go through a boot cycle.
Your phone takes longer to boot than to charge? Weird! I can replace the battery and be up and running in under 2 minutes. I can't charge the battery that fast.
Why are so many people so insistent on a user-removable battery? Why would I want to remove it? If it's to extend use between charges, I can get an external battery that works fine. (My son has one.) If the battery lasts three years before it needs replacement, why would I worry about the cost of having it replaced?
A removable battery is pretty close to mandatory for me primarily so that I can get a reasonable life span out of the phone. I wear through a battery in about 2 years. If I can't replace the battery, that means the phone gets replaced. If I can, then that's another 2 years before I have to replace the battery for another 2 years of life, etc.
Also, and this is purely on the "convenience" side of things, being able to replace a spent battery with a fresh one is so much better than having to carry around a battery bank that there's no comparison. Just carrying the battery is a lot less space and weight.
Reducing the amount of a tax deduction isn't even raising existing taxes, let alone introducing a new one.
It's two, two, two spies in one!
Calling it a "think tank" indicates that pretty effectively all by itself.
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
If you order a new Windows laptop what is the default file system?
I have no idea, since the very first thing I do with any new computer is reformat or replace the hard drive.
As this is Slashdot, I feel obliged to say my first action would be to find that device and attempt to remove it myself. I would keep that box as a trophy.
Yes, this is what I would have done too, pretty much the moment that the final payment cleared.
The problem in the US has never been lack of or availability of health care.
This is not true as a blanket statement. In my area, there is such an extreme shortage of doctors and nurses that people often have to sit for months, sometimes years, just to get a primary care physician. It's been this way for at least a decade now.
And, the medical costs are mind-numbing, even if you have insurance.
It is unquestionable a crisis situation that is causing people to die.
It is possible, and not rare, to have legal terrestrial GPS transmitters. You find them most often inside of tunnels.
That is not how it works at all! At least not in the US and I doubt it works that way anywhere else in the world. When you purchase a car, even if the manufacturer loans you the money, the car is yours. You do not own it free and clear. There is a lien against it
That has nothing to do with this situation, since it was a leased car originally.
However, what you say is very misleading. In the US, as you correctly say, you have title but, until it's paid off, there is a lien on it.
That lean means that you don't really own it yet. You can't dispose of it as you see fit, you can't modify it as you wish, etc. You can't even sell it without getting permission from the lien holder.
If you "own" something without having any of the rights that comes with ownership, you don't actually own it.
You know what, I just contacted the dealer, and they say it is not THEM that disabled the vehicule, but the financing company.
That smells like bullshit to me. Perhaps it's technically true, but it's still on the dealer for tacking an unagreed-to fee onto an already established financing agreement. (And how is that even possible?)
Trade jobs basically top out at 50-60k a year and that is just barely above poverty level in major cities and lower middle class elsewhere.
Depends on the trade. I know more than one tradesperson who is making six figures.
If these devices did not exist interest rates would have to be higher and people who represent higher credit risks simply could not be financed.
Oh, please. The presence of these devices don't bring down interest rates, unless you're arguing that interest rates for high credit risk people could be higher than the ~25% they currently tend to be.
Those sorts of loans don't actually help people who are poor. It hurts them.
Real question for the Americans: What are Dominos pizzas like in taste and price compared to other normal Pizzas?
In my part of the US, they are absolutely terrible. Greasy, bland, poor quality ingredients.
However, they used to be a lot worse! I would say they're no longer the worst pizza you can buy from a chain, but now rank as maybe the third worst.
The Dominos customer base is primarily college students who haven't learned that they can do much better for only a little more money.
Pizzas take about 10 minutes to cook in a commercial pizza oven. There's not a lot of time savings to be had there.