Fully agree with everyone needing to know personal finance. Home economics is not personal finance, and covers many more areas. Look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
As for your advices though, some are dangerous generalizations.
A credit card, when repaid in full monthly, builds your credit history and gives you a good credit score. Often times they also come with a cashback or a loyalty points program, which means it's more advantageous for you to be using it (not to mention your money stays in the bank and accrues interest for a bit longer).
Paying your house in full, as another poster mentions, is sometimes beneficial. Both to decrease interests payments when interests are really high and to build an asset you can capitalize for future investments.
The amount you need to invest for retirement is entirely dependent on your personal situation. A 10% yardstick gives people a number, but they should really find out what _they_ need.
... Wow, curiosity is really not your forte, is it? Yes, this is a direct ad hominem, but hey it's more justified than calling someone out on their penis (funny joke right there, btw, classy.).
"Because it's there and we haven't been/know close to nothing about it" is a _perfectly_ good answer. This is science we're talking about, and raw research and exploration don't need another reason.
What's the solution? Not chase after him? Chase after him following speed limits and thus losing him?
The OP has a good point, it's technically better to deploy a helicopter. The problem is how long will it take to call for and have that helicopter chasing the car, and will you have lost all traces of it by then? Assuming the car stops on the side of the road then, without a car chasing it, are you going to then land the helicopter and arrest him, and how many people are in that helicopter in the first place? How much does it cost to field a helicopter, how many were available, and what were the chances of a real high-speed pursuit?
Those are just questions I have, but with my current lack of knowledge and information, I assume a car chase is the most practical thing they can do if they don't want to let a criminal go, even if they have to call in reinforcements (flying or otherwise).
Not to disagree with you, but in the eventuality of a revolution, I'm pretty the a right or not to a revolution given by a piece of paper written a couple hundred years ago is pretty meaningless. If it's a revolution, people don't need permission. Frankly, they don't necessarily even need weapons (that only determines whether you call your revolution peaceful or a civil war.. granted your chances of "success" are greater with weapons, all depending on your government).
How much are you betting that in that last article, the driver of the Maxima wasn't driving 100 MPH? Most highway limits are 65 MPH, you're talking 50% faster, which is perhaps not a "huge difference" but it's not negligible. It also doesn't matter if the car splits in half, as long as the driver is protected within the cage (look at how F1 cars crumple when they crash, without a pole, but protect the driver). What matters more is someone probably not wearing a seat belt...
Considering he stole the car from a Tesla service center, I'm pretty sure the police doesn't need to call Tesla to have them disable the car, so I doubt that kill switch exist. What do you think this is, a cellphone?
No, the door was open, and it's broadcasting because most users have no technical ability and don't know much about Wifi security.
But hey, even if the door says "open", it's a private house. The "normal" thing to do is knock, go "hey is anyone home?", enter, say hi and state your business. Else why the heck are you entering that door? Because if you enter, take pics of everything, read their documents ("Street View cars were accessing email, web history and other data"), and store it into your database for further investigation, that's CIA-level invasion of privacy. I don't even care if it's legal, it's just scummy.
Not everything that's possible should be done, and good job blaming the victim. I love Google as much as the next person, but hey, "Do no evil." Remember to be civil.
It feels nicer, smoother. It works better. Great for playing games. I never need a mousepad if I'm working, but it sure came in handy while trying to headshot across the map in CS.
Freedom. If she makes a mistake, she gets to pay for her abortion. Worse, if a woman gets raped and gets pregnant, she also gets to pay for her abortion
You were a retard during the weekend, drank yourself into oblivion and fell down a flight of stairs? Yep, covered.
I thought the debate on abortion was over, but I guess not. All in the name of religion, because religion is Righteous. It's not about freedom, it's about religion imposing its rule on the state and the law. If it's not about religion, then tell me why a clinical legal act should not be covered?
Or maybe "oh here's a door. I wonder if it's locked. Newp. Well then, I guess I better go inside, take some photos and read some of their documents. And then use that information for presumably commercial purposes. It's got to be legal and right, the door was unlocked."
I wouldn't, and never have, but I think at least part of it has to do with hardware sales and partners.
I'm dreading the day my laptop dies, and I know people who don't know what to do now and turned to Mac because they couldn't stand Windows 8 (the mother-in-law preferred learning Mac rather than deal with Win8, seriously. She bought a Win8 laptop when her old HP from like 2005 died, and returned it within the week.) That probably doesn't sit well with partners like Intel, Dell, etc, and limits sales of both hardware and software.
Gold actually is very useful, but because it's so expensive it's not used for a lot of things. Example, blocking X-rays (you know that piece of lead armor you have to wear at the dentist when they're taking a photo of your teeth?). Sure, a lot of the price is the inflated feel of "gold is gold", but if it ever became dirt-cheap, it would be used more.
Actually, I'd like to see everyone resort to gun. Have a full-on civilian militia (isn't that why you have the right to bear arms?) vs SWAT/police. I know in some places it's called civil war, but hey, if a non-governmental agency is sending armed forces to break into a civilian house, to me that sounds like it's already started.
If civilians actually defended themselves against those non-regulated "cops" and you ended up with a few (dozens, hundreds?) of dead people, maybe one or two good things could happen:
-Revisiting the second amendment
-Regulating the use of police
Yea, damn the NBA for having so more black people than the US population average. This is discrimination against the whites, and has nothing to do with abilities.
No, no biker will you his/her custom bike if you can't ride one, that's called being stupid. He might say though "oh, you're interested but don't have your permit? Here's this great school I heard of..."
Qualification for biking, stamp collecting, or whatever, is showing enough interest and putting enough time/practice. Anyone, barring disability, can learn to ride a bike if he/she wants to. It's pretty damn hard inching your IQ from the 50th percentile to the 98th, however. This is exactly the same as a club for people 6'1 or taller, which is.. fine? It's just "hey I was born this way, how great." and has very little to do with interest, more with your intrinsic characteristics. Now if you want to call "snobbery" an interest...
High tuition seems to have very little to do with the number of students but everything to do with services/administration bloating and the policy of "you get a loan! you get a loan!" policy from the US government. One would think with more students, you would achieve better economy of scale and so be able to charge less per student.
Looking at this: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/..., it seems countries can have a high percentage of college-educated people without charging them a lifetime of debt.
I'm not sure if that's copy-protection or just lazy coding/porting from arcades to consoles. On the arcade, it makes sense to make a game hard enough that the player has to insert a few quarters to keep going, which is the whole business model. Since you don't put quarters into your console and paid $70 for your game, it also makes sense that you get continues for free, and that way no one has to change the gameplay.
I did face copy-protection in the form of passwords, but that was mostly just to continue playing, not to make the game easier (ex: Lands of Lore).
Money is a problem, because it creates an unfair battlefield. Obviously ultimately votes matter, everything politicians do is to ensure they get and keep their votes.
In the best of worlds, people should elect candidates with the best ideas, candidates they trust and want to put in a position of power. To educate the voters so that they can vote for the best ideas, these candidates need to advertise themselves and their platforms. During a school election for example, every candidate usually gives a speech in front of their class. Votes usually go to the most popular kid regardless of platform or ideas, but everyone has mostly the same opportunity to communicate their ideas. The problem is when the "speech" is scheduled in the gym with everyone present, and you have to shout to get yourself heard. Whoever shouts loudest has a better chance of being heard, and so the person with money (ie, a loudspeaker and a stage) has a better chance than someone without money.
Now if you have the stage and the loudspeaker, but act like a jerk and give enough free publicity to your opponent (re: Cantor), obviously you can still shoot yourself in the foot...
How do you propose you'd affect the stock price? Given a stock price is a valuation on the financial prospects of a company, wouldn't punitive damages impact it? Now of course, 400M for 4 large tech firms is not going to significantly impact anything, which is exactly why the judge questioned the amount (and it is by no mean an astronomical amount). Up it to 4, or 8 billions, and see if they take notice. Then the stock price will be impacted, the board members will start asking questions (unless they're too cozy up there), and you get the result you want.
I've thought about the creation of the universe. I don't have an answer, it could very well be a god, and I'm not arguing about that.
However you didn't seem to have seen my last sentence, "It does not concern the Big Bang, if that's what you're asking." The Christian/Muslim/Jewish God could have been the original spark, and I don't think anyone has a real clue or theory as to how that happened. However, you admit that organisms evolve, and that natural selection is truly a thing. That separates what you think from the creationism mentioned in the article, which is that there is no natural selection (re: "rejects the scientific theory of evolution"), and that God created us fully formed. Basically, a literal understanding of "and on the sixth day, "[...] God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." That is what I have a problem with.
No no no. Me, I choose to live in a society and abide by the social contract. That is my choice, I chose to live under a "totalitarian" regime. If you don't want to be part of your society, find yourself an island, defend yourself against pirates, it'll be your own country.
I think you misunderstand what creationism is to most people. To me, it means that there is no evolution, that man sprang fully formed and didn't come from a long evolution of different animals. If you had read the article, you would have seen:
A]ny doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution. The parties acknowledge that creationism, in this sense, is rejected by most mainstream churches and religious traditions [...]
It does not concern the Big Bang, if that's what you're asking.
Slashdot Mirror
Fully agree with everyone needing to know personal finance. Home economics is not personal finance, and covers many more areas. Look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
As for your advices though, some are dangerous generalizations.
A credit card, when repaid in full monthly, builds your credit history and gives you a good credit score. Often times they also come with a cashback or a loyalty points program, which means it's more advantageous for you to be using it (not to mention your money stays in the bank and accrues interest for a bit longer).
Paying your house in full, as another poster mentions, is sometimes beneficial. Both to decrease interests payments when interests are really high and to build an asset you can capitalize for future investments.
The amount you need to invest for retirement is entirely dependent on your personal situation. A 10% yardstick gives people a number, but they should really find out what _they_ need.
Other than that, completely agree.
... Wow, curiosity is really not your forte, is it? Yes, this is a direct ad hominem, but hey it's more justified than calling someone out on their penis (funny joke right there, btw, classy.).
"Because it's there and we haven't been/know close to nothing about it" is a _perfectly_ good answer. This is science we're talking about, and raw research and exploration don't need another reason.
What's the solution? Not chase after him? Chase after him following speed limits and thus losing him?
The OP has a good point, it's technically better to deploy a helicopter. The problem is how long will it take to call for and have that helicopter chasing the car, and will you have lost all traces of it by then? Assuming the car stops on the side of the road then, without a car chasing it, are you going to then land the helicopter and arrest him, and how many people are in that helicopter in the first place? How much does it cost to field a helicopter, how many were available, and what were the chances of a real high-speed pursuit?
Those are just questions I have, but with my current lack of knowledge and information, I assume a car chase is the most practical thing they can do if they don't want to let a criminal go, even if they have to call in reinforcements (flying or otherwise).
Not to disagree with you, but in the eventuality of a revolution, I'm pretty the a right or not to a revolution given by a piece of paper written a couple hundred years ago is pretty meaningless. If it's a revolution, people don't need permission. Frankly, they don't necessarily even need weapons (that only determines whether you call your revolution peaceful or a civil war.. granted your chances of "success" are greater with weapons, all depending on your government).
Arguably the US does, it just doesn't know it yet. :)
Look, pretty much all cars split in half when they hit a pole at 100 MPH.
http://articles.latimes.com/20...
http://www.autoevolution.com/n...
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news...
How much are you betting that in that last article, the driver of the Maxima wasn't driving 100 MPH? Most highway limits are 65 MPH, you're talking 50% faster, which is perhaps not a "huge difference" but it's not negligible. It also doesn't matter if the car splits in half, as long as the driver is protected within the cage (look at how F1 cars crumple when they crash, without a pole, but protect the driver). What matters more is someone probably not wearing a seat belt...
Considering he stole the car from a Tesla service center, I'm pretty sure the police doesn't need to call Tesla to have them disable the car, so I doubt that kill switch exist. What do you think this is, a cellphone?
No, the door was open, and it's broadcasting because most users have no technical ability and don't know much about Wifi security.
But hey, even if the door says "open", it's a private house. The "normal" thing to do is knock, go "hey is anyone home?", enter, say hi and state your business. Else why the heck are you entering that door? Because if you enter, take pics of everything, read their documents ("Street View cars were accessing email, web history and other data"), and store it into your database for further investigation, that's CIA-level invasion of privacy. I don't even care if it's legal, it's just scummy.
Not everything that's possible should be done, and good job blaming the victim. I love Google as much as the next person, but hey, "Do no evil." Remember to be civil.
It feels nicer, smoother. It works better. Great for playing games. I never need a mousepad if I'm working, but it sure came in handy while trying to headshot across the map in CS.
Freedom. If she makes a mistake, she gets to pay for her abortion. Worse, if a woman gets raped and gets pregnant, she also gets to pay for her abortion
You were a retard during the weekend, drank yourself into oblivion and fell down a flight of stairs? Yep, covered.
I thought the debate on abortion was over, but I guess not. All in the name of religion, because religion is Righteous. It's not about freedom, it's about religion imposing its rule on the state and the law. If it's not about religion, then tell me why a clinical legal act should not be covered?
Wait. Isn't Slashdot supposed to link me to articles? I know no one RTFA, but if there isn't any link at all and just a blurb, what's the point?
Well then, I guess it's time we pass a new law, ain't it.
Or maybe "oh here's a door. I wonder if it's locked. Newp. Well then, I guess I better go inside, take some photos and read some of their documents. And then use that information for presumably commercial purposes. It's got to be legal and right, the door was unlocked."
I wouldn't, and never have, but I think at least part of it has to do with hardware sales and partners.
I'm dreading the day my laptop dies, and I know people who don't know what to do now and turned to Mac because they couldn't stand Windows 8 (the mother-in-law preferred learning Mac rather than deal with Win8, seriously. She bought a Win8 laptop when her old HP from like 2005 died, and returned it within the week.) That probably doesn't sit well with partners like Intel, Dell, etc, and limits sales of both hardware and software.
Gold actually is very useful, but because it's so expensive it's not used for a lot of things. Example, blocking X-rays (you know that piece of lead armor you have to wear at the dentist when they're taking a photo of your teeth?). Sure, a lot of the price is the inflated feel of "gold is gold", but if it ever became dirt-cheap, it would be used more.
Actually, I'd like to see everyone resort to gun. Have a full-on civilian militia (isn't that why you have the right to bear arms?) vs SWAT/police. I know in some places it's called civil war, but hey, if a non-governmental agency is sending armed forces to break into a civilian house, to me that sounds like it's already started.
If civilians actually defended themselves against those non-regulated "cops" and you ended up with a few (dozens, hundreds?) of dead people, maybe one or two good things could happen:
-Revisiting the second amendment
-Regulating the use of police
Yea, damn the NBA for having so more black people than the US population average. This is discrimination against the whites, and has nothing to do with abilities.
No, no biker will you his/her custom bike if you can't ride one, that's called being stupid. He might say though "oh, you're interested but don't have your permit? Here's this great school I heard of..."
Qualification for biking, stamp collecting, or whatever, is showing enough interest and putting enough time/practice. Anyone, barring disability, can learn to ride a bike if he/she wants to. It's pretty damn hard inching your IQ from the 50th percentile to the 98th, however. This is exactly the same as a club for people 6'1 or taller, which is.. fine? It's just "hey I was born this way, how great." and has very little to do with interest, more with your intrinsic characteristics. Now if you want to call "snobbery" an interest...
High tuition seems to have very little to do with the number of students but everything to do with services/administration bloating and the policy of "you get a loan! you get a loan!" policy from the US government. One would think with more students, you would achieve better economy of scale and so be able to charge less per student.
Looking at this: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/..., it seems countries can have a high percentage of college-educated people without charging them a lifetime of debt.
I'm not sure if that's copy-protection or just lazy coding/porting from arcades to consoles. On the arcade, it makes sense to make a game hard enough that the player has to insert a few quarters to keep going, which is the whole business model. Since you don't put quarters into your console and paid $70 for your game, it also makes sense that you get continues for free, and that way no one has to change the gameplay.
I did face copy-protection in the form of passwords, but that was mostly just to continue playing, not to make the game easier (ex: Lands of Lore).
Money is a problem, because it creates an unfair battlefield. Obviously ultimately votes matter, everything politicians do is to ensure they get and keep their votes.
In the best of worlds, people should elect candidates with the best ideas, candidates they trust and want to put in a position of power. To educate the voters so that they can vote for the best ideas, these candidates need to advertise themselves and their platforms. During a school election for example, every candidate usually gives a speech in front of their class. Votes usually go to the most popular kid regardless of platform or ideas, but everyone has mostly the same opportunity to communicate their ideas. The problem is when the "speech" is scheduled in the gym with everyone present, and you have to shout to get yourself heard. Whoever shouts loudest has a better chance of being heard, and so the person with money (ie, a loudspeaker and a stage) has a better chance than someone without money.
Now if you have the stage and the loudspeaker, but act like a jerk and give enough free publicity to your opponent (re: Cantor), obviously you can still shoot yourself in the foot...
How do you propose you'd affect the stock price? Given a stock price is a valuation on the financial prospects of a company, wouldn't punitive damages impact it? Now of course, 400M for 4 large tech firms is not going to significantly impact anything, which is exactly why the judge questioned the amount (and it is by no mean an astronomical amount). Up it to 4, or 8 billions, and see if they take notice. Then the stock price will be impacted, the board members will start asking questions (unless they're too cozy up there), and you get the result you want.
I've thought about the creation of the universe. I don't have an answer, it could very well be a god, and I'm not arguing about that.
However you didn't seem to have seen my last sentence, "It does not concern the Big Bang, if that's what you're asking." The Christian/Muslim/Jewish God could have been the original spark, and I don't think anyone has a real clue or theory as to how that happened. However, you admit that organisms evolve, and that natural selection is truly a thing. That separates what you think from the creationism mentioned in the article, which is that there is no natural selection (re: "rejects the scientific theory of evolution"), and that God created us fully formed. Basically, a literal understanding of "and on the sixth day, "[...] God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." That is what I have a problem with.
No no no. Me, I choose to live in a society and abide by the social contract. That is my choice, I chose to live under a "totalitarian" regime. If you don't want to be part of your society, find yourself an island, defend yourself against pirates, it'll be your own country.
I think you misunderstand what creationism is to most people. To me, it means that there is no evolution, that man sprang fully formed and didn't come from a long evolution of different animals. If you had read the article, you would have seen:
A]ny doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution. The parties acknowledge that creationism, in this sense, is rejected by most mainstream churches and religious traditions [...]
It does not concern the Big Bang, if that's what you're asking.