Yes, in the effort to make trucks more economical, they've really engineered out a of ruggedness.
By economical, I hope you mean generating more economy for the dealers and manufacturers, because the price of trucks has skyrocketed since they started turning into powder puff vehicles. The increase in cost of pickup trucks is double that of other autos, which in itself is already outpacing inflation significantly.
I love it when people try to justify pickup trucks. Family, really? It has a huge empty bed in the back, making the passenger room less than a full size car. They are terrible in ice and snow thanks to not having much weight in the big empty bed. They can't haul stuff around because the big empty bed might get scratched. They get terrible gas mileage, and they are so popular that they drive up prices so that the few people who actually DO need a pickup truck for their job can't afford them.
I'd have to say I'd rather you put your daughter in the pickup truck then the motorcycle, though.
Oh, it's one of THOSE things. Like, not the first HUMAN to do a feat, but the first black female human over the age of 33 and under 150 pounds with size 8 sneakers to do a feat.
Kinda sounds like "Everybody gets a trophy" day.
Anybody remember Hyundais in the 1980s? Aluminum.
Sounds like your mom needs to get a job. When I was growing up, the economy was poor so every family had to have two incomes. So I pretty much could be out playing, or inside, or go to a friends house, or whatever. Pretty much anything except have friends over to my house, because my stepdad didn't like me having friends over.
Now, the economy is so poor that both my wife and I have to work, and my kids spend a lot of time on their own at home. They could go to a friend's house if they called and told us, but mostly they choose to stay inside. They don't spend a lot of time on social media though. They have a phone, but they don't really text or call people much. They don't use the house phone. They don't get on facebook very often. They mostly just watch TV, read books, and play games on the computer.
I'd say all these people that have hoverparents need to make their parents get a job, so the kids can learn to fend for themselves a little bit.
Honestly, I have heard the term hoverparents, but I haven't seen it in action. Maybe it is a coastal thing. People in the midwest don't have enough money to just not work and spend all their time poking into their kids business.
Yes, given your premise, the conclusions are correct. However, the premises are wrong. Parents are not restricting their children from interacting outside of social media. The opposite. Parents are trying to encourage children to put DOWN the phone and spend time with their friends, and children are choosing to be social online instead.
As Pop Psychology clearly tells us, nothing is ever the fault of the person who did it. It is always the parents fault, or societies fault, or their upbringing, or the people they hung out with.
Now if you will excuse me, I am going to go rob a bank. You should be ashamed of yourselves for driving me to this. I hope you all rot in jail.
It's possible to know the outcome of thousands of hands of blackjack. You will lose by a set margin within a few percentage points. It is not possible to prove ET doesn't exist. It is only possible to prove ET does exist, by finding one.
So they come up with a crypto-currency that makes it where you don't have to trust a bank to keep track of your money. So what is they first thing people do? Put it in a bank, of course. Except, being unrelated, the bank does not have to repay your losses if they get hacked or robbed.
Keep multiple copies of your wallet. Keep them password protected. Keep them in separate physical locations.Keep nothing in a wallet that is not YOUR wallet and which you control.
While it is getting more computationally intensive, the efficiency of the hardware has risen in parallel to keep the costs about the same. Electrically, it costs about the same to mine a coin now as it did years ago, but the output of a miner is now measured in gigahashes instead of megahashes.
How is SETI considered a more useful use of electricity? It's impossible to know if it was all just a waste of time or whether we simply haven't tried hard enough.
Your stance agrees with the government. We should not include the cost of anything fuel based in the CPI. However, what is the point of ignoring something which the average person spends about 10% of their monthly income on? Businesses take the CPI into consideration when they do a Cost of Living Adjustment (assuming there are business out there that still do this. Mine sure as hell doesn't). So, if your actual cost of living goes up by 7 or 8% due to the cost of gasoline, utilities which use oil based products, products which are delivered by oil consuming freight companies, etc , then if your company gives you the 3% the government claims, you will have to LOWER your standard of living to compensate for the actual REAL increase in cost of goods.
I have read a lot of arguments against Bitcoin, but have never once coming across somebody complaining about it being unfair because they didn't get in early, before in your post now.
Are you reading with your eyes shut? Every single article is riddled with people who say it is a Ponzi scheme (take for example the post right before yours). Then somebody corrects them, pointing out that a Ponzi scheme is one in which later investors money is used to pay off the early investors and therefore bitcoin is not a Ponzi scheme. And then the original poster fires back saying that the early investors got in when it was cheap and now investors have to pay full price (nevermind that the early investors paid full price when it was cheap, and people were naysaying it back then, too). So, yeah pretty much multiple times in every article, it boils down to people complaining that they can't get in for what the original miners or investors got in at.
The instability will get less as it is used more. Ideally, if everyone was using bitcoin, it would be deflationary in exact correlation to the growth in worldwide product output.
The inflation rate in the US is what, 2% per year? 3%? 4?
Well, that is the government's stance. In reality, the cost of the everyday items that a consumer has to buy increases by much more than that. Utility costs have gone up by a 300% in the last decade, gasoline has doubled. The cost of hamburger has doubled or more in about a decade. A "case" of soda has gone up in price, while also going from 24 cans to 20. A "Family Size" bag of chips is smaller than it was just a few years ago. Many manufacturers are keeping the price the same, while slightly reducing the count, hoping no one will notice. The cost of the average new car has doubled in the last decade.
With compound interest, I guess that still comes down to only 7 or 8%, but that is still significantly more than any interest you will get from a bank, especially after taxes, and it is 7 or 8% more than the Cost of Living Adjustment or raise that the average employer gives.
That would be true if the ROI was better than the inflation rate, which it isn't for just about anything you can find offered by a bank ( especially after you figure in taxes on your interest). Still better than hiding it in your mattress. For most people, the only way to keep their dollar worth a dollar is to invest in the stock market or a business. However, for no risk at all, they could go and buy something tangible right now, and be better off than waiting until tomorrow to buy it (on average).
Hmm, no articles about Fords catching fire, but they issued a recall just in case because the switches got hot.
Tesla ACTUALLY CATCHES FIRE, with no recall notice.
Elsewhere, a Fisher Karma ACTUALLY CATCHES FIRE, with no recall notice.
Sounds like the crow's on the other plate.
I personally believe that new electric cars are safer than petrol cars generally... they've got less to go wrong badly, and they've been proven.
Well, they may have the potential to be. I would have to see some statistics. I found an equal number of stories of electrical car fires in houses as ICE car fires in houses, and we certainly have more ICE cars than electric cars.
First, make them pay back everybody they ransomed, times 10, then execute them. If they don't have the money to pay back times 10 then we can find a company to pay back everybody times 10 and then make the perpetrators have to work for that company for free until their debt is paid off.
I can't see how an inflationary currency is any better. Basically the best thing you can do is, as soon as you receive a dollar, spend it. Otherwise, as soon as you've held your dollar for more than zero time, it is no longer worth what it was when you earned it.
So the problem with bitcoin is no one would spend one today knowing they could get it for cheaper tomorrow. And the opposite is true with gov't backed currency. Nobody would hold onto a currency knowing it will not have a s much buying power tomorrow as it does today.
A fixed number of items is not traditionally thought of as deflationary, though. Think of gold. Nobody calls it deflationary. People used to tie their currency to it. Like gold, the "value" of bitcoin is tied 1:1 to the size of the market for it.
Yup, this is just like if some big bank got caught laundering drug money (which actually did happen) and the FBI confiscated all the money deposited in the bank, including yours, even though it was not related to the drug money and was not going to be used for that purpose.
Hell, I ate better in university than I do nowadays.
If you were on a meal plan there, I am not surprised. At least they plan the meals and have some sort of nutritional goal. Most times we are too busy to think about how many servings of this or that to have. We just stuff our face.
As far as the cost, I can personally attest that when I first was starting out in the industry, my monthly budget for food was about 1/8th of my sister's. She was on food stamps. So I was paying taxes and eating ramen, so she could get paid by the government to eat well. But that's the plight of the middle class.
Then you don't live around here. If the light turns yellow around here, they hit the gas.
I see about half a dozen people per day enter the intersection two seconds after my light has turned green. This means that their light has been RED for two seconds plus however long the delay between their red and my green is. In those situations, I usually hit the gas hard enough to get within a foot or two of their vehicle. I am careful not to hit them, though. I have had two friends receive tickets for failing to avoid someone who had run a traffic signal. One of them actually got hit by the other person. In both cases, the person who ran the red light was not ticketed. But my friends, who were obeying their signal, got ticketed.
Ironically enough, they were both almost opposite situations:
Friend 1. Sitting and waiting to turn left across traffic. Left arrow turns green. He enters the intersection. A person coming from the other direction runs their red light, enters the intersection and hits him. My friend gets a ticket for failure to yield. The other guy got nothing for running a red light.
Friend 2. Driving down the road towards a green light. A car on the other side of the intersection is waiting in the left turn lane to cross traffic in front of my friend. Although he does not have a green arrow, he enters the intersection. My friend is unable to stop in time and runs into him. My friend gets a ticket for failure to yield. The guy who turned left on yield without yielding got no ticket. Not even for expired insurance even though his insurance was expired.
Ironically, in both cases, if my friend would have yielded to the other guy, he would have been breaking the law, failure to obey a traffic device.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, in the effort to make trucks more economical, they've really engineered out a of ruggedness.
By economical, I hope you mean generating more economy for the dealers and manufacturers, because the price of trucks has skyrocketed since they started turning into powder puff vehicles. The increase in cost of pickup trucks is double that of other autos, which in itself is already outpacing inflation significantly.
I love it when people try to justify pickup trucks. Family, really? It has a huge empty bed in the back, making the passenger room less than a full size car. They are terrible in ice and snow thanks to not having much weight in the big empty bed. They can't haul stuff around because the big empty bed might get scratched. They get terrible gas mileage, and they are so popular that they drive up prices so that the few people who actually DO need a pickup truck for their job can't afford them.
I'd have to say I'd rather you put your daughter in the pickup truck then the motorcycle, though.
Oh, it's one of THOSE things. Like, not the first HUMAN to do a feat, but the first black female human over the age of 33 and under 150 pounds with size 8 sneakers to do a feat.
Kinda sounds like "Everybody gets a trophy" day.
Anybody remember Hyundais in the 1980s? Aluminum.
Sounds like your mom needs to get a job. When I was growing up, the economy was poor so every family had to have two incomes. So I pretty much could be out playing, or inside, or go to a friends house, or whatever. Pretty much anything except have friends over to my house, because my stepdad didn't like me having friends over.
Now, the economy is so poor that both my wife and I have to work, and my kids spend a lot of time on their own at home. They could go to a friend's house if they called and told us, but mostly they choose to stay inside. They don't spend a lot of time on social media though. They have a phone, but they don't really text or call people much. They don't use the house phone. They don't get on facebook very often. They mostly just watch TV, read books, and play games on the computer.
I'd say all these people that have hoverparents need to make their parents get a job, so the kids can learn to fend for themselves a little bit.
Honestly, I have heard the term hoverparents, but I haven't seen it in action. Maybe it is a coastal thing. People in the midwest don't have enough money to just not work and spend all their time poking into their kids business.
Yes, given your premise, the conclusions are correct. However, the premises are wrong. Parents are not restricting their children from interacting outside of social media. The opposite. Parents are trying to encourage children to put DOWN the phone and spend time with their friends, and children are choosing to be social online instead.
As Pop Psychology clearly tells us, nothing is ever the fault of the person who did it. It is always the parents fault, or societies fault, or their upbringing, or the people they hung out with.
Now if you will excuse me, I am going to go rob a bank. You should be ashamed of yourselves for driving me to this. I hope you all rot in jail.
It's possible to know the outcome of thousands of hands of blackjack. You will lose by a set margin within a few percentage points. It is not possible to prove ET doesn't exist. It is only possible to prove ET does exist, by finding one.
So they come up with a crypto-currency that makes it where you don't have to trust a bank to keep track of your money. So what is they first thing people do? Put it in a bank, of course. Except, being unrelated, the bank does not have to repay your losses if they get hacked or robbed.
Keep multiple copies of your wallet. Keep them password protected. Keep them in separate physical locations.Keep nothing in a wallet that is not YOUR wallet and which you control.
Science can't prove there is no God. It can only provide evidence that suggests that what people claim to have seen God do cannot have happened.
While it is getting more computationally intensive, the efficiency of the hardware has risen in parallel to keep the costs about the same. Electrically, it costs about the same to mine a coin now as it did years ago, but the output of a miner is now measured in gigahashes instead of megahashes.
How is SETI considered a more useful use of electricity? It's impossible to know if it was all just a waste of time or whether we simply haven't tried hard enough.
Your stance agrees with the government. We should not include the cost of anything fuel based in the CPI. However, what is the point of ignoring something which the average person spends about 10% of their monthly income on? Businesses take the CPI into consideration when they do a Cost of Living Adjustment (assuming there are business out there that still do this. Mine sure as hell doesn't). So, if your actual cost of living goes up by 7 or 8% due to the cost of gasoline, utilities which use oil based products, products which are delivered by oil consuming freight companies, etc , then if your company gives you the 3% the government claims, you will have to LOWER your standard of living to compensate for the actual REAL increase in cost of goods.
I have read a lot of arguments against Bitcoin, but have never once coming across somebody complaining about it being unfair because they didn't get in early, before in your post now.
Are you reading with your eyes shut? Every single article is riddled with people who say it is a Ponzi scheme (take for example the post right before yours). Then somebody corrects them, pointing out that a Ponzi scheme is one in which later investors money is used to pay off the early investors and therefore bitcoin is not a Ponzi scheme. And then the original poster fires back saying that the early investors got in when it was cheap and now investors have to pay full price (nevermind that the early investors paid full price when it was cheap, and people were naysaying it back then, too). So, yeah pretty much multiple times in every article, it boils down to people complaining that they can't get in for what the original miners or investors got in at.
The instability will get less as it is used more. Ideally, if everyone was using bitcoin, it would be deflationary in exact correlation to the growth in worldwide product output.
The inflation rate in the US is what, 2% per year? 3%? 4?
Well, that is the government's stance. In reality, the cost of the everyday items that a consumer has to buy increases by much more than that. Utility costs have gone up by a 300% in the last decade, gasoline has doubled. The cost of hamburger has doubled or more in about a decade. A "case" of soda has gone up in price, while also going from 24 cans to 20. A "Family Size" bag of chips is smaller than it was just a few years ago. Many manufacturers are keeping the price the same, while slightly reducing the count, hoping no one will notice. The cost of the average new car has doubled in the last decade.
With compound interest, I guess that still comes down to only 7 or 8%, but that is still significantly more than any interest you will get from a bank, especially after taxes, and it is 7 or 8% more than the Cost of Living Adjustment or raise that the average employer gives.
That would be true if the ROI was better than the inflation rate, which it isn't for just about anything you can find offered by a bank ( especially after you figure in taxes on your interest). Still better than hiding it in your mattress. For most people, the only way to keep their dollar worth a dollar is to invest in the stock market or a business. However, for no risk at all, they could go and buy something tangible right now, and be better off than waiting until tomorrow to buy it (on average).
Hmm, no articles about Fords catching fire, but they issued a recall just in case because the switches got hot.
Tesla ACTUALLY CATCHES FIRE, with no recall notice.
Elsewhere, a Fisher Karma ACTUALLY CATCHES FIRE, with no recall notice.
Sounds like the crow's on the other plate.
I personally believe that new electric cars are safer than petrol cars generally... they've got less to go wrong badly, and they've been proven.
Well, they may have the potential to be. I would have to see some statistics. I found an equal number of stories of electrical car fires in houses as ICE car fires in houses, and we certainly have more ICE cars than electric cars.
First, make them pay back everybody they ransomed, times 10, then execute them. If they don't have the money to pay back times 10 then we can find a company to pay back everybody times 10 and then make the perpetrators have to work for that company for free until their debt is paid off.
I can't see how an inflationary currency is any better. Basically the best thing you can do is, as soon as you receive a dollar, spend it. Otherwise, as soon as you've held your dollar for more than zero time, it is no longer worth what it was when you earned it.
So the problem with bitcoin is no one would spend one today knowing they could get it for cheaper tomorrow. And the opposite is true with gov't backed currency. Nobody would hold onto a currency knowing it will not have a s much buying power tomorrow as it does today.
A fixed number of items is not traditionally thought of as deflationary, though. Think of gold. Nobody calls it deflationary. People used to tie their currency to it. Like gold, the "value" of bitcoin is tied 1:1 to the size of the market for it.
Yup, this is just like if some big bank got caught laundering drug money (which actually did happen) and the FBI confiscated all the money deposited in the bank, including yours, even though it was not related to the drug money and was not going to be used for that purpose.
Also just like /. tends to do, the linked news article headline is sensationalized and exists just to get people to read the story.
Read the story? On slashdot? No, they just want you to click the ads.
Hell, I ate better in university than I do nowadays.
If you were on a meal plan there, I am not surprised. At least they plan the meals and have some sort of nutritional goal. Most times we are too busy to think about how many servings of this or that to have. We just stuff our face.
As far as the cost, I can personally attest that when I first was starting out in the industry, my monthly budget for food was about 1/8th of my sister's. She was on food stamps. So I was paying taxes and eating ramen, so she could get paid by the government to eat well. But that's the plight of the middle class.
Then you don't live around here. If the light turns yellow around here, they hit the gas.
I see about half a dozen people per day enter the intersection two seconds after my light has turned green. This means that their light has been RED for two seconds plus however long the delay between their red and my green is. In those situations, I usually hit the gas hard enough to get within a foot or two of their vehicle. I am careful not to hit them, though. I have had two friends receive tickets for failing to avoid someone who had run a traffic signal. One of them actually got hit by the other person. In both cases, the person who ran the red light was not ticketed. But my friends, who were obeying their signal, got ticketed.
Ironically enough, they were both almost opposite situations:
Friend 1. Sitting and waiting to turn left across traffic. Left arrow turns green. He enters the intersection. A person coming from the other direction runs their red light, enters the intersection and hits him. My friend gets a ticket for failure to yield. The other guy got nothing for running a red light.
Friend 2. Driving down the road towards a green light. A car on the other side of the intersection is waiting in the left turn lane to cross traffic in front of my friend. Although he does not have a green arrow, he enters the intersection. My friend is unable to stop in time and runs into him. My friend gets a ticket for failure to yield. The guy who turned left on yield without yielding got no ticket. Not even for expired insurance even though his insurance was expired.
Ironically, in both cases, if my friend would have yielded to the other guy, he would have been breaking the law, failure to obey a traffic device.
Is it even legal for the government to invest taxpayer money in stock in a corporation? I would think not.