So if I only have a car loan of 1.9% does that mean I should pay that off before investing? What if I have a house loan of 6.5%?
If you have a car loan at 1.9% you paid for it up front--you can usually get back any money that it would have cost the dealer to provide this at the negotiating table if you make clear you won't be financing. The cost to the manufacturer (usually the two entities share the cost of programs like this, but not always) is sometimes available in the form of a lump-sum "rebate" instead; if not, well, then you pretty much have to take the cheap loan or let them pocket the difference. In that case, go for it if that's the car you want, but don't kid yourself you got money for 1.9%.
The house is another issue--it's usually an appreciating asset, which is to say, an investment in its own right. Read the original post; no mention is made of home mortgages. Probably the stupidest possible combination is buying stocks before you even buy your own home.
The idea of having different piles of money for different things helps me budget and imposes discipline--I like new toys as much as the next guy, but there are some things that have to be covered first, like medical, new roof for house, etc. If I don't make virtual accounts, then every time I want a new turbo-widget, I have to get out the calculator to make sure I'm not cutting into my 'comfort cash'. Apparently, YMV.
Well, I was gonna give you a snide "thanks, Dad" but then I see you're modded up to 3 and have three happy repliers, so maybe it's me. Then I realize something--you've just given me insight into why these programs (which I've used for years, BTW) are such a pain in the ass for me to work with. I don't want to organize my expenditures; I use the computer to organize my savings. I create virtual accounts for expenses that recur irregularly and in amounts I don't want to have to take out of the day-to-day budget. Then I tuck money into these "accounts" on a monthly basis, and when the expenses hit, they're already covered.
Except that it seems like I must be from Mars, cause none of the software I've seen is set up to work like this. MSMoney double counts my cash, because it sees it once in the actual account, and once in the virtual account; I have to make up half-assed reports to verify that the sum of my virtual accounts matches the balance in the real account, and so on.
Probably the biggest irony is that all these programs include ways to manage your stock portfolio; I guess there are a lot of people who haven't paid off their cars or credit cards, but are so sharp in their stock picking they are ahead to take their spare cash and buy some Lucent or something.
Well, I think we're saying the same thing in different ways, but obviously it's not the computers that are struggling--it's the poor bastards trying to make a machine play chess. This is unfortunately true of nearly every branch of CS. Knuth says we have about 500 deep algorithms; that's not a lot to show for our efforts. Is there a breakthrough idea we're missing, or are we really just at the beginning of 2000 years of slooooooow progress towards a mature science?
This seems about right. Unlimited battle.net time is free with your Blizzard game purchase--ask yourself how many people could have any honest motivation to use different servers.
Here's one to ponder: rather than stealing from Blizzard, wouldn't it be easier for the mewling brats who are so torn up about this whole thing to wait till the next time mommy is strung out on crack that "Uncle Steve" gave her so she'd let him stick his penis in her mouth and just take a few $20's out of her purse (or off the nightstand where Steve left them--whatever) and go down to the local Best Buy and score a legitimate copy of the game?
I did, and as I recall, the jet still landed long, flying right over Bruce Willis's head as it poked up out of the runway grate. Very probably the worst movie I've ever seen.
Let me 'splain something to you. The fact that the person who reads your response is not the offending agent is no reason not to slam the hell out of them. As you yourself point out, the person(s) responsible for this illegal and socially unacceptable "marketing" campaign will never read your email; your only hope of having any impact whatsoever on these assholes is to piss off a peon and wait for the ripple effect. Low employee morale is deadly in the long term, and working for this bunch of cretins must be totally demoralizing--it's your job to further things along as much as you can. In the process, you may teach somebody to be more careful who choose to work for.
LOL, this got modded up as 'interesting'. And at least three people have chimed in to refute a guy whose plan is to string cat5 across neighborhoods. That's rich. But, this points up a shortcoming in the/. system: lack of meta-mod options. If I'm meta-modding, and I get this one, I don't want to just say "fair" or "unfair" to the moderation on this post--I need to be able to indicate that the moderation was "funny" or "idiotic". Come on Slashdot, get with it.
A fine idea. What about this one: file for a "meta-patent" on the idea of patenting patently unpatentable ideas so you can get rich harrassing and blackmailing productive members of society into ponying-up cash just to make your "infringement" suits go away.
The Comics Code, of course, was not a matter of law, and Spider-Man eventually crossed the line, with an issue that didn't carry the Seal (issue #96). The story of how this issue came about, and how it led to a decline in the CCA's clout is here for those interested in such things).
Let's face it, I'm not qualified to draw conclusions from the literature. I am, however, fairly familiar with both human nature and Murphy's law. This could be perfectly legitimate, but lacking the education to judge for myself, I'll believe it when I see it.
The imaginative work seems logical in retrospect, though the theory for the effect -- re-partitioning energy between heat and visible light -- remains unexplained. "It's not theoretically predicted," says Fleming. "Possible explanations may involve variations in the speed of light as it propagates through such structures."
The work was performed with a photonic crystal operating in the mid-infrared range, but no theoretical or practical difficulties are known to exist to downsizing the structure into the visible light range.
So, they don't have any theory to explain this, but "theoretically" there won't be any problem turning this into something useful. Yeah, sure.
Um, I don't think this is exactly how it's supposed to work. The tags are just identifiers; the smarts are in the network. You don't need a microwave that knows how to talk to a soup can, only one that talks to the home's RFID network. The network has to know that soup XXYY1234 requires 2 minutes on high, and relay that to the microwave.
I think this solves a lot of your problems withthe technology; unfortunately, it creates a few more. For instance, since you're obviously going to need a subscription to one or more database updates, there's the distinct possibility that someone will figure out how to spam these things. The question then is, can it be made universally affordable with advertising support? I rather hope not, but I guess I might feel differently if I wanted one and couldn't afford it.
This reply is kinda late, but maybe you get the email when somebody replies to one of your posts. I installed RH6.2 on an emachines Celeron with 32mB of RAM (sorry, don't know the model) something over a year ago. No problems except sound--the included sound card was not recognized, and it turned out it was going to be a largish hassle to get it to function (if it functioned at all--I remember thinking I might be pissing away a lot of time for no results), so I lived without sound till I gave the machine away. Sorry I don't remember the details, but it's the kind of thing you would want to research before you invested money, because a cheap box is only cheap if you don't have to start buying shit to make it work;)
the $54b "loss" is a direct result of the stock tanking, not the other way around
I'm sorry, but I don't think you much more about accounting than you do sports. The write-off reflects AOL's considered opinion that the value of these assets, previously carried on the books at $54 billion is now $0; it was triggered by their (mandatory) adoption of FAS 142, which halts the practice of amortizing goodwill against earnings. If the company were to pretend these worthless, non-producing "assets" were of some actual value, they would be stuck from now till eternity (or such time as they got honest and did write them down) explaining why their return on equity was so poor.
On the plus-side, for stockholders, it can safely be assumed that management went ahead and threw out every conceivable bum "asset" as a first step towards showing massive financial improvement in the future (okay, they're managing earnings, but that favors present stockholders--who have a chance to unload on unsuspecting buyers).
Oh, and one last thing--nobody is predicting doom for AOL. Stagnation and disappointment, maybe, but not doom.
Remember when people said "Apple should license use of MacOS on other's hardware", but they didn't. Then later they tried it, but it didn't take off, and everyone said "Apple waited too late, and now Microsoft has closed the gap enough that MacOS can't get traction in the market," so again their was only MacOS on Apple hardware.
Well, guess what? Apple has a new OS, and by all accounts (sorry, haven't used it myself) it's a good bit better than anything Microsoft is offering. And with BSD at its heart, it should be a lot easier to port to Intel hardware than the previous MacOS was (seems to me, anyway). But they won't do it for fear of losing the fat margins on their overpriced hardware.
But here is a perfect example of why they should. Nobody can afford to give away enough computers to go from zero to dominant in a whole country--but it's no great stretch to give away that much software, and then you own the place.
Don't feel bad about not knowing that "billion" meant different things to different people. This is the first I've heard of it. Judging by the comments you've received, it seems pretty clear that it's news to some people on the other side of the pond, too, since about half the responders seem to think you're simply too ignorant to know the meaning of the word. That makes them as parochial as you and me...and less observant, since the guy who wrote the RFC clearly uses "billion" to mean 1000 million several times in reference to population (unless the British actually think the number of people in the world is 11,000,000,000,000).
Here's a Katz article I'd like to see...
on
Dog Bites Website
·
· Score: 1
A single-page discussion of the internal conflict he experienced deciding whether and how much to "seed" the amazon page for his book(s). Gotta be a pretty irresistable urge.
Yeah, me too. Probably the third/. ad I've clicked on in the last year.
And since this whole story is wildly off-topic, here's my contribution: I had to put down one dog in February, and her partner is on his last legs (10+ year old Rottweilers), so I feel for you, Jon Katz. This is where kids are better than dogs--they usually outlive you.
I was going to mention that page too; I think it pretty well cinches the parody theory. My personal favorite is the treasurer/accountant who offers a 10% discount to non-believers willing to convert on the spot.
I would call that shocking hubris, except I suspect the reality is the usual: blind ignorance. The people who started this probably had no idea how difficult it will be to control the weather--although you would think the Air Force would at least be familiar with how far we are from understanding how these things work when left alone. Every time a hurricane heads towards the coast of Florida they have to evacuate scores of airplanes from all over the area because they have no real idea which are in danger and which aren't.
Actually, it seems that both countries have aimed their programs squarely at 'solving' their fears. The U.S. has the paranoia that goes with being the biggest kid on the block, with every other asshole wanting a piece of you--so they (we--I'm American) concentrate on weapons. The Japanese seem to worry about bad weather--something about living on an archipelago in the middle of the Pacific Ocean--so they want to simulate it.
The irony is that both could achieve perfect success with these computers and still be very far from fixing their problem. Perfect understanding of nuclear explosions is only a tiny, tiny piece of the national security equation, and perfect understanding of how typhoons are born, live and die still leaves you a very long way from knowing how to turn one off.
BTW, my daytime job is in aviation. I wish the Japanese all the success in the world at improving weather forecasting--the current state of the art is a disgrace.
Slashdot Mirror
Wheels. Shoes. Go ahead, small-fry; I'm patenting sex-for-pay.
If you have a car loan at 1.9% you paid for it up front--you can usually get back any money that it would have cost the dealer to provide this at the negotiating table if you make clear you won't be financing. The cost to the manufacturer (usually the two entities share the cost of programs like this, but not always) is sometimes available in the form of a lump-sum "rebate" instead; if not, well, then you pretty much have to take the cheap loan or let them pocket the difference. In that case, go for it if that's the car you want, but don't kid yourself you got money for 1.9%.
The house is another issue--it's usually an appreciating asset, which is to say, an investment in its own right. Read the original post; no mention is made of home mortgages. Probably the stupidest possible combination is buying stocks before you even buy your own home.
The idea of having different piles of money for different things helps me budget and imposes discipline--I like new toys as much as the next guy, but there are some things that have to be covered first, like medical, new roof for house, etc. If I don't make virtual accounts, then every time I want a new turbo-widget, I have to get out the calculator to make sure I'm not cutting into my 'comfort cash'. Apparently, YMV.
Except that it seems like I must be from Mars, cause none of the software I've seen is set up to work like this. MSMoney double counts my cash, because it sees it once in the actual account, and once in the virtual account; I have to make up half-assed reports to verify that the sum of my virtual accounts matches the balance in the real account, and so on.
Probably the biggest irony is that all these programs include ways to manage your stock portfolio; I guess there are a lot of people who haven't paid off their cars or credit cards, but are so sharp in their stock picking they are ahead to take their spare cash and buy some Lucent or something.
Well, in a sense, this is excellent news--in 6 months, you'll be able to pick up a used (but never actually opened) copy for cheap ;)
Well, I think we're saying the same thing in different ways, but obviously it's not the computers that are struggling--it's the poor bastards trying to make a machine play chess. This is unfortunately true of nearly every branch of CS. Knuth says we have about 500 deep algorithms; that's not a lot to show for our efforts. Is there a breakthrough idea we're missing, or are we really just at the beginning of 2000 years of slooooooow progress towards a mature science?
Here's one to ponder: rather than stealing from Blizzard, wouldn't it be easier for the mewling brats who are so torn up about this whole thing to wait till the next time mommy is strung out on crack that "Uncle Steve" gave her so she'd let him stick his penis in her mouth and just take a few $20's out of her purse (or off the nightstand where Steve left them--whatever) and go down to the local Best Buy and score a legitimate copy of the game?
I did, and as I recall, the jet still landed long, flying right over Bruce Willis's head as it poked up out of the runway grate. Very probably the worst movie I've ever seen.
Now somebody go ahead and mod me down -1 Asshole.
LOL, this got modded up as 'interesting'. And at least three people have chimed in to refute a guy whose plan is to string cat5 across neighborhoods. That's rich. But, this points up a shortcoming in the /. system: lack of meta-mod options. If I'm meta-modding, and I get this one, I don't want to just say "fair" or "unfair" to the moderation on this post--I need to be able to indicate that the moderation was "funny" or "idiotic". Come on Slashdot, get with it.
A fine idea. What about this one: file for a "meta-patent" on the idea of patenting patently unpatentable ideas so you can get rich harrassing and blackmailing productive members of society into ponying-up cash just to make your "infringement" suits go away.
The Comics Code, of course, was not a matter of law, and Spider-Man eventually crossed the line, with an issue that didn't carry the Seal (issue #96). The story of how this issue came about, and how it led to a decline in the CCA's clout is here for those interested in such things).
Let's face it, I'm not qualified to draw conclusions from the literature. I am, however, fairly familiar with both human nature and Murphy's law. This could be perfectly legitimate, but lacking the education to judge for myself, I'll believe it when I see it.
The work was performed with a photonic crystal operating in the mid-infrared range, but no theoretical or practical difficulties are known to exist to downsizing the structure into the visible light range.
So, they don't have any theory to explain this, but "theoretically" there won't be any problem turning this into something useful. Yeah, sure.
I think this solves a lot of your problems withthe technology; unfortunately, it creates a few more. For instance, since you're obviously going to need a subscription to one or more database updates, there's the distinct possibility that someone will figure out how to spam these things. The question then is, can it be made universally affordable with advertising support? I rather hope not, but I guess I might feel differently if I wanted one and couldn't afford it.
This reply is kinda late, but maybe you get the email when somebody replies to one of your posts. I installed RH6.2 on an emachines Celeron with 32mB of RAM (sorry, don't know the model) something over a year ago. No problems except sound--the included sound card was not recognized, and it turned out it was going to be a largish hassle to get it to function (if it functioned at all--I remember thinking I might be pissing away a lot of time for no results), so I lived without sound till I gave the machine away. Sorry I don't remember the details, but it's the kind of thing you would want to research before you invested money, because a cheap box is only cheap if you don't have to start buying shit to make it work ;)
I'm sorry, but I don't think you much more about accounting than you do sports. The write-off reflects AOL's considered opinion that the value of these assets, previously carried on the books at $54 billion is now $0; it was triggered by their (mandatory) adoption of FAS 142, which halts the practice of amortizing goodwill against earnings. If the company were to pretend these worthless, non-producing "assets" were of some actual value, they would be stuck from now till eternity (or such time as they got honest and did write them down) explaining why their return on equity was so poor.
On the plus-side, for stockholders, it can safely be assumed that management went ahead and threw out every conceivable bum "asset" as a first step towards showing massive financial improvement in the future (okay, they're managing earnings, but that favors present stockholders--who have a chance to unload on unsuspecting buyers).
Oh, and one last thing--nobody is predicting doom for AOL. Stagnation and disappointment, maybe, but not doom.
Did I sleep through this, or did the reporter? I saw Gates in court last week, but didn't see anything about him in Congress.
Well, guess what? Apple has a new OS, and by all accounts (sorry, haven't used it myself) it's a good bit better than anything Microsoft is offering. And with BSD at its heart, it should be a lot easier to port to Intel hardware than the previous MacOS was (seems to me, anyway). But they won't do it for fear of losing the fat margins on their overpriced hardware.
But here is a perfect example of why they should. Nobody can afford to give away enough computers to go from zero to dominant in a whole country--but it's no great stretch to give away that much software, and then you own the place.
Don't feel bad about not knowing that "billion" meant different things to different people. This is the first I've heard of it. Judging by the comments you've received, it seems pretty clear that it's news to some people on the other side of the pond, too, since about half the responders seem to think you're simply too ignorant to know the meaning of the word. That makes them as parochial as you and me...and less observant, since the guy who wrote the RFC clearly uses "billion" to mean 1000 million several times in reference to population (unless the British actually think the number of people in the world is 11,000,000,000,000).
A single-page discussion of the internal conflict he experienced deciding whether and how much to "seed" the amazon page for his book(s). Gotta be a pretty irresistable urge.
And since this whole story is wildly off-topic, here's my contribution: I had to put down one dog in February, and her partner is on his last legs (10+ year old Rottweilers), so I feel for you, Jon Katz. This is where kids are better than dogs--they usually outlive you.
I was going to mention that page too; I think it pretty well cinches the parody theory. My personal favorite is the treasurer/accountant who offers a 10% discount to non-believers willing to convert on the spot.
Now THAT'S a reply. Thanks for taking the time; you've piqued my interest.
I would call that shocking hubris, except I suspect the reality is the usual: blind ignorance. The people who started this probably had no idea how difficult it will be to control the weather--although you would think the Air Force would at least be familiar with how far we are from understanding how these things work when left alone. Every time a hurricane heads towards the coast of Florida they have to evacuate scores of airplanes from all over the area because they have no real idea which are in danger and which aren't.
The irony is that both could achieve perfect success with these computers and still be very far from fixing their problem. Perfect understanding of nuclear explosions is only a tiny, tiny piece of the national security equation, and perfect understanding of how typhoons are born, live and die still leaves you a very long way from knowing how to turn one off.
BTW, my daytime job is in aviation. I wish the Japanese all the success in the world at improving weather forecasting--the current state of the art is a disgrace.