We don't live in Libertarianville, we live in the U.S. Here in the U.S. we don't allow companies to engage in unfair business practices, regardless of whether or not they're a monopoly. Now move back to Libertarianville. Oh, that's right, there is none, cause no one agrees with your stupid points of view.
Weak or strong is what the judge is supposed to determine after hearing all the evidence. I'm not saying Google is wrong here, I'm just saying that they might be, depending on the complete evidence.
on its PageRank technology. And just because you're not a monopoly doesn't mean you can engage in unfair trade practices. As for waiting for Google to turn evil, if they are punishing their competitors by intentionally lowering their results, I'd call that evil.
What if slashdot refused to allow me to post on its site because I run SlashdotSucks? Don't you think that would be an unfair trade practice?
So do parents of children with autism have more grandchildren than parents of children without autism? That's the key question from an evolutionary standpoint.
My parents have a celeron as well, which is what they use mostly. My mother refuses to do her lesson plans on anything but Appleworks, and she refuses to use Appleworks for Windows which I installed for her. I used to have a 6200 (I think) with a 603e. That was actually what convinced me to switch to Windows.
My parents are both teachers, but I'm not about to put OS X on their Performa 5200... Not only do they need an Apple computer, they need a relatively new Apple computer.
I don't know, how does is work with worker bees? They work, they are evolutionarily selected for, yet they don't procreate. It's probably a recessive gene thing.
Earned me $1000 bugs bounty from Netscape back in the day. When you tried to access the URL in the history file through java, it threw a security exception to the effect of "You cannot access the information about http://the/url.here". Chop off the beginning of the sentence, and there's your URL. Silly Netscape programmers.
Therefore, compared to the emission of a typical star a black hole, again, emits signifigantly(understated) less of it's mass.
Yeah, though really neither emit very much of their mass. E=mc^2 and all, so it takes a helluva lot of energy to equal just a tiny amount of mass. My reference to hawking radiation was just a quibble, really.
I simply stated that because of their density, their gravitational force and therefore, their escape velocity is greater.
Gravitational force has nothing to do with density for equal mass objects.
Again, all I was sayng is that over time a black hole will act in a manner that is different from a regular star with regard to its continuity of gravitational force.
That's certainly an odd statement since the current theory is that all black holes started out as stars.
Since you're going to be living off a 2-4 unit apartment building, you're obviously very frugal, so you have been saving up this cash and debt for 2-4 years.
Well, I don't know anything about prices abroad. The idea was that the person wanted to visit some other part of the world. You can buy whole houses in some parts of the world for a few hundred dollars. So, it really depends where he wants to visit. I'm also under the impression this person has a decent income right now, so he could "save" $20K easily in a quarter, if his income is $80K, for instance.
Let's assume that you buy a duplex -- not a 2 unit apartment building, but easily found. Say you pay $150k for it (it's run down, but it's good enough).
Depends on the area. Around here you can get a 7 unit (OK, OK, two units are unfinished) for around $200K, and that's without moving to some of the shady towns nearby (but you probably don't want a 7-unit, then you need a commercial loan, commercial taxes, state regulation, etc). But let's go with $150K. In fact, I just looked one up (MLS#: 4126192 if you're following at home).
Add it all up. At the beginning, you're paying $200/month on the credit card, $500/month on property tax (better rates can be found, as can worse, depends on the area) and $385/month on mortgage (we're skipping PMI for the sake of argument-- but that's likely another $100/month if you don't qualify to skip it).
The down payment is to avoid PMI. If you're going to pay PMI then you might as well go with no money down.
Divide it all by two, and your expenses are $543/month. How much rent do you expect for half a duplex? Most places, you can expect $500-$700. At best, you'd make $150/month for each unit.
Our case study is renting for $735+610=$1345-1085=260, so your $300 is probably an accurate max (I'd argue with your property taxes a little though).
$3600/year isn't anything to scoff at, but now you need to find a place to live and food to eat.
Which you could put on your credit card.
Perhaps using credit card debt to fund a propterty investment isn't the best idea.
$3600/year for a $0 investment is a pretty good deal.
My math may be wrong, but for your $30k initial cash investment, I'm figuring you're going to make $3600/$30000 = 0.12 APR. Bonds do better. Hell, my savings account does better.
But you haven't made a $30K investment. You've only saved $10K, you've borrowed the other $20K. And that $10K you have sitting around waiting for a maintenance item, so that could be earning income while it sits around. Also, I doubt bonds or savings accounts will earn you 12% interest a year. Really you've made that $3600 without investing anything though.
Of course, property investment can have significant income tax advantages, don't get me wrong, but a first, incomplete pass suggests one thing. Take a little longer, skip the credit card debt part.
Depends on the credit card. My Click Citi Platinum Select is currently at 6.4%. Yeah, it's variable, but if it goes up too much I'll just transfer it to a fixed card, probably at a promotional rate. My discover card (the only new one of the bunch) is in 0% until November 2003 (at which point I'll probably cancel it, Discover is evil), and my other card is in 3.9% on a balance transfer check, which lasts until the balance is paid off (unless I spend more with it, which I don't, I use other cards). Finally I have a 10.9% Citi Dividend Platinum Select which gives me 1% cash back. This card I pay off every month (except when I want to save up debt on it to transfer over for some special on another card). There are some great credit card deals out there if you look for them. Credit card companies make such insane amounts of money off stupid people that you can usually get great deals off the slop just by not being stupid.
As for taking a little longer, why wait when you can go now? The great thing about credit cards is they are extemely liquid, so instead of having to wait and save up money you can just dive in now and then pay off the credit cards while you save (and earn). Net income (without interest) on the hypothetical property is $1355-500-100=$755*12=9060/year. 9065/150000=6%. OK, so that's (one reason) why I'm not buying that property, cause 6% sucks. But if you can find a property at 10% (and you can, maybe look into a 4 unit), then you're borrowing at mostly 7% (the mortgage) and the rest 9.9% maximum (the credit cards) for a 10% return. That's a good deal.
Because the escape velovity of a black hole is greater than the speed of light, stuff don't tend to emit from it so well. Once it gets in, it ain't coming out.
I was referring to hawking radiation. Look it up.
In other words, by virtue of the greater gravitational pull/escape velocity of a black hole we could assume that objects will be much more likely to be captured by a black hole than a regular star.
Black holes don't necessarily have more mass than regular stars, they are just more dense.
It's like this, we expect that the earth will eventually be consumed by the sun when it runs out of hydrogen and goes red giant. The photosphere of the sun will expand to a size greater than our orbit. However, if we were orbiting a black hole , we could expect different results.
Umm... I don't see what that has to do with what we were talking about. Yes, black holes don't go red giant... Neither do neutron stars, or white dwarfs.
However, if we were orbiting a black hole , we could expect different results. Over the same duration, it is plausible that the gravitational force of the black hole could become great enough to pull the earth in, or at least significantly increase our orbital velocity; This by virtue of infalling matter/energy.
Nope. If the sun were a black hole, we could expect the exact same orbit for the earth around it.
Not really. Presumably you are under the impression that there's some isolated entity called "the government" that imposes laws upon society at will. The truth is much more complicated than that.
Not profits, but they will get their cut.
Please, define "they".
They auction off spectrum now and they will do it if the "paradigm" shifts.
Only parts of the spectrum are auctioned off. Others are regulated, others are completely unregulated, and others are given away for free.
Auctioning is certainly not the only solution. It's probably the best one, though, for this particular problem.
I am sure bad credit people can get places...you got to live somewhere. But what kind of place is it? What "pets" come with the place?
I'm really not sure what your point is here. If you have bad credit, you're almost surely better off renting. Let your landlord get the low interest rate and pass (most of) the savings on to you. Landlords tend to be much more forgiving about credit problem than banks are.
What is the point to rent and improve on someone elses property. It makes the value of their house go up at your expense.
Many landlords will reinburse their renters for improvements they make. This has the added bonus that the landlord gets a tax break, while if you owned the property there would be no tax break at all. Now if you're making improvements that aren't going to increase the value of the property, you're not going to get the landlord to pay for it, but your house value wouldn't go up if you owned it anyway.
It also depends on how long you plan on staying in one spot, and how much money you're willing to risk on that one investment. If you're planning on staying for a long time you can usually get a much better deal on a rental property, though.
Look at it this way. If you're in the 15% tax bracket and you know someone in the 28% bracket, you have bad credit and you know someone who has good credit, doesn't it make sense to let that other person own the place, get the better financing, get the greater tax deductions, and then rent it to you?
No you don't. I know lots of people with horrible credit that have apartments.
I'd rather take a home that I pay the bank any day over living in a restrictive apartment/house where I couldn't do anything to improve my surroundings.
What about a non-restrictive apartment/house where you can do lots of things to improve your surroundings?
I'm not trying to say renting is always the better solution. In fact, for most middle and upper income level people, it rarely is. But for lower income people who don't get very much if any tax benefits, it is commonly cheaper to rent.
There is nothing fraudulent about it. You generally agree not to buy a house with borrowed money, but if the money comes from your salary and you merely borrowed money for living expenses during that time then you aren't buying the house with borrowed money.
Slashdot Mirror
We don't live in Libertarianville, we live in the U.S. Here in the U.S. we don't allow companies to engage in unfair business practices, regardless of whether or not they're a monopoly. Now move back to Libertarianville. Oh, that's right, there is none, cause no one agrees with your stupid points of view.
Weak or strong is what the judge is supposed to determine after hearing all the evidence. I'm not saying Google is wrong here, I'm just saying that they might be, depending on the complete evidence.
But the Boy Scouts are a religious organization, so they have different rules.
Lack of evidence is not evidence against.
on its PageRank technology. And just because you're not a monopoly doesn't mean you can engage in unfair trade practices. As for waiting for Google to turn evil, if they are punishing their competitors by intentionally lowering their results, I'd call that evil.
What if slashdot refused to allow me to post on its site because I run SlashdotSucks? Don't you think that would be an unfair trade practice?
There's no evidence that they decrease the reproductive success of their relatives either.
Same reason that Microsoft can't do whatever the hell it wants with its own Operating System.
So do parents of children with autism have more grandchildren than parents of children without autism? That's the key question from an evolutionary standpoint.
My parents have a celeron as well, which is what they use mostly. My mother refuses to do her lesson plans on anything but Appleworks, and she refuses to use Appleworks for Windows which I installed for her. I used to have a 6200 (I think) with a 603e. That was actually what convinced me to switch to Windows.
My parents are both teachers, but I'm not about to put OS X on their Performa 5200... Not only do they need an Apple computer, they need a relatively new Apple computer.
Autistic children have parents, and those parents do breed, right? What's the difference?
I don't know, how does is work with worker bees? They work, they are evolutionarily selected for, yet they don't procreate. It's probably a recessive gene thing.
The only way to see an "evolutionary step" (itself a misnomer) is to see some variation that causes greatly enhanced success at breeding.
Worker bees don't breed (or is it the drones). Ants have similar societies. So does the borg, but that's just hypothesized, for now.
I guess that's one way to make sure copyrights never expire.
Earned me $1000 bugs bounty from Netscape back in the day. When you tried to access the URL in the history file through java, it threw a security exception to the effect of "You cannot access the information about http://the/url.here". Chop off the beginning of the sentence, and there's your URL. Silly Netscape programmers.
Show me something created purely for money
What OS are you using?
Therefore, compared to the emission of a typical star a black hole, again, emits signifigantly(understated) less of it's mass.
Yeah, though really neither emit very much of their mass. E=mc^2 and all, so it takes a helluva lot of energy to equal just a tiny amount of mass. My reference to hawking radiation was just a quibble, really.
I simply stated that because of their density, their gravitational force and therefore, their escape velocity is greater.
Gravitational force has nothing to do with density for equal mass objects.
Again, all I was sayng is that over time a black hole will act in a manner that is different from a regular star with regard to its continuity of gravitational force.
That's certainly an odd statement since the current theory is that all black holes started out as stars.
Since you're going to be living off a 2-4 unit apartment building, you're obviously very frugal, so you have been saving up this cash and debt for 2-4 years.
Well, I don't know anything about prices abroad. The idea was that the person wanted to visit some other part of the world. You can buy whole houses in some parts of the world for a few hundred dollars. So, it really depends where he wants to visit. I'm also under the impression this person has a decent income right now, so he could "save" $20K easily in a quarter, if his income is $80K, for instance.
Let's assume that you buy a duplex -- not a 2 unit apartment building, but easily found. Say you pay $150k for it (it's run down, but it's good enough).
Depends on the area. Around here you can get a 7 unit (OK, OK, two units are unfinished) for around $200K, and that's without moving to some of the shady towns nearby (but you probably don't want a 7-unit, then you need a commercial loan, commercial taxes, state regulation, etc). But let's go with $150K. In fact, I just looked one up (MLS#: 4126192 if you're following at home).
Add it all up. At the beginning, you're paying $200/month on the credit card, $500/month on property tax (better rates can be found, as can worse, depends on the area) and $385/month on mortgage (we're skipping PMI for the sake of argument-- but that's likely another $100/month if you don't qualify to skip it).
The down payment is to avoid PMI. If you're going to pay PMI then you might as well go with no money down.
Divide it all by two, and your expenses are $543/month. How much rent do you expect for half a duplex? Most places, you can expect $500-$700. At best, you'd make $150/month for each unit.
Our case study is renting for $735+610=$1345-1085=260, so your $300 is probably an accurate max (I'd argue with your property taxes a little though).
$3600/year isn't anything to scoff at, but now you need to find a place to live and food to eat.
Which you could put on your credit card.
Perhaps using credit card debt to fund a propterty investment isn't the best idea.
$3600/year for a $0 investment is a pretty good deal.
My math may be wrong, but for your $30k initial cash investment, I'm figuring you're going to make $3600/$30000 = 0.12 APR. Bonds do better. Hell, my savings account does better.
But you haven't made a $30K investment. You've only saved $10K, you've borrowed the other $20K. And that $10K you have sitting around waiting for a maintenance item, so that could be earning income while it sits around. Also, I doubt bonds or savings accounts will earn you 12% interest a year. Really you've made that $3600 without investing anything though.
Of course, property investment can have significant income tax advantages, don't get me wrong, but a first, incomplete pass suggests one thing. Take a little longer, skip the credit card debt part.
Depends on the credit card. My Click Citi Platinum Select is currently at 6.4%. Yeah, it's variable, but if it goes up too much I'll just transfer it to a fixed card, probably at a promotional rate. My discover card (the only new one of the bunch) is in 0% until November 2003 (at which point I'll probably cancel it, Discover is evil), and my other card is in 3.9% on a balance transfer check, which lasts until the balance is paid off (unless I spend more with it, which I don't, I use other cards). Finally I have a 10.9% Citi Dividend Platinum Select which gives me 1% cash back. This card I pay off every month (except when I want to save up debt on it to transfer over for some special on another card). There are some great credit card deals out there if you look for them. Credit card companies make such insane amounts of money off stupid people that you can usually get great deals off the slop just by not being stupid.
As for taking a little longer, why wait when you can go now? The great thing about credit cards is they are extemely liquid, so instead of having to wait and save up money you can just dive in now and then pay off the credit cards while you save (and earn). Net income (without interest) on the hypothetical property is $1355-500-100=$755*12=9060/year. 9065/150000=6%. OK, so that's (one reason) why I'm not buying that property, cause 6% sucks. But if you can find a property at 10% (and you can, maybe look into a 4 unit), then you're borrowing at mostly 7% (the mortgage) and the rest 9.9% maximum (the credit cards) for a 10% return. That's a good deal.
Because the escape velovity of a black hole is greater than the speed of light, stuff don't tend to emit from it so well. Once it gets in, it ain't coming out.
I was referring to hawking radiation. Look it up.
In other words, by virtue of the greater gravitational pull/escape velocity of a black hole we could assume that objects will be much more likely to be captured by a black hole than a regular star.
Black holes don't necessarily have more mass than regular stars, they are just more dense.
It's like this, we expect that the earth will eventually be consumed by the sun when it runs out of hydrogen and goes red giant. The photosphere of the sun will expand to a size greater than our orbit. However, if we were orbiting a black hole , we could expect different results.
Umm... I don't see what that has to do with what we were talking about. Yes, black holes don't go red giant... Neither do neutron stars, or white dwarfs.
However, if we were orbiting a black hole , we could expect different results. Over the same duration, it is plausible that the gravitational force of the black hole could become great enough to pull the earth in, or at least significantly increase our orbital velocity; This by virtue of infalling matter/energy.
Nope. If the sun were a black hole, we could expect the exact same orbit for the earth around it.
You know what I meant.
Not really. Presumably you are under the impression that there's some isolated entity called "the government" that imposes laws upon society at will. The truth is much more complicated than that.
Not profits, but they will get their cut.
Please, define "they".
They auction off spectrum now and they will do it if the "paradigm" shifts.
Only parts of the spectrum are auctioned off. Others are regulated, others are completely unregulated, and others are given away for free.
Auctioning is certainly not the only solution. It's probably the best one, though, for this particular problem.
Yeah, that government makes so much in profits.
I am sure bad credit people can get places...you got to live somewhere. But what kind of place is it? What "pets" come with the place?
I'm really not sure what your point is here. If you have bad credit, you're almost surely better off renting. Let your landlord get the low interest rate and pass (most of) the savings on to you. Landlords tend to be much more forgiving about credit problem than banks are.
What is the point to rent and improve on someone elses property. It makes the value of their house go up at your expense.
Many landlords will reinburse their renters for improvements they make. This has the added bonus that the landlord gets a tax break, while if you owned the property there would be no tax break at all. Now if you're making improvements that aren't going to increase the value of the property, you're not going to get the landlord to pay for it, but your house value wouldn't go up if you owned it anyway.
It also depends on how long you plan on staying in one spot, and how much money you're willing to risk on that one investment. If you're planning on staying for a long time you can usually get a much better deal on a rental property, though.
Look at it this way. If you're in the 15% tax bracket and you know someone in the 28% bracket, you have bad credit and you know someone who has good credit, doesn't it make sense to let that other person own the place, get the better financing, get the greater tax deductions, and then rent it to you?
You need good credit to get an apartment too.
No you don't. I know lots of people with horrible credit that have apartments.
I'd rather take a home that I pay the bank any day over living in a restrictive apartment/house where I couldn't do anything to improve my surroundings.
What about a non-restrictive apartment/house where you can do lots of things to improve your surroundings?
I'm not trying to say renting is always the better solution. In fact, for most middle and upper income level people, it rarely is. But for lower income people who don't get very much if any tax benefits, it is commonly cheaper to rent.
There is nothing fraudulent about it. You generally agree not to buy a house with borrowed money, but if the money comes from your salary and you merely borrowed money for living expenses during that time then you aren't buying the house with borrowed money.
Believe me the amount of money you pay in rent is about the same as owning plus that money you pay is equity you have later in life.
Maybe if you have good credit and plan on living there for a really long time. Otherwise you're going to get killed with points and PMI.
Also, very little of "that money you pay" is equity. The vast majority of it is interest payments. Rent you pay to the bank for borrowing money.
A little more money but it will get the internet to the 6 computers in your ... err ... your landlords house.
Nah, either way it's probably the bank's home. Welcome to capitalism.