>>Conclusion: It's dumb, but a lot of people still do it either because a) They don't fully understand what they're doing or b) They're greedy. There is an excessively small proportion of people who do c) which is save money somehow. Somebody always pipes up that they somehow saved money, somehow convincing everybody else that the 200 horror stories about leasing a car is the worst idea ever and they'll only buy from here on out.
Okay, I'll pipe up:) Basically you're right for a high number of people that don't think beyond their monthly payments. But time is money, too, and although I don't lease now, I'd do it again in the future. Why? After two years, I turn in the keys. That's only five minutes of my time if the dealer is on the way home from work. Why would I want to have a car that's only two to five years old? Again, it's time, and remember time is money. I can change the oil every 15000 miles because I don't care about the long term. Ditto that for all the other uneccessary maintenance. I don't have to spend time at the shop because it's new and less likely to need service.
The alternative, of course, is changing the oil every g.d. 5 kilomiles, doing the recommend maintenenace every 5 kilomiles, replace the ball joints one month, replace the tie rods another month, and when I'm finally done with the thing spend additional time, money and effort either trying to sell it to a private party, or take a reduced amount on a trade-in for another vehicle.
If you're (not you-you, but the general you) someone that must clip coupons or drive to three different stores to save a buck (and waste two bucks on the gas to do it!), or only buys ribeyes when they're $1.00 off, then the problem isn't that you *may* spend $500 more on leasing versus buying, the problem is that you shouldn't be eyeing new cars in the first place. Once you can afford a new car without struggling for it, who cares about such a tiny theoretical cost difference?
So, that's not greed; that's convenience. That's why you have a P4 instead of a 486. That's why you pay $1.25 for coffee at 7-Eleven instead of brewing it yourself.
I propose that your A-B-C is okay, but only if you add a D: some people just appreciate the care-free convenience of leasing.
Isn't a TV tax kind of stupid idea in the first place? And then you have the whole infrastructure to support looking for the evaders (the signal vans). And this tax beaucracy just duplicates whatever is already in place for all of the other taxes you folks already pay. And all of this just to watch "Keeping up Appearances" (yeah, so what if that was years and years ago?).
Now I'm not saying don't fund the BBC. But why not just fund it out of the general funds or operating budget or appropriated funds or whatever pool of money your government spends from year to year?
I've got a 3G 15GB iPod that my wife uses. Despite that, I prefer my Shuffle. I'd still prefer it to a Nano, even at 1GB. Why? It comes with a lanyard, I wear it around my neck, and I use it as a USB stick at work just as much as I use it for audiobooks. Oh! Audiobooks! Who needs a screen?
I can see there being very reduced demand, but some demand still. Probably just not enough to justify the investment.
I sent a telegram once. I was a kiddie in the Army, and I'd just left advanced training. I was on leave prior to going to Germany. Because I live in Michigan and a buddy going on the same plane lived in Ohio on the way to the airport in Pittsburg, we'd agreed to meet at his house so I could tag along. I broke my leg, though, and couldn't make the flight. I got everything straightened out with the Army, but not with my buddy, who didn't have a telephone (and wouldn't, I imagine, have internet access today). Of course I had his address, so the only way I could get a hold of him was via a Western Union telegram.
I guess these days you could send flowers with "call me" just as fast as a telegram. Or hire one of the dancing monkey-suit people or a clown to sing a song about not being able to make the plane.
I think there's still a demand today to be met, and possibly it can be done with a reduced infrastructure. Not everyone has internet access, and even so, as things are today you have to check the internet; it doesn't notify you. Heck, even *I* don't have a home telephone.
Are you being ironic? Your statement invokes a complete lack of logic. What are your qualifications to express such sentiments about addiction? Logic and addiction have nothing to do with each other. Sheesh.
Okay, I'll take it a step further -- since you're a Godless athiest anyway, it's obvious that you're simply addicted to living, otherwise you'd recognize the pointlessness and lack of meaning in your own existance, and you'd stop worrying about other people willingly and knowingly contributing to their own demise. Logically, you should be committing genocide against the whole human race.
Yeah, but look at the brilliant decisions "the people" make in a democracy! You want "the people" to innovate and run a successful company? CEO's *do* earn their money.
My lay understanding is that this is extortion! Who's the one that are being claimed to use services without paying for it? When Netflix On-Demand (fictional example for new) streams a movie to me, *I'm* using the network service, for which I'm already paying. Netflix isn't the user; they're the provider. Am I totally missing something here?
I'm too lazy to do the research right now, but is this the birthday in the current Gregorian calendar or the (I think) then-used Julian calendar??? In which case, when is his birthday in the other calendar system? Oh, if you want to be globalist, you can include the Chinese birthdate if you want to.
Good. Hybrid technology is a fad and it's not sustainable. It's a cool geek toy and I'd buy a hybrid with no price premium, but not any wierd sense of "doing the right thing."
That's not to say that something mustn't be done; hybrids are just not the way to do it. It's unfortunate, but tough.
I want a MacBook with an order of fries -- hold the special sauce, please.
Will Virtual PC 7.0 run on this thing? Kind of being a smart ass, but kind of serious, too. I can't wait for the first virtualization product to hit the streets -- something like VMWare would be sweet. Despite everything they say, there are still a couple of things I use windows for.
Waterless urinals. My company had replaced them to look environmentally good in a drought area. The cartridges cost more than water ever did. The toilets really stunk if not attended to on a timely basis. The backsplash area was never rinsed, and this contributed additional odors. Luckily we were all engineers and didn't put stuff in the toilet that more immature people would tend to put there.
Those are just the downsides. Not really an upside, other than saving a little bit of a completely renewable and cheap, inexpensive resource -- I mean we're not talking about Tunisia. So, yeah, they're acceptable in a work environment, but I wouln't want one at home.
You are not even allowed to call yourself an engineer without getting that license. That person is actually held legally responsible for the projects he signs off on.
Actually, you're confusing the title "P.E." (professional engineer) with the generally accepted term "engineer." One (the P.E.) is a licensed engineer, and others are used traditionally and arbitrarily with no legal recourse. For example, I and my co-workers are bona fide engineers, and most of us have engineering or engineering technology degrees. None of what we do requires a P.E. to sign off on anything, although there are other aspects of our business (and many other businesses) that do require a P.E.
Of course, there are all kinds of "engineers" that have that title but don't truly merit it -- customer service engineer; field service engineer; applications engineer; and so on. Most of these don't hold engineering degrees. For many of them, I don't begrudge them their title, either. But we also know that they're not P.E.'s.
I think it's important to note that it's not just the US market. It's the "enlightened" Canadian market. It's the Mexican market. It's virtually all of the Latin American market. It's the entire New World. Let's include Australia in the New World, too, since they like their big cars and gas guzzlers, too.
It's definitely not just a lazy, selfish, American attitude. You're talking about an entire continent. In fact, I'm a hard-working, generous, world-travelling American, and to me a small car is a Taurus and good fuel economy is 22mpg. I also have a truck I use when I need a truck, and the fact that it gets 12mpg doesn't bug me in the least, because I can still afford $3/gallon, and I only use it when it's needed.
At the same time, I don't feel that the sky is falling. But I'm an American. I don't believe in Kyoto; I believe in productivity. It doesn't mean I'm an evil bastard; it only means that you and I were brought up with vastly different ideals and beliefs. I don't deny global warming, but I have faith in our ability to deal with it.
I'm not trying to cause a debate here, and won't respond to one. The point I'm bring up is this: Perspective is everything, and my post and its geneology show the truth in that.
US cars made for the US market (oh, might I add Canada and Mexico in there, as well?) meet US tastes and demands. Yeah, that means big, old Expeditions and Crown Victorias and big, gas guzzling cars. It's not Ford et al's fault -- it's market driven.
If you look at Ford products in Mexico, the UK, Europe, and Asia, you'll see that Ford builts and sells more small cars the world over than big SUV's and full size cars in the North American market.
I'm currently working in Mexico launching an American market car. Down here when you ask for "full size" at the airport, they give you a Focus! I'm currently driving a Mondeo that my 6'2" frame barely fits into and while it's a perfectly safe care, it "feels" dangerously small when you're used to something the size of a Taurus or larger.
Not too long ago, I was trying to find out some information about these Mondeos (they don't sell 'em in the US/Canada market). I read a review of Mondeos on a British site. The review exclaimed that among the good points were the cavernous amounts of space inside this absolutely huge vehicle. The principal bad point was the miserable gas mileage, at only 27mpg is was fuel hog!
It just goes to show that perception among different markets is, obviously, different, and that you can't pigeonhole Ford into being nothing but a huge SUV maker. Remember, Toyota and Nissan sell into the USA/Canada/Mexico market, too, and they sell huge, behemouth trucks and SUV's, too! I'm betting you don't see many of those in Europe.
Really -- the Americans built the damn thing. So build something better. Is it essential to the world? Well, maybe, but why the hell did the world connect to the internet knowing they had no control. Damn, use some common sense. If you want to annex Poland, you don't ask Russia to give you Poland. You go get Poland yourself.
Different passwork requirements hurt the most
on
Too Many Passwords
·
· Score: 1
I'm forced to change my NT password every 60 days at work. So I do something I know is "the wrong thing" -- I used the same password on every work system. My password is secure, and I'm not worried about it, so I just don't worry about it. What sucks, though, is that many of our systems have different password requirements. Some require a mixture of upper and lower case. Some don't allow a password to begin with digits and some do. Some require at least 8 characters and others have an 8 character limit. When my 60 days get close, it usually takes me three or four attempts to get the same password on every system until I work out the kinks in all of their different password demands. And God forbid I forget one of the systems; I'll never get access to it again with the passwords I choose.
Oh, thanks to someone here many, many moons ago, I don't try to think up hard-to-guess passwords any more, or make up pneumonics I'll forget, or any of that nonsense. Patterns in the keyboard are super easy to remember and impossible to just guess without having my accounts reset.
>>Anyone who was on the verge of switching before now have virtually no reason not to.
I don't use IE, but I'm perfectly happy with Firefox on Windows and Safari on my good machine.
I tried Opera a few weeks ago when they offered free serial numbers, and here're some immediate opinions:
(1) Compatability was really close to IE, meaning it actually worked for some of the web applications we have at work that are supposedly IE only. (2) Layout of everything was exceptionally annoying. Not really an Opera fault, just my accustimization, I supposed. (3) What the hell's the deal with the stupid context menu that keeps popping up when I double-click something? Maybe there's a preference for it, but a quick look didn't find anything.
Maybe I should force myself to use it for a bit longer and see if it's "all that."
Well, this seems like it'd be an almost perfect replacement for my shuffle, which I bought because it was an iPod *and* a replacement for my USB flash drive. I'd like a nano as a replacement for the Shuffle, as it's still small enough to be unobtrusive when work around the neck with a lanyard. But carrying a separate cable is out of the picture. I wish it had a flip out or something type of USB port... on the other hand, I guess I could just get an extra cable to leave at work!
>>Please don't post if you don't know what your talking about.
Touche. Contracts don't establish legality or illegality. They establish what you're contracturally obligated to do or refrain from doing. The government has the obligation to settle contract disputes when a suit is brought, but has no right to enforce contract provisions until a legal challenge is made.
Someone's gotta protect my DirecTV signal. If some damn European agency who believes more strongly in Sky decides to take out the DirecTV birds, what's to stop them today? Nothing! They've already successfully eliminated DirecTV in Mexico. DirecTV in the United States is certainly one of their next goals.
...and yes, I'm aware that spelling "agressive" wrong tends to contradict my assertion that I'm not an idiot, so if onecan't laugh at oneself, go watch a Ben Stiller movie.
Are you a complete idiot?
No, but I think that the agreesive tone of your questions and your blind willingness to just assume tends to make me think that you're one.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I'm more hoping that their trademark lawyers will recognize the spelling difference!
Just for the record and so my karma doesn't suffer, this has nothing to do with me. :-)
>>Conclusion: It's dumb, but a lot of people still do it either because a) They don't fully understand what they're doing or b) They're greedy. There is an excessively small proportion of people who do c) which is save money somehow. Somebody always pipes up that they somehow saved money, somehow convincing everybody else that the 200 horror stories about leasing a car is the worst idea ever and they'll only buy from here on out.
:)
Okay, I'll pipe up
Basically you're right for a high number of people that don't think beyond their monthly payments. But time is money, too, and although I don't lease now, I'd do it again in the future. Why? After two years, I turn in the keys. That's only five minutes of my time if the dealer is on the way home from work. Why would I want to have a car that's only two to five years old? Again, it's time, and remember time is money. I can change the oil every 15000 miles because I don't care about the long term. Ditto that for all the other uneccessary maintenance. I don't have to spend time at the shop because it's new and less likely to need service.
The alternative, of course, is changing the oil every g.d. 5 kilomiles, doing the recommend maintenenace every 5 kilomiles, replace the ball joints one month, replace the tie rods another month, and when I'm finally done with the thing spend additional time, money and effort either trying to sell it to a private party, or take a reduced amount on a trade-in for another vehicle.
If you're (not you-you, but the general you) someone that must clip coupons or drive to three different stores to save a buck (and waste two bucks on the gas to do it!), or only buys ribeyes when they're $1.00 off, then the problem isn't that you *may* spend $500 more on leasing versus buying, the problem is that you shouldn't be eyeing new cars in the first place. Once you can afford a new car without struggling for it, who cares about such a tiny theoretical cost difference?
So, that's not greed; that's convenience. That's why you have a P4 instead of a 486. That's why you pay $1.25 for coffee at 7-Eleven instead of brewing it yourself.
I propose that your A-B-C is okay, but only if you add a D: some people just appreciate the care-free convenience of leasing.
Not a troll - I'm just not British...
Isn't a TV tax kind of stupid idea in the first place? And then you have the whole infrastructure to support looking for the evaders (the signal vans). And this tax beaucracy just duplicates whatever is already in place for all of the other taxes you folks already pay. And all of this just to watch "Keeping up Appearances" (yeah, so what if that was years and years ago?).
Now I'm not saying don't fund the BBC. But why not just fund it out of the general funds or operating budget or appropriated funds or whatever pool of money your government spends from year to year?
I've got a 3G 15GB iPod that my wife uses. Despite that, I prefer my Shuffle. I'd still prefer it to a Nano, even at 1GB. Why? It comes with a lanyard, I wear it around my neck, and I use it as a USB stick at work just as much as I use it for audiobooks. Oh! Audiobooks! Who needs a screen?
I can see there being very reduced demand, but some demand still. Probably just not enough to justify the investment.
I sent a telegram once. I was a kiddie in the Army, and I'd just left advanced training. I was on leave prior to going to Germany. Because I live in Michigan and a buddy going on the same plane lived in Ohio on the way to the airport in Pittsburg, we'd agreed to meet at his house so I could tag along. I broke my leg, though, and couldn't make the flight. I got everything straightened out with the Army, but not with my buddy, who didn't have a telephone (and wouldn't, I imagine, have internet access today). Of course I had his address, so the only way I could get a hold of him was via a Western Union telegram.
I guess these days you could send flowers with "call me" just as fast as a telegram. Or hire one of the dancing monkey-suit people or a clown to sing a song about not being able to make the plane.
I think there's still a demand today to be met, and possibly it can be done with a reduced infrastructure. Not everyone has internet access, and even so, as things are today you have to check the internet; it doesn't notify you. Heck, even *I* don't have a home telephone.
Are you being ironic? Your statement invokes a complete lack of logic. What are your qualifications to express such sentiments about addiction? Logic and addiction have nothing to do with each other. Sheesh.
Okay, I'll take it a step further -- since you're a Godless athiest anyway, it's obvious that you're simply addicted to living, otherwise you'd recognize the pointlessness and lack of meaning in your own existance, and you'd stop worrying about other people willingly and knowingly contributing to their own demise. Logically, you should be committing genocide against the whole human race.
No, I'm not trolling, or I'd post anonymously.
Yeah, but look at the brilliant decisions "the people" make in a democracy! You want "the people" to innovate and run a successful company? CEO's *do* earn their money.
My lay understanding is that this is extortion! Who's the one that are being claimed to use services without paying for it? When Netflix On-Demand (fictional example for new) streams a movie to me, *I'm* using the network service, for which I'm already paying. Netflix isn't the user; they're the provider. Am I totally missing something here?
I'm too lazy to do the research right now, but is this the birthday in the current Gregorian calendar or the (I think) then-used Julian calendar??? In which case, when is his birthday in the other calendar system? Oh, if you want to be globalist, you can include the Chinese birthdate if you want to.
Good. Hybrid technology is a fad and it's not sustainable. It's a cool geek toy and I'd buy a hybrid with no price premium, but not any wierd sense of "doing the right thing."
That's not to say that something mustn't be done; hybrids are just not the way to do it. It's unfortunate, but tough.
I want a MacBook with an order of fries -- hold the special sauce, please.
Will Virtual PC 7.0 run on this thing? Kind of being a smart ass, but kind of serious, too. I can't wait for the first virtualization product to hit the streets -- something like VMWare would be sweet. Despite everything they say, there are still a couple of things I use windows for.
Waterless urinals. My company had replaced them to look environmentally good in a drought area. The cartridges cost more than water ever did. The toilets really stunk if not attended to on a timely basis. The backsplash area was never rinsed, and this contributed additional odors. Luckily we were all engineers and didn't put stuff in the toilet that more immature people would tend to put there.
Those are just the downsides. Not really an upside, other than saving a little bit of a completely renewable and cheap, inexpensive resource -- I mean we're not talking about Tunisia. So, yeah, they're acceptable in a work environment, but I wouln't want one at home.
Actually, you're confusing the title "P.E." (professional engineer) with the generally accepted term "engineer." One (the P.E.) is a licensed engineer, and others are used traditionally and arbitrarily with no legal recourse. For example, I and my co-workers are bona fide engineers, and most of us have engineering or engineering technology degrees. None of what we do requires a P.E. to sign off on anything, although there are other aspects of our business (and many other businesses) that do require a P.E.
Of course, there are all kinds of "engineers" that have that title but don't truly merit it -- customer service engineer; field service engineer; applications engineer; and so on. Most of these don't hold engineering degrees. For many of them, I don't begrudge them their title, either. But we also know that they're not P.E.'s.
I think it's important to note that it's not just the US market. It's the "enlightened" Canadian market. It's the Mexican market. It's virtually all of the Latin American market. It's the entire New World. Let's include Australia in the New World, too, since they like their big cars and gas guzzlers, too.
It's definitely not just a lazy, selfish, American attitude. You're talking about an entire continent. In fact, I'm a hard-working, generous, world-travelling American, and to me a small car is a Taurus and good fuel economy is 22mpg. I also have a truck I use when I need a truck, and the fact that it gets 12mpg doesn't bug me in the least, because I can still afford $3/gallon, and I only use it when it's needed.
At the same time, I don't feel that the sky is falling. But I'm an American. I don't believe in Kyoto; I believe in productivity. It doesn't mean I'm an evil bastard; it only means that you and I were brought up with vastly different ideals and beliefs. I don't deny global warming, but I have faith in our ability to deal with it.
I'm not trying to cause a debate here, and won't respond to one. The point I'm bring up is this: Perspective is everything, and my post and its geneology show the truth in that.
US cars made for the US market (oh, might I add Canada and Mexico in there, as well?) meet US tastes and demands. Yeah, that means big, old Expeditions and Crown Victorias and big, gas guzzling cars. It's not Ford et al's fault -- it's market driven.
If you look at Ford products in Mexico, the UK, Europe, and Asia, you'll see that Ford builts and sells more small cars the world over than big SUV's and full size cars in the North American market.
I'm currently working in Mexico launching an American market car. Down here when you ask for "full size" at the airport, they give you a Focus! I'm currently driving a Mondeo that my 6'2" frame barely fits into and while it's a perfectly safe care, it "feels" dangerously small when you're used to something the size of a Taurus or larger.
Not too long ago, I was trying to find out some information about these Mondeos (they don't sell 'em in the US/Canada market). I read a review of Mondeos on a British site. The review exclaimed that among the good points were the cavernous amounts of space inside this absolutely huge vehicle. The principal bad point was the miserable gas mileage, at only 27mpg is was fuel hog!
It just goes to show that perception among different markets is, obviously, different, and that you can't pigeonhole Ford into being nothing but a huge SUV maker. Remember, Toyota and Nissan sell into the USA/Canada/Mexico market, too, and they sell huge, behemouth trucks and SUV's, too! I'm betting you don't see many of those in Europe.
I like Wikpedia very, very much for quick and dirty answers as well as for exploring things that I've never heard of before.
But I'd never, ever, ever use them as a reference for professional or school work.
Really -- the Americans built the damn thing. So build something better. Is it essential to the world? Well, maybe, but why the hell did the world connect to the internet knowing they had no control. Damn, use some common sense. If you want to annex Poland, you don't ask Russia to give you Poland. You go get Poland yourself.
I'm forced to change my NT password every 60 days at work. So I do something I know is "the wrong thing" -- I used the same password on every work system. My password is secure, and I'm not worried about it, so I just don't worry about it. What sucks, though, is that many of our systems have different password requirements. Some require a mixture of upper and lower case. Some don't allow a password to begin with digits and some do. Some require at least 8 characters and others have an 8 character limit. When my 60 days get close, it usually takes me three or four attempts to get the same password on every system until I work out the kinks in all of their different password demands. And God forbid I forget one of the systems; I'll never get access to it again with the passwords I choose.
Oh, thanks to someone here many, many moons ago, I don't try to think up hard-to-guess passwords any more, or make up pneumonics I'll forget, or any of that nonsense. Patterns in the keyboard are super easy to remember and impossible to just guess without having my accounts reset.
>>Anyone who was on the verge of switching before now have virtually no reason not to.
I don't use IE, but I'm perfectly happy with Firefox on Windows and Safari on my good machine.
I tried Opera a few weeks ago when they offered free serial numbers, and here're some immediate opinions:
(1) Compatability was really close to IE, meaning it actually worked for some of the web applications we have at work that are supposedly IE only.
(2) Layout of everything was exceptionally annoying. Not really an Opera fault, just my accustimization, I supposed.
(3) What the hell's the deal with the stupid context menu that keeps popping up when I double-click something? Maybe there's a preference for it, but a quick look didn't find anything.
Maybe I should force myself to use it for a bit longer and see if it's "all that."
Well, this seems like it'd be an almost perfect replacement for my shuffle, which I bought because it was an iPod *and* a replacement for my USB flash drive. I'd like a nano as a replacement for the Shuffle, as it's still small enough to be unobtrusive when work around the neck with a lanyard. But carrying a separate cable is out of the picture. I wish it had a flip out or something type of USB port... on the other hand, I guess I could just get an extra cable to leave at work!
>>Please don't post if you don't know what your talking about.
Touche. Contracts don't establish legality or illegality. They establish what you're contracturally obligated to do or refrain from doing. The government has the obligation to settle contract disputes when a suit is brought, but has no right to enforce contract provisions until a legal challenge is made.
Someone's gotta protect my DirecTV signal. If some damn European agency who believes more strongly in Sky decides to take out the DirecTV birds, what's to stop them today? Nothing! They've already successfully eliminated DirecTV in Mexico. DirecTV in the United States is certainly one of their next goals.
...and yes, I'm aware that spelling "agressive" wrong tends to contradict my assertion that I'm not an idiot, so if onecan't laugh at oneself, go watch a Ben Stiller movie.
Are you a complete idiot?
No, but I think that the agreesive tone of your questions and your blind willingness to just assume tends to make me think that you're one.