you're foolish not to use your credit card to take advantage of these things.
No, I simply choose a different set of priorities.
Plus, I don't feel those minor benefits outweigh the fact that, by using one of their cards, I'm enriching them and supporting their predatory lending practices.
What's shocking is that everyone knows Facebook does this crap and uses their service anyway.
Why is that shocking? Maybe users have *gasp* different priorities than you do! I know, it's shocking!
For example, I don't care that Facebook knows the people I'm related to. They provide me a service, and I pay them by providing them with information they deem valuable. I consider that an equitable trade. Who the hell are you to decide I can't make that judgment for myself?
Frankly, I'm continually amused by how much smarter Slashdotters think they are than the general public, and how they seem to believe they know what's best for them. So much for that supposed libertarian streak around here...
I tried that. It doesn't work for me. The reality is that everyone is MORE careful with a different set of currency. My problem is that cash burns a hole in my wallet. Sure withdrawing fixed amounts keeps a cap on my limit, but if it's in my wallet I will ALWAYS spend to that cap. This means I'm still wasting money on things I don't need, because my mind says, "hey, it's Thursday and you still have $20 left!"
Why is it in your wallet? Unless you need it, it should be in an envelope or a jar at home. Does this mean you have to plan ahead for daily expenditures? Absolutely! But, you know, that's kinda the idea...
Personally, I have four jars at home: food, entertainment, transportation, and miscellaneous. If I need to buy groceries, I take a bit of money and buy groceries. Then I come home and put the change back in the jar.
After all, you can't spend money you don't have.:) Plus, unless you keep it divided up like this, you can't track what you've spent out of each pool, which'll be a real problem when you blow the rest of your grocery money going out for beers with your buddies...
It works for me. Just find what works for you. I recommend trying all different methods for awhile.
Unfortunately you changed your argument in your reply to me. Originally you claimed they wouldn't cause enough trouble to drive business away.
Heh, no, actually, originally I claimed precisely the opposite:
Frankly, I can't imagine why Apple would buy ARM unless their goal is vertical integration. And if that's the plan, then it makes a lot of sense to kill off ARMs licensing business, as then they'll potentially have a competitive edge over their rivals
I persisted in that argument for a bit, but then you made the anti-trust point, at which case I conceded that, yeah, they might not go that far (due to the legal dangers), instead choosing to just leverage the competitive advantage they would see by holding exclusive rights to technology for some period of time before releasing them to licensees.
But my original point still holds. Ultimately, this *may* be a vertical integration play, and they may not be interested in ARMs licensing business at all... then again, who really knows.
Well obviously you are right that for some people cash only is the best way for them to control spending. My point though is that anyone with a bit of self control is benefited by using a credit card for all their transactions.
Yeah, I'm just not convinced that's true, though. Even if you are extremely disciplined, the benefit of fixed-cash-pool budgeting is that your expenditures are 100% predictable every single month. As a result, you can maximize savings and debt repayment because you know precisely what your monthly cashflow will be like.
That said, it really is a matter of taste in the end. I like my system because it's extremely fixed and regimented. X dollars comes in, Y dollars go out in fixed expenses, Z dollars (divided up into pools) are allocated for discretionary spending, and W dollars goes to various savings (general savings, emergency fund, end-of-year taxes, etc). Simple, easy to understand, and above all, predictable.
but of course not every method is good for every person ymmv.
Maybe. Maybe not. It's really hard to say. After all, it's not like Intel and others don't have competing products, so Apple wouldn't have a total monopoly on the low-power market. It would just mean Apple gets to leverage new technology developed by ARM first (not unlike, say, the way the patent system already works).
But it's certainly a concern, and could very well result in the transaction being blocked by various governments (well, assuming the transaction is in the works at all, and not just a stupid Wall Street rumour).
Actually cash makes it far *harder* to track spending
Nope, wrong. The problem is you don't know how to do it properly.
The trick is to set aside fixed pools of cash for specific classes of discretionary spending (eg, groceries, etc), and to fill those pools on fixed intervals (say, twice a month). You can then *only* spend from those pools. This controls spending because, obviously, you can spend any more than you've allocated, which turns those variable, discretionary expenses into fixed, well-understood expenses that can be incorporated into a controlled, predictable monthly budget.
With plastic, it's so trivial to simply spend spend spend, without really thinking about it, which is why so many people go into fantastic debt, while simultaneously being extremely inefficient with the money they do make.
When you can watch your savings dwindling month after month it's a pretty good motivator for controlling spending.
ROFL, wow. That's so wrong it's hilarious. The whole point is that most people *don't* monitor their expenditures, so they don't notice their savings dwindling. Worse, many people work out of credit cards, which means it's not their savings that dwindles, it's that their debt climbs, and most people just don't handle that well.
No, sorry, for many many people out there, cash is a *far* better idea (assuming it's done right). Is that a universal rule? No. But if your goal is to tightly control spending, a well-managed, cash-based budget is hands down the best way to go.
I find card-only budgeting works better for me, but that's because most of my wasted money is loose change spent on junk food. I use a debit card, though, not credit - I'm still only spending money I have.
The problem is that, unless you are keeping an eye on your bank balance constantly, or are making sure to track every little transaction, it's very easy for those day-to-day debit events to add up. Fast.
The trick with budgeting on cash is that you set aside fixed pools of money every week for discretionary spending. eg, $100 for food, $40 for entertainment, etc. Then you withdraw that cash at the beginning of the week/every two weeks/month, and then only spend from that fixed pool. And if you run out of money, well, better find a way to get more, or reallocate your funds as need be.
The result is that you cap your discretionary spending so it can't get away from you (basically turning them into fixed, monthly expenditures). And it also puts you more in touch with how much money you're blowing every month.
Now, obviously this isn't for everyone. Some people are plenty disciplined and don't need a system like this. But for someone like myself who needs to have discipline forced on him:), it works extremely well, and means I can squeeze every last penny out of my monthly budget to maximize savings, debt repayment, etc. And given the average savings to debt ratio in the US (and Canada and probably many other places), I suspect a *lot* of people would benefit from this style of budget.
Killing ARM would bring, quite frankly, disastrous disruptions. I have very little electronic junk in the room I'm in, and yet still there are ~10 times more ARM cores around me than, say, x86 ones.
True enough, they may not necessarily choose to kill ARM's licensing business off (after all, many of ARM's designs end up in products that don't directly compete with Apple's). That said, it's entirely possible that they might, for example, hold exclusive rights to new designs/technologies for some period of time (say, a year) before releasing them to licensees, thus giving them an immediate competitive advantage without deeply disrupting the existing market.
Yes, people still use cash. In fact, it's all I use. Why would I work to enrich the credit card companies and banks, contributing to their usury, when I can just use cash and be done with it? Besides, it's a hell of a lot more difficult to have your credit card or debit card double-swiped or read by a tampered-with machine when you don't actually use it anywhere. Lastly, cash makes it *far* easier to track and control spending, which is a very good thing if you want to actually, you know, operate under a controlled budget.
Nobody can track what I buy or where I buy it. Paper money is the only way to be anonymous
Paper money is also the way to be responsible. Generally speaking, it's a lot more difficult to monitor and control discretionary spending if every transaction is just the swipe of a little plastic card.
I could see this argument 20 years ago. But does it really matter anymore since CCs have become so ubiquitous? I hardly EVER use paper money anymore.
Funny, I just switched to a budget where I do the exact opposite. Fixed cash pools are, hands down, the best way to control discretionary spending. Many would be very wise to put away the plastic and go back to an all-cash budget.
Meanwhile, if I were visually impaired, assuming US currency wasn't so retarded, I'd feel a lot more comfortable paying with physical bills rather than trusting a cashier not to defraud me by, say, double-swiping my card.
Personally I care less about what they're made of and more about the sizes and colours. I know dollars are tinted now, but they're still basically green, and all the same size. Not a major issue, I know...
Tell that to someone who's visually impaired... then again, fuck the blind, right?:)
And at the same time kill ARM's business! Hilarious.
You're under the mistaken assumption that the purpose of such a purchase would be to acquire ARM's business. But there's no reason to assume that.
Remember, ARM isn't a manufacturer. Really, when it comes down to it, they're an IP holding company. Of course, they create that IP internally, but it's in the licensing of that IP where they make their money. But if Apple's goal is to control that technology, and who can use it, then I don't see why they'd care if they killed the licensing arm (har har) of ARM's business because the reason they're buying ARM isn't for the customer base, it's for the technology itself.
Frankly, I can't imagine why Apple would buy ARM unless their goal is vertical integration. And if that's the plan, then it makes a lot of sense to kill off ARMs licensing business, as then they'll potentially have a competitive edge over their rivals (given there are few who can compete with ARM in the low-power space).
Those without families could probably afford not to work there and quit, but those with families to support and no other means of income have no choice but to work in those conditions.
Well, or they could just go back to farming and survive like their ancestors did for generations. 'course, they don't do that because these jobs are better than any job their ancestors ever had (which do you think is better, working 15 hours in a factory, or working 15 hours farming dirt? I know what I'd pick).
But they don't have a choice. It's either working under these hard conditions and feeding their families, or see their children starve.
Really? So you're saying people can't possibly quit those jobs? Even though the fucking source for the article *says people quit those jobs*? Huh. Interesting. So I guess you're privy to information no one else is, then?
Tendency toward violence is not a left/right thing
Absolutely. Really, I should've said "In today's political climate, it's the right-wingers in general that...". I certainly didn't mean to cast aspersions upon *all* right-wingers. But they are *currently* housing (and, I would argue, encouraging) a kernel of extremism within their ranks.
Unfortunately, it looks like in the real world, the Muslims are even more crazy than South Park has depicted them to be. It shows exactly how wacko the muslim community is.
Yes, you're absolutely right. A web site named "revolutionmuslim.com" clearly represents the views of all muslims.
Similarly, you, clearly, illustrate that the entire Slashdot community is composed of ignorant, prejudiced assholes.
Maybe it's because although some Christians might send angry letters they are very unlikely to act on it
You're right. It's the right-wingers in general that, apparently, are far more likely to get violent... throwing rocks and cutting gas lines, among other things. And then there's the verbal threats, racial epithets, etc, etc. Ahh, good times...
You think these people have the luxury of choice? That they can walk away and find a better job tomorrow?
I never said that. Go ahead, re-read my post. Do it slowly, as your reading comprehension seems to be failing you.
Okay, done? Now I'll explain, as you seem incapable of comprehending:
The original poster asked how labour laws in China will eventually improve given the environment is hostile to the creation of unions. What I said was that *eventually there will come a time* when there is great enough demand for labour that employees will be able to start dictating the terms of their employment.
I *did not* say that was the case today (although evidence suggests it's starting to happen, given the difficulty some Chinese factories are having finding employees). What I said was that the *eventual outcome* of continued economic growth in China is improved labour conditions.
Slashdot Mirror
you're foolish not to use your credit card to take advantage of these things.
No, I simply choose a different set of priorities.
Plus, I don't feel those minor benefits outweigh the fact that, by using one of their cards, I'm enriching them and supporting their predatory lending practices.
Excellent tip, thanks! Now if someone created an AdBlock subscription service for this filter list... :)
Says the guy socializing with people on Slashdot. Oh the hypocrisy of it all...
What's shocking is that everyone knows Facebook does this crap and uses their service anyway.
Why is that shocking? Maybe users have *gasp* different priorities than you do! I know, it's shocking!
For example, I don't care that Facebook knows the people I'm related to. They provide me a service, and I pay them by providing them with information they deem valuable. I consider that an equitable trade. Who the hell are you to decide I can't make that judgment for myself?
Frankly, I'm continually amused by how much smarter Slashdotters think they are than the general public, and how they seem to believe they know what's best for them. So much for that supposed libertarian streak around here...
I tried that. It doesn't work for me. The reality is that everyone is MORE careful with a different set of currency. My problem is that cash burns a hole in my wallet. Sure withdrawing fixed amounts keeps a cap on my limit, but if it's in my wallet I will ALWAYS spend to that cap. This means I'm still wasting money on things I don't need, because my mind says, "hey, it's Thursday and you still have $20 left!"
Why is it in your wallet? Unless you need it, it should be in an envelope or a jar at home. Does this mean you have to plan ahead for daily expenditures? Absolutely! But, you know, that's kinda the idea...
Personally, I have four jars at home: food, entertainment, transportation, and miscellaneous. If I need to buy groceries, I take a bit of money and buy groceries. Then I come home and put the change back in the jar.
After all, you can't spend money you don't have. :) Plus, unless you keep it divided up like this, you can't track what you've spent out of each pool, which'll be a real problem when you blow the rest of your grocery money going out for beers with your buddies...
It works for me. Just find what works for you. I recommend trying all different methods for awhile.
And *that* is absolutely true.
Unfortunately you changed your argument in your reply to me. Originally you claimed they wouldn't cause enough trouble to drive business away.
Heh, no, actually, originally I claimed precisely the opposite:
I persisted in that argument for a bit, but then you made the anti-trust point, at which case I conceded that, yeah, they might not go that far (due to the legal dangers), instead choosing to just leverage the competitive advantage they would see by holding exclusive rights to technology for some period of time before releasing them to licensees.
But my original point still holds. Ultimately, this *may* be a vertical integration play, and they may not be interested in ARMs licensing business at all... then again, who really knows.
Well obviously you are right that for some people cash only is the best way for them to control spending. My point though is that anyone with a bit of self control is benefited by using a credit card for all their transactions.
Yeah, I'm just not convinced that's true, though. Even if you are extremely disciplined, the benefit of fixed-cash-pool budgeting is that your expenditures are 100% predictable every single month. As a result, you can maximize savings and debt repayment because you know precisely what your monthly cashflow will be like.
That said, it really is a matter of taste in the end. I like my system because it's extremely fixed and regimented. X dollars comes in, Y dollars go out in fixed expenses, Z dollars (divided up into pools) are allocated for discretionary spending, and W dollars goes to various savings (general savings, emergency fund, end-of-year taxes, etc). Simple, easy to understand, and above all, predictable.
but of course not every method is good for every person ymmv.
And on that, I think we can definitely agree. :)
So instead of losing an anti-trust lawsuit, they'd just drive everyone away from ARM and thus lose an enormous pile of cash.
Huh? Go re-read my original response and maybe try to understand my counter-argument before rehashing the one the original poster stated.
And thus losing a large anti-trust lawsuit.
Maybe. Maybe not. It's really hard to say. After all, it's not like Intel and others don't have competing products, so Apple wouldn't have a total monopoly on the low-power market. It would just mean Apple gets to leverage new technology developed by ARM first (not unlike, say, the way the patent system already works).
But it's certainly a concern, and could very well result in the transaction being blocked by various governments (well, assuming the transaction is in the works at all, and not just a stupid Wall Street rumour).
Actually cash makes it far *harder* to track spending
Nope, wrong. The problem is you don't know how to do it properly.
The trick is to set aside fixed pools of cash for specific classes of discretionary spending (eg, groceries, etc), and to fill those pools on fixed intervals (say, twice a month). You can then *only* spend from those pools. This controls spending because, obviously, you can spend any more than you've allocated, which turns those variable, discretionary expenses into fixed, well-understood expenses that can be incorporated into a controlled, predictable monthly budget.
With plastic, it's so trivial to simply spend spend spend, without really thinking about it, which is why so many people go into fantastic debt, while simultaneously being extremely inefficient with the money they do make.
When you can watch your savings dwindling month after month it's a pretty good motivator for controlling spending.
ROFL, wow. That's so wrong it's hilarious. The whole point is that most people *don't* monitor their expenditures, so they don't notice their savings dwindling. Worse, many people work out of credit cards, which means it's not their savings that dwindles, it's that their debt climbs, and most people just don't handle that well.
No, sorry, for many many people out there, cash is a *far* better idea (assuming it's done right). Is that a universal rule? No. But if your goal is to tightly control spending, a well-managed, cash-based budget is hands down the best way to go.
I find card-only budgeting works better for me, but that's because most of my wasted money is loose change spent on junk food. I use a debit card, though, not credit - I'm still only spending money I have.
The problem is that, unless you are keeping an eye on your bank balance constantly, or are making sure to track every little transaction, it's very easy for those day-to-day debit events to add up. Fast.
The trick with budgeting on cash is that you set aside fixed pools of money every week for discretionary spending. eg, $100 for food, $40 for entertainment, etc. Then you withdraw that cash at the beginning of the week/every two weeks/month, and then only spend from that fixed pool. And if you run out of money, well, better find a way to get more, or reallocate your funds as need be.
The result is that you cap your discretionary spending so it can't get away from you (basically turning them into fixed, monthly expenditures). And it also puts you more in touch with how much money you're blowing every month.
Now, obviously this isn't for everyone. Some people are plenty disciplined and don't need a system like this. But for someone like myself who needs to have discipline forced on him :), it works extremely well, and means I can squeeze every last penny out of my monthly budget to maximize savings, debt repayment, etc. And given the average savings to debt ratio in the US (and Canada and probably many other places), I suspect a *lot* of people would benefit from this style of budget.
Killing ARM would bring, quite frankly, disastrous disruptions. I have very little electronic junk in the room I'm in, and yet still there are ~10 times more ARM cores around me than, say, x86 ones.
True enough, they may not necessarily choose to kill ARM's licensing business off (after all, many of ARM's designs end up in products that don't directly compete with Apple's). That said, it's entirely possible that they might, for example, hold exclusive rights to new designs/technologies for some period of time (say, a year) before releasing them to licensees, thus giving them an immediate competitive advantage without deeply disrupting the existing market.
Yes, people still use cash. In fact, it's all I use. Why would I work to enrich the credit card companies and banks, contributing to their usury, when I can just use cash and be done with it? Besides, it's a hell of a lot more difficult to have your credit card or debit card double-swiped or read by a tampered-with machine when you don't actually use it anywhere. Lastly, cash makes it *far* easier to track and control spending, which is a very good thing if you want to actually, you know, operate under a controlled budget.
Nobody can track what I buy or where I buy it. Paper money is the only way to be anonymous
Paper money is also the way to be responsible. Generally speaking, it's a lot more difficult to monitor and control discretionary spending if every transaction is just the swipe of a little plastic card.
I could see this argument 20 years ago. But does it really matter anymore since CCs have become so ubiquitous? I hardly EVER use paper money anymore.
Funny, I just switched to a budget where I do the exact opposite. Fixed cash pools are, hands down, the best way to control discretionary spending. Many would be very wise to put away the plastic and go back to an all-cash budget.
Meanwhile, if I were visually impaired, assuming US currency wasn't so retarded, I'd feel a lot more comfortable paying with physical bills rather than trusting a cashier not to defraud me by, say, double-swiping my card.
Personally I care less about what they're made of and more about the sizes and colours. I know dollars are tinted now, but they're still basically green, and all the same size. Not a major issue, I know...
Tell that to someone who's visually impaired... then again, fuck the blind, right? :)
When the world (and Slashdot in particular) is no longer populated with drooling idiots.
So, never.
And at the same time kill ARM's business! Hilarious.
You're under the mistaken assumption that the purpose of such a purchase would be to acquire ARM's business. But there's no reason to assume that.
Remember, ARM isn't a manufacturer. Really, when it comes down to it, they're an IP holding company. Of course, they create that IP internally, but it's in the licensing of that IP where they make their money. But if Apple's goal is to control that technology, and who can use it, then I don't see why they'd care if they killed the licensing arm (har har) of ARM's business because the reason they're buying ARM isn't for the customer base, it's for the technology itself.
Frankly, I can't imagine why Apple would buy ARM unless their goal is vertical integration. And if that's the plan, then it makes a lot of sense to kill off ARMs licensing business, as then they'll potentially have a competitive edge over their rivals (given there are few who can compete with ARM in the low-power space).
Those without families could probably afford not to work there and quit, but those with families to support and no other means of income have no choice but to work in those conditions.
Well, or they could just go back to farming and survive like their ancestors did for generations. 'course, they don't do that because these jobs are better than any job their ancestors ever had (which do you think is better, working 15 hours in a factory, or working 15 hours farming dirt? I know what I'd pick).
But they don't have a choice. It's either working under these hard conditions and feeding their families, or see their children starve.
Really? So you're saying people can't possibly quit those jobs? Even though the fucking source for the article *says people quit those jobs*? Huh. Interesting. So I guess you're privy to information no one else is, then?
Tendency toward violence is not a left/right thing
Absolutely. Really, I should've said "In today's political climate, it's the right-wingers in general that...". I certainly didn't mean to cast aspersions upon *all* right-wingers. But they are *currently* housing (and, I would argue, encouraging) a kernel of extremism within their ranks.
Unfortunately, it looks like in the real world, the Muslims are even more crazy than South Park has depicted them to be. It shows exactly how wacko the muslim community is.
Yes, you're absolutely right. A web site named "revolutionmuslim.com" clearly represents the views of all muslims.
Similarly, you, clearly, illustrate that the entire Slashdot community is composed of ignorant, prejudiced assholes.
Maybe it's because although some Christians might send angry letters they are very unlikely to act on it
You're right. It's the right-wingers in general that, apparently, are far more likely to get violent... throwing rocks and cutting gas lines, among other things. And then there's the verbal threats, racial epithets, etc, etc. Ahh, good times...
Good point, if your Mom suffered, people SHOULD suffer.
Yeah, that's totally what I said. ::rollseyes::
How's that strawman working out for you? Do you feel more manly for having knocked it down?
Have you EVER been to a poor third world country?
China isn't the third world, jackass.
You think these people have the luxury of choice? That they can walk away and find a better job tomorrow?
I never said that. Go ahead, re-read my post. Do it slowly, as your reading comprehension seems to be failing you.
Okay, done? Now I'll explain, as you seem incapable of comprehending:
The original poster asked how labour laws in China will eventually improve given the environment is hostile to the creation of unions. What I said was that *eventually there will come a time* when there is great enough demand for labour that employees will be able to start dictating the terms of their employment.
I *did not* say that was the case today (although evidence suggests it's starting to happen, given the difficulty some Chinese factories are having finding employees). What I said was that the *eventual outcome* of continued economic growth in China is improved labour conditions.
Perhaps you get it now?