I'm really disappointed how many people don't know what "rigged" means. If all "rigged" means is that someone, even the news media, reported facts about a candidate that made them look bad, then every election since the news media was a thing has been rigged.
Genuinely curious, here. Why do you have a landlord and would incur $2,500 in real estate broker fees? When I've rented, no real estate broker was involved. I assume it works differently where you are?
My freedom far outweighs your right to quiet enjoyment of your property when you didn't take any means to buy into property that was owned by an association- or otherwise enough surrounding property to keep it quiet, or sufficient noise insulation.
Not true. I bought a house in a city that has noise ordinances. Be as noisy as you want, but if it's too noisy, you can expect the cops to come along and tell you to knock it off, and ticket you if you don't.
You're right that we shouldn't care about some random statistic...but we should be interested enough in these random statistics to ask the question "Why is that happening?" I mean, if someone told me that 25% fewer men were going to choose to become doctors, that would make me wonder why. That's a pretty big shift regardless of gender or profession.
Personally, I don't think we're doing such a bang-up job in the IT field. Take the frequent reports of mass compromises. Take the latest DDoS by video cameras of all things. I think we should care that the best people to go into the field do, if they want to, absent any outside influence.
So, do I want to artificially nudge the stats so we have 50% male/50% female? No, not at all. Stuff like this should spur us to ask why it's happening, though, and if it's due to some outside influence (like we're systemically dissuading women in technology), then yes, we should do something about it.
Where we essentially have reached a post scarcity society and people work for the self-actualization aspect of a job rather than the desperate need to struggle to survive.
That's really the key right there. Assuming a post-scarcity society is coming, the key will be balancing the transition. Implement something like UBI when we still actually need most people working in order to provide stuff and you have a problem. Maybe you need your car fixed, but nobody wants to be bothered doing that anymore. Automate away enough jobs without providing a method for those people to not starve in the streets, and you'll have a problem. Most likely a very bloody problem as they decline to just starve in the streets.
It's a trade off, but honestly one I'd be happy to take. I definitely snap a few pictures at concerts I go to. I have one friend on Facebook who follows a band somewhat obsessively and watches all of their shows via periscope. In other words, through some ass holding his phone up in the air blocking the view of people who are physically present.
Would I give up the ability to take a couple pictures in exchange for not having people in front of me block the view/blind me with their phones (because they never seem to realize they have brightness settings)? Sure.
If you disagree with what the restaurants or in this case, delivery service, are doing by suggesting tips then don't use the service. By not tipping you are both supporting the business model you disagree with and telling the employee a big "F.U." by saying that you are ok that they are busting their ass to provide you with good service and that you are ok with them making poverty wages in order to do that.
Yeah, I agree with this. I love the idea of grocery delivery and would absolutely use it...except for tipping. I hate tipping. It's as if just because I want to use a service, I have to ALSO sign up to decide how much the server should be paid today. "They were really friendly and helpful, so 25%? The drinks were slow, though, and one of the entrees was wrong, so 15%? Maybe 20%..." Ugh. No thanks. I'd much rather companies just paid people something reasonable, and if the service sucks I won't use them again. If the service is great, they'll have a customer for life and I'll happily pay them more than average service places.
Someone with lower credit (~600 or under) easily gets a "penalty" of >10%.
It's not a penalty, it's a higher charge because people with lower scores are more likely to default on their loans.
If you are a young then your score relies heavily on your parents, and while the young person may have done nothing wrong personally, they immediately start life with a lower credit score because of the parents' mistakes.
This is completely false. Your credit has nothing to do with your parents. Your loan rates will have nothing to do with your parents UNLESS they cosign a loan for you. When you start out, you simply have no credit record, and yes, that means you're viewed as riskier.
Also, the key word is compounding interest.
Thanks. I first unlocked the mysteries of compound interest in elementary school. It's not as nefarious as you think.
The on-paper rate might be 15-20% or even lower, but since the interest is then added to the balance when calculating the next interest payment, you're paying interest on interest, making the effective rate numbers like 30% or higher. So even if you pay all of your minimums, the interest can still go up!
A 15% APR compounded daily is 16.1798% effective. 20% is 22.1336%. What you're describing has nothing to do with compounding, it's called negative amortization. I often think that should be illegal.
My wife had a private loan that compounded daily.
This is actually pretty normal, and as I posted above, doesn't have a huge impact on loan rates. Personally, I don't think anybody's trying to screw anybody here, it's a pretty natural consequence of figuring out how to charge interest. If I charge you X% at the beginning of the year, I'm charging you for a full year of borrowing money when you don't borrow all of that money for a full year. You pay some back each month. I can charge you 1/12th of the interest every month (compounding monthly), but not all months have the same length, so that's not quite right. The thing that works and is always correct is compounding daily.
There's even a thing called continuous compounding that reduces that compounding interval to zero, but it doesn't have much effect at all on the rate. 15% compounded continuously is 16.1834% vs 16.1798% for daily compounding.
Predatory lending is definitely a thing and should be stopped, but predatory schooling is the problem in this case. Institutions that offer valueless degrees while lying about the value of those degrees for a lot of money are a problem. Lenders, federal or commercial, who give people money to spend on valueless degrees with no regard for whether they'll get the money back are a problem, too, and should be stopped. Yes, that means some people aren't going to college, but that beats the heck out of sending those people to college for $100,000 that isn't actually worth $100,000.
We've been gutting education funding for 20 years. This is the result. College really is un-affordable for some.
Yes, it's not affordable for some, including my own kids. It's not because we've been gutting funding, though. It's because prices have been increasing stupidly faster than inflation with no real justification. Part of the problem is actually that we keep throwing money at the problem. We need to start saying "NO!" to colleges that want $50,000/year in tuition, and even $20,000 IMO. The solution isn't finding more of someone else's money. It's asking why it costs so much in the first place, and fixing it.
That's plausible. The highest I paid for a student loan was 6.8%, but I can see somebody paying 9. In that case the statement in the article, "he now owes more than $200,000" is false. He'd owe 98k, assuming he hasn't paid back anything yet.
Valladares took out $65,000 in federal and $7,000 in private loans to pay tuition. Four years later, he now owes more than $200,000 on his loans due to compounding interest.
That's 29% interest. Who out there is actually offering student loans at 29% interest?
Akamai is present at practically every internet exchange, and peers with basically anyone.
I'd speculate that's exactly what they're talking about. Building and maintaining that infrastructure isn't free. If you have one guy using up X% of it, it's pretty reasonable to start thinking that the cost of serving that one guy is X% of your ongoing infrastructure costs.
So, did Krebs personally cost them a ton of money? Probably not. Would he if they committed to keep serving him AND that sort of traffic load continued? Yes.
Atheism is no more a religion than an empty glass contains a kind of beer.
What I detest is asshole, self described 'atheists' who have the need to inform religious people that they are stupid for believing in fairy tales and having faith.
I tend to leave religious people strictly alone, so long as they aren't harming or advocating harming anyone else. I think the notion of believing in a religion, and especially an afterlife, would be very comforting. Certainly, a lot of my extended family find it so. Really, the only time I ever want to argue against religion is when people use it as a weapon against others.
That's why I prefer unlimited data. It's not because I plan on consuming unlimited amounts of it, but I do want to be able to go to work, plug in the headphones, and not have to think about my data plan when I decide if I want to stream music or listen to music I already bought.
Companies can make up what I "need", but the bottom line is that if your competitor offers a service that makes me happier, as in same quality and I never have to think about billing again, then I'm not your customer anymore.
Yep. I got a notice today, in fact, from Verizon that I was nearing my cap and that it'd be $15/GB over unless I paid $20 to go to the next tier.
I really don't get why they're crowing about faster and faster speeds, 5G, and the like. It's just a recipe for blowing through your plan allowance faster.
My kids' school does this. Instead of sending me an email, they send these $DIETY-awful voice mails that drone on, mostly about things that don't affect me at all, for 3 minutes. At least that's what they were a couple years ago. I couldn't tell you what's in one now since they're all deleted unheard.
Even worse, they've started sending emails, too. That'd be great if the emails actually included the text, but no, they're the stupidest of all possible alternatives. They just include a link to the audio.
Surveillance cameras active in an area need to be disclosed
Not true. Some places will call them out because they want to deter criminal activity ("Smile! You're on camera..."), but generally, you don't need consent to take someone's picture (including video). Places where privacy would normally be expected, like bathrooms, changing rooms, etc, are an exception.
Take a stroll through a department store and look up. Those small black domes are cameras that no one tells you are there.
1.5 million downloads at a suggested donation of $2-10, meaning it's darned certain they didn't get more than $3 million.
Nintendo's choice is to "cut a deal" for a fraction of less than $3 million (probably a lot less), thereby encouraging other people to illegally rip off their IP, or spend a couple hundred bucks having a lawyer tell them to knock it off.
Personally, I wouldn't want to signal to the marketplace that if you rip off my brand, I might pay you for it.
Newsflash: I don't control American policy, nor do I always agree with it. As I said in response to another AC, I fully support other countries prosecuting US citizens who violate their laws, whether or not those US citizens are law enforcement agents.
Why should it be illegal if they are law enforcement?
There's no exemption in the law that allows agents of other governments to compromise.us systems.
We don't go after the thousands of hacks that occur on a daily basis yet you want to single out police by doing it for a good cause?
You know, that's a fair point. My intention wasn't to say that I think they should be singled out, but rather that what they did should be considered a criminal act, and that their being Australian LEO is completely irrelevant to whether or not charges are brought. I don't think we should encourage or tolerate some wild west mentality where if you have a badge in country A, it's OK to ignore the laws of every other country on the planet. You're right, though, that there are a lot of crimes that occur on a daily basis that we don't prosecute because they're not the biggest fish to fry.
Just to reiterate, though, I don't think giving someone a hyperlink that doesn't do anything other than display the content they asked for constitutes hacking anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm really disappointed how many people don't know what "rigged" means. If all "rigged" means is that someone, even the news media, reported facts about a candidate that made them look bad, then every election since the news media was a thing has been rigged.
Genuinely curious, here. Why do you have a landlord and would incur $2,500 in real estate broker fees? When I've rented, no real estate broker was involved. I assume it works differently where you are?
Not true. I bought a house in a city that has noise ordinances. Be as noisy as you want, but if it's too noisy, you can expect the cops to come along and tell you to knock it off, and ticket you if you don't.
You're right that we shouldn't care about some random statistic...but we should be interested enough in these random statistics to ask the question "Why is that happening?" I mean, if someone told me that 25% fewer men were going to choose to become doctors, that would make me wonder why. That's a pretty big shift regardless of gender or profession.
Personally, I don't think we're doing such a bang-up job in the IT field. Take the frequent reports of mass compromises. Take the latest DDoS by video cameras of all things. I think we should care that the best people to go into the field do, if they want to, absent any outside influence.
So, do I want to artificially nudge the stats so we have 50% male/50% female? No, not at all. Stuff like this should spur us to ask why it's happening, though, and if it's due to some outside influence (like we're systemically dissuading women in technology), then yes, we should do something about it.
Says anyone who has been an Apple customer.
That's really the key right there. Assuming a post-scarcity society is coming, the key will be balancing the transition. Implement something like UBI when we still actually need most people working in order to provide stuff and you have a problem. Maybe you need your car fixed, but nobody wants to be bothered doing that anymore. Automate away enough jobs without providing a method for those people to not starve in the streets, and you'll have a problem. Most likely a very bloody problem as they decline to just starve in the streets.
It's a trade off, but honestly one I'd be happy to take. I definitely snap a few pictures at concerts I go to. I have one friend on Facebook who follows a band somewhat obsessively and watches all of their shows via periscope. In other words, through some ass holding his phone up in the air blocking the view of people who are physically present.
Would I give up the ability to take a couple pictures in exchange for not having people in front of me block the view/blind me with their phones (because they never seem to realize they have brightness settings)? Sure.
Yeah, I agree with this. I love the idea of grocery delivery and would absolutely use it...except for tipping. I hate tipping. It's as if just because I want to use a service, I have to ALSO sign up to decide how much the server should be paid today. "They were really friendly and helpful, so 25%? The drinks were slow, though, and one of the entrees was wrong, so 15%? Maybe 20%..." Ugh. No thanks. I'd much rather companies just paid people something reasonable, and if the service sucks I won't use them again. If the service is great, they'll have a customer for life and I'll happily pay them more than average service places.
Because the government, like soylent green, is made of people.
The government doesn't have any money of it's own, you know. It has your money. There is no gouging the government without gouging the taxpayers.
Law and morality are only casually related. The fact that he did a thing that isn't illegal doesn't mean he's not a reprehensible human being.
I can honestly say there's nothing I want to hear from him, and no questions I want him to answer.
It's not a penalty, it's a higher charge because people with lower scores are more likely to default on their loans.
This is completely false. Your credit has nothing to do with your parents. Your loan rates will have nothing to do with your parents UNLESS they cosign a loan for you. When you start out, you simply have no credit record, and yes, that means you're viewed as riskier.
Thanks. I first unlocked the mysteries of compound interest in elementary school. It's not as nefarious as you think.
A 15% APR compounded daily is 16.1798% effective. 20% is 22.1336%. What you're describing has nothing to do with compounding, it's called negative amortization. I often think that should be illegal.
This is actually pretty normal, and as I posted above, doesn't have a huge impact on loan rates. Personally, I don't think anybody's trying to screw anybody here, it's a pretty natural consequence of figuring out how to charge interest. If I charge you X% at the beginning of the year, I'm charging you for a full year of borrowing money when you don't borrow all of that money for a full year. You pay some back each month. I can charge you 1/12th of the interest every month (compounding monthly), but not all months have the same length, so that's not quite right. The thing that works and is always correct is compounding daily.
There's even a thing called continuous compounding that reduces that compounding interval to zero, but it doesn't have much effect at all on the rate. 15% compounded continuously is 16.1834% vs 16.1798% for daily compounding.
Predatory lending is definitely a thing and should be stopped, but predatory schooling is the problem in this case. Institutions that offer valueless degrees while lying about the value of those degrees for a lot of money are a problem. Lenders, federal or commercial, who give people money to spend on valueless degrees with no regard for whether they'll get the money back are a problem, too, and should be stopped. Yes, that means some people aren't going to college, but that beats the heck out of sending those people to college for $100,000 that isn't actually worth $100,000.
Yes, it's not affordable for some, including my own kids. It's not because we've been gutting funding, though. It's because prices have been increasing stupidly faster than inflation with no real justification. Part of the problem is actually that we keep throwing money at the problem. We need to start saying "NO!" to colleges that want $50,000/year in tuition, and even $20,000 IMO. The solution isn't finding more of someone else's money. It's asking why it costs so much in the first place, and fixing it.
Nope, I don't know that. That's what he said.
That's plausible. The highest I paid for a student loan was 6.8%, but I can see somebody paying 9. In that case the statement in the article, "he now owes more than $200,000" is false. He'd owe 98k, assuming he hasn't paid back anything yet.
That's 29% interest. Who out there is actually offering student loans at 29% interest?
I'd speculate that's exactly what they're talking about. Building and maintaining that infrastructure isn't free. If you have one guy using up X% of it, it's pretty reasonable to start thinking that the cost of serving that one guy is X% of your ongoing infrastructure costs.
So, did Krebs personally cost them a ton of money? Probably not. Would he if they committed to keep serving him AND that sort of traffic load continued? Yes.
Atheism is no more a religion than an empty glass contains a kind of beer.
I tend to leave religious people strictly alone, so long as they aren't harming or advocating harming anyone else. I think the notion of believing in a religion, and especially an afterlife, would be very comforting. Certainly, a lot of my extended family find it so. Really, the only time I ever want to argue against religion is when people use it as a weapon against others.
That's why I prefer unlimited data. It's not because I plan on consuming unlimited amounts of it, but I do want to be able to go to work, plug in the headphones, and not have to think about my data plan when I decide if I want to stream music or listen to music I already bought.
Companies can make up what I "need", but the bottom line is that if your competitor offers a service that makes me happier, as in same quality and I never have to think about billing again, then I'm not your customer anymore.
I'd like to introduce you to this thing called history. People have been doing batshit crazy stuff in groups since the beginning of people.
Yep. I got a notice today, in fact, from Verizon that I was nearing my cap and that it'd be $15/GB over unless I paid $20 to go to the next tier.
I really don't get why they're crowing about faster and faster speeds, 5G, and the like. It's just a recipe for blowing through your plan allowance faster.
My kids' school does this. Instead of sending me an email, they send these $DIETY-awful voice mails that drone on, mostly about things that don't affect me at all, for 3 minutes. At least that's what they were a couple years ago. I couldn't tell you what's in one now since they're all deleted unheard.
Even worse, they've started sending emails, too. That'd be great if the emails actually included the text, but no, they're the stupidest of all possible alternatives. They just include a link to the audio.
Bastards.
Not true. Some places will call them out because they want to deter criminal activity ("Smile! You're on camera..."), but generally, you don't need consent to take someone's picture (including video). Places where privacy would normally be expected, like bathrooms, changing rooms, etc, are an exception.
Take a stroll through a department store and look up. Those small black domes are cameras that no one tells you are there.
1.5 million downloads at a suggested donation of $2-10, meaning it's darned certain they didn't get more than $3 million.
Nintendo's choice is to "cut a deal" for a fraction of less than $3 million (probably a lot less), thereby encouraging other people to illegally rip off their IP, or spend a couple hundred bucks having a lawyer tell them to knock it off.
Personally, I wouldn't want to signal to the marketplace that if you rip off my brand, I might pay you for it.
Newsflash: I don't control American policy, nor do I always agree with it. As I said in response to another AC, I fully support other countries prosecuting US citizens who violate their laws, whether or not those US citizens are law enforcement agents.
Of course not. If US law enforcement hacks Australian systems, I'd 100% support Australia prosecuting.
There's no exemption in the law that allows agents of other governments to compromise .us systems.
You know, that's a fair point. My intention wasn't to say that I think they should be singled out, but rather that what they did should be considered a criminal act, and that their being Australian LEO is completely irrelevant to whether or not charges are brought. I don't think we should encourage or tolerate some wild west mentality where if you have a badge in country A, it's OK to ignore the laws of every other country on the planet. You're right, though, that there are a lot of crimes that occur on a daily basis that we don't prosecute because they're not the biggest fish to fry.
Just to reiterate, though, I don't think giving someone a hyperlink that doesn't do anything other than display the content they asked for constitutes hacking anyway.