Ah, the old "If I can say it in a grammatically correct sentence, it must be true!!" fallacy.
No. They can't be both, because the groups OP defined are mutually exclusive. Men can't be both either.
Why would you think that women should fit neatly into one bucket or another?
To state the obvious, because some buckets are neatly defined. For instance, a woman can only fit into at most one of these buckets: "Likes math" or "Hates math." (They could be in neither of those buckets.)
and she wouldn't in fact have even joined the project if the gender imbalance had been any worse
So what's the loss? This person has a personality problem that prevents her from working with all men. Other people have a problem working on teams of mostly or all black people. We call them racists and move on, we don't cry a river for them and start an organization to reduce the influence of blacks in that domain.
The way we should address this, is by destroying the notion that men are inherently more suited for these "tough jobs" because of their manly stubble.
That's stupid, it's not the "manly stubble" that makes men more suited to "tough jobs" -- it's their increased physical toughness, greater strength and stamina, etc.
On average.
We could also, you know, lobby for increased protections for coal-miners
I'm not sure if you did this on purpose, but are you suggesting that to protect men we have to lobby for *everyone* in the industry ("coal-miners"), whereas when we want to help women it's okay to lobby specifically on behalf of women?
Google has arranged a release with 5 major US carriers simultaneously -- Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, and US Cellular. They will be available under contract at a big discount (up front cost $50 or so instead of $650). The carriers probably put pressure on Google to keep the unlocked price high so we perceive a value to the contract.
In all seriousness, there's no need for US to prevent people in Africa from migrating around. If Nigeria wants to seal their border, they can do that. We don't have to do it for them.
And when it comes to people from that region traveling to the US, which we're responsible for, then they should go through a 28 day quarantine. No need to deny people from coming and going, especially medical volunteers. But if you volunteer over there, you do not get to come back and reintegrate into society before we know you're still healthy. That's how it should be anyway.
You're wrong, I know what inflation does. I don't think you know what inflation does, if you think inflation automatically means every possible investment made today is worth less in 35 years.
That women should hide their sexuality because there are deviants who will try to rape them or break into their cloud accounts?
Sometimes, but not all the time.
A free society must protect the right of people to enjoy their freedoms, and where some small group of criminals and sociopaths attempt to destroy that freedom, the first words out of a free people's mouths shouldn't be "Well you had it coming you slut!"
I agree that we shouldn't be calling Jennifer Lawrence a slut because she has nude pics. But I also agree with the people who say if she is so upset about the leak then she shouldn't have taken the pics -- and that's not the same as calling her a slut.
If you don't want people to steal your money, don't earn that money.
Did you even read the summary? One of the many problems with your retort is that people need money. They don't need nude photos.
A rational person needs a reward that outweighs the cost/risk for any given action. Many people do not have nude photos of themselves, so it's hard for them to understand what the reward is that outweighs the cost. And in the case of a celebrity storing nude pics on the internet, the risk is even higher than normal because they know people will be looking for them. Any mistake -- not even criminal, just the wrong privacy setting, or an update from the service provider that changes previous posts or whatever -- and the nude photos are out there.
I mean this is all common sense stuff if you believe people have a responsibility for their own safety in at least some situations (out in the wilderness is pretty uncontroversial, walking down a dark alley is apparently controversial for some).
There seems to be a "sweet spot" of just how much cash most people can come up with for used vehicle and it appears to be around $4K max.
I don't know if you mean cash literally which would make sense, but most people can qualify for loans from their bank or credit union.
How could a dealer find a buyer for that price when I had trouble at $4500? The difference was that they could finance it for the buyer.
Last month I sold my 2007 Corolla (paid $15k) for $6k, which I thought was an amazing deal for both of us. My offer from Carmax was only $4k. Similar cars were advertised by dealers at up to $11k, which I just didn't understand, but your post totally makes sense. There must be enough people out there looking for "zero money down" or whatever to make those deals possible... people who have no understanding of the overall cost as well as people who just have no money up front.
I wonder if devices like this GPS/lockout thing will make it easier for more people to become lenders. I didn't need to sell my car for cash up front. If it were "easy" to collect payments and repossess cars without relying on a big, costly network to do so, I could have financed the car to someone.
Jeeze, if I had sold for $8500, $0 down, 5% interest, 3 year term, my total take would have been $9171 instead of $6k.
Not likely... you'd probably just get a ride with a friend.
If you are poor and can't build up at least a little support network because you have severe personality problems or something, then yeah you're screwed. Otherwise, occasional hiccups happen and you get through them. (Yes I was poor for a few years.)
I know you're thinking of typical lenders, but there are a lot of loans made by poor people to other poor people, such as family loans or loans to friends. When you aren't paid back that hurts a lot.
What a poor comment. Whether your own car costs $389/month or more (or less) has no bearing at all on whether the single mom in the article can afford a $389/month car.
(* Is it possible to still owe money on a car after it's been repossessed? I don't know, but it's certainly possible to claim to a bad-credit car buyer that they do.)
It depends on the situation. In commercial agreements he sounds right. With a credit card for instance, the due date is when payment is due. If you pay after that, you are late and pay late fees and usually get hit with a new, higher interest rate (the default rate). No doubt about it.
There are other cases where you don't have to pay by the due date. I know property taxes are one.. there's a due date, then there's a date where interest begins accruing. When I look at my mortgage statement which shows when money is taken from escrow to pay property taxes, it's always by the interest-begins date, well past the due date. Health care bills are also often structured like this. The due date seems to be a mere suggestion, the other dates they list are the important ones.
If they're having trouble making their car payment, does it make sense to take away their way to get to work?
If they have a steady job it seems unlikely that they'd have trouble making the payment unless they are wasting money or have persistent bad luck. Has the person already given up their cell phone, cable TV, gym membership, all "vices" like smoking and drinking, etc? Sure there may be some tiny number of people in that situation but it doesn't sound too common.
The creditor can always find the car and repossess it if necessary. This method of making the car unusable is all about control.
Yes that's the point of this. They disable the car, and if payment arrangements aren't made quickly, they repossess. And the dramatic speedup in communication and repossession this device enables outweighs the small proportion of bad-luck cases you outlined, where the guy *could* have made the payment if he had just made it to work on time this one last time.
I agree very much. I bought a car recently and for the first time investigated non-dealer financing, and was blown away. I always assumed manufacturer/dealer financing would be the cheapest. I assumed the loan was subsidized so they could move more cars.
I was entirely wrong. Banks these days are giving crazily low terms. My loan is at 2% interest, better than the special financing from Subaru. This was for a new car, not used.
I also sold my old car privately for the first time. Previously I had traded it in to the dealer. This time I checked Carmax and was amazed at how much more they offered. Then I let it sit on Craigslist for a week and ended up getting 50% more than the Carmax offer. WTF?!
No, that is a 'very bad thing', since if a person does not qualify for a loan, they do not have the means to pay it back. Thus, the finance company gets what little money they had, plus the car.
So it's a relatively low cost rental program instead of an ownership program.
This was one of the root causes of the US banking collapse of 2008 -- they permitted mortgage loans to those who could ill afford them, then bundled all that bad debt in with good debt and re-sold it as "asset backed commercial paper"
But that's not what is happening. These are still very high interest, and in the article one of the companies talks about how it reduced delinquent payments from nearly 1/3 to less than 1/10. At a guess, it's incredibly profitable at that level of delinquency.
In the financial crisis, if banks had made enough money from the good borrowers to cover the losses of the bad borrowers, there wouldn't have been a financial crisis. Their problem was they bundled bad loans, which in theory should reduce the risk of an underperforming loan package, but delinquency rates actually went up. Another thing people tend to forget about the financial crisis is the gas crisis that preceded it, which I think had a pretty big impact.
What make you think only rich people can afford internet access without subsidies? Others have already noted libraries and schools provide internet for free, it just takes more effort to access and is more closely monitored. (I have seen someone looking at porn in the library before, but it's not very common.)
Poor people in this country still have disposable income. That's how it's possible that smoking is more popular among the poor than other classes in society. For another data point, according to studies, poor people have on average 2 color TVs. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/09/how_rich_are_poor_people.html)
It's clear you don't pay attention before you reply, you just start typing rabid posts accusing me of racism (huh?) and not using roads (huh?).
You're a moron. I already explained the difference between subsidies for activities that help society (educating people for example) and those that are for entertainment. It's your fault you can't grasp that, not mine, so you're doomed to repeat things I've already said and pretend you disagree. Yeah, subsidizing roads and schools is good. Just because some subsidies are worth it doesn't mean that all subsidies are worth it. Get it through your head.
The government is the actor that governs, and governance is the act of governing. They are complementary words to describe what goes on when one group establishes rules and laws that they impose on others (and themselves sometimes). At least that's what I meant.
If my poor neighbor's kids are educated, they're less likely to become criminals.
If my poor neighbor's kids have high speed internet, what does that buy society? Nothing. Look at Trayvon Martin as a notable example that we're all familiar with... what did he do with internet access? Post pictures of himself in thug poses. Awesome.
Perhaps it would make sense to have subsidized internet that is restricted to certain educational and harmless activities, but I wonder how many people would use it?
Slashdot Mirror
They're both. Just like men.
Ah, the old "If I can say it in a grammatically correct sentence, it must be true!!" fallacy.
No. They can't be both, because the groups OP defined are mutually exclusive. Men can't be both either.
Why would you think that women should fit neatly into one bucket or another?
To state the obvious, because some buckets are neatly defined. For instance, a woman can only fit into at most one of these buckets: "Likes math" or "Hates math." (They could be in neither of those buckets.)
and she wouldn't in fact have even joined the project if the gender imbalance had been any worse
So what's the loss? This person has a personality problem that prevents her from working with all men. Other people have a problem working on teams of mostly or all black people. We call them racists and move on, we don't cry a river for them and start an organization to reduce the influence of blacks in that domain.
The way we should address this, is by destroying the notion that men are inherently more suited for these "tough jobs" because of their manly stubble.
That's stupid, it's not the "manly stubble" that makes men more suited to "tough jobs" -- it's their increased physical toughness, greater strength and stamina, etc.
On average.
We could also, you know, lobby for increased protections for coal-miners
I'm not sure if you did this on purpose, but are you suggesting that to protect men we have to lobby for *everyone* in the industry ("coal-miners"), whereas when we want to help women it's okay to lobby specifically on behalf of women?
Google has arranged a release with 5 major US carriers simultaneously -- Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, and US Cellular. They will be available under contract at a big discount (up front cost $50 or so instead of $650). The carriers probably put pressure on Google to keep the unlocked price high so we perceive a value to the contract.
There are enough drones though.
In all seriousness, there's no need for US to prevent people in Africa from migrating around. If Nigeria wants to seal their border, they can do that. We don't have to do it for them.
And when it comes to people from that region traveling to the US, which we're responsible for, then they should go through a 28 day quarantine. No need to deny people from coming and going, especially medical volunteers. But if you volunteer over there, you do not get to come back and reintegrate into society before we know you're still healthy. That's how it should be anyway.
You're wrong, I know what inflation does. I don't think you know what inflation does, if you think inflation automatically means every possible investment made today is worth less in 35 years.
That women should hide their sexuality because there are deviants who will try to rape them or break into their cloud accounts?
Sometimes, but not all the time.
A free society must protect the right of people to enjoy their freedoms, and where some small group of criminals and sociopaths attempt to destroy that freedom, the first words out of a free people's mouths shouldn't be "Well you had it coming you slut!"
I agree that we shouldn't be calling Jennifer Lawrence a slut because she has nude pics. But I also agree with the people who say if she is so upset about the leak then she shouldn't have taken the pics -- and that's not the same as calling her a slut.
If you don't want people to steal your money, don't earn that money.
Did you even read the summary? One of the many problems with your retort is that people need money. They don't need nude photos.
A rational person needs a reward that outweighs the cost/risk for any given action. Many people do not have nude photos of themselves, so it's hard for them to understand what the reward is that outweighs the cost. And in the case of a celebrity storing nude pics on the internet, the risk is even higher than normal because they know people will be looking for them. Any mistake -- not even criminal, just the wrong privacy setting, or an update from the service provider that changes previous posts or whatever -- and the nude photos are out there.
The victim usually deserves some share of blame because there's more than one thing going on and plenty of blame to go around.
Creating dangerous situations is sometimes so blameworthy that it's criminal. That's how we get criminal negligence for instance.
Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
I mean this is all common sense stuff if you believe people have a responsibility for their own safety in at least some situations (out in the wilderness is pretty uncontroversial, walking down a dark alley is apparently controversial for some).
assuming investment keeps up with inflation
That's far too pessimistic. $10k invested now is worth more than $10k in 35 years after inflation.
No.. $15 billion volume not investment. He could have started with 1M and traded 15000 times.
There seems to be a "sweet spot" of just how much cash most people can come up with for used vehicle and it appears to be around $4K max.
I don't know if you mean cash literally which would make sense, but most people can qualify for loans from their bank or credit union.
How could a dealer find a buyer for that price when I had trouble at $4500? The difference was that they could finance it for the buyer.
Last month I sold my 2007 Corolla (paid $15k) for $6k, which I thought was an amazing deal for both of us. My offer from Carmax was only $4k. Similar cars were advertised by dealers at up to $11k, which I just didn't understand, but your post totally makes sense. There must be enough people out there looking for "zero money down" or whatever to make those deals possible... people who have no understanding of the overall cost as well as people who just have no money up front.
I wonder if devices like this GPS/lockout thing will make it easier for more people to become lenders. I didn't need to sell my car for cash up front. If it were "easy" to collect payments and repossess cars without relying on a big, costly network to do so, I could have financed the car to someone.
Jeeze, if I had sold for $8500, $0 down, 5% interest, 3 year term, my total take would have been $9171 instead of $6k.
Not likely... you'd probably just get a ride with a friend.
If you are poor and can't build up at least a little support network because you have severe personality problems or something, then yeah you're screwed. Otherwise, occasional hiccups happen and you get through them. (Yes I was poor for a few years.)
I know you're thinking of typical lenders, but there are a lot of loans made by poor people to other poor people, such as family loans or loans to friends. When you aren't paid back that hurts a lot.
What a poor comment. Whether your own car costs $389/month or more (or less) has no bearing at all on whether the single mom in the article can afford a $389/month car.
(* Is it possible to still owe money on a car after it's been repossessed? I don't know, but it's certainly possible to claim to a bad-credit car buyer that they do.)
It is possible, it's called a recourse loan. http://www.investopedia.com/as...
All depends on your state's laws and what's in the loan agreement.
It depends on the situation. In commercial agreements he sounds right. With a credit card for instance, the due date is when payment is due. If you pay after that, you are late and pay late fees and usually get hit with a new, higher interest rate (the default rate). No doubt about it.
There are other cases where you don't have to pay by the due date. I know property taxes are one.. there's a due date, then there's a date where interest begins accruing. When I look at my mortgage statement which shows when money is taken from escrow to pay property taxes, it's always by the interest-begins date, well past the due date. Health care bills are also often structured like this. The due date seems to be a mere suggestion, the other dates they list are the important ones.
If they're having trouble making their car payment, does it make sense to take away their way to get to work?
If they have a steady job it seems unlikely that they'd have trouble making the payment unless they are wasting money or have persistent bad luck. Has the person already given up their cell phone, cable TV, gym membership, all "vices" like smoking and drinking, etc? Sure there may be some tiny number of people in that situation but it doesn't sound too common.
The creditor can always find the car and repossess it if necessary. This method of making the car unusable is all about control.
Yes that's the point of this. They disable the car, and if payment arrangements aren't made quickly, they repossess. And the dramatic speedup in communication and repossession this device enables outweighs the small proportion of bad-luck cases you outlined, where the guy *could* have made the payment if he had just made it to work on time this one last time.
I agree very much. I bought a car recently and for the first time investigated non-dealer financing, and was blown away. I always assumed manufacturer/dealer financing would be the cheapest. I assumed the loan was subsidized so they could move more cars.
I was entirely wrong. Banks these days are giving crazily low terms. My loan is at 2% interest, better than the special financing from Subaru. This was for a new car, not used.
I also sold my old car privately for the first time. Previously I had traded it in to the dealer. This time I checked Carmax and was amazed at how much more they offered. Then I let it sit on Craigslist for a week and ended up getting 50% more than the Carmax offer. WTF?!
Oh well, lessons learned.
No, that is a 'very bad thing', since if a person does not qualify for a loan, they do not have the means to pay it back. Thus, the finance company gets what little money they had, plus the car.
So it's a relatively low cost rental program instead of an ownership program.
This was one of the root causes of the US banking collapse of 2008 -- they permitted mortgage loans to those who could ill afford them, then bundled all that bad debt in with good debt and re-sold it as "asset backed commercial paper"
But that's not what is happening. These are still very high interest, and in the article one of the companies talks about how it reduced delinquent payments from nearly 1/3 to less than 1/10. At a guess, it's incredibly profitable at that level of delinquency.
In the financial crisis, if banks had made enough money from the good borrowers to cover the losses of the bad borrowers, there wouldn't have been a financial crisis. Their problem was they bundled bad loans, which in theory should reduce the risk of an underperforming loan package, but delinquency rates actually went up. Another thing people tend to forget about the financial crisis is the gas crisis that preceded it, which I think had a pretty big impact.
What make you think only rich people can afford internet access without subsidies? Others have already noted libraries and schools provide internet for free, it just takes more effort to access and is more closely monitored. (I have seen someone looking at porn in the library before, but it's not very common.)
Poor people in this country still have disposable income. That's how it's possible that smoking is more popular among the poor than other classes in society. For another data point, according to studies, poor people have on average 2 color TVs. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/09/how_rich_are_poor_people.html)
It's clear you don't pay attention before you reply, you just start typing rabid posts accusing me of racism (huh?) and not using roads (huh?).
You're a moron. I already explained the difference between subsidies for activities that help society (educating people for example) and those that are for entertainment. It's your fault you can't grasp that, not mine, so you're doomed to repeat things I've already said and pretend you disagree. Yeah, subsidizing roads and schools is good. Just because some subsidies are worth it doesn't mean that all subsidies are worth it. Get it through your head.
I'm not a good example because I don't get subsidized internet... are you paying attention to the thread at all? Forget what we're talking about?
If people want to goof off on the internet when they've paid the cost, that's called entertainment and it's perfectly fine.
The government is the actor that governs, and governance is the act of governing. They are complementary words to describe what goes on when one group establishes rules and laws that they impose on others (and themselves sometimes). At least that's what I meant.
If my poor neighbor's kids are educated, they're less likely to become criminals.
If my poor neighbor's kids have high speed internet, what does that buy society? Nothing. Look at Trayvon Martin as a notable example that we're all familiar with... what did he do with internet access? Post pictures of himself in thug poses. Awesome.
Perhaps it would make sense to have subsidized internet that is restricted to certain educational and harmless activities, but I wonder how many people would use it?