Here's an idea: Have the majority of loan payments go towards principle and not towards interest. The loan will be paid off faster and the likelihood of default will go down.
The system evolved over time the way it did because of lenders paying congress (and it goes back way before this even) to change the laws to make it so they get even richer. It has little, if anything, to do with default rates and almost everything to do with creditors wanting to get rich with no risk.
And to be honest, if you knew the first thing about money in the world today then you would know that lenders don't take on any risk at all. It's all ones and zeroes for them, but actual labor for us.
With all due respect, I never implied that going to college was a right and that's your baggage if you inferred it.
That said, your "it's the market" response is a load of garbage. It's simply the lenders' way of bilking people that don't have the money. Look at the way loans are structured, with the majority of initial payments going towards interest payments and very little to the actual principle. That's just wrong. If we each get a loan for $10K and you're charged 2% and I'm charged 10%, did it ever occur to you that that difference is what's making it difficult for me to re-pay the loan?
Unless you're one of the very, very few, you'll need a college education to really get ahead. Look at the job market and see all the positions that require a BS, regardless of experience level. What we're seeing in "choice" of student loans now is effectively the same "choice" we see from cable providers, telcos, most utilities, etc, and we (/.ers) generally grouse about that.
One does not have the right better oneself (that college education), merely the right to attempt it. But when the choice is to go without or to take on a mountain of debt that's going to accrue interest for several years before one even has a chance to begin repayment, well, that's not really a choice.
What exactly is wrong with a fixed amount loan? New, poor, unworthy history? Borrow a small amount with a fixed repayment amount. Just a simple loan. Pay it off on time and the amount that can be borrowed goes up. Don't try to enslave people with debt and pass it off as anything other than greed, because that's all it is.
If students are a "credit-unworthy lot" then limit the amounts they can borrow or make it a fixed amount that they must repay. Charging a higher interest rate for "credit-unworthy" people makes it more likely that they'll default, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. This holds true for all borrowers.
The "natural right" to recognition applies as far as you take steps to see your name attached. You have the right to tell everyone that it was your idea and to take action against those who fraudulently claim otherwise. You do not have a right to any sort of financial gain as a result of your idea. Once ideas are shared they become the property of everyone who experiences them. One cannot unlearn that information. "Intelectual Property" laws are a legal fiction to pander to one's sense of entitlement for engaging in an endeavor that would have been performed anyway. Note that I did not say that one should NOT be compensated, just that it's not a right.
Or maybe like Jimmy Carter, who should have known better. Get back under your bridge you fucking troll. There are plenty of reasons to bash W. That wasn't one of them.
I think that's a load of BS. If the complaint is lousy customer service, then that's not handled by a product review and is more appropriately handled through the retailer's customer service department, the BBB, your credit card company, etc. If they get the customer service complaint resolved, the info should still be available so that shoppers know that there's a possibility they'll be hassled.
If the complaint is that the product is a flaming PoS then there's nothing that the retailer can do, other than take it back. See above. If the product is a flaming PoS and it's on the manufacturer's site then, even if resolved, the complaint should still be visible. Appended to not that it's been resolved, and how so, but still visible.
Don't want negative reviews on record? Then work on your customer service and make sure you're not sending people a flaming PoS. It's really that simple.
Under "David's System of Justice" that crap is fraud. You lie about your product to get me to spend money? Fraud. Doesn't do what you say it will do? Fraud. Breaks from normal, expected usage after two days? Fraud. As a manufacturer, your responsibility is to tell me the truth about your product to earn my business. If your product is a flaming PoS, then you need to spend more money on the engineering side of the house to fix those problems and less on the advertising side trying to defraud me.
"I realize that the idea will panic a lot of people because we have a lot of power-hungry cops who abuse any flexibility that they're given (e.g. ticketing somebody for drinking through a straw while driving), but are we really going to make separate laws for texting, lipstick application, shaving, talking on the phone, changing shirts, peeing into a Gatorade bottle, beating the kids in the back seat to shut them up, checking your purse to make sure you remembered your dry-cleaning ticket, changing the time on the radio to reflect daylight savings, eating a taco, eating a burrito, etc?"
Funny that you mention all of those tasks. I wrote a paper, back in high school, on how to accomplish all of those things, at the same time, while driving. I'm thinking that too many people have now read it and that they don't recognize satire.
Far be it for me to shit all over your meme, but have you actually used the five-bladed Fusion? Hint: It is actually much nicer than their previous offerings.
That's nice and I can somewhat agree, but the obvious rebuttal is that the money belongs to the person who earned and they're free to give it to whomever they choose and no gov't has any business interfering with that.
In this tough economic time, with unemployment approaching 10% (in the U.S.), let me be the first to say FUCK YOU! Seriously, guys, what the hell is the matter with you? You honestly want to brag about what you're making as an intern and that you have damn good odds of getting hired? Assholes.
With all due respect, nothing on the wikipedia page you cite actually supports the argument that we're going to run out of uranium any time in the near future. Did you just put up a link and assume that no one would read it?
"Uranium depletion is the result of extracting and consuming uranium, a finite resource. However, uranium resources may never be fully depleted as the economically-recoverable reserves (including those in seawater) may be effectively inexhaustible." (opening statement)
And remember that the sky-is-falling crowd have, for the last 40 years, been claiming that we only have 40 years left of oil. IOW, knock it off with the FUD.
Oh BS. I can't believe you got modded insightful. Grab your cell and see who it is. (unless you're going to argue that you don't change radio stations either, since it's about the same). If it's your buddy, then you know he probably just wants to gab and you did the right thing. But when you see that it's the letting agent, you know that it might be important. Act accordingly. Since you "just left home," it should have been simple for you to pull over. I'm going to go out on a limb here. A reasonable response would have been for you to just answer it, having seen who it was. All things in moderation. Obviously you don't want to be carrying on a long conversation over the phone while driving, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about just getting the info you needed and going on. "Hey, I'm driving, can I call you back in a few minutes?" or "I'm on the way, see you shortly." or anything similar would have resulted in you immediately finding out that the meeting was canceled and saving yourself time and gas. But no, you had to concoct this bogus story.
The movie takes place over a four day period some 20+ years after the ship arrived. Further, the "documentary" (with much of it reported through the eyes of the media) is about the events leading up to the ship moving again for the first time since it arrived. Absolutely nothing about it precludes philosophers, doctors, scientists, et al from showing up and doing there thing at any point during the previous 20-year history. Why do you feel that you need to have that bit of info spoon-fed to you?
The movie didn't miss key plot points. You did.
Alexander was royalty and raised to command. His subjects had no choice but to follow them because people, even those as disagreeable as the Greeks (fine, Macedonians) generally prefer to keep their heads attached.
This was not the same thing. Kirk was a CADET (someone who holds no authority to give orders) on academic probation for cheating. Oh, and he incited a mutiny. Under no circumstances would he then be given command of Starfleet's FLAGSHIP.
One need not be a hard core Trekkie to dislike this movie. Not being flawless also is not the problem. Nor is an attempt at pimping critic cred required. The fact of the matter is that it was just a bad movie. Generally good acting, nice effects, but a truly piss-poor, contrived, unoriginal, poorly executed hack of a story.
Thank you. If I could mod you to +10 I would. Everyone, take note of what the parent wrote. That analysis is effectively for ONE of the MANY gaping plot holes and events that are simply unbelievable, regardless of the setting.
I'm sorry, but you clearly weren't paying attention to the movie if you think they did the series proud. There was one gaping plot hole after another. Sorry, but the movie was complete shit. There was some nice special effects and some nice acting, but the story was just so bad that anyone who says it was good just wasn't watching. That's not me be being an overcritical fanboy (and I'm hardly a fanboy, I think most of Trek is rubbish), it's just that the movie was that bad. It's like everyone who decided that they would give it a fair shake despite knowing what the changes would be ahead of time decided to turn off every part of their brain capable of rational thought. I'm not grousing about the numerous canon-breaking events that were completely unnecessary; I'm talking about the events that simply made no sense what-so-ever. It was a bad, bad movie.
Capitalism is not in the U.S. Constitution, eh? Did you even bother reading it before pulling out that gem? The Constitution does not grant powers, rights, privileges, etc. to people. It grants powers to and places limits on government.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
You are exactly the reason some people didn't want a Bill of Rights added.
Companies have no business telling people where they can and cannot work. Don't want to risk losing your people? I guess that means you value them. Maybe try not treating them like shit and then you won't lose them.
Yawn.
Your "argument" is so pathetic that it really doesn't warrant a response, on any account but one:
"Seems a bit wrong to change the rules somehow..."
Right, because going from default deny to default allow on copyright, increasing the protections available, increasing the durations, etc. isn't changing the rules.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's an idea: Have the majority of loan payments go towards principle and not towards interest. The loan will be paid off faster and the likelihood of default will go down.
The system evolved over time the way it did because of lenders paying congress (and it goes back way before this even) to change the laws to make it so they get even richer. It has little, if anything, to do with default rates and almost everything to do with creditors wanting to get rich with no risk.
And to be honest, if you knew the first thing about money in the world today then you would know that lenders don't take on any risk at all. It's all ones and zeroes for them, but actual labor for us.
With all due respect, I never implied that going to college was a right and that's your baggage if you inferred it.
That said, your "it's the market" response is a load of garbage. It's simply the lenders' way of bilking people that don't have the money. Look at the way loans are structured, with the majority of initial payments going towards interest payments and very little to the actual principle. That's just wrong. If we each get a loan for $10K and you're charged 2% and I'm charged 10%, did it ever occur to you that that difference is what's making it difficult for me to re-pay the loan?
Unless you're one of the very, very few, you'll need a college education to really get ahead. Look at the job market and see all the positions that require a BS, regardless of experience level. What we're seeing in "choice" of student loans now is effectively the same "choice" we see from cable providers, telcos, most utilities, etc, and we (/.ers) generally grouse about that.
One does not have the right better oneself (that college education), merely the right to attempt it. But when the choice is to go without or to take on a mountain of debt that's going to accrue interest for several years before one even has a chance to begin repayment, well, that's not really a choice.
What exactly is wrong with a fixed amount loan? New, poor, unworthy history? Borrow a small amount with a fixed repayment amount. Just a simple loan. Pay it off on time and the amount that can be borrowed goes up. Don't try to enslave people with debt and pass it off as anything other than greed, because that's all it is.
If students are a "credit-unworthy lot" then limit the amounts they can borrow or make it a fixed amount that they must repay. Charging a higher interest rate for "credit-unworthy" people makes it more likely that they'll default, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. This holds true for all borrowers.
The "natural right" to recognition applies as far as you take steps to see your name attached. You have the right to tell everyone that it was your idea and to take action against those who fraudulently claim otherwise. You do not have a right to any sort of financial gain as a result of your idea. Once ideas are shared they become the property of everyone who experiences them. One cannot unlearn that information. "Intelectual Property" laws are a legal fiction to pander to one's sense of entitlement for engaging in an endeavor that would have been performed anyway. Note that I did not say that one should NOT be compensated, just that it's not a right.
Prostitution is not legal in Las Vegas, which is in Clark county. It is, however, legal eight of the state's more rural counties.
Or maybe like Jimmy Carter, who should have known better. Get back under your bridge you fucking troll. There are plenty of reasons to bash W. That wasn't one of them.
and yet this is what the majority of Slashdot does, regarding Christianity, on a daily basis
I think that's a load of BS. If the complaint is lousy customer service, then that's not handled by a product review and is more appropriately handled through the retailer's customer service department, the BBB, your credit card company, etc. If they get the customer service complaint resolved, the info should still be available so that shoppers know that there's a possibility they'll be hassled.
If the complaint is that the product is a flaming PoS then there's nothing that the retailer can do, other than take it back. See above. If the product is a flaming PoS and it's on the manufacturer's site then, even if resolved, the complaint should still be visible. Appended to not that it's been resolved, and how so, but still visible.
Don't want negative reviews on record? Then work on your customer service and make sure you're not sending people a flaming PoS. It's really that simple.
Under "David's System of Justice" that crap is fraud. You lie about your product to get me to spend money? Fraud. Doesn't do what you say it will do? Fraud. Breaks from normal, expected usage after two days? Fraud. As a manufacturer, your responsibility is to tell me the truth about your product to earn my business. If your product is a flaming PoS, then you need to spend more money on the engineering side of the house to fix those problems and less on the advertising side trying to defraud me.
"I realize that the idea will panic a lot of people because we have a lot of power-hungry cops who abuse any flexibility that they're given (e.g. ticketing somebody for drinking through a straw while driving), but are we really going to make separate laws for texting, lipstick application, shaving, talking on the phone, changing shirts, peeing into a Gatorade bottle, beating the kids in the back seat to shut them up, checking your purse to make sure you remembered your dry-cleaning ticket, changing the time on the radio to reflect daylight savings, eating a taco, eating a burrito, etc?"
Funny that you mention all of those tasks. I wrote a paper, back in high school, on how to accomplish all of those things, at the same time, while driving. I'm thinking that too many people have now read it and that they don't recognize satire.
Far be it for me to shit all over your meme, but have you actually used the five-bladed Fusion? Hint: It is actually much nicer than their previous offerings.
That's nice and I can somewhat agree, but the obvious rebuttal is that the money belongs to the person who earned and they're free to give it to whomever they choose and no gov't has any business interfering with that.
In this tough economic time, with unemployment approaching 10% (in the U.S.), let me be the first to say FUCK YOU! Seriously, guys, what the hell is the matter with you? You honestly want to brag about what you're making as an intern and that you have damn good odds of getting hired? Assholes.
With all due respect, nothing on the wikipedia page you cite actually supports the argument that we're going to run out of uranium any time in the near future. Did you just put up a link and assume that no one would read it? "Uranium depletion is the result of extracting and consuming uranium, a finite resource. However, uranium resources may never be fully depleted as the economically-recoverable reserves (including those in seawater) may be effectively inexhaustible." (opening statement) And remember that the sky-is-falling crowd have, for the last 40 years, been claiming that we only have 40 years left of oil. IOW, knock it off with the FUD.
Oh BS. I can't believe you got modded insightful. Grab your cell and see who it is. (unless you're going to argue that you don't change radio stations either, since it's about the same). If it's your buddy, then you know he probably just wants to gab and you did the right thing. But when you see that it's the letting agent, you know that it might be important. Act accordingly. Since you "just left home," it should have been simple for you to pull over. I'm going to go out on a limb here. A reasonable response would have been for you to just answer it, having seen who it was. All things in moderation. Obviously you don't want to be carrying on a long conversation over the phone while driving, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about just getting the info you needed and going on. "Hey, I'm driving, can I call you back in a few minutes?" or "I'm on the way, see you shortly." or anything similar would have resulted in you immediately finding out that the meeting was canceled and saving yourself time and gas. But no, you had to concoct this bogus story.
If you think that you might be going some place that has parking meters then perhaps you could plan ahead and take some pocket change with you?
The movie takes place over a four day period some 20+ years after the ship arrived. Further, the "documentary" (with much of it reported through the eyes of the media) is about the events leading up to the ship moving again for the first time since it arrived. Absolutely nothing about it precludes philosophers, doctors, scientists, et al from showing up and doing there thing at any point during the previous 20-year history. Why do you feel that you need to have that bit of info spoon-fed to you? The movie didn't miss key plot points. You did.
Actually seeing the movie would be akin to RTFA. You do know where you are, right?
Alexander was royalty and raised to command. His subjects had no choice but to follow them because people, even those as disagreeable as the Greeks (fine, Macedonians) generally prefer to keep their heads attached. This was not the same thing. Kirk was a CADET (someone who holds no authority to give orders) on academic probation for cheating. Oh, and he incited a mutiny. Under no circumstances would he then be given command of Starfleet's FLAGSHIP.
One need not be a hard core Trekkie to dislike this movie. Not being flawless also is not the problem. Nor is an attempt at pimping critic cred required. The fact of the matter is that it was just a bad movie. Generally good acting, nice effects, but a truly piss-poor, contrived, unoriginal, poorly executed hack of a story.
Thank you. If I could mod you to +10 I would. Everyone, take note of what the parent wrote. That analysis is effectively for ONE of the MANY gaping plot holes and events that are simply unbelievable, regardless of the setting.
In other words, aside from the half-dozen gaping plot holes that you mentioned (and the two dozen more that you didn't), it was a great movie.
I'm sorry, but you clearly weren't paying attention to the movie if you think they did the series proud. There was one gaping plot hole after another. Sorry, but the movie was complete shit. There was some nice special effects and some nice acting, but the story was just so bad that anyone who says it was good just wasn't watching. That's not me be being an overcritical fanboy (and I'm hardly a fanboy, I think most of Trek is rubbish), it's just that the movie was that bad. It's like everyone who decided that they would give it a fair shake despite knowing what the changes would be ahead of time decided to turn off every part of their brain capable of rational thought. I'm not grousing about the numerous canon-breaking events that were completely unnecessary; I'm talking about the events that simply made no sense what-so-ever. It was a bad, bad movie.
Capitalism is not in the U.S. Constitution, eh? Did you even bother reading it before pulling out that gem? The Constitution does not grant powers, rights, privileges, etc. to people. It grants powers to and places limits on government. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." You are exactly the reason some people didn't want a Bill of Rights added.
Companies have no business telling people where they can and cannot work. Don't want to risk losing your people? I guess that means you value them. Maybe try not treating them like shit and then you won't lose them.
Yawn. Your "argument" is so pathetic that it really doesn't warrant a response, on any account but one: "Seems a bit wrong to change the rules somehow..." Right, because going from default deny to default allow on copyright, increasing the protections available, increasing the durations, etc. isn't changing the rules.