Also line your walls with tin foil. Or at least turn your exterior walls into a Faraday cage and put up steel grates over your windows. You won't be able to steal your neighbor's wifi signal
Just about everybody (outside of Manhattan) has a portable generator capable of charging a cellphone. It's called a "car." (Of course, a lot of people may be missing the appropriate 12V-5V adapter, but that's only a $5 problem.)
...completely replace it with fiber, with the same universal access, reliability, etc. Better yet, completely replace it with fiber PLUS some copper for power.
What that means is that IF it is actually the modification that's broken your device, then you're on your own. However, if your device is broken for some other unrelated reason, your warranty is still intact.
Per the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (the same law that prevents car manufacturers from voiding your warranty for using non-OEM replacement parts), the burden of proof lies on the warrantor (not you) to show that the modification, rather than some warrantable defect, caused the damage.
I expect the manufacturers consider this more akin to wiping the firmware on your TV, microwave, or car.
...None of which actually void your warranty unless the manufacturer can prove that that's the problem was caused by your modification (per the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act).
For example, if you hack your car's ECU for more horsepower, it's not going to void the warranty on the suspension.
It seems as well that Microsoft wanted the locked-down environment to prevent Windows RT from having viruses
Absolute BS. Microsoft wanted the locked-down environment in order to force users to their app store, so that they'd get a 30% cut like Apple and Google do.
Oh, so 5% return on average (over 10 years) is okay then? Well in that case, there's a huge pile of ETFs that have done that. SPY averaged 7.4%, VTI averaged 8.16%, and IVV averaged 7.50%, for example. (I'd go for VT, personally, but it hasn't existed long enough to have a 10-year return.)
What I do is pretty simple. Keep about 60% in low cost index funds the rest in bonds or cash. Costs really do matter over the long haul. Twice a year look at the portfolio and adjust it so you are at 60%. If stocks went up sell stocks to get back to 60%. If they went down buy.
But don't forget that any debt you owe is equivalent to "shorting a bond," so it doesn't make sense to invest in bonds unless you're debt-free (unless their yield is higher than the debt's interest rate, but that's highly unlikely).
So what sort of things would a person need to set up (paperwork, payment mechanisms, legal or accounting help, etc.) in order to do this kind of thing himself?
Let's assume your argument that home buyers tend to have higher incomes than renters is correct. In that case, the median household income among renters must be significantly less than the $50,054 I mentioned before. Using the common "30% of income" housing affordability rule-of-thumb, that means the median renter can afford "significantly less than" $1251 per month.
Unfortunately for your argument, the average US rent is actually $1,231 per month -- pretty damn close to the amount above above. That means somebody -- either the home buyers, the renters, or a combination of both -- has to be overspending!
(By the way: if you want to complain about "median" vs. "average" then you can go find the damn statistics yourself. I did the best I could.)
Non-diversified? The GP was talking about ETFs, which can have as little or as much diversification if you want. The "VT" (Vanguard Total World Stock Index) ETF, for example, contains a little bit of (nearly -- I assume) every publicly-traded company in the world. Other than adding different asset classes (bonds, commodities, real estate), you can't get any more diversified than that!
Please, list some of these ETFs that have made 5% returns for at least 10 years every year.
5% return on average (what the GP said) is not the same as 5% return every year (which is what you pretend he said). Either you lack reading comprehension, or you're intentionally setting up a strawman argument. Which is it?
And the median household income is $50,054, which means that the "average" household can't afford the "average" house or the "average" car. This is the problem the GP was attempting to illustrate.
Bitcoins are a nice idea but people are not treating them like money. They are treating them like stocks and commodities. They are not commodities, they are coins and coins are supposed to be spent.
That's what happens when your currency is inherently deflationary.
You are clearly a moron if you cannot see the difference between being asked to spend 10 seconds giving a breath sample without even getting out of your car and being 'detained' by the SS or secret police.
You are clearly an ad-hominem if you cannot see that the difference is only one of extent, but not one of kind.
That is like saying that a ticket inspector on a train is detaining you while you produce a ticket.
No it isn't, because ticket inspectors do not have the power to arrest you.
It is perfectly possible to train the police how to do random breath tests without turning into a dictatorship
Not in the United States, it isn't.
try and look up how they do it in Australia on you tube
Australia does not recognize anything equivalent to the Bill of Rights. Maybe Australia is a faerie-and-pixie-dust utopia and they don't need one, but in the United States we most certainly do.
Look: practically speaking, here's how your proposal would actually get implemented in the United States:
The officer asks you to pull over
The officer queries the license plate database to check if the car is stolen (side effect: a permanent time- and location-stamped record of the vehicle is created).
The officer checks your driver's license (side effect: your location is also logged permanently), and if there's an outstanding warrant the you get arrested on the spot.
In the process of being handed the driver's license, the officer leans as close to the car window as he can and peers into the car looking (and sniffing) for anything "suspicious."
If the officer does get "suspicious" (and if you're anything other than white or the quality of your clothes doesn't match the quality of the car or the neighborhood you're in, being "suspicious" is much more likely) then he asks to perform a search. Depending on how nervous you get at the question, he may decide he has "probable cause" to search even if you refuse.
At this point, you're asked to get out and sit on the curb while the officer searches your car (and maybe plants something illicit if you've given him lip or he has a quota to fill).
Now the officer gives you a field sobriety test. Maybe it's a breathalyzer, or maybe he asks you to walk on a line or recite the alphabet backwards kind of thing. (Hopefully, you're not naturally uncoordinated or dyslexic!)
If you're really lucky, then the cop will let you go. You are now 10-30 minutes late for the appointment you were trying to get to, and stressed out from the encounter. And that's the best case scenario.
This sort of treatment is obviously unacceptable, which is exactly why officers aren't allowed to even pull you over in the first place unless they already have a (theoretically, good) reason.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what roof-mounted antennas are for!
Just about everybody (outside of Manhattan) has a portable generator capable of charging a cellphone. It's called a "car." (Of course, a lot of people may be missing the appropriate 12V-5V adapter, but that's only a $5 problem.)
...completely replace it with fiber, with the same universal access, reliability, etc. Better yet, completely replace it with fiber PLUS some copper for power.
Well then, why don't we just impose the same kind of pricing, quality and access regulations on coax and fiber? It sounds like a good plan to me...
Here's the key phrase in that disclaimer:
What that means is that IF it is actually the modification that's broken your device, then you're on your own. However, if your device is broken for some other unrelated reason, your warranty is still intact.
Per the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (the same law that prevents car manufacturers from voiding your warranty for using non-OEM replacement parts), the burden of proof lies on the warrantor (not you) to show that the modification, rather than some warrantable defect, caused the damage.
...None of which actually void your warranty unless the manufacturer can prove that that's the problem was caused by your modification (per the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act).
For example, if you hack your car's ECU for more horsepower, it's not going to void the warranty on the suspension.
Yeah, it's almost as bad as "white papers!"
More like the "passenger pigeon of the sea" these days...
Absolute BS. Microsoft wanted the locked-down environment in order to force users to their app store, so that they'd get a 30% cut like Apple and Google do.
...the Microsoft store, so that Microsoft could get the same kind of 30% cut that Apple and Google get.
Oh, so 5% return on average (over 10 years) is okay then? Well in that case, there's a huge pile of ETFs that have done that. SPY averaged 7.4%, VTI averaged 8.16%, and IVV averaged 7.50%, for example. (I'd go for VT, personally, but it hasn't existed long enough to have a 10-year return.)
But don't forget that any debt you owe is equivalent to "shorting a bond," so it doesn't make sense to invest in bonds unless you're debt-free (unless their yield is higher than the debt's interest rate, but that's highly unlikely).
If your 401K was in a diversified stock fund and you made 9%, then you're getting hosed on fees.
So what sort of things would a person need to set up (paperwork, payment mechanisms, legal or accounting help, etc.) in order to do this kind of thing himself?
Doesn't that really mean it's the best time to get into the bond market?
Okay, fine.
Let's assume your argument that home buyers tend to have higher incomes than renters is correct. In that case, the median household income among renters must be significantly less than the $50,054 I mentioned before. Using the common "30% of income" housing affordability rule-of-thumb, that means the median renter can afford "significantly less than" $1251 per month.
Unfortunately for your argument, the average US rent is actually $1,231 per month -- pretty damn close to the amount above above. That means somebody -- either the home buyers, the renters, or a combination of both -- has to be overspending!
(By the way: if you want to complain about "median" vs. "average" then you can go find the damn statistics yourself. I did the best I could.)
Non-diversified? The GP was talking about ETFs, which can have as little or as much diversification if you want. The "VT" (Vanguard Total World Stock Index) ETF, for example, contains a little bit of (nearly -- I assume) every publicly-traded company in the world. Other than adding different asset classes (bonds, commodities, real estate), you can't get any more diversified than that!
5% return on average (what the GP said) is not the same as 5% return every year (which is what you pretend he said). Either you lack reading comprehension, or you're intentionally setting up a strawman argument. Which is it?
And the median household income is $50,054, which means that the "average" household can't afford the "average" house or the "average" car. This is the problem the GP was attempting to illustrate.
Of course they had smartphones; this one was already 6 years old at the time!
That's what happens when your currency is inherently deflationary.
That's fine and dandy, but HR round-filed all the resumes that didn't have them before they even got to you.
You are clearly an ad-hominem if you cannot see that the difference is only one of extent, but not one of kind.
No it isn't, because ticket inspectors do not have the power to arrest you.
Not in the United States, it isn't.
Australia does not recognize anything equivalent to the Bill of Rights. Maybe Australia is a faerie-and-pixie-dust utopia and they don't need one, but in the United States we most certainly do.
Look: practically speaking, here's how your proposal would actually get implemented in the United States:
This sort of treatment is obviously unacceptable, which is exactly why officers aren't allowed to even pull you over in the first place unless they already have a (theoretically, good) reason.
So how'd it work out in the Baltic states?
There's no lameness filter for bold!