Re: Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans
on
Let Them Eat Teslas
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
When institutions like U. of Texas in Austin, U. of Okla and U. of Missouri are all now being funded by the state BELOW 20% of their general budget, it is hard to consider these to be public institutions. Those are the schools I have reason to know about. I'm told the situation is the same across USA -- we are dismantling public universities. I've heard suggestion among some donors to OU that the name should change to University IN Oklahoma since the state isn't choosing to be "of" the school anymore. Too many schools are begging rich alumni for gifts. At some point, the schools will become more in the service of those alumni than of the public.
Not useless. It has to match the whole line. If the regular expression matches zero characters, then the rest of the line is left as the next token in the string. You're thinking of it as a parser... think of it as the results of a parser -- the parser ran, and it returned the complete line of characters as a token when given this regular expression. Does that help you understand why this works?
The LabVIEW programming language had a full visual editor for its dataflow syntax in 1986. Mac only. Wasn't on Windows until 1992, but as an IDE it does predate the VB date in TFA.
It does seem like -- as the phone company -- you should build a smarter phone that just routes people to the person they should be calling.:-)
Seriously though -- thank you. Yours is the first reasonable explanation of this policy I have ever heard. If anyone had actually explained this while I was on the phone with AT&T for almost two days trying to cancel my data plan, I might still be with AT&T.
Now that I understand where this is coming from, I do wonder whether it would be feasible for you to turn off the data plan only when people call in to ask to do so. At that point, you have them on the phone and can explain that after they do this, they will not be able to call for tech support again unless when they call they pay some extravagant fee that covers an entire year of tech support. I would've happily bought into that system.
Blenders do not seem like an area of technology with a lot of room for innovation, but I've been surprised before (Sears has a "hammer research division" that is kind of amazing). What do you see as the next big thing in blending? Perhaps plans for a reassembler?
His whole service is serving the dissidents in those countries. He isn't an asshole, he is actively trying to promote freedom in those countries. This isn't the "won't you care for the children" emotional plea that you were expecting. It is a description of the problem he actively works on, and if it is one that you care about, you should be helping here.
I think what should concern you more is the probability that we have *always* been idiots and achieved our current position with idiocy, and we have only begun in the last fifty years to start having a real dialog about changing that. That is a process that would put us on an even stronger foundation going forward.
That's what this whole thread misses: America has generally been a theistic nation, off and on, since its founding. We put separation of church and state into our government but it was more about differences in denominations of one faith not about different faiths entirely. The amount of diversity we have today is staggering compared to those early days, and it is forcing us to re-evaluate lots of ideology. I'm actually fairly confident in the future of the United States because it is only recently that unquestioned beliefs in false science were even questioned. The Akin quote would not have gotten nationwide attention in the days before mass media, and would have gained only small traction in the days of limited television media. The Internet made everyone respond with, "Say what?!" And I believe that communal introspection is going to become more common, not less.
And if we can achieve all we have done with a populace ignorant of science, the future looks bright to me.
The first rule of Asimov's psychohistory is that you cannot tell the people you're monitoring that psychohistory exists. So publishing this has now invalidated the possiblity, showing yet another example of a headline that is a question to which the answer is, "no."
They don't claim to still have it. Banks are very open about the fact that they lend out your money. That's why they can pay interest on accounts. That's why you keep your money in a bank. If you don't want it lent out, keep it at home.
Suppose a bill comes up and you poll the electorate and the result comes back 50/50 split. How do you break the tie? More importantly, votes rarely come in exactly 50/50. How do you propose to handle the margin of error? If the vote comes in 51/49 but the margin of error is 3%, would you feel ok voting your conscience and going with the 49%? Would you abstain because your electorate is undecided?
It isn't easily replicable because of the network strength... it took huge effort to get everyone's parents to pick up this newfangled Facebook technology, and anyone who has tried to get family to adopt Google+ knows that it isn't going to be easy to unseat Facebook.
One way to judge how frequent life arises would be to check how often it has independently occurred on Earth. Do we have any species that share no genetic material with any other species? I've heard stories that mushrooms are completely orthogonal forms of life, but those same sources typically label them as extraterrestrial. That's just a story I heard... no idea if it is true or not. If the conditions on Earth are right for life, then perhaps we should occasionally see life appear ex nihilo. To the best of my knowledge, we have never observed that.
Given this, it seems like we would judge the formation of life to be pretty unlikely.
> It seems that anything that you do (or don't do!) will be used against you in a court. Now or ever in the future.
Anything you post publicly or share with even a single other person is usable as evidence. Only the stuff you truly keep private by not saying to anyone is limited: you can't be compelled to say it. But if you do say it, it's usable.
> Is this how the law works in US nowadays?
This is how it has worked since the system started.
No, I agree with the GP post. It would seem like any company that accepted your amended text would also have to send you an amended EXE to click through, otherwise you just renegotiated back to their original terms. In the case of a website, they'd have to respond by giving you a new URL.
I suppose it *might* work if your on-paper amendment included a clause, "And the checkbox in the software is just an ignition switch and this document trumps the legalese therein."
I don't buy that argument. If your theory were true then a software author should be able to just display a page that says "there are terms of service that govern this site... >here is a link to them." Users would not have to actually accept the EULA because, by your theory, the seller has made you aware of the terms of use and now you're using the service. But that's not how it works... users have to actually accept the EULA for it to be valid. It appears to be legally unrelated to their use of the software until after the EULA is accepted. If it is never accepted and the user keeps using the software, that seems fine.
The analogy to the coke machine is more like I buy a coke, then the machine asks me if I will sign this form, I say no, and then I keep drinking the coke.
In a paper contract, if I want to amend something, I amend it, initial it, and sign. If the other party signs, the contract is valid as amended. This works for any paper contract.
Under the law, is a valid contract offer required to provide a mechanism for counter offering? Or is that a "feature" of paper contracts that has just always existed for free and so it never had to be legislated that it must be possible? Has any one ever asked whether presenting a EULA is legal if the reader has no ability to propose amendments?
Counter theory (IANAL): My use of your software does not constitute acceptance of the EULA. If it did, no one would bother with having users click to accept the EULA. Instead, if I don't accept the EULA, the software is supposed to quit out. If it doesn't quit out when I click "No I don't Accept", then you're letting me use the software even though I haven't agreed to the EULA.
In this case, I the user am not clicking "No". Instead, I am replying with, "Yes, but with amendments." If the software quits out, fine. But if the software proceeds to let me use it, that sounds an awful lot like the company accepting the amended EULA. Your comments about the machine not being capable of processing and understanding the amendments is curious --- most of us users aren't capable of processing and understanding the original EULA, even with time taken to read through it. I would find it reasonable to say that the same standard of "opening the shrinkwrap" would apply to "allowing the user to proceed to use your software."
It would be pretty to think so, but there is no reason to believe it is anything but a publicity stunt.
I live in Austin. I have been going to the Alamo for over a decade. This has been their policy for as long as texting has been a possibility, and they have thrown many patrons out for violating the policy. This is just the first time it's gotten such national attention.
The PSAs at Alamo have included former governors of Texas, major film stars/directors, locals who made good PSAs for fun, etc. This is just the latest way to make sure people know what is acceptable social behavior at the Alamo. It isn't a completely public space. It is a shared space, with rules of decorum, and the Alamo and its staff work hard to make sure that as many people as possible have a good shared experience at the theaters. Some customers are not fit company for that space and they get tossed out. Honestly, anyone who refuses to follow the simple basics of No Talking & No Texting that the Alamo demands probably has little respect for any form of shared spaces. They're probably the same ones who get banned from chat channels and blocked by spam filters.:-)
I work for NI as a developer of LabVIEW. NI does use the term "G" for the language and "LabVIEW" for the IDE. In cases where there's no need to differentiate, we use LabVIEW because -- as mentioned in one of the earlier posts -- it is easier to search for "LabVIEW" than for "G" when using search engines. But there are some times when having the two separate terms is useful.
> So, let's just agree that the term "G" is being slowly worked out of the LabView ecosystem;
> Then the insurer could rely on positive selection (as opposed to adverse selection of people who didn't consent) as well as monitoring to give you a better rate.
Nope. If you allow positive selection for those who volunteer, that implies negative selection for anyone who refuses to volunteer, and it would be a short hop from there to assume anyone refusing to share has something to hide. Insuance companies have no "presumption of innocence" requirement.
You have to ban all tracking of such data to avoid sinister.
There's at least one major TV show that is done in front of a live studio audience. Saturday Night Live seems to do fine despite YouTube, Twitter, etc.
No. It is possible that you might get the degree after you start reading slashdot.org. But, really, going through life without a CS degree? How will you organize people at a party all trying to dip chips into a salsa bowl unless you know the exponential backoff algorithm?
Slashdot Mirror
When institutions like U. of Texas in Austin, U. of Okla and U. of Missouri are all now being funded by the state BELOW 20% of their general budget, it is hard to consider these to be public institutions. Those are the schools I have reason to know about. I'm told the situation is the same across USA -- we are dismantling public universities. I've heard suggestion among some donors to OU that the name should change to University IN Oklahoma since the state isn't choosing to be "of" the school anymore. Too many schools are begging rich alumni for gifts. At some point, the schools will become more in the service of those alumni than of the public.
Not useless. It has to match the whole line. If the regular expression matches zero characters, then the rest of the line is left as the next token in the string. You're thinking of it as a parser... think of it as the results of a parser -- the parser ran, and it returned the complete line of characters as a token when given this regular expression. Does that help you understand why this works?
The LabVIEW programming language had a full visual editor for its dataflow syntax in 1986. Mac only. Wasn't on Windows until 1992, but as an IDE it does predate the VB date in TFA.
See the comments from user munchr above. It is an excellent explanation of why you can't just refuse to give tech support to people.
It does seem like -- as the phone company -- you should build a smarter phone that just routes people to the person they should be calling. :-)
Seriously though -- thank you. Yours is the first reasonable explanation of this policy I have ever heard. If anyone had actually explained this while I was on the phone with AT&T for almost two days trying to cancel my data plan, I might still be with AT&T.
Now that I understand where this is coming from, I do wonder whether it would be feasible for you to turn off the data plan only when people call in to ask to do so. At that point, you have them on the phone and can explain that after they do this, they will not be able to call for tech support again unless when they call they pay some extravagant fee that covers an entire year of tech support. I would've happily bought into that system.
Blenders do not seem like an area of technology with a lot of room for innovation, but I've been surprised before (Sears has a "hammer research division" that is kind of amazing). What do you see as the next big thing in blending? Perhaps plans for a reassembler?
His whole service is serving the dissidents in those countries. He isn't an asshole, he is actively trying to promote freedom in those countries. This isn't the "won't you care for the children" emotional plea that you were expecting. It is a description of the problem he actively works on, and if it is one that you care about, you should be helping here.
I think what should concern you more is the probability that we have *always* been idiots and achieved our current position with idiocy, and we have only begun in the last fifty years to start having a real dialog about changing that. That is a process that would put us on an even stronger foundation going forward.
That's what this whole thread misses: America has generally been a theistic nation, off and on, since its founding. We put separation of church and state into our government but it was more about differences in denominations of one faith not about different faiths entirely. The amount of diversity we have today is staggering compared to those early days, and it is forcing us to re-evaluate lots of ideology. I'm actually fairly confident in the future of the United States because it is only recently that unquestioned beliefs in false science were even questioned. The Akin quote would not have gotten nationwide attention in the days before mass media, and would have gained only small traction in the days of limited television media. The Internet made everyone respond with, "Say what?!" And I believe that communal introspection is going to become more common, not less.
And if we can achieve all we have done with a populace ignorant of science, the future looks bright to me.
The first rule of Asimov's psychohistory is that you cannot tell the people you're monitoring that psychohistory exists. So publishing this has now invalidated the possiblity, showing yet another example of a headline that is a question to which the answer is, "no."
They don't claim to still have it. Banks are very open about the fact that they lend out your money. That's why they can pay interest on accounts. That's why you keep your money in a bank. If you don't want it lent out, keep it at home.
Suppose a bill comes up and you poll the electorate and the result comes back 50/50 split. How do you break the tie? More importantly, votes rarely come in exactly 50/50. How do you propose to handle the margin of error? If the vote comes in 51/49 but the margin of error is 3%, would you feel ok voting your conscience and going with the 49%? Would you abstain because your electorate is undecided?
It isn't easily replicable because of the network strength... it took huge effort to get everyone's parents to pick up this newfangled Facebook technology, and anyone who has tried to get family to adopt Google+ knows that it isn't going to be easy to unseat Facebook.
One way to judge how frequent life arises would be to check how often it has independently occurred on Earth. Do we have any species that share no genetic material with any other species? I've heard stories that mushrooms are completely orthogonal forms of life, but those same sources typically label them as extraterrestrial. That's just a story I heard... no idea if it is true or not. If the conditions on Earth are right for life, then perhaps we should occasionally see life appear ex nihilo. To the best of my knowledge, we have never observed that.
Given this, it seems like we would judge the formation of life to be pretty unlikely.
> It seems that anything that you do (or don't do!) will be used against you in a court. Now or ever in the future.
Anything you post publicly or share with even a single other person is usable as evidence. Only the stuff you truly keep private by not saying to anyone is limited: you can't be compelled to say it. But if you do say it, it's usable.
> Is this how the law works in US nowadays?
This is how it has worked since the system started.
but if they have oral sex then they can both go to jail for statutory rape.
Not since 2003. See Texas v Lawrence.
No, I agree with the GP post. It would seem like any company that accepted your amended text would also have to send you an amended EXE to click through, otherwise you just renegotiated back to their original terms. In the case of a website, they'd have to respond by giving you a new URL.
I suppose it *might* work if your on-paper amendment included a clause, "And the checkbox in the software is just an ignition switch and this document trumps the legalese therein."
I don't buy that argument. If your theory were true then a software author should be able to just display a page that says "there are terms of service that govern this site... >here is a link to them." Users would not have to actually accept the EULA because, by your theory, the seller has made you aware of the terms of use and now you're using the service. But that's not how it works... users have to actually accept the EULA for it to be valid. It appears to be legally unrelated to their use of the software until after the EULA is accepted. If it is never accepted and the user keeps using the software, that seems fine.
The analogy to the coke machine is more like I buy a coke, then the machine asks me if I will sign this form, I say no, and then I keep drinking the coke.
In a paper contract, if I want to amend something, I amend it, initial it, and sign. If the other party signs, the contract is valid as amended. This works for any paper contract.
Under the law, is a valid contract offer required to provide a mechanism for counter offering? Or is that a "feature" of paper contracts that has just always existed for free and so it never had to be legislated that it must be possible? Has any one ever asked whether presenting a EULA is legal if the reader has no ability to propose amendments?
Counter theory (IANAL): My use of your software does not constitute acceptance of the EULA. If it did, no one would bother with having users click to accept the EULA. Instead, if I don't accept the EULA, the software is supposed to quit out. If it doesn't quit out when I click "No I don't Accept", then you're letting me use the software even though I haven't agreed to the EULA.
In this case, I the user am not clicking "No". Instead, I am replying with, "Yes, but with amendments." If the software quits out, fine. But if the software proceeds to let me use it, that sounds an awful lot like the company accepting the amended EULA. Your comments about the machine not being capable of processing and understanding the amendments is curious --- most of us users aren't capable of processing and understanding the original EULA, even with time taken to read through it. I would find it reasonable to say that the same standard of "opening the shrinkwrap" would apply to "allowing the user to proceed to use your software."
Again, IANAL.
It would be pretty to think so, but there is no reason to believe it is anything but a publicity stunt.
I live in Austin. I have been going to the Alamo for over a decade. This has been their policy for as long as texting has been a possibility, and they have thrown many patrons out for violating the policy. This is just the first time it's gotten such national attention.
The PSAs at Alamo have included former governors of Texas, major film stars/directors, locals who made good PSAs for fun, etc. This is just the latest way to make sure people know what is acceptable social behavior at the Alamo. It isn't a completely public space. It is a shared space, with rules of decorum, and the Alamo and its staff work hard to make sure that as many people as possible have a good shared experience at the theaters. Some customers are not fit company for that space and they get tossed out. Honestly, anyone who refuses to follow the simple basics of No Talking & No Texting that the Alamo demands probably has little respect for any form of shared spaces. They're probably the same ones who get banned from chat channels and blocked by spam filters. :-)
I work for NI as a developer of LabVIEW. NI does use the term "G" for the language and "LabVIEW" for the IDE. In cases where there's no need to differentiate, we use LabVIEW because -- as mentioned in one of the earlier posts -- it is easier to search for "LabVIEW" than for "G" when using search engines. But there are some times when having the two separate terms is useful.
> So, let's just agree that the term "G" is being slowly worked out of the LabView ecosystem;
There's no intent to drop the term.
Alternatively, you make the information entirely public. As in, everyone can look at the tracking records of anyone.
Freedom, security, privacy: Pick two.
> Then the insurer could rely on positive selection (as opposed to adverse selection of people who didn't consent) as well as monitoring to give you a better rate.
Nope. If you allow positive selection for those who volunteer, that implies negative selection for anyone who refuses to volunteer, and it would be a short hop from there to assume anyone refusing to share has something to hide. Insuance companies have no "presumption of innocence" requirement.
You have to ban all tracking of such data to avoid sinister.
There's at least one major TV show that is done in front of a live studio audience. Saturday Night Live seems to do fine despite YouTube, Twitter, etc.
No. It is possible that you might get the degree after you start reading slashdot.org. But, really, going through life without a CS degree? How will you organize people at a party all trying to dip chips into a salsa bowl unless you know the exponential backoff algorithm?