I saw your post.. But did you read mine? You cannot save what you spend first....
Stuff does happen, which is why I STRONGLY recommend you have a 3-6 month buffer in savings, so you can deal with this garbage....
Look, I'm not unfeeling to your plight, but for the bulk of folks, the problem is they choose to live beyond their means. I know how this works, I've been where you are, where one "emergency" only put me deeper into debt. However, unless you are already over the cliff and cannot service your debt load now, you CAN make things better in time. It's a pain and can take a long time, but it's up to you to dig out of the hole, but it is worth it. I've been debt free for a decade or more and I can assure you the reward is in not having a lot of financial stress. I don't have to worry if I'm going to have enough to pay the bills this month.
Manage your money correctly and eventually you will find yourself not in the hole....
The F35 isn't all that stealthy.... It's better than the F-16, but the F-16 shows up on radar like a 100W light bulb in a small dark room so that's not saying much. The stealth really just makes it slightly harder to shoot down with a radar guided weapon and those are hardly ever used when you are close. Usually the weapon of choice is IR tracker guided, which is *really* hard to defat using stealth and flares are pretty effective countermeasure....
I've always thought it was funny when the DOD tried to sell the F35 as necessary because it was stealthy... For close air support, who cares about stealth? Yea it helps you in the air to air world or ground to air (i.e. it helps you get to and from the target) but if you have air superiority and stay above 10,000 feet going to and from the battle lines it's not going to help your survival rate that much. If you don't have Air superiority and you are flying ground attack close air support missions, you are going about this all wrong. Personally, give me an F-18 and the ordnance load it carries over stealth thank you, and buy a pile of F-22's to fly CAP over the area shooting at anything flying w/o the proper IFF codes for the day.
The F35 is proof that you cannot make an aircraft that does everything well and if you try to make one that does everything equally well, you end up with one that does nothing well that costs you a lot of money. It's a jack of all trades, but master of none.
The F35 is defiantly a failed IT project... The current software barely lets the thing fly... Forget any weapons.... Oh no, that's planned for a couple of software revisions from now... In programming terms... We haven't figured out how we are going to do that yet, so we don't know how long it will take or if it's even possible on the hardware we have...
Seriously, this software development program is in serious trouble. We will be lucky if they get it flying well before its hardware goes obsolete..
I worked at a place that converted F-4's into radio controlled drones way back in the 80's.... Of course, the idea was for them to tow targets to train the anti-aircraft gun crews and missile testing, but the idea is not new.
1) If you can borrow at a lower interest rate than your current interest rate, then borrowing to pay off borrowing winds up saving you a lot of money. It is the wisest thing you can do, when the option is available.
Sometimes though, it's not worth the trouble or the hit to the credit rating.... Especially if the borrowing includes having to pay fees to get the loan. Or if the terms of the replacement loan don't match the existing one.
For example, paying "points" on a home loan might not be a good idea. Or, getting an ARM might get you a couple of percent advantage NOW but in 5 years might adjust above your 30 year rate.
So, I agree, but one must ALWAYS compare the TOTAL cost of the replacement loan, all the way though pay off and compare it to the existing one. Too many people fixate on one part of the loan; The monthly payment, or the interest rate. The real issue is total cost of the money (assuming you can make the payments).
Oh yes, woe is you.... You've been mistreated and it's NEVER been this bad before...
Come on, everybody wants to make more money (well, almost everybody) and there is always someone who makes more than you.... I've learned that the trick to being comfortable is to live within your means. If you find yourself not able to make ends meet, you have gone beyond your means. If you find your debt load is increasing faster than your ability to service it, you are spending too much. Most don't want to admit it, but the temptation to over spend is hard to resist, but it is easy to recognize when it's happening. If you cannot stop spending when it's obvious you should, you are killing your future..
Ideally one should not be in debt for anything but *real* property and NEVER should you owe more than what the property is worth if you can help it. No credit cards that are not paid off monthly, no upside down car loans, no unsecured loans of any kind. Plus, one should always have 3-6 months of salary in reserve. One should also be putting a significant percentage into savings (retirement and investments).
Don't think this is possible at your pay? Unless you are literally making minimum wage (and few of us actually are) the Ideal situation I'm describing IS possible. The issue usually is that younger adults somehow think that they need to live at the same standard of living as Mom and Dad, with all the things they had. I've seen many young adults fall victim to the "buy now and pay later" "You can have it now!" before they have enough experience to earn enough money to actually pay for that luxury stuff. They dig a hole of debt and keep shoveling faster and faster only to realize that they can no longer get the dirt out of the hole because it's too deep.
Earn your way up, don't spend money you don't have on stuff you can live without. DON'T go into debt but DO save. I know it isn't easy to overcome the temptation to just spend, but if you do, you will have a better life with less stress and financial mess. In the end, it's not who dies with the most toys, but how well you have lived. Living well includes living within your means.
Which is the fall back plan of last resort. Have you priced a HD Tivo with two HD playback units? The upfront price hurts and then there is the monthly fees.
Yes, I'm cheep.... My system is a home brewed Media server (windows 7 & 3 TB of disk space) a HD Home Run network tuner and 3 Xbox 360's... Works great... For now....
I am sooo tired of running windows 7 and Media Center just so I can watch and record protected content... Soon I won't be able to do even that, once M$ stops supporting Win 7...
Then let me simplify... Cell phones don't work in flight (for technical reasons) so they cannot use them to trigger explosive devices in flight right now.... Allowing the airlines to put equipment on planes to deliver cell calls to their customers changes this.
Make sense yet?
Prove it to yourself.... Next time you fly, turn on your phone and see if you get service at 30,000 feet, you won't....
In this case it was a 4 hour drive.... Sign me up for that $800 and refund my ticket cost and I'll vacate my seat.... Please sir, can you direct me to the Rental Car counter?
I disagree. A very good solution is to only sell a seat once. This whole "they lose money on empty seats" is a bogus argument.
Not exactly true.
Sometimes the issue isn't the customer's fault and the airline must still honor the ticket on a later flight. If you miss a connection because the airline had a mechanical or weather delay, they are going to do what they can to get you to your destination, even if that was a cheep "non-refundable" ticket you are flying on.
Cell phones don't work in flight unless you are VERY low going very slow and commercial airliners don't spend very long going low and slow. On board bombs don't work very well when you are not at altitude and speed. It would take a larger device to seriously damage an aircraft on the ground than say at altitude where the pressure and speed will help rip the aircraft apart using a very small device. Smaller is easier to get aboard...
Yes, I cell phones don't work well on airplanes first hand for two reasons.... #1,I've worked in the cellular industry.... #2 I'm a private pilot and I've used my cell phone from the plane. When I was flying, cell phone service is spotty above a few thousand feet, even going at 80 knots, and only worked, sort of, when you where out over the sticks. Near town, forget it. The old analog cell phones worked better than the ne digital ones....
As a cellular engineer, I understand why... A cell tower is designed to cover a defined geographic area and in order to not interfere with other cells, the antennas are usually pointed towards the ground (not much energy is radiated up). Also, the cell phone and the towers it can hear decide which tower has the best chance of handling the call, and are frequently re-evaluating this decision to make sure things wouldn't be better from a different cell. If they decide to change cells, the switch is coordinated between the phone and the two cell towers at the local MSC (Mobile Switch Center) or if you are on the fringes of an MSC's area, with another MSC. MSC to MSC hand offs are quite time consuming as it involves routing the voice part of the call down a trunk (which takes set up time) then switching the phone, the cells and the call all at the same time....
So, when flying, 1. you are not usually in a space that has a cell antenna pointed at you (you are in the air, they are pointed at the ground) and 2. You are usually moving rapidly between cells and often between MSC's. The cellular system simply cannot contact your phone or keep up with your location because it is designed to work on the ground at speeds under 100 MPH (best case). You are above 10,000 feet going 300+ knots...
There is actually a security reason for this. Using a cell phone to trigger an explosive device is a common tactic in the middle east.
So is pushing a button and taking yourself out along with the plane. Actually this is a far more common method in the middle east as well.
Yes, but.... Allowing the remote triggering sure lowers the cost of doing this, which makes the population of people who would be willing to try a whole lot larger.
Being willing to blow yourself up is typically rare and folks in this group tend to be involved in specific activates which make them easier to detect in most cases. However, the population of folks who would like to take an airliner full of passengers down is quite a bit larger, especially if it could be accomplished by pushing a button or two half a world away.
Here I thought they where just removing the most obvious way of remote triggering IED's on aircraft from a thousand miles away on a payphone.... Silly me, somebody wants to make this into an inconvenience of having to wait to make a call or (horrors of horrors) listen to somebody make a call in the seat next to you.
Has nobody been thinking of the security implications of allowing the delivery of cell calls on an aircraft? Has nobody thought about how IEDs have been triggered in the past? Ah, but the TSA keeps that stuff from happening right?
And don't fool yourself.... The TSA isn't going to be able to keep such devices off your flight. All that airport screening stuff is mostly for show and to catch the stupid terrorists who don't know enough to understand the screening process, even though they've gone though it a few times, or the unimaginative ones who don't take time to think about their approach. Don't tell yourself they are all unimaginative or stupid either....
There is actually a security reason for this. Using a cell phone to trigger an explosive device is a common tactic in the middle east. Delivering cell calls handsets on a flight allows a remotely triggered device to be improvised, planted and triggered from thousands of miles away. It would also allow the tracking of a specific flight/person for similar targeting from the ground. All this is possible with obscurity built in.
If you have to register your WiFi device to use it and receive data, that makes most of this kind of thing go away, or at least makes it necessary to have somebody on board to sacrifice themselves to the cause (not that this eliminates the threat, but it sure makes the commitment level higher to follow though).
I think you confuse Iraq and Syria... Iraq actually had a reasonable point and wasn't anyone's patsy, plus they were not fighting amongst themselves... North Vietnam was a China/Russian patsy fighting with South Vietnam.. Syria is a Russian Patsy in the middle of a civil war..
Obama and Clinton got is square in the middle of Syria's civil war.... Vietnam was a Civil war too.. Both where/are proxy wars. Iraq was none of this.
True.. But the post claimed the new units had been "out of stock" for months, obviously Apple undershot demand with their build capacity for new units, which implies they had some kind of limit in their production. This would also imply a limited parts supply, because you don't want parts sitting in inventory for long. A manufacturer like Apple would be prioritizing their parts inventory to build as many new units as possible to meet sales demand first and then meet warranty repairs second. Sales is where the profit comes from, warranty work only costs money.
So... My educated guess is outlined in the pervious post.... Apple may be unique and do things differently in their warranty department, but I don't see any evidence they are really that different..
You don't figure that Apple doesn't have a small army of technicians refurbishing returned equipment because they have long lead times for warranty replacements?
If they were "sold out for months" my guess is that it's even more likely your device was replaced by a refurbished unit, likely built from serviceable parts from multiple returned units by some technician/contractor who has minimal training and equipment. If the units are hard to obtain new, you can bet they are likely to be refurbishing them as fast as they can for warranty claims.
But what difference does it make? You apparently got a serviceable unit for your replacement and Apple honored the warranty on the replacement. That's what they said they would do.
Hillary was a Republican running as a democrat? Huh? Not even close.
Hillary was *all* democrat, lock stock and barrel.. She just hit the general election knowing that radical leftist doesn't win elections so she tried to run as far right as her liberal democratic base would allow w/o howling about it.
You remember the discussions about abortion and the Heller ruling at the last debate? She had no choice but to shore up her base and took the radical liberal leftist positions on these issues at that point because she knew they were not going to show up and vote if she didn't. She's most decidedly a democrat, running as a democrat, unless you think she's just a liar who was going with what she thought was the prevailing winds...
Now if you want to argue Trump was a democrat running as a republican you might have more of a case. He wasn't bound by traditional republican views on social issues, at least during the campaign (and one would argue isn't even now). However, I think he's really what he appeared to be and marketed himself as, which turns out to be a non-politically correct position which is derived from what he thinks is common sense. It's this "common sense" thing that got him elected in the face of the Access Hollywood tapes, being out spent and being the underdog the whole time.
Slashdot Mirror
I saw your post.. But did you read mine? You cannot save what you spend first....
Stuff does happen, which is why I STRONGLY recommend you have a 3-6 month buffer in savings, so you can deal with this garbage....
Look, I'm not unfeeling to your plight, but for the bulk of folks, the problem is they choose to live beyond their means. I know how this works, I've been where you are, where one "emergency" only put me deeper into debt. However, unless you are already over the cliff and cannot service your debt load now, you CAN make things better in time. It's a pain and can take a long time, but it's up to you to dig out of the hole, but it is worth it. I've been debt free for a decade or more and I can assure you the reward is in not having a lot of financial stress. I don't have to worry if I'm going to have enough to pay the bills this month.
Manage your money correctly and eventually you will find yourself not in the hole....
I've always thought it was funny when the DOD tried to sell the F35 as necessary because it was stealthy... For close air support, who cares about stealth? Yea it helps you in the air to air world or ground to air (i.e. it helps you get to and from the target) but if you have air superiority and stay above 10,000 feet going to and from the battle lines it's not going to help your survival rate that much. If you don't have Air superiority and you are flying ground attack close air support missions, you are going about this all wrong. Personally, give me an F-18 and the ordnance load it carries over stealth thank you, and buy a pile of F-22's to fly CAP over the area shooting at anything flying w/o the proper IFF codes for the day.
The F35 is proof that you cannot make an aircraft that does everything well and if you try to make one that does everything equally well, you end up with one that does nothing well that costs you a lot of money. It's a jack of all trades, but master of none.
The F35 is defiantly a failed IT project... The current software barely lets the thing fly... Forget any weapons.... Oh no, that's planned for a couple of software revisions from now... In programming terms... We haven't figured out how we are going to do that yet, so we don't know how long it will take or if it's even possible on the hardware we have...
Seriously, this software development program is in serious trouble. We will be lucky if they get it flying well before its hardware goes obsolete..
Number 5 is .... Alive!
Not malfunction, not malfunction...
I worked at a place that converted F-4's into radio controlled drones way back in the 80's.... Of course, the idea was for them to tow targets to train the anti-aircraft gun crews and missile testing, but the idea is not new.
Oh they fly, sometimes.... But as it stands they cannot even fire the gun with the current software..
I beg to differ.
1) If you can borrow at a lower interest rate than your current interest rate, then borrowing to pay off borrowing winds up saving you a lot of money. It is the wisest thing you can do, when the option is available.
Sometimes though, it's not worth the trouble or the hit to the credit rating.... Especially if the borrowing includes having to pay fees to get the loan. Or if the terms of the replacement loan don't match the existing one.
For example, paying "points" on a home loan might not be a good idea. Or, getting an ARM might get you a couple of percent advantage NOW but in 5 years might adjust above your 30 year rate.
So, I agree, but one must ALWAYS compare the TOTAL cost of the replacement loan, all the way though pay off and compare it to the existing one. Too many people fixate on one part of the loan; The monthly payment, or the interest rate. The real issue is total cost of the money (assuming you can make the payments).
Oh yes, woe is you.... You've been mistreated and it's NEVER been this bad before...
Come on, everybody wants to make more money (well, almost everybody) and there is always someone who makes more than you.... I've learned that the trick to being comfortable is to live within your means. If you find yourself not able to make ends meet, you have gone beyond your means. If you find your debt load is increasing faster than your ability to service it, you are spending too much. Most don't want to admit it, but the temptation to over spend is hard to resist, but it is easy to recognize when it's happening. If you cannot stop spending when it's obvious you should, you are killing your future..
Ideally one should not be in debt for anything but *real* property and NEVER should you owe more than what the property is worth if you can help it. No credit cards that are not paid off monthly, no upside down car loans, no unsecured loans of any kind. Plus, one should always have 3-6 months of salary in reserve. One should also be putting a significant percentage into savings (retirement and investments).
Don't think this is possible at your pay? Unless you are literally making minimum wage (and few of us actually are) the Ideal situation I'm describing IS possible. The issue usually is that younger adults somehow think that they need to live at the same standard of living as Mom and Dad, with all the things they had. I've seen many young adults fall victim to the "buy now and pay later" "You can have it now!" before they have enough experience to earn enough money to actually pay for that luxury stuff. They dig a hole of debt and keep shoveling faster and faster only to realize that they can no longer get the dirt out of the hole because it's too deep.
Earn your way up, don't spend money you don't have on stuff you can live without. DON'T go into debt but DO save. I know it isn't easy to overcome the temptation to just spend, but if you do, you will have a better life with less stress and financial mess. In the end, it's not who dies with the most toys, but how well you have lived. Living well includes living within your means.
Ah yes... The tax on foolishness, usually sold by saying it will support education.... Only the government can get away with that kind of logic...
KABOOM! Boy you stepped on it...
just get a Tivo.
Which is the fall back plan of last resort. Have you priced a HD Tivo with two HD playback units? The upfront price hurts and then there is the monthly fees.
Yes, I'm cheep.... My system is a home brewed Media server (windows 7 & 3 TB of disk space) a HD Home Run network tuner and 3 Xbox 360's... Works great... For now....
PLEASE!
I am sooo tired of running windows 7 and Media Center just so I can watch and record protected content... Soon I won't be able to do even that, once M$ stops supporting Win 7...
Then let me simplify... Cell phones don't work in flight (for technical reasons) so they cannot use them to trigger explosive devices in flight right now.... Allowing the airlines to put equipment on planes to deliver cell calls to their customers changes this.
Make sense yet?
Prove it to yourself.... Next time you fly, turn on your phone and see if you get service at 30,000 feet, you won't....
AKA "Profit"
Flight time is less than an hour, drive time is 4. My guess is this crew needed to be at the destination ASAP and 4 hours was too late...
In this case it was a 4 hour drive.... Sign me up for that $800 and refund my ticket cost and I'll vacate my seat.... Please sir, can you direct me to the Rental Car counter?
I disagree. A very good solution is to only sell a seat once. This whole "they lose money on empty seats" is a bogus argument.
Not exactly true.
Sometimes the issue isn't the customer's fault and the airline must still honor the ticket on a later flight. If you miss a connection because the airline had a mechanical or weather delay, they are going to do what they can to get you to your destination, even if that was a cheep "non-refundable" ticket you are flying on.
Cell phones don't work in flight unless you are VERY low going very slow and commercial airliners don't spend very long going low and slow. On board bombs don't work very well when you are not at altitude and speed. It would take a larger device to seriously damage an aircraft on the ground than say at altitude where the pressure and speed will help rip the aircraft apart using a very small device. Smaller is easier to get aboard...
Yes, I cell phones don't work well on airplanes first hand for two reasons.... #1,I've worked in the cellular industry.... #2 I'm a private pilot and I've used my cell phone from the plane. When I was flying, cell phone service is spotty above a few thousand feet, even going at 80 knots, and only worked, sort of, when you where out over the sticks. Near town, forget it. The old analog cell phones worked better than the ne digital ones....
As a cellular engineer, I understand why... A cell tower is designed to cover a defined geographic area and in order to not interfere with other cells, the antennas are usually pointed towards the ground (not much energy is radiated up). Also, the cell phone and the towers it can hear decide which tower has the best chance of handling the call, and are frequently re-evaluating this decision to make sure things wouldn't be better from a different cell. If they decide to change cells, the switch is coordinated between the phone and the two cell towers at the local MSC (Mobile Switch Center) or if you are on the fringes of an MSC's area, with another MSC. MSC to MSC hand offs are quite time consuming as it involves routing the voice part of the call down a trunk (which takes set up time) then switching the phone, the cells and the call all at the same time....
So, when flying, 1. you are not usually in a space that has a cell antenna pointed at you (you are in the air, they are pointed at the ground) and 2. You are usually moving rapidly between cells and often between MSC's. The cellular system simply cannot contact your phone or keep up with your location because it is designed to work on the ground at speeds under 100 MPH (best case). You are above 10,000 feet going 300+ knots...
There is actually a security reason for this. Using a cell phone to trigger an explosive device is a common tactic in the middle east.
So is pushing a button and taking yourself out along with the plane. Actually this is a far more common method in the middle east as well.
Yes, but.... Allowing the remote triggering sure lowers the cost of doing this, which makes the population of people who would be willing to try a whole lot larger.
Being willing to blow yourself up is typically rare and folks in this group tend to be involved in specific activates which make them easier to detect in most cases. However, the population of folks who would like to take an airliner full of passengers down is quite a bit larger, especially if it could be accomplished by pushing a button or two half a world away.
Here I thought they where just removing the most obvious way of remote triggering IED's on aircraft from a thousand miles away on a payphone.... Silly me, somebody wants to make this into an inconvenience of having to wait to make a call or (horrors of horrors) listen to somebody make a call in the seat next to you.
Has nobody been thinking of the security implications of allowing the delivery of cell calls on an aircraft? Has nobody thought about how IEDs have been triggered in the past? Ah, but the TSA keeps that stuff from happening right?
And don't fool yourself.... The TSA isn't going to be able to keep such devices off your flight. All that airport screening stuff is mostly for show and to catch the stupid terrorists who don't know enough to understand the screening process, even though they've gone though it a few times, or the unimaginative ones who don't take time to think about their approach. Don't tell yourself they are all unimaginative or stupid either....
There is actually a security reason for this. Using a cell phone to trigger an explosive device is a common tactic in the middle east. Delivering cell calls handsets on a flight allows a remotely triggered device to be improvised, planted and triggered from thousands of miles away. It would also allow the tracking of a specific flight/person for similar targeting from the ground. All this is possible with obscurity built in.
If you have to register your WiFi device to use it and receive data, that makes most of this kind of thing go away, or at least makes it necessary to have somebody on board to sacrifice themselves to the cause (not that this eliminates the threat, but it sure makes the commitment level higher to follow though).
I think you confuse Iraq and Syria... Iraq actually had a reasonable point and wasn't anyone's patsy, plus they were not fighting amongst themselves... North Vietnam was a China/Russian patsy fighting with South Vietnam.. Syria is a Russian Patsy in the middle of a civil war..
Obama and Clinton got is square in the middle of Syria's civil war.... Vietnam was a Civil war too.. Both where/are proxy wars. Iraq was none of this.
True.. But the post claimed the new units had been "out of stock" for months, obviously Apple undershot demand with their build capacity for new units, which implies they had some kind of limit in their production. This would also imply a limited parts supply, because you don't want parts sitting in inventory for long. A manufacturer like Apple would be prioritizing their parts inventory to build as many new units as possible to meet sales demand first and then meet warranty repairs second. Sales is where the profit comes from, warranty work only costs money.
So... My educated guess is outlined in the pervious post.... Apple may be unique and do things differently in their warranty department, but I don't see any evidence they are really that different..
You don't figure that Apple doesn't have a small army of technicians refurbishing returned equipment because they have long lead times for warranty replacements?
If they were "sold out for months" my guess is that it's even more likely your device was replaced by a refurbished unit, likely built from serviceable parts from multiple returned units by some technician/contractor who has minimal training and equipment. If the units are hard to obtain new, you can bet they are likely to be refurbishing them as fast as they can for warranty claims.
But what difference does it make? You apparently got a serviceable unit for your replacement and Apple honored the warranty on the replacement. That's what they said they would do.
Hillary was a Republican running as a democrat? Huh? Not even close.
Hillary was *all* democrat, lock stock and barrel.. She just hit the general election knowing that radical leftist doesn't win elections so she tried to run as far right as her liberal democratic base would allow w/o howling about it.
You remember the discussions about abortion and the Heller ruling at the last debate? She had no choice but to shore up her base and took the radical liberal leftist positions on these issues at that point because she knew they were not going to show up and vote if she didn't. She's most decidedly a democrat, running as a democrat, unless you think she's just a liar who was going with what she thought was the prevailing winds...
Now if you want to argue Trump was a democrat running as a republican you might have more of a case. He wasn't bound by traditional republican views on social issues, at least during the campaign (and one would argue isn't even now). However, I think he's really what he appeared to be and marketed himself as, which turns out to be a non-politically correct position which is derived from what he thinks is common sense. It's this "common sense" thing that got him elected in the face of the Access Hollywood tapes, being out spent and being the underdog the whole time.