Some of us don't see the value in instalment loans though. I'll gladly pay more over 15 years if it means less out of pocket all at once.
I see the value in installment loans, as long as I am the lender, AND I receive interest that more than offsets my cost of lending after taking into account risks.
It is best to pick the high upfront cost option and irrational to buy the lower upfront cost option that requires more payments; if the higher upfront cost option is sufficiently less expensive over the next 15 years ------
in fact.... if the difference is big enough, it may be rational to take the higher upfront cost option and fund it using a bank loan or credit card: in case you don't have the liquidity in the near term to take the deal.
... BUT: after discounting the payments from the "pay more over 15" years option to present value, AND discounting both
choices according to considerations such as risk and fragility.
The higher cost unit usually has greater risk associated with it --- since there is more value tied up in it, AND it can unexpectedly break early or become obsolete, before its intended lifetime.
The risk associated with buying a regular incandescent lightbulb is minimal ----- one of them can go out well before it's expected lifetime: they are cheap, however, and therefore: the impact amounts to very little in monetary lost.
On the other hand.... a LED bulb can short out one day, randomly. There goes your ROI/preference in picking LED, for at least a few years worth.
But the updates will only be created for EN_GB and there'll be no way to translate that into american english.
Why do you think I said $20, instead of the $11 per computer that the British are paying?
For Pro, they could even make it $30 a seat, and still more than cover their costs.
There are hundreds of thousands of XP computers in the US that have not and are not being upgraded to Windows 8.
In many cases, because the system is required by a legacy application, and the OS vendor's position of you must upgrade to maintain support is simply ridiculous.
It's not that hard to build both the patch for the EN_US and the EN_GB versions of Home and Pro.
Once all the bit coins are mined, the people verifying the transactions will have to charge a fee unless they are using a bot net.
A number of pools are already requiring fees to include transactions, OR including only a limited number of free transactions.
The thing is... if there's no fee... then there's no incentive for a miner to include the transaction.
There is no minimum number of transactions for a miner to include ----- a block with no transactions is valid -- if a miner wants, and they can find a block with no transactions in it --- then the miner can claim the reward.
So expect fees to be mandatory sooner than you think.
I think their real fear is that it's a perfect vehicle to circumvent capital controls and allows people to transfer significant amounts of cash OUT of the country.
In that case they SHOULD have that fear. Because BTC is a nearly perfect mechanism apparently designed to be capable of just that.
Providing the availability of exchanges willing to cooperate by accepting Yuan/RMB deposits.
Universities should serve the public good. Anything created there should go into the public commons and be available to anybody and everybody to use.
They do serve the public good; they are non-profit in the sense that the license proceeds are funding more academic research and the administrative costs / management overhead. Everything created there is available to the public; you can read all about it, if you just pay the proper academic journal for the article. If you want to use it commercially for profit, you just need to pay a small licensing fee for each user, each copy you make, each unit you sell, or each seat that you license --- in order to help pay for more research.
I absolutely do not want to hit any buttons to pan the camera while driving.
Let's make the steering wheel itself surround a giant screen showing everything behind you then,
with an additional "pannable" view as a heads-up display projected on the windshield.
If you want to TURN you rotate the wheel.
If you want to pan the camera, you tilt one side of the steering wheel forward and the other side backward, vice-versa.
The problem is that the question for the jurors is if certain parts of Apple's smartphones are patentable. The video uses an Apple smartphone as an example of something that is patentable. It answers the question for the jury.
Well... the iPhone hardware device was indeed a patentable invention. In fact..... Apple already won that suit.
The task before the jury will be quite technical and more specific --- and unrelated to the patentability of the iPhone device.
The case is a software patent case; the patents are quite technical covering: "Universal search", "Turning text containing http into hyperlinks", "Slide to unlock", "Auto complete", "Background Data synchronization", and it would be an insult to the jurors to say that some video showing an iPhone somehow prejudices them.
The jury won't be called to decide the facts about iPhone patentability.
But the technical issues about whether these additional software patents related to specific OS features are valid, and whether Samsung infringes upon the boundaries of these inventions are not..
If this video were the ONLY possible means of educating the jurors about the patent system, you might have a constructive point. It's nevertheless "leading" or whatever to portray any Apple product in a positive light with respect to patents
They're not. They show BOTH PCs and Macbooks in the video being used to perform activities related to patents, such as the inventor using the computer to work on the invention / prepare the application, and examiners to review the application.
The video doesn't show a smartphone being used. The only smartphone device I could see appears to be in the background on the table with the laptop the coffee, etc --- it's not being used as an 'example' of a patentable invention.
It is definitely the sort of thing you would see every day.
The Apple Macbook is shown in the video being used to prepare a patent application, or to display the inventor's design on screen. there is a sack in the background, what looks like a coffee cup you would get from a coffee shop, and a smart phone on the table off to the side, not the subject of the discussion --- it might be an iPhone; i'm not sure... it's not part of the discussion or an example of an invention... it's just in the backgroun environment
Dropbox has no idea that you only intend to share it with yourself, or one other person, and there is no mechanism by which you can ensure that yourself anyway.
Well.... if more than 3 IP addresses retrieve the link, then assume it has been shared with other people.
Yeah, because if a sufficiently motivated person can always pick a lock, we should just remove all locks?
No... SSL encryption is the lock. Authenticity is supposed to be the anti-pick mechanism.
I suggest not using the anti-pick mechanism called "CA based certificate validation" that comes with SSL.
I mentioned there are better options available, such as hard coding good public keys on the client side.
But you have to throw away SSL certificate validation, before you can implement good crypto practices, because of the fact that SSL doesn't use good practices.
Also... while throwing away bad crypto; perhaps a good opportunity to stream encrypt your data with AES256 using Encrypt-then-MAC, rather than SSL/TLS's flawwed and weak Mac-then-Encrypt approach.
With certificate validation, someone will have to compromise a CA (admittedly, any trusted CA will do) and do a MITM to get your data. Without certificate validation, anyone who can do a MITM can get your data.
There are enough holes in the CA system and SSL certificate verification within SSL software frameworks and libraries that anyone who can do a MITM will most likely have little trouble compromising a CA or other point in the validation chain. We know that in practice it is rare that anyone even knows the theory behind executing a MITM attack, let alone the ability to pull off SSL MITM.
No.. But they still will have absolutely no difficulty finding a lawyer to help them claim their jackpot after they "suddenly feel ill" after being afffected by salmonella, sometime after reportedly eating some of said peanut butter.
I can understand why they simply don't want to be associated with the listeria outbreak factory. It boggles my mind that ANY ONE here wants to push the issue.
I can't understand why they want to dump this organic material in a landfill with other random trash.
Even if it's unfit for human consumption --- it can still be used as an energy source or fertilizer, due to the valuable raw nutrients contained in peanuts.
local government would require the companies that lay cables to sell usage of their cables at a fair price to competitors to promote healthy competition.
The problem is: this makes it unprofitable to lay cables, as consumers are unwilling to pay the price for infrastructure.
If the company laying the cables can't get exclusivity to sell services at a premium, then chances are that they won't ever recoup the cost of laying the cables.
Sure... as long as your definition of Net neutrality includes:
Incumbent telcos and cable companies must provide equal and non-discriminatory access to all Layer 2 protocol providers,
for data services delivered over copper, cable, or fiber, including all competitors for transport and IP networking services, AND the physical plant/facilities based telecommunications providers may not bundle their own internet or telecommunications services with the physical lines -- or vary the price or terms of the physical lines according to which data providers are used with data services on the physical lines.
Forcible entry of uninvited guests, aka breaking down the door, is the textbook example of justified use deadly force in protection of hearth, family and home.
Speaking of which... do you have a recommended method of getting the shot delivered, before the perpetrators are finished breaking through the door?
Often it takes the uninvited guests a while to complete the forcible entry due to the metallic cladding around the door, the high-security strike plates; additional steel reinforcement of the door frame, additional physical bolts.
While it is clear they are working on getting through, and they will eventually succeed --- if not divert to a window instead.
The problem getting the shot delivered is... until they have successfully broken through: there is a door in the way.
Not wanting to do damage to the door, and possibly speed up their attempt to attack, or engage them face to face -- for fear that the uninvited intruders are armed --- can you think of a resolution, or way of getting the lead shot delivered successfully?
Slashdot Mirror
Some of us don't see the value in instalment loans though. I'll gladly pay more over 15 years if it means less out of pocket all at once.
I see the value in installment loans, as long as I am the lender, AND I receive interest that more than offsets my cost of lending after taking into account risks.
It is best to pick the high upfront cost option and irrational to buy the lower upfront cost option that requires more payments; if the higher upfront cost option is sufficiently less expensive over the next 15 years ------ in fact.... if the difference is big enough, it may be rational to take the higher upfront cost option and fund it using a bank loan or credit card: in case you don't have the liquidity in the near term to take the deal.
... BUT: after discounting the payments from the "pay more over 15" years option to present value, AND discounting both choices according to considerations such as risk and fragility.
The higher cost unit usually has greater risk associated with it --- since there is more value tied up in it, AND it can unexpectedly break early or become obsolete, before its intended lifetime.
The risk associated with buying a regular incandescent lightbulb is minimal ----- one of them can go out well before it's expected lifetime: they are cheap, however, and therefore: the impact amounts to very little in monetary lost.
On the other hand.... a LED bulb can short out one day, randomly. There goes your ROI/preference in picking LED, for at least a few years worth.
But the updates will only be created for EN_GB and there'll be no way to translate that into american english.
Why do you think I said $20, instead of the $11 per computer that the British are paying? For Pro, they could even make it $30 a seat, and still more than cover their costs.
There are hundreds of thousands of XP computers in the US that have not and are not being upgraded to Windows 8. In many cases, because the system is required by a legacy application, and the OS vendor's position of you must upgrade to maintain support is simply ridiculous.
It's not that hard to build both the patch for the EN_US and the EN_GB versions of Home and Pro.
No excuses! IF the UK government can pay for continued support, that means you still have to develop and test the updates anyways.,
You should offer users (who are not upgrading anyways) continued security updates for $20 per XP seat per year.
It won't get me killed, because I'd have for every Nest protect, the older nearby simple detector detected hardwired to the building fire alarm.
See.... I don't trust any one smoke detector. Always install two in a room -- in pairs and test weekly.
Is that the Kay Sievers reply?
Closed: Wontfix, Not a bug
Again, move discussions to the mailing list; this is a bug tracker, but there is no bug to track or fix here.
Exactly. Ethernet is transfomer coupled, so just try the various combinations until it works.
What if they didn't implement the full Ethernet spec... and it's similar to Ethernet, but not transformer coupled?
Once all the bit coins are mined, the people verifying the transactions will have to charge a fee unless they are using a bot net.
A number of pools are already requiring fees to include transactions, OR including only a limited number of free transactions.
The thing is... if there's no fee... then there's no incentive for a miner to include the transaction. There is no minimum number of transactions for a miner to include ----- a block with no transactions is valid -- if a miner wants, and they can find a block with no transactions in it --- then the miner can claim the reward.
So expect fees to be mandatory sooner than you think.
I think their real fear is that it's a perfect vehicle to circumvent capital controls and allows people to transfer significant amounts of cash OUT of the country.
In that case they SHOULD have that fear. Because BTC is a nearly perfect mechanism apparently designed to be capable of just that.
Providing the availability of exchanges willing to cooperate by accepting Yuan/RMB deposits.
Or a day trader
Same thing....
Universities should serve the public good. Anything created there should go into the public commons and be available to anybody and everybody to use.
They do serve the public good; they are non-profit in the sense that the license proceeds are funding more academic research and the administrative costs / management overhead. Everything created there is available to the public; you can read all about it, if you just pay the proper academic journal for the article. If you want to use it commercially for profit, you just need to pay a small licensing fee for each user, each copy you make, each unit you sell, or each seat that you license --- in order to help pay for more research.
Reversibility is not enough!
To truly innovate: they should have a cylindrical connector that you can plug_in effortlessly.
With ridges in the plug of varying depths, that will automatically mate with the proper signal lines in the connector.
I absolutely do not want to hit any buttons to pan the camera while driving.
Let's make the steering wheel itself surround a giant screen showing everything behind you then, with an additional "pannable" view as a heads-up display projected on the windshield.
If you want to TURN you rotate the wheel.
If you want to pan the camera, you tilt one side of the steering wheel forward and the other side backward, vice-versa.
The problem is that the question for the jurors is if certain parts of Apple's smartphones are patentable. The video uses an Apple smartphone as an example of something that is patentable. It answers the question for the jury.
Well... the iPhone hardware device was indeed a patentable invention. In fact..... Apple already won that suit.
The task before the jury will be quite technical and more specific --- and unrelated to the patentability of the iPhone device.
The case is a software patent case; the patents are quite technical covering: "Universal search", "Turning text containing http into hyperlinks", "Slide to unlock", "Auto complete", "Background Data synchronization", and it would be an insult to the jurors to say that some video showing an iPhone somehow prejudices them.
The jury won't be called to decide the facts about iPhone patentability. But the technical issues about whether these additional software patents related to specific OS features are valid, and whether Samsung infringes upon the boundaries of these inventions are not..
I do not believe that. you see it on tv show credits, "promotional consideration provided by apple"
This consideration could be lending them the hardware.
If this video were the ONLY possible means of educating the jurors about the patent system, you might have a constructive point. It's nevertheless "leading" or whatever to portray any Apple product in a positive light with respect to patents
They're not. They show BOTH PCs and Macbooks in the video being used to perform activities related to patents, such as the inventor using the computer to work on the invention / prepare the application, and examiners to review the application.
The video doesn't show a smartphone being used. The only smartphone device I could see appears to be in the background on the table with the laptop the coffee, etc --- it's not being used as an 'example' of a patentable invention.
It is definitely the sort of thing you would see every day.
The Apple Macbook is shown in the video being used to prepare a patent application, or to display the inventor's design on screen. there is a sack in the background, what looks like a coffee cup you would get from a coffee shop, and a smart phone on the table off to the side, not the subject of the discussion --- it might be an iPhone; i'm not sure... it's not part of the discussion or an example of an invention... it's just in the backgroun environment
At $70/month for internet. I am sure Comcast could afford to lay down some cable.
They wouldn't be able to charge customers nearly $70/Month if they had to sell usage of their cable to competitors with nondiscriminatory pricing.
Now it seems the small device market (phones and tablets) have destroyed that.
OK... so instead sell 1 custom built computer a month at 5 to 10 times the price.
Dropbox has no idea that you only intend to share it with yourself, or one other person, and there is no mechanism by which you can ensure that yourself anyway.
Well.... if more than 3 IP addresses retrieve the link, then assume it has been shared with other people.
Yeah, because if a sufficiently motivated person can always pick a lock, we should just remove all locks?
No... SSL encryption is the lock. Authenticity is supposed to be the anti-pick mechanism. I suggest not using the anti-pick mechanism called "CA based certificate validation" that comes with SSL. I mentioned there are better options available, such as hard coding good public keys on the client side.
But you have to throw away SSL certificate validation, before you can implement good crypto practices, because of the fact that SSL doesn't use good practices.
Also... while throwing away bad crypto; perhaps a good opportunity to stream encrypt your data with AES256 using Encrypt-then-MAC, rather than SSL/TLS's flawwed and weak Mac-then-Encrypt approach.
With certificate validation, someone will have to compromise a CA (admittedly, any trusted CA will do) and do a MITM to get your data. Without certificate validation, anyone who can do a MITM can get your data.
There are enough holes in the CA system and SSL certificate verification within SSL software frameworks and libraries that anyone who can do a MITM will most likely have little trouble compromising a CA or other point in the validation chain. We know that in practice it is rare that anyone even knows the theory behind executing a MITM attack, let alone the ability to pull off SSL MITM.
not shopping at Costco in the first place.
No.. But they still will have absolutely no difficulty finding a lawyer to help them claim their jackpot after they "suddenly feel ill" after being afffected by salmonella, sometime after reportedly eating some of said peanut butter.
I can understand why they simply don't want to be associated with the listeria outbreak factory. It boggles my mind that ANY ONE here wants to push the issue.
I can't understand why they want to dump this organic material in a landfill with other random trash.
Even if it's unfit for human consumption --- it can still be used as an energy source or fertilizer, due to the valuable raw nutrients contained in peanuts.
local government would require the companies that lay cables to sell usage of their cables at a fair price to competitors to promote healthy competition.
The problem is: this makes it unprofitable to lay cables, as consumers are unwilling to pay the price for infrastructure.
If the company laying the cables can't get exclusivity to sell services at a premium, then chances are that they won't ever recoup the cost of laying the cables.
Seems like a fair trade.
Sure... as long as your definition of Net neutrality includes: Incumbent telcos and cable companies must provide equal and non-discriminatory access to all Layer 2 protocol providers, for data services delivered over copper, cable, or fiber, including all competitors for transport and IP networking services, AND the physical plant/facilities based telecommunications providers may not bundle their own internet or telecommunications services with the physical lines -- or vary the price or terms of the physical lines according to which data providers are used with data services on the physical lines.
Forcible entry of uninvited guests, aka breaking down the door, is the textbook example of justified use deadly force in protection of hearth, family and home.
Speaking of which... do you have a recommended method of getting the shot delivered, before the perpetrators are finished breaking through the door?
Often it takes the uninvited guests a while to complete the forcible entry due to the metallic cladding around the door, the high-security strike plates; additional steel reinforcement of the door frame, additional physical bolts.
While it is clear they are working on getting through, and they will eventually succeed --- if not divert to a window instead.
The problem getting the shot delivered is... until they have successfully broken through: there is a door in the way.
Not wanting to do damage to the door, and possibly speed up their attempt to attack, or engage them face to face -- for fear that the uninvited intruders are armed --- can you think of a resolution, or way of getting the lead shot delivered successfully?