Slightly more? You quoted the tax rates for Quebec, Ontario, and BC. Quebec is 50% higher than next-door neighbor Ontario, (and the tax actually kicks in at a lower rate), and more than 3x the rate of British Columbia.
Couple that with the lower average income in Quebec, because of 40 years of provincial anti-english sentiment chasing out most of the head offices, and it's a disaster.
Oh, and the provincial sales taxe, which went up 1% to 8% January 1st, are going up another 1% next January 1st.
Now, when go to spend that money, Alberta's provincial sales tax is 0%. Quebec - as of January 1st, will be 9.975% (because they also tax the 5% federal sales tax - a tax on tax).
Also, Alberta gives much more generous deductions for people with a disability, or caring for someone at home, etc.
Add to that that the average Alberta income is more than 2-1/2 times the average Quebec income, and Quebec sucks.
Quebec is the most corrupt province in Canada. Where do you think all those scum telemarketers operated from? Quebec - because Quebec's political class has been engaged in economic warfare against its' citizens for almost 40 years..
On the other hand, when Balmer comes up with a bad idea, he sticks with it!
And we're all grateful for that. Imagine if Microsoft had come out with their own version of the Windows shell and server atop linux? Think of having to explain to the PHBs that you don't *want* to run MS-linux on a server?
You expect consistency? This is Ubuntu we're talking about. Mark Shuttleworth makes Steve Balmer look good in that area. At least when the Balminator flits back and forth between 6 different markets, he's got the resources to back it up. Shuttleworth needs to take some Ritalin.
You're going against the flow. Quebec is the leach on the RoC (Rest of Canada). Albertans pay $4,000 per taxpayer per year into the equalization fund, and Quebec sucks out $1,200 per capita (not per taxpayer) from that same fund, because Quebec has spent a generation destroying their economic base.
It's debt is much higher than any other province, and its tax rates are nuts - someone earning minimum wage pays more in provincial taxes than someone making $50k in Alberta.
That's what happens when you pass stupid laws encouraging businesses to locate anywhere else. They move, and all the head-office jobs and spin-off jobs (research and development, etc) go with them.
Bumpers, fuel tanks, engine manifolds, interiors, etc. Also lots of aluminium (also non-magnetic).
Plastic fuel tanks are safer - they don't eventually leak at the seam, condensation doesn't cause them to rust out, and they have more give in a crash.
If you find a device like this on your car, have fun with it...... Smash it open to see what is inside.
No, no, no. You park in a very public location (perhaps outside a politicians office??) and then call the cops to report a suspicious looking device attached to your car that has wires and what looks (to you) like explosives as well. While the cops and/or bomb squad are on the way, you also call up the local news media and tell them that the cops are on the way to check out a possible car bomb.
Then just sit back and watch the fun.
STEP 1: Attach it to someone elses car... someone like Herman Cain... or your local mayor... or the mayor's wife or kid...
Only then do you call the media to say "Someone set us up the bomb."
It's like the first thing you do when you find a dead body floating in your swimming pool - before calling the authorities, you put it back in your neighbors' pool.
No, their host is theplanet.com in texas. (do an nslookup on their latest site name theutraining.com - 174.123.135.180 - they keep changing it, for obvious reasons).
What if you spend that extra time to also tune the Linux box.
Since the article is about running FreeBSD on a desktop, here's the situation under linux. Your patch will break the next update. Or the next update will break your patch. Or the next update will break even if you don't patch.
It's getting to the point that you have to do a clean install instead, because updates don't play nice with your existing wifi, video, or sound configuration, but a fresh install will still work... mostly.
If you want to see something weirder, watch the first episode of the TV Series The Lone Gunmen
The plot of the first episode, which aired March 4, 2001, involves a US government conspiracy to hijack an airliner, fly it into the World Trade Center and blame it on terrorists, thereby gaining support for a new profit-making war.
Parallels of this plotted scenario of government conspiracy to revitalize its war industry, to the events of 9/11 in this episode are noteworthy, if not uncanny, since the episode was aired six months prior to 9/11.
They don't have to do anything more than spread false stories about it NOT being an alert, that it was supposed to be "just an alert", but that something really DID happen at the same time, and they started to spread the real alert, then hushed it up because of [insert $TIN_FOIL_CONSPIRACY], and that you should leave the city immediately because of [insert $CONTAMINATION_DISEASE_WHATEVER], and btw, there's been a run on duct-tape and plastic sheeting and bottled water...
No, this will be the perfect terrorist opportunity.
It's bad enough when a fire alarm goes on, most people just stand around and look at each other and go "is this a drill?" Now replace that scenario with a real emergency alert at around the same time as the test. "Oh, ignore it, it's just a drill, remember?"
If you had invested in beer instead of Nortel stock at the peak, drank all the beer, returned the empties, used the money to buy still more beer, and returned THOSE empties for still more beer, and returned THOSE empties, you would have been ahead of the game financially.
I suspect it will be the same for Groupon, and that the reason they refused google's offer was because they would have had to open their books, and their books show that they're in the hole for about a half billion (and every dollar they bring in still costs them more than a buck). I know, "we'll make it up in volume!"
Look, you have NO citations that are valid. NO documentation of the FairIsaacs scoring method (which is proprietary and closed, so you can't have), you cite random bloggers who have zero industry experience, you yourself have no industry experience, and you are just being lame at this point.
So either save it for Troll Tuesday, or ST*U, mkay?
1. Actually, the blogger doesn't cite any such experience.
2. Go talk to someone who works in the business. I did. I worked for 7 years at one such place, developing their software, so no, it's not just "anecdotal evidence". To do the work, I obviously had to talk to my boss, equifax, etc.
Again, the MyFICO.com website does NOT state HOW that is proportion is actually used in calculating the score.
You (and the original financial blogger) are making the logical fail of assuming that it correlates as a positive, not negative.
The actual formula has not been made public. However, from talking with people who actually do the loans approval process for millions of dollars a year, the fact is that unused but available credit is taken into account when rejecting a loan - you can have too much unused credit, in which case you're better to dump the extra cards.
So, rather than just assume, go talk to someone who actually works in the biz, mkay?
Or simply apply logic. You go to the bank to borrow $50k. You have credit cards and lines of credit with a zero balance, with total available limits totaling $50k. Your earning capacity would support total debt of $50k..
Because you already have available credit (albeit unused) that is at the maximum level you can support, you are denied the loan.
Your way of thinking is confusing credit with wealth. The lender is looking at credit as debt that has to be paid back.
Evangelical whack-job Charles Dobson (Focus On The Family) says it's okay to use physical punishment on an 18-month-old. And if they don't stop crying within 5 minutes of you whacking them, it's "protest crying", and "I would require him to stop the protest crying, usually by offering him a little more of whatever caused the original tears."
I've had to deal with fundies who believe it's their god-given right to physically abuse their kids right up to the age of 18. It's like talking to a wall - except that the wall just sits there, you don't have to worry that an off-the-record verification by a concerned cop turns up that the wall owns 3 firearms. Or that the wall will turn paranoid.
I think one of the telling parts is where the wife joins in - but at the same time, tries to negotiate it down to ONE whack instead of multiple ones. This is the sort of unconscious mediating behavior you'll see when someone is stuck between a rock and a hard place. We're hard-wired by evolution to seek out such solutions (since those who failed are removed from the gene pool...).
After all, it's kind of hard to pick up the phone and call the police when you're physically and emotionally dependent on preserving the family unit, and more so when your hubby's a judge.
It doesn't make it right, it doesn't excuse it, but it does explain it in terms that give us a first handle on how to understand it and argue that we need to make it clear that hitting anyone as a form of correction or teaching doesn't work.
Also, the first thing any parent needs to learn is that kids will definitely get on your nerves at times, and that you do not try to address the situation while you're upset. And especially when you're angry. When you lose control, they're in control.
You know what kids really hate? When you say "we'll talk about this later", and then do so. And explain why you're upset (for example, that they stayed out way past the agreed-upon time and didn't phone), and ask them what they propose to do about it to avoid it happening again in the future, and what the consequences should be next time.
They'd rather just be punished, because then they have carte blanche to break the rules as long as they are willing to pay the penalty - same as speeders - and they can dodge the feeling of responsibility because they didn't have any input into it.
All hitting the kid does is prove that you need to grow up. Or in this guy's case, be kept away from kids.
That's not the point. The point is the absolutely horrible quality control in all the desktop environments. As an example, LXDE is one of the lightweight environments, but it crapped itself so badly a 6 months ago that I stopped using this computer. It was only last week, when I decided "what the heck, might as well prep it for BSD" that I decided to create a new user account and give LXDE one more try before making the switch.
It's still buggy, lacking in basic features, but at least it works - though it's only about half as fast as it was a few years ago on the same machine.
n another note, OOP has failed. While it did allow us to "kick the can down the road a bit" in terms of managing complexity, ultimately, the extra overhead of dealing with the object model mean that, once a project gets past a certain size, OOP adds more overhead and complexity than it removes, both at code time and at run time. Oh well, c'est la vie.
He might "enjoy it at the time" - the endorphin rush - but the fact is that there is a proven difference in the structure of the brain between people who are liberal and conservative/religious. The latter have less self-control when it comes to reacting to their initial emotional "gut feelings" because the part of the brain that controls that is smaller.
This doesn't excuse it. What it means is that they need to be trained to recognize when they're going off the rails. Failing that, they will perpetuate the cycle in the next generation. That's what anger management does - makes them realize that they had better at the very least balance that with the fear of the consequences after the endorphin high wears off.
Is he a sick f*ck? No question. Can he change? So far, he's denying he even did anything wrong. He may be incapable of seeing that he did anything wrong. There are people who still believe that the bible gives them the right to beat their kids (and their wives). Anything that threatens that structure on which they are psychologically dependent is going to be ignored.
It's very frustrating trying to deal with cases where the father is physically abusive, the mother won't report it because "it's not god's way", and the police won't take action unless the mother reports it. Fortunately, those situations are becoming fewer, as the police and public and courts say that religion is not an excuse for abuse.
But sometimes it still takes the victim doing as you did to change things. Progress is slow, and there are a lot of people and organizations who have a vested interest in just sweeping everything under the rug, because they're sick f*cks too.
The wikipedia entry is inaccurate (how FICO scores are arrived at is a closed secret). Or did you miss the big notice at the top that it needs citations?
For example, while FICO's website says "Proportion of credit lines used (proportion of balances to total credit limits on certain types of revolving accounts)", it doesn't say whether this is a positive or a negative. The article itself also notes that FICO has had to change its models
In other words, you can score high but still not be eligible for new credit. This is especially true since having too many credit cards is now itself a risk factor (post-housing-bubble).
Your credit rating is not what determines whether you get a loan or not. If you're already at your maximum carrying debt capacity, you won't get it. If you have too many open lines of credit already that could push you over that without any notification or application, you won't get it. This is not 2005 any more. There are simply too many cases of people who took out one obligation too many and then went into a death spiral on their credit cards trying to, for example, keep the house.
Your "credit utilization" theory sounds nice in theory, but fails in practice. It should imply that you can improve your score by getting an additional credit card, and, for example, transferring some of the debt onto it. The only way that works is by reducing your debt, not by taking out more credit cards and putting a bit on each one, because your overall debt carrying capacity doesn't change.
Your credit utilization ratio is still bounded by that debt carrying capacity factor. Exceed the carrying capacity and your utilization ratio becomes irrelevant (for obvious reasons).
Slashdot Mirror
Slightly more? You quoted the tax rates for Quebec, Ontario, and BC. Quebec is 50% higher than next-door neighbor Ontario, (and the tax actually kicks in at a lower rate), and more than 3x the rate of British Columbia.
Couple that with the lower average income in Quebec, because of 40 years of provincial anti-english sentiment chasing out most of the head offices, and it's a disaster.
Oh, and the provincial sales taxe, which went up 1% to 8% January 1st, are going up another 1% next January 1st.
Also, your "omeone earning minimum wage in Alberta is paying 2x that of anyone else in the country " is a flat-out lie, Alberta exempts the first $16,825 of income from ANY provincial income tax.
Now, when go to spend that money, Alberta's provincial sales tax is 0%. Quebec - as of January 1st, will be 9.975% (because they also tax the 5% federal sales tax - a tax on tax).
Also, Alberta gives much more generous deductions for people with a disability, or caring for someone at home, etc. Add to that that the average Alberta income is more than 2-1/2 times the average Quebec income, and Quebec sucks.
Quebec is the most corrupt province in Canada. Where do you think all those scum telemarketers operated from? Quebec - because Quebec's political class has been engaged in economic warfare against its' citizens for almost 40 years..
And we're all grateful for that. Imagine if Microsoft had come out with their own version of the Windows shell and server atop linux? Think of having to explain to the PHBs that you don't *want* to run MS-linux on a server?
You expect consistency? This is Ubuntu we're talking about. Mark Shuttleworth makes Steve Balmer look good in that area. At least when the Balminator flits back and forth between 6 different markets, he's got the resources to back it up. Shuttleworth needs to take some Ritalin.
You're going against the flow. Quebec is the leach on the RoC (Rest of Canada). Albertans pay $4,000 per taxpayer per year into the equalization fund, and Quebec sucks out $1,200 per capita (not per taxpayer) from that same fund, because Quebec has spent a generation destroying their economic base.
It's debt is much higher than any other province, and its tax rates are nuts - someone earning minimum wage pays more in provincial taxes than someone making $50k in Alberta.
That's what happens when you pass stupid laws encouraging businesses to locate anywhere else. They move, and all the head-office jobs and spin-off jobs (research and development, etc) go with them.
Last one out turn out the lights ...
Bumpers, fuel tanks, engine manifolds, interiors, etc. Also lots of aluminium (also non-magnetic).
Plastic fuel tanks are safer - they don't eventually leak at the seam, condensation doesn't cause them to rust out, and they have more give in a crash.
Completely. The only metal is usually the two straps hooking it into place - and these aren't necessarily steel either.
Magnets don't work on plastic and non-ferrous body parts. Check out how many cars now have plastic gas tanks.
STEP 1: Attach it to someone elses car ... someone like Herman Cain ... or your local mayor ... or the mayor's wife or kid ...
Only then do you call the media to say "Someone set us up the bomb."
It's like the first thing you do when you find a dead body floating in your swimming pool - before calling the authorities, you put it back in your neighbors' pool.
No, their host is theplanet.com in texas. (do an nslookup on their latest site name theutraining.com - 174.123.135.180 - they keep changing it, for obvious reasons).
Report it to abuse@theplanet.com
Since the article is about running FreeBSD on a desktop, here's the situation under linux. Your patch will break the next update. Or the next update will break your patch. Or the next update will break even if you don't patch.
It's getting to the point that you have to do a clean install instead, because updates don't play nice with your existing wifi, video, or sound configuration, but a fresh install will still work ... mostly.
Zombies. Oh wait, that would infringe Microsoft IP ...
BSD was unix before the open group ever existed. Any sane person would consider it "grandfathered in."
Who says life doesn't follow art?
People will spread the story ...
You MUST be new here ...
No, this will be the perfect terrorist opportunity.
It's bad enough when a fire alarm goes on, most people just stand around and look at each other and go "is this a drill?" Now replace that scenario with a real emergency alert at around the same time as the test. "Oh, ignore it, it's just a drill, remember?"
I suspect it will be the same for Groupon, and that the reason they refused google's offer was because they would have had to open their books, and their books show that they're in the hole for about a half billion (and every dollar they bring in still costs them more than a buck). I know, "we'll make it up in volume!"
So either save it for Troll Tuesday, or ST*U, mkay?
2. Go talk to someone who works in the business. I did. I worked for 7 years at one such place, developing their software, so no, it's not just "anecdotal evidence". To do the work, I obviously had to talk to my boss, equifax, etc.
You (and the original financial blogger) are making the logical fail of assuming that it correlates as a positive, not negative.
The actual formula has not been made public. However, from talking with people who actually do the loans approval process for millions of dollars a year, the fact is that unused but available credit is taken into account when rejecting a loan - you can have too much unused credit, in which case you're better to dump the extra cards.
So, rather than just assume, go talk to someone who actually works in the biz, mkay?
Or simply apply logic. You go to the bank to borrow $50k. You have credit cards and lines of credit with a zero balance, with total available limits totaling $50k. Your earning capacity would support total debt of $50k..
Because you already have available credit (albeit unused) that is at the maximum level you can support, you are denied the loan.
Your way of thinking is confusing credit with wealth. The lender is looking at credit as debt that has to be paid back.
Evangelical whack-job Charles Dobson (Focus On The Family) says it's okay to use physical punishment on an 18-month-old. And if they don't stop crying within 5 minutes of you whacking them, it's "protest crying", and "I would require him to stop the protest crying, usually by offering him a little more of whatever caused the original tears."
I've had to deal with fundies who believe it's their god-given right to physically abuse their kids right up to the age of 18. It's like talking to a wall - except that the wall just sits there, you don't have to worry that an off-the-record verification by a concerned cop turns up that the wall owns 3 firearms. Or that the wall will turn paranoid.
I think one of the telling parts is where the wife joins in - but at the same time, tries to negotiate it down to ONE whack instead of multiple ones. This is the sort of unconscious mediating behavior you'll see when someone is stuck between a rock and a hard place. We're hard-wired by evolution to seek out such solutions (since those who failed are removed from the gene pool ...).
After all, it's kind of hard to pick up the phone and call the police when you're physically and emotionally dependent on preserving the family unit, and more so when your hubby's a judge.
It doesn't make it right, it doesn't excuse it, but it does explain it in terms that give us a first handle on how to understand it and argue that we need to make it clear that hitting anyone as a form of correction or teaching doesn't work.
Also, the first thing any parent needs to learn is that kids will definitely get on your nerves at times, and that you do not try to address the situation while you're upset. And especially when you're angry. When you lose control, they're in control.
You know what kids really hate? When you say "we'll talk about this later", and then do so. And explain why you're upset (for example, that they stayed out way past the agreed-upon time and didn't phone), and ask them what they propose to do about it to avoid it happening again in the future, and what the consequences should be next time.
They'd rather just be punished, because then they have carte blanche to break the rules as long as they are willing to pay the penalty - same as speeders - and they can dodge the feeling of responsibility because they didn't have any input into it.
All hitting the kid does is prove that you need to grow up. Or in this guy's case, be kept away from kids.
It's still buggy, lacking in basic features, but at least it works - though it's only about half as fast as it was a few years ago on the same machine.
Anyone working on a DE should read this, especially the parts about all the work that was done for optimizing for speed and size, like Rounded Rectangles are Everywhere and this about resources, andmanagers should have this shoved in their face.
n another note, OOP has failed. While it did allow us to "kick the can down the road a bit" in terms of managing complexity, ultimately, the extra overhead of dealing with the object model mean that, once a project gets past a certain size, OOP adds more overhead and complexity than it removes, both at code time and at run time. Oh well, c'est la vie.
He might "enjoy it at the time" - the endorphin rush - but the fact is that there is a proven difference in the structure of the brain between people who are liberal and conservative/religious. The latter have less self-control when it comes to reacting to their initial emotional "gut feelings" because the part of the brain that controls that is smaller.
This doesn't excuse it. What it means is that they need to be trained to recognize when they're going off the rails. Failing that, they will perpetuate the cycle in the next generation. That's what anger management does - makes them realize that they had better at the very least balance that with the fear of the consequences after the endorphin high wears off.
Is he a sick f*ck? No question. Can he change? So far, he's denying he even did anything wrong. He may be incapable of seeing that he did anything wrong. There are people who still believe that the bible gives them the right to beat their kids (and their wives). Anything that threatens that structure on which they are psychologically dependent is going to be ignored.
It's very frustrating trying to deal with cases where the father is physically abusive, the mother won't report it because "it's not god's way", and the police won't take action unless the mother reports it. Fortunately, those situations are becoming fewer, as the police and public and courts say that religion is not an excuse for abuse.
But sometimes it still takes the victim doing as you did to change things. Progress is slow, and there are a lot of people and organizations who have a vested interest in just sweeping everything under the rug, because they're sick f*cks too.
For example, while FICO's website says "Proportion of credit lines used (proportion of balances to total credit limits on certain types of revolving accounts)", it doesn't say whether this is a positive or a negative. The article itself also notes that FICO has had to change its models
In other words, you can score high but still not be eligible for new credit. This is especially true since having too many credit cards is now itself a risk factor (post-housing-bubble).
Your credit rating is not what determines whether you get a loan or not. If you're already at your maximum carrying debt capacity, you won't get it. If you have too many open lines of credit already that could push you over that without any notification or application, you won't get it. This is not 2005 any more. There are simply too many cases of people who took out one obligation too many and then went into a death spiral on their credit cards trying to, for example, keep the house.
Your "credit utilization" theory sounds nice in theory, but fails in practice. It should imply that you can improve your score by getting an additional credit card, and, for example, transferring some of the debt onto it. The only way that works is by reducing your debt, not by taking out more credit cards and putting a bit on each one, because your overall debt carrying capacity doesn't change.
Your credit utilization ratio is still bounded by that debt carrying capacity factor. Exceed the carrying capacity and your utilization ratio becomes irrelevant (for obvious reasons).