Not according to the terms from Klarna. Only if you never make that payment will the interest kick in.
This is like any other financing deal of it's type.
It is considerably better than any financing deal I've seen, since they say outright that they won't charge interest during the promotional period. It's not like any credit card I have, at least.
Which has greater impact on education, 5000 new computers or one good math teacher?
Five thousand new computers. One math teacher, good or not, will not reach 5000 students in one year, and teaches only math. Five thousand computers will be used by 5000 students in all kinds of subjects. While the individual impact (one good teacher on one student) may be much higher, multiplying the individual effects of a new computer by 5000 make it more significant.
But I get your point. Try: "which has a greater impact on a student -- a good teacher or a new computer?" That I agree with completely. And that's the level you need to argue on.
How exactly do they propose to secure a marketing term? Cause that's all "Internet Of Things" is.
According to TFS, which is just the normal copy from TFA, the legislation says nothing about IoT. It deals with devices that connect to the internet purchased by the US Government. That's a vastly larger collection of things than just "IoT" (but includes IoT) and doesn't require the vendor to say anything about IoT in any marketing material. Your device has an internet port that uses internet protocols to communicate? Tag, this law's for you.
Or miss just one payment and 19.99% kicks in retroactively.
Actually, if you read the terms and conditions, you will see, under "Purchase-Specific Promotions -- Planned Payments Purchases" the following clause:
For Planned No Interest Payments Purchases, we will not charge any interest during the promotional period. You have the obligation to pay each Monthly Planned Payment by the applicable Payment Due Date during the promotional period and pay the Purchase balance in full by the Expiration Date. If any balance remains after the Expiration Date, such balance will be treated as Standard Balance and the Standard APR will apply to such balance.
That seems to contradict your claim of retroactive interest for any missed payments. At the end of the 24 month promotional period, any remaining balance will be charged interest, but according to this, nothing before that.
Not a problem, as all interest will be forgiven if you trade it in for the new Windows 11
I don't see that in the terms and conditions. What I do see is that you can upgrade after 18 months and get another loan under the terms at that time. Eighteen months is still within the promotional, no-interest period, so there will be nothing to forgive. What might not be forgiven is missing payments, and Klarna might not agree to the new loan.
Huh? They would happily sell one to me, so how is that not "personal use"?
This is not meant for the Grognard. This is not meant for the Hardware Hoarder.
Why not? Your subject says "U DNT OWN IT", but yes, you do. Yeah, there's a payment plan so you pay it off over 24 months, but that's not much different than paying with a credit card. The credit card company WILL charge interest, and they won't repossess the computer if you don't pay them, they'll just add on fees and hike your interest rate.
It's an Intel processor, why can't you put Linux on it? Will Linux not support the Surface hardware?
Here's the two gotchas I see in the terms:
Easily and affordably switch to Windows 10 Pro at any time.
Office applications install from the Windows Store and are currently in preview on this device. Must activate within 180 days.
So, more money will be expected. Yawn, again. You're buying a computer, not all the apps.
I went to look at the details. Not much out of line to see here. Selling computers with a payment plan. Zero percent interest is good, I don't see the problem there.
Here's where there is a problem. You go to the MS sales site where you get to select what you want. There's a "subtotal" shown on the page where you select options. "$799". As you select CPU, memory, etc, that subtotal does not change. Cool -- I7 for the same price as an M3, 16Gb same as 8Gb, etc. Then you get to the next page. Wham. Subtotal: $2699. Dell somehow manages the magic of keeping the price updated as you configure their systems, but MS cannot figure that out? How dishonest can you get? Ok, it's MS, this isn't unexpected, and it could get worse.
The fine print: an interest rate of 19.99% kicks in after 24 months.
This isn't a problem. They tell you in advance, and the payment plan runs for only 24 months. You'll have paid this off by the time any interest would start, unless you don't make your payments. Well, the $33/month listed for the $799 system results in only $792 after 24 months, so you add $7 to the last payment and there is no interest.
You aren't looking at the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that we want to see a world where the Federal Communications Commission, with the *full backing of the CIA and NSA* can succeed in requesting and receiving public comments about an internet related issue *over the internet*.
No, I didn't miss that. I don't agree that we need the full backing of the CIA and NSA, however. The support of the CIA or NSA is irrelevant. We can have nice things and get comments "over the internet" without the FCC explaining in detail how it will mitigate a DDOS in the future. Telling, not telling, same difference.
because they are really truly saying that their DDoS strategem requires what academia and industry know as "security through obscurity".
No, they did not say that. You said that. You assume because they won't tell you the details of their information security that they don't have any. What you are missing is the concept of "infosec". The only people you tell about your security systems are people who have a need to know. You don't have that need. The congress doesn't have that need, especially since telling congress means telling the public at large.
In case you've never dealt with the government, I can tell you that "infosec" and "opsec" overall is gaining increased emphasis. For example, I cannot tell you any of the military frequencies I work with on a regular basis because you have no need to know. It doesn't matter that you can find them on Google in five seconds (less, actually, but Google didn't show the "x results in x seconds" for a specific number). You might call this "security through obscurity", but the mil calls it "infosec". When you understand that concept, you'll maybe understand why the FCC didn't actually say they needed "security through obscurity".
And unless you can explain a need to know, like, for example, that the security will work better because you know what it is, infosec says that you don't get told. Don't feel bad, I don't have a need to know either and they haven't told me.
Make no mistake, if I for a New York minute thought that there was no plan, I would have written: "The fact that there is no plan is just as important to keep secret."
The only difference between what you wrote and what you thought you wrote is "it can be important". You are not questioning the fact, only the importance.
Had you meant to question the fact, you would have conditionalized the fact, not the importance of keeping it secret. Like: "If it was a fact there was no plan, it would be important to keep that secret".
Can does not mean is.
Right. Got that. "It can be just as important to keep it a secret" means maybe it isn't important to keep a fact a secret.
Already quoted you: "Then again, it ican be just as important to keep the fact that there is no plan a secret." Where did this fact come from?
Having an awesome completely foolproof secret plan that will work every time and make the free internet safe forever and anon might have every bit the same need for secrecy as "We got nuthin'.
Hyperbole much? No, not "might", "does". That's the basis behind the concept of "infosec".
Then again, it ican be just as important to keep the fact that there is no plan a secret.
You are claiming a fact when you have none. You assume there is no plan because nobody is willing to tell you what it is.
I assume that it is prudent not to tell anyone who has no need to know what your plan is. That's the difference. I understand the concepts of opsec and infosec and prefer that our government follow those precepts unless there is a compelling reason not to. I see none here.
Not a Trump hater, but it seems like anything done to discourage DDOS attacks needs to be public.
Why? Will those countermeasures be more effective if more people know what they are? I don't think so. Will they be more effective if the details are broadcast to the public and a few helpful members of the public with behind the scenes knowledge of those systems then post exact means to bypass them?
I'm not sure how "secret" plans can be helpful on an open internet.
I'm not sure how you equate "secret plans" with not telling "everyone who doesn't need to know" exactly what your security systems are.
Even with the ancient adages about "security via obscurity", one does not wisely broadcast details about the security systems one is using. It's called "infosec", or more broadly, "opsec".
I hear how the right to keep and bear arms is to protect them from the government.
The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right, enumerated in the First Amendment, and as such, needs no specific purpose.
And no, the term is not dishonest. It's exactly what it says on the tin.
When the bill is being paid by several tens of millions of taxpayers, it is seriously dishonest to claim that it is "single" payer.
You're a right wing troll or you're repeating talking points from one.
Wrong on both.
My point, which you know full well, is that the working class should stop fighting among itself and switch to proven solutions to the problem of civilization.
I don't know what your point is. You want someone else to pay for your healthcare and child's college is about all I can figure out.
Your ad hominem is cute, but not as grown up as you pretend to be.
what got discussions on gun control going (at least in the US) was when shooting became cheap enough that minorities could afford guns to defend themselves.
This, because it is a well known fact that Sandy Hook, Columbine, and Clackamas Town Center were all examples of minorities defending themselves.
You buy the weapon and the ammo at the same time and only a couple seconds out the door you are ready to fire.
It takes much longer than a couple of seconds for the mandatory background check to get to the FBI and for them to respond in the affirmative. The last time I had one, it was about fifteen minutes, but there were people who had been waiting an hour.
The "sudafed" wait was about a minute of filling out a local-only form.
Nevermind the fact that you and your little pea shooter of a rifle is about as useless as tits on a bull against a modern, well supplied military
When a modern, well-supplied military starts committing home invasion robbery and burglary, your argument might be interesting somehow. It wasn't a modern, well-supplied military that got on a Portland MAX train and shot some people, nor was it a modern, well-supplied military that walked into Clackamas Town Center shooting random people.
if I can have Single Payer healthcare & college tuition for my kid. Deal?
You can have single payer healthcare today. YOU can be the single payer for your healthcare if you want. And YOU can be the single payer for your child's college tuition. Start saving early.
The term 'single payer' is dishonest. "The entire taxpaying population" is not a single person. And your argument equating that with the ownership of a bazooka is specious: my ownership of a bazooka costs other people nothing, but forcing everyone to pay for your healthcare and your child's college education costs everyone else a lot of money.
Considering the suicide rate is about twice the homicide rate, isn't it pretty much a given that you're more likely to shoot yourself than shoot anyone else?
Applying bulk statistics to individual members of the population is rarely productive, informative, or accurate. The fact that 3% of a population might kill someone, with two thirds of those "someones" being themselves, does not mean the 97% left over are likely to shoot themselves, too.
One of our elected officials let that secret out of the bag. She told a reporter that she was afraid of all the people who had concealed carry permits. It was as if she was planning on assaulting random people on the street and didn't want to have to worry about being shot in self defense.
In the interest of public safety, wouldn't we want to secure those weapons first?
They are secured. Each one is strapped to a personal bodyguard who has been trained in defensive and offensive maneuvers.
Isn't it a public safety issue that anyone could take a cop's gun and use it on someone else (or the cop)?
Not as much of one as having the weapon refuse to operate when the cop most needs to use it. In this example, all you need is an RF jammer to block the authorization signal and the gun isn't one anymore.
They're not cheap, and exploding the number of them would put a huge strain on the rescue system due to the number of false alerts the units can generate.
The system has already been stressed just due to the number of them being sold. The planners decided to allow only a certain number of them per 406 MHz channel, so they've been adding channels as time goes by.
What used to be a pair of frequencies (121.5 and 156.8 MHz) for civil emergency beacons has become half a dozen or more at 406 MHz. Unfortunately, earlier models of EPIRB and ELT receivers were built with a limited number of channels, and they won't all track all beacons. We have a set of brand new practice ELTs and only 1 aircraft out of 8 in the fleet has an ELT tracker that will receive the 406 frequency they use.
Secondly, in many nations, the Coast Guard is an independent organization, not part of the military.
The US Coast Guard is a military organization.
If they didn't get called out, they would have to go out and do exercises and what not anyway.
I've already explained why "training" and "fake emergency" are two very different things. The fact that everyone involved needs to keep well trained does not excuse in any way the idiots who make fake distress calls. "They have to put in hours anyway" is just stupid.
depending on their hours requirements, and conditions, they might continue to go through the motions anyway
The US Coast Guard does not continue executing a search for a fake distress call just so they can "go through the motions". They don't "go through the motions". Training is planned for specific goals and to be safe; a fake distress call results in a real response which can involve significant risks to life and property.
How you mistook that to constue justifying false calls,
Well, they have to train anyway, and they'll go through the motions for a fake distress call... you figure it out.
There is zero excuse for it.
And yet you continue to give excuses for why it isn't so bad after all. You claim to be a boater. I hope you never wind up trying to get a response from the US Coast Guard to come save your life while they are busy executing a search for a fake distress call and cannot bring resources to your aid because they are already committed. Maybe then your "they have to put in the hours" excuse will seem less reasonable.
The difference is that when you get to a false fire,
The other difference is when the "coasties", those lazy bums that they are, get any time off to rest or relax they actually need the time to rest and relax, or to perform any number of shore duties that go along with being a member of a military service. They deserve whatever time they get ashore, and don't deserve to be told that they ought to be out on a fake search for training.
I've used DF equipment, and it's not as perfect as you make it sound.
You're replying to someone other than me, because never said it was perfect. I said you can DF from a tower.
Sure it will give you a bearing,
That is what DIRECTION finding is.
It's a small help, but not really enough to locate a prankster.
Again, you must be replying to someone else, because I was pretty specific in talking about triangulating a location later, and only DFing when I corrected the error of claiming it couldn't be done from a tower.
Slashdot Mirror
but does that upgrade void the hardware price deal?
It's part of the conditions of the deal, so no, it would not void anything.
or is it just the pro upgrade 1 off or need to buy pro each time to swap to new hardware?
I assume you would need to pay for an upgrade for each system you buy. I don't know.
You miss a payment, you get hit.
Not according to the terms from Klarna. Only if you never make that payment will the interest kick in.
This is like any other financing deal of it's type.
It is considerably better than any financing deal I've seen, since they say outright that they won't charge interest during the promotional period. It's not like any credit card I have, at least.
Which has greater impact on education, 5000 new computers or one good math teacher?
Five thousand new computers. One math teacher, good or not, will not reach 5000 students in one year, and teaches only math. Five thousand computers will be used by 5000 students in all kinds of subjects. While the individual impact (one good teacher on one student) may be much higher, multiplying the individual effects of a new computer by 5000 make it more significant.
But I get your point. Try: "which has a greater impact on a student -- a good teacher or a new computer?" That I agree with completely. And that's the level you need to argue on.
How exactly do they propose to secure a marketing term? Cause that's all "Internet Of Things" is.
According to TFS, which is just the normal copy from TFA, the legislation says nothing about IoT. It deals with devices that connect to the internet purchased by the US Government. That's a vastly larger collection of things than just "IoT" (but includes IoT) and doesn't require the vendor to say anything about IoT in any marketing material. Your device has an internet port that uses internet protocols to communicate? Tag, this law's for you.
Or miss just one payment and 19.99% kicks in retroactively.
Actually, if you read the terms and conditions, you will see, under "Purchase-Specific Promotions -- Planned Payments Purchases" the following clause:
That seems to contradict your claim of retroactive interest for any missed payments. At the end of the 24 month promotional period, any remaining balance will be charged interest, but according to this, nothing before that.
Not a problem, as all interest will be forgiven if you trade it in for the new Windows 11
I don't see that in the terms and conditions. What I do see is that you can upgrade after 18 months and get another loan under the terms at that time. Eighteen months is still within the promotional, no-interest period, so there will be nothing to forgive. What might not be forgiven is missing payments, and Klarna might not agree to the new loan.
So can you upgrade to full windows 10 or does that void the deal?
From the "fine print", item 1: "Easily and affordably switch to Windows 10 Pro at any time." Yes, you can pay to upgrade.
This is not for personal use, ...
Huh? They would happily sell one to me, so how is that not "personal use"?
This is not meant for the Grognard. This is not meant for the Hardware Hoarder.
Why not? Your subject says "U DNT OWN IT", but yes, you do. Yeah, there's a payment plan so you pay it off over 24 months, but that's not much different than paying with a credit card. The credit card company WILL charge interest, and they won't repossess the computer if you don't pay them, they'll just add on fees and hike your interest rate.
It's an Intel processor, why can't you put Linux on it? Will Linux not support the Surface hardware?
Here's the two gotchas I see in the terms:
So, more money will be expected. Yawn, again. You're buying a computer, not all the apps.
I went to look at the details. Not much out of line to see here. Selling computers with a payment plan. Zero percent interest is good, I don't see the problem there.
Here's where there is a problem. You go to the MS sales site where you get to select what you want. There's a "subtotal" shown on the page where you select options. "$799". As you select CPU, memory, etc, that subtotal does not change. Cool -- I7 for the same price as an M3, 16Gb same as 8Gb, etc. Then you get to the next page. Wham. Subtotal: $2699. Dell somehow manages the magic of keeping the price updated as you configure their systems, but MS cannot figure that out? How dishonest can you get? Ok, it's MS, this isn't unexpected, and it could get worse.
The fine print: an interest rate of 19.99% kicks in after 24 months.
This isn't a problem. They tell you in advance, and the payment plan runs for only 24 months. You'll have paid this off by the time any interest would start, unless you don't make your payments. Well, the $33/month listed for the $799 system results in only $792 after 24 months, so you add $7 to the last payment and there is no interest.
You aren't looking at the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that we want to see a world where the Federal Communications Commission, with the *full backing of the CIA and NSA* can succeed in requesting and receiving public comments about an internet related issue *over the internet*.
No, I didn't miss that. I don't agree that we need the full backing of the CIA and NSA, however. The support of the CIA or NSA is irrelevant. We can have nice things and get comments "over the internet" without the FCC explaining in detail how it will mitigate a DDOS in the future. Telling, not telling, same difference.
because they are really truly saying that their DDoS strategem requires what academia and industry know as "security through obscurity".
No, they did not say that. You said that. You assume because they won't tell you the details of their information security that they don't have any. What you are missing is the concept of "infosec". The only people you tell about your security systems are people who have a need to know. You don't have that need. The congress doesn't have that need, especially since telling congress means telling the public at large.
In case you've never dealt with the government, I can tell you that "infosec" and "opsec" overall is gaining increased emphasis. For example, I cannot tell you any of the military frequencies I work with on a regular basis because you have no need to know. It doesn't matter that you can find them on Google in five seconds (less, actually, but Google didn't show the "x results in x seconds" for a specific number). You might call this "security through obscurity", but the mil calls it "infosec". When you understand that concept, you'll maybe understand why the FCC didn't actually say they needed "security through obscurity".
And unless you can explain a need to know, like, for example, that the security will work better because you know what it is, infosec says that you don't get told. Don't feel bad, I don't have a need to know either and they haven't told me.
Can! It CAN be important.
"Then again ... the fact ..."
Make no mistake, if I for a New York minute thought that there was no plan, I would have written: "The fact that there is no plan is just as important to keep secret."
The only difference between what you wrote and what you thought you wrote is "it can be important". You are not questioning the fact, only the importance.
Had you meant to question the fact, you would have conditionalized the fact, not the importance of keeping it secret. Like: "If it was a fact there was no plan, it would be important to keep that secret".
Can does not mean is.
Right. Got that. "It can be just as important to keep it a secret" means maybe it isn't important to keep a fact a secret.
Tell me exactly where I claimed there is no plan.
Already quoted you: "Then again, it ican be just as important to keep the fact that there is no plan a secret." Where did this fact come from?
Having an awesome completely foolproof secret plan that will work every time and make the free internet safe forever and anon might have every bit the same need for secrecy as "We got nuthin'.
Hyperbole much? No, not "might", "does". That's the basis behind the concept of "infosec".
Then again, it ican be just as important to keep the fact that there is no plan a secret.
You are claiming a fact when you have none. You assume there is no plan because nobody is willing to tell you what it is.
I assume that it is prudent not to tell anyone who has no need to know what your plan is. That's the difference. I understand the concepts of opsec and infosec and prefer that our government follow those precepts unless there is a compelling reason not to. I see none here.
Not a Trump hater, but it seems like anything done to discourage DDOS attacks needs to be public.
Why? Will those countermeasures be more effective if more people know what they are? I don't think so. Will they be more effective if the details are broadcast to the public and a few helpful members of the public with behind the scenes knowledge of those systems then post exact means to bypass them?
I'm not sure how "secret" plans can be helpful on an open internet.
I'm not sure how you equate "secret plans" with not telling "everyone who doesn't need to know" exactly what your security systems are.
Even with the ancient adages about "security via obscurity", one does not wisely broadcast details about the security systems one is using. It's called "infosec", or more broadly, "opsec".
I hear how the right to keep and bear arms is to protect them from the government.
The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right, enumerated in the First Amendment, and as such, needs no specific purpose.
And no, the term is not dishonest. It's exactly what it says on the tin.
When the bill is being paid by several tens of millions of taxpayers, it is seriously dishonest to claim that it is "single" payer.
You're a right wing troll or you're repeating talking points from one.
Wrong on both.
My point, which you know full well, is that the working class should stop fighting among itself and switch to proven solutions to the problem of civilization.
I don't know what your point is. You want someone else to pay for your healthcare and child's college is about all I can figure out.
Your ad hominem is cute, but not as grown up as you pretend to be.
what got discussions on gun control going (at least in the US) was when shooting became cheap enough that minorities could afford guns to defend themselves.
This, because it is a well known fact that Sandy Hook, Columbine, and Clackamas Town Center were all examples of minorities defending themselves.
You buy the weapon and the ammo at the same time and only a couple seconds out the door you are ready to fire.
It takes much longer than a couple of seconds for the mandatory background check to get to the FBI and for them to respond in the affirmative. The last time I had one, it was about fifteen minutes, but there were people who had been waiting an hour.
The "sudafed" wait was about a minute of filling out a local-only form.
Nevermind the fact that you and your little pea shooter of a rifle is about as useless as tits on a bull against a modern, well supplied military
When a modern, well-supplied military starts committing home invasion robbery and burglary, your argument might be interesting somehow. It wasn't a modern, well-supplied military that got on a Portland MAX train and shot some people, nor was it a modern, well-supplied military that walked into Clackamas Town Center shooting random people.
if I can have Single Payer healthcare & college tuition for my kid. Deal?
You can have single payer healthcare today. YOU can be the single payer for your healthcare if you want. And YOU can be the single payer for your child's college tuition. Start saving early.
The term 'single payer' is dishonest. "The entire taxpaying population" is not a single person. And your argument equating that with the ownership of a bazooka is specious: my ownership of a bazooka costs other people nothing, but forcing everyone to pay for your healthcare and your child's college education costs everyone else a lot of money.
Considering the suicide rate is about twice the homicide rate, isn't it pretty much a given that you're more likely to shoot yourself than shoot anyone else?
Applying bulk statistics to individual members of the population is rarely productive, informative, or accurate. The fact that 3% of a population might kill someone, with two thirds of those "someones" being themselves, does not mean the 97% left over are likely to shoot themselves, too.
Again - it's the gun grabbers that are scared.
One of our elected officials let that secret out of the bag. She told a reporter that she was afraid of all the people who had concealed carry permits. It was as if she was planning on assaulting random people on the street and didn't want to have to worry about being shot in self defense.
In the interest of public safety, wouldn't we want to secure those weapons first?
They are secured. Each one is strapped to a personal bodyguard who has been trained in defensive and offensive maneuvers.
Isn't it a public safety issue that anyone could take a cop's gun and use it on someone else (or the cop)?
Not as much of one as having the weapon refuse to operate when the cop most needs to use it. In this example, all you need is an RF jammer to block the authorization signal and the gun isn't one anymore.
They're not cheap, and exploding the number of them would put a huge strain on the rescue system due to the number of false alerts the units can generate.
The system has already been stressed just due to the number of them being sold. The planners decided to allow only a certain number of them per 406 MHz channel, so they've been adding channels as time goes by.
What used to be a pair of frequencies (121.5 and 156.8 MHz) for civil emergency beacons has become half a dozen or more at 406 MHz. Unfortunately, earlier models of EPIRB and ELT receivers were built with a limited number of channels, and they won't all track all beacons. We have a set of brand new practice ELTs and only 1 aircraft out of 8 in the fleet has an ELT tracker that will receive the 406 frequency they use.
Secondly, in many nations, the Coast Guard is an independent organization, not part of the military.
The US Coast Guard is a military organization.
If they didn't get called out, they would have to go out and do exercises and what not anyway.
I've already explained why "training" and "fake emergency" are two very different things. The fact that everyone involved needs to keep well trained does not excuse in any way the idiots who make fake distress calls. "They have to put in hours anyway" is just stupid.
depending on their hours requirements, and conditions, they might continue to go through the motions anyway
The US Coast Guard does not continue executing a search for a fake distress call just so they can "go through the motions". They don't "go through the motions". Training is planned for specific goals and to be safe; a fake distress call results in a real response which can involve significant risks to life and property.
How you mistook that to constue justifying false calls,
Well, they have to train anyway, and they'll go through the motions for a fake distress call ... you figure it out.
There is zero excuse for it.
And yet you continue to give excuses for why it isn't so bad after all. You claim to be a boater. I hope you never wind up trying to get a response from the US Coast Guard to come save your life while they are busy executing a search for a fake distress call and cannot bring resources to your aid because they are already committed. Maybe then your "they have to put in the hours" excuse will seem less reasonable.
The difference is that when you get to a false fire,
The other difference is when the "coasties", those lazy bums that they are, get any time off to rest or relax they actually need the time to rest and relax, or to perform any number of shore duties that go along with being a member of a military service. They deserve whatever time they get ashore, and don't deserve to be told that they ought to be out on a fake search for training.
I've used DF equipment, and it's not as perfect as you make it sound.
You're replying to someone other than me, because never said it was perfect. I said you can DF from a tower.
Sure it will give you a bearing,
That is what DIRECTION finding is.
It's a small help, but not really enough to locate a prankster.
Again, you must be replying to someone else, because I was pretty specific in talking about triangulating a location later, and only DFing when I corrected the error of claiming it couldn't be done from a tower.