I defended myself in real life(tm) not some tv drama. In criminal cases there is no "sufficiently likely", or "on the balance of probability", etc. It's simply "Is there reasonable doubt?"
I found a murder weapon on you, blood on you, and a dead body in your yard. All of that could be planted, but it is sufficiently likely that you are the murderer.
What do you think "reasonable doubt" is? It's a sufficient probability of some other occurrence--that is, probability of your guilt is lower than a barrier, and probability of non-guilt is thus high.
Regardless, the court is not allowed to infer a criminals guilt; they have to be convinced.
... a conviction *is* the inference of criminal guilt.
(Like I said, I've been arrested, tried and acquitted multiple times. In Real Life, not a TV drama. More than once all I've had to do is sum up by saying "the state has failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.")
So you are not a lawyer, and only understand consequences and outcome, not nuances or legal strategy.
A tax on a commodity focuses that tax on a subset of income--you spend what you make--thus magnifying the tax. If, for example, 2% of all pre-tax income in Australia was spent on Netflix, then a Netflix tax of 10% would translate to an income tax hike of 0.2% across the board; if it were focused on high-income earners, it would affect only the small part of society at a rate almost identical (e.g. the top 50% have 87.25% of the money, 0.2% becomes 0.229%; the top 25% have 67.38%, income tax hike of 0.2968%).
A tax on a commodity also focuses on buyers. Let's say everyone buys the maximum amount of liquor, taxed at $14 per liter of pure alcohol. Rich people die of alcohol poisoning just as fast as poor people, so it's the same amount of alcohol; yet rich people have more money, so it's a smaller portion of their income. If poor people spend 10% of their income on alcohol and pay 0.5% of their income in alcohol tax, and rich people with 100 times the income buy just as much, then rich people will spend 0.1% of their income on alcohol and pay 0.005% of their income in alcohol tax.
We can surmise the rich won't spend proportionally precisely as much (or more) of their income on digital media as the poor do. They might spend two or ten times as much, and so any person with income over $1M would be taxed a lower percentage of their income by the media tax than a a person owning $100k.
Combining these two things, we see that all commodity taxes target lower-income earners with much higher income-relative tax rates than they target high-income earners, and they make those tax rates on the commodity extremely high by having to multiply them by the proportion of spending relative to the income spent on the commodity in order to derive the same income-relative tax. This means the commodity tax is a high proportion of the commodity's cost, greatly raising the price of the commodity, while also most greatly impacting the least-affluent of the market purchasing that commodity.
Taxing the shit out of the poor increases labor cost to businesses, making a transition to automation and a reduction of human labor exploitation more accessible. Simply put, raising taxes on the poor leads to unemployment, to the poor being even more poor and to more of the poor being jobless. Taxes should be kept small and either flat or progressive.
A tax on a commodity focuses that tax on a subset of income--you spend what you make--thus magnifying the tax. If, for example, 2% of all pre-tax income in Australia was spent on Netflix, then a Netflix tax of 10% would translate to an income tax hike of 0.2% across the board; if it were focused on high-income earners, it would affect only the small part of society at a rate almost identical (e.g. the top 50% have 87.25% of the money, 0.2% becomes 0.229%; the top 25% have 67.38%, income tax hike of 0.2968%).
A tax on a commodity also focuses on buyers. Let's say everyone buys the maximum amount of liquor, taxed at $14 per liter of pure alcohol. Rich people die of alcohol poisoning just as fast as poor people, so it's the same amount of alcohol; yet rich people have more money, so it's a smaller portion of their income. If poor people spend 10% of their income on alcohol and pay 0.5% of their income in alcohol tax, and rich people with 100 times the income buy just as much, then rich people will spend 0.1% of their income on alcohol and pay 0.005% of their income in alcohol tax.
We can surmise the rich won't spend proportionally precisely as much (or more) of their income on digital media as the poor do. They might spend two or ten times as much, and so any person with income over $1M would be taxed a lower percentage of their income by the media tax than a a person owning $100k.
Combining these two things, we see that all commodity taxes target lower-income earners with much higher income-relative tax rates than they target high-income earners, and they make those tax rates on the commodity extremely high by having to multiply them by the proportion of spending relative to the income spent on the commodity in order to derive the same income-relative tax. This means the commodity tax is a high proportion of the commodity's cost, greatly raising the price of the commodity, while also most greatly impacting the least-affluent of the market purchasing that commodity.
Taxing the shit out of the poor increases labor cost to businesses, making a transition to automation and a reduction of human labor exploitation more accessible. Simply put, raising taxes on the poor leads to unemployment, to the poor being even more poor and to more of the poor being jobless. Taxes should be kept small and either flat or progressive.
Possibly through the circumstantial evidence of your search history, your other behaviors, the innoculous nature of the data on the drive, or the universal legal foundation that circumstances suggest it is more likely than not and within the range of reasonable occurrences.
In real life, that doesn't work when there's weight of circumstantial evidence to cast sufficient suspicion for a search, but insufficient suspicion for a conviction. Real cases are structured like, "We saw evidence of X insufficient to convict, and then obtained a warrant to search for concrete evidence of X, and found evidence suggesting the likely destruction of unknown evidence, and find it sufficiently likely that such evidence were linked to this crime and sufficiently unlikely that such evidence never existed or were evidence of a separate crime," and get a conviction.
Thing is, someone wiping their drive isn't evidence of a crime. At the same time, various evidence of a crime--Internet connections, behaviors, associates--isn't going to get you a conviction, at all. When you put these together, you get a different picture: we have a highly-circumstantial pattern of behavior that may or may not prove the suspect was a criminal, and the subject panicked and destroyed the thing that may have but was not certain to contain hard evidence proving that this behavior pattern was indeed linked to criminal activity. From all these inferences, we can strongly infer that the suspect was destroying evidence of some crime, for which we have a good outline of what that crime very well could be.
When you hear quacking, there may be a duck, or a TV. If you find feathers, there may be a duck, or a pillow. When you hear quacking and find feathers all over the fucking place, there is almost definitely a duck there somewhere, even if you can't find it; any other explanation involving there not being a duck is a bigger leap of logic than there being a duck somewhere in the area. US courts recognize these types of connected vague images, and overlay them until you develop a sufficiently clear picture that is sufficiently unlikely to be something else--which, really, if you find a dead body and a murder weapon in a bloke's house, all you have is a pretty fucking strong inference to go against an alternate theory of the mafia framing the guy, so it's the same thing: he's only probably guilty, but we're pretty fucking sure.
Which opens you up to all kinds of high circumstantial evidence prosecution. Evidence that you may have been involved in a crime coupled with a psychotic behavior in which you put your computer data at severe risk to handle an unexpected seizure? If they have weak evidence showing your involvement in a crime, the corroborating behavior provides circumstantial evidence supporting their weak evidence; either by itself may be inadmissible.
How much of those tasks are familiar to you because of their similarity to other things you're already familiar with? How much f(c) do you have to back up all that shit? Are you claiming that something utterly alien and highly complex can be learned immediately with no effort, or just that a new task recognizable and understandable using your existing knowledge is also easy to understand?
Modern cognitive science and genetic science both say there's no such thing as innate talent, in the same way that science says faith healing is a crock of shit.
There is no such thing as talent; there *is* such a thing as motivation, fueled by deep interest, often called passion, which leads a person to perceive vastly lowered effort in developing a skill, and thus put more time and energy into it, developing it further. Geniuses have piles of cognitive techniques--they learn to use the brain as a tool in the same way a woodworker learns to use a router to cut intricate joints and designs for carpentry--one of which includes dissecting and examining any topic to associate it with some goal they find *extremely* interesting, thus creating this motivation, eliminating the effort involved in learning anything.
Nobody has in-born talent. People are exposed to environment; if you give your kid watercolors as a tiny, tiny child and praise them for their artwork, they will feel important because of their painting ability, and will base their self-worth on visual and graphic art. Their whole life's motivation will be art, and they'll paint and draw and do all kinds of things, and develop incredible skills, and be said to be some kind of savant-level virtuoso with God-given talent implanted at birth.
If your monthly payment is 1000 and you pay an extra 50, you take 50 off the principle.
Each payment, you pay for accrued interest. You accrue like $980 of interest on that first payment, $979.93 on that second, etc.
If you pay $50 more on that first payment, you skip the immediate next payment. You have 1 fewer payment to make, and it's not that last payment where you pay $999 principle and $1 interest; you skip that second payment where you pay $20 principle and $980 interest.
The math is right. Use a mortgage amortizer, use the Pe^RT formula for compound interest, and look logically at how mortgages work--how the payment schedule works. It works the way it does because we've written laws about precomputed interest to make sure it works the way I say--it's illegal to precompute all of the interest up-front and make the person pay it all even if the pre-pay; interest must be compounded by the passage of time, instead of the prediction of time's passage.
No, its still only the interest rate percentage return.
If I use the Pe^(RT) formula on $100 at 10% for 15 years, I get a much smaller value than the amount of total cost saved if I pay an extra $100 on a 10% mortgage with a $300,000 balance.
You're missing something: $100 in the bank gets 15 years of 10% interest compounding continuously on $100 (yes, banks pay simple interest; that's not the point). That means it's 1/365 of $100, then 1/365 of $100+$100/365, and so forth. Loans don't work that way.
With a loan, you accrue interest, and then pay down balance. If your early payments are $1053, and you accrue $1000 interest, you're only paying $50 in. Instead of getting 10% interest on $1053, you're paying $1053 to avoid paying 10% interest on $53. Month over month, that $1000 comes rolling in; but if you pay an extra $53, you skip a month--suddenly $53 is worth $1000.
For $53 to turn into $1000 over 30 years, the interest rate must 23.13%. For a $120,000 loan at 10% interest, your first payment will be $1053.09, with $1000 paying accrued interest, and $53.09 paying down balance; the first payment in the second year pays $994 interest and $58.64 balance. If you drop about $50-$60 into any of those first payments, you save $995-$1000.
$60 at 10% compounded continuously over 30 years is $489.29. $60 dropped into your very first loan payment at 10% saves you $1000. $1000 is bigger than $489.29; paying off long-term debt is bigger than holding continuously-compounding savings at the same interest rate for the same period.
Welcome to science! In 10 years, a lot of what we believe today will be somehow invalid bullshit!
Say it with me: current theory suggests....
I'm an engineer. When the entire field of cognitive science rolled over on its back for K. Anders Ericsson, I said, alright, the research is funny, but the conclusions are useful. So it's all fucked up, full of bullshit and misunderstood data. Ericsson's hundreds of papers and books all boil down to one thing: experts become experts by a principle he calls "deliberate practice", whereby a person must have goal-oriented, technique-focused practice strategies with constant and immediate feedback. Cognitive scientists now define "practice" as some sort of activity that GENERATES ERRORS, having decided you don't learn if you're not fucking it up.
So maybe they don't understand all this bullshit; but they understand now that the prior theory--10,000 hours of rote mechanical behavior to become skilled in something--was bullshit. As an engineer, I don't care that the new theory is full of holes; all I care about is they definitely know that time doesn't really correlate with expertise, except by the confounding of more types of activities occurring in longer time. If you've done something for 10 years, you'll have made and corrected for more mistakes in your career as if you've done it for 10 minutes. The new theory? You have to pick a technical facet of the skill, practice that directly, and do so in a manner that strains your abilities and forces you to make mistakes you can learn from. I'm on board with that, because it works; at least, it works better.
In 10, 20, 50, 100 years, they'll come out and say, hey, we figured out you're like 5 times more effective if you practice in this way, and that whole "deliberate practice" pseudotheory bullshit was just missing this key common behavior among practitioners of deliberate practice! I'll be like, hey, that's cool, we'll do that then, because it works better.
Current theory suggests playing complex songs you can already play on the piano day after day won't make you any better; playing difficult songs will make you better very slowly; and determining what piano musicmanship skills you're weak in and drilling them directly in a fashion demanding skill beyond yours such that you make mistakes of a nature you are able to identify and correct for *will* advance your skill *very* quickly. Maybe current theory is full of bullshit, but all of these statements are verifiable as true, and so I know how I'm practicing my skills.
You pulled an appeal to tradition first. I made a brief summary of loincloth-wearing tribal man with witchdoctors and bones in their noses to complete the picture. Did you honestly think a well-known logical fallacy was a good argument?
I look at the whole human body as an aesthetic. I'm not usually looking at women in a sexual way at first glance; the first things I notice are body shape, skin tone consistency (blotchy and ragged or smooth and soft?), hair, and so forth. I see a complete picture, a canvas I guess you could say, all these elements brought together to express the physical state of a person; it even goes so far as exactly how they move, what expressions they show, and, of course, what they're wearing.
After taking all that in, I decide what category of attractiveness she falls into, if she's sexually attractive, if she's intimidating, or whatnot. All the normal stuff. You'd be surprised how much sexual attraction falls squarely on a good smile, a good voice, body movement, the emotional regard of personality (yes, even for a sociopath with no real empathy). The first look is to see what image I'm looking at, how it flows, and how visually pleasing it is; the second is to see how I feel about it, if I want it, and what I want it for.
Tattoos are art. Unfortunately, they're the kind of art you get by printing out RWBY fanart and gluing it into the middle of a Van Gogh: maybe the artist has really good lines and anatomy, and the picture is really great, but it fucks up the Van Gogh.
I'll be bangin' 18 year olds when I'm 40, because the fad will finally be over and I can get some women whose skin doesn't have blue and black blotches like the fucking bubonic plague all over it.
Tattoos look nice, but they don't look nice on your body. It's like grabbing piles of cool shit and plastering it all together in a house: you have the ugliest fucking house in existence. If you would learn to theme it properly, you'd get a nice interior design. Problem: tattoos don't make for a nice body design; they're a blotch on your body. They make for nice pictures and fantastic decals on your car.
Aren't braces a temporary project to permanently make your teeth normal? Don't you have wisdom teeth pulled to make a minor deviation for the purpose of correcting a major one?
Adaptive project life cycle, a project life cycle, also known as change-driven or agile methods, that is intended to facilitate change and require a high degree of ongoing stakeholder involvement. Adaptive life cycles are also iterative and incremental, but differ in that iterations are very rapid (usually 2-4 weeks in length) and are fixed in time and resources.
PMBOK on Agile, which it terms "Adaptive project life cycle." It's just iterative and incremental in small bites, which can be planned and executed exactly like all other projects.
There are a lot of implications to fixed time and resource iterations. At the end of the month, anything that didn't make it has now exposed how far you can get in X time, rather than how much time it takes to produce X result. all risks and implications are factored based on this behavior. It's essentially your standard project management using iterative and incremental techniques, but paced to a metronome.
Every extra dollar you pay to reduce the principle on a loan is equivalent to taking that dollar and investing it with a rate of return equal to the interest rate on the loan.
False.
Every dollar you pay to reduce the balance of a loan is equivalent to investing with an instant return of the principle-to-interest ratio of the total payments that would naturally decrease that loan.
Let's say your next five $1000 payments each drop your loan balance by $20, $20.01, $20.03, $20.04, and $20.05. In common terms, these are your principle payments, and the rest is interest. Over the next five months, you will pay $5000; $100.13 will go to principle, and $4998.87 will go to interest.
If you pay $1080.13 this month, you'll skip the next 4 months. $100.13 will go to principle, and $980 will go to interest; for that $80.13 invested in your debt, you will have saved yourself $4018.87 in interest--a return of 5,000%!
You might argue that the loan is 30 years long, so it's only like 10% for 30 years--but that's only $1600, and the actual amount saved is 250% of that. Likewise, you've just reduced what you owe; keep it up and you'll have a 30 year mortgage paid off in 3 years (I did, and at 2.5% interest, making 4x or 5x payments each month). As well, you're paying interest on accrued interest: each month, you accrue a brand new $980-ish interest, which you are continuously compounding interest on until you make your payment; you're paying interest on the average $490, approximately, which is still bigger than that $80 you invested.
Any way you look at it, putting a small prepayment on a loan with a big balance reduces your debt--thus provides you income--a shitload bigger than that amount of money accruing interest over the life of the loan.
Slashdot Mirror
I defended myself in real life(tm) not some tv drama. In criminal cases there is no "sufficiently likely", or "on the balance of probability", etc. It's simply "Is there reasonable doubt?"
I found a murder weapon on you, blood on you, and a dead body in your yard. All of that could be planted, but it is sufficiently likely that you are the murderer.
What do you think "reasonable doubt" is? It's a sufficient probability of some other occurrence--that is, probability of your guilt is lower than a barrier, and probability of non-guilt is thus high.
Regardless, the court is not allowed to infer a criminals guilt; they have to be convinced.
(Like I said, I've been arrested, tried and acquitted multiple times. In Real Life, not a TV drama. More than once all I've had to do is sum up by saying "the state has failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.")
So you are not a lawyer, and only understand consequences and outcome, not nuances or legal strategy.
A tax on a commodity focuses that tax on a subset of income--you spend what you make--thus magnifying the tax. If, for example, 2% of all pre-tax income in Australia was spent on Netflix, then a Netflix tax of 10% would translate to an income tax hike of 0.2% across the board; if it were focused on high-income earners, it would affect only the small part of society at a rate almost identical (e.g. the top 50% have 87.25% of the money, 0.2% becomes 0.229%; the top 25% have 67.38%, income tax hike of 0.2968%).
A tax on a commodity also focuses on buyers. Let's say everyone buys the maximum amount of liquor, taxed at $14 per liter of pure alcohol. Rich people die of alcohol poisoning just as fast as poor people, so it's the same amount of alcohol; yet rich people have more money, so it's a smaller portion of their income. If poor people spend 10% of their income on alcohol and pay 0.5% of their income in alcohol tax, and rich people with 100 times the income buy just as much, then rich people will spend 0.1% of their income on alcohol and pay 0.005% of their income in alcohol tax.
We can surmise the rich won't spend proportionally precisely as much (or more) of their income on digital media as the poor do. They might spend two or ten times as much, and so any person with income over $1M would be taxed a lower percentage of their income by the media tax than a a person owning $100k.
Combining these two things, we see that all commodity taxes target lower-income earners with much higher income-relative tax rates than they target high-income earners, and they make those tax rates on the commodity extremely high by having to multiply them by the proportion of spending relative to the income spent on the commodity in order to derive the same income-relative tax. This means the commodity tax is a high proportion of the commodity's cost, greatly raising the price of the commodity, while also most greatly impacting the least-affluent of the market purchasing that commodity.
Taxing the shit out of the poor increases labor cost to businesses, making a transition to automation and a reduction of human labor exploitation more accessible. Simply put, raising taxes on the poor leads to unemployment, to the poor being even more poor and to more of the poor being jobless. Taxes should be kept small and either flat or progressive.
Posted to the wrong article fuck
A tax on a commodity focuses that tax on a subset of income--you spend what you make--thus magnifying the tax. If, for example, 2% of all pre-tax income in Australia was spent on Netflix, then a Netflix tax of 10% would translate to an income tax hike of 0.2% across the board; if it were focused on high-income earners, it would affect only the small part of society at a rate almost identical (e.g. the top 50% have 87.25% of the money, 0.2% becomes 0.229%; the top 25% have 67.38%, income tax hike of 0.2968%).
A tax on a commodity also focuses on buyers. Let's say everyone buys the maximum amount of liquor, taxed at $14 per liter of pure alcohol. Rich people die of alcohol poisoning just as fast as poor people, so it's the same amount of alcohol; yet rich people have more money, so it's a smaller portion of their income. If poor people spend 10% of their income on alcohol and pay 0.5% of their income in alcohol tax, and rich people with 100 times the income buy just as much, then rich people will spend 0.1% of their income on alcohol and pay 0.005% of their income in alcohol tax.
We can surmise the rich won't spend proportionally precisely as much (or more) of their income on digital media as the poor do. They might spend two or ten times as much, and so any person with income over $1M would be taxed a lower percentage of their income by the media tax than a a person owning $100k.
Combining these two things, we see that all commodity taxes target lower-income earners with much higher income-relative tax rates than they target high-income earners, and they make those tax rates on the commodity extremely high by having to multiply them by the proportion of spending relative to the income spent on the commodity in order to derive the same income-relative tax. This means the commodity tax is a high proportion of the commodity's cost, greatly raising the price of the commodity, while also most greatly impacting the least-affluent of the market purchasing that commodity.
Taxing the shit out of the poor increases labor cost to businesses, making a transition to automation and a reduction of human labor exploitation more accessible. Simply put, raising taxes on the poor leads to unemployment, to the poor being even more poor and to more of the poor being jobless. Taxes should be kept small and either flat or progressive.
Businesses wouldn't use something like this. They'd use your vanilla-style proximity sensor.
Possibly through the circumstantial evidence of your search history, your other behaviors, the innoculous nature of the data on the drive, or the universal legal foundation that circumstances suggest it is more likely than not and within the range of reasonable occurrences.
In real life, that doesn't work when there's weight of circumstantial evidence to cast sufficient suspicion for a search, but insufficient suspicion for a conviction. Real cases are structured like, "We saw evidence of X insufficient to convict, and then obtained a warrant to search for concrete evidence of X, and found evidence suggesting the likely destruction of unknown evidence, and find it sufficiently likely that such evidence were linked to this crime and sufficiently unlikely that such evidence never existed or were evidence of a separate crime," and get a conviction.
Arrest is largely a non-issue; it's conviction I'm talking about. Raising suspicion by these activities can get you a conviction.
Thing is, someone wiping their drive isn't evidence of a crime. At the same time, various evidence of a crime--Internet connections, behaviors, associates--isn't going to get you a conviction, at all. When you put these together, you get a different picture: we have a highly-circumstantial pattern of behavior that may or may not prove the suspect was a criminal, and the subject panicked and destroyed the thing that may have but was not certain to contain hard evidence proving that this behavior pattern was indeed linked to criminal activity. From all these inferences, we can strongly infer that the suspect was destroying evidence of some crime, for which we have a good outline of what that crime very well could be.
When you hear quacking, there may be a duck, or a TV. If you find feathers, there may be a duck, or a pillow. When you hear quacking and find feathers all over the fucking place, there is almost definitely a duck there somewhere, even if you can't find it; any other explanation involving there not being a duck is a bigger leap of logic than there being a duck somewhere in the area. US courts recognize these types of connected vague images, and overlay them until you develop a sufficiently clear picture that is sufficiently unlikely to be something else--which, really, if you find a dead body and a murder weapon in a bloke's house, all you have is a pretty fucking strong inference to go against an alternate theory of the mafia framing the guy, so it's the same thing: he's only probably guilty, but we're pretty fucking sure.
Which opens you up to all kinds of high circumstantial evidence prosecution. Evidence that you may have been involved in a crime coupled with a psychotic behavior in which you put your computer data at severe risk to handle an unexpected seizure? If they have weak evidence showing your involvement in a crime, the corroborating behavior provides circumstantial evidence supporting their weak evidence; either by itself may be inadmissible.
How much of those tasks are familiar to you because of their similarity to other things you're already familiar with? How much f(c) do you have to back up all that shit? Are you claiming that something utterly alien and highly complex can be learned immediately with no effort, or just that a new task recognizable and understandable using your existing knowledge is also easy to understand?
Modern cognitive science and genetic science both say there's no such thing as innate talent, in the same way that science says faith healing is a crock of shit.
There is no such thing as talent; there *is* such a thing as motivation, fueled by deep interest, often called passion, which leads a person to perceive vastly lowered effort in developing a skill, and thus put more time and energy into it, developing it further. Geniuses have piles of cognitive techniques--they learn to use the brain as a tool in the same way a woodworker learns to use a router to cut intricate joints and designs for carpentry--one of which includes dissecting and examining any topic to associate it with some goal they find *extremely* interesting, thus creating this motivation, eliminating the effort involved in learning anything.
Nobody has in-born talent. People are exposed to environment; if you give your kid watercolors as a tiny, tiny child and praise them for their artwork, they will feel important because of their painting ability, and will base their self-worth on visual and graphic art. Their whole life's motivation will be art, and they'll paint and draw and do all kinds of things, and develop incredible skills, and be said to be some kind of savant-level virtuoso with God-given talent implanted at birth.
If your monthly payment is 1000 and you pay an extra 50, you take 50 off the principle.
Each payment, you pay for accrued interest. You accrue like $980 of interest on that first payment, $979.93 on that second, etc.
If you pay $50 more on that first payment, you skip the immediate next payment. You have 1 fewer payment to make, and it's not that last payment where you pay $999 principle and $1 interest; you skip that second payment where you pay $20 principle and $980 interest.
The math is right. Use a mortgage amortizer, use the Pe^RT formula for compound interest, and look logically at how mortgages work--how the payment schedule works. It works the way it does because we've written laws about precomputed interest to make sure it works the way I say--it's illegal to precompute all of the interest up-front and make the person pay it all even if the pre-pay; interest must be compounded by the passage of time, instead of the prediction of time's passage.
Something tells me you're not a financial expert.
No, its still only the interest rate percentage return.
If I use the Pe^(RT) formula on $100 at 10% for 15 years, I get a much smaller value than the amount of total cost saved if I pay an extra $100 on a 10% mortgage with a $300,000 balance.
You're missing something: $100 in the bank gets 15 years of 10% interest compounding continuously on $100 (yes, banks pay simple interest; that's not the point). That means it's 1/365 of $100, then 1/365 of $100+$100/365, and so forth. Loans don't work that way.
With a loan, you accrue interest, and then pay down balance. If your early payments are $1053, and you accrue $1000 interest, you're only paying $50 in. Instead of getting 10% interest on $1053, you're paying $1053 to avoid paying 10% interest on $53. Month over month, that $1000 comes rolling in; but if you pay an extra $53, you skip a month--suddenly $53 is worth $1000.
For $53 to turn into $1000 over 30 years, the interest rate must 23.13%. For a $120,000 loan at 10% interest, your first payment will be $1053.09, with $1000 paying accrued interest, and $53.09 paying down balance; the first payment in the second year pays $994 interest and $58.64 balance. If you drop about $50-$60 into any of those first payments, you save $995-$1000.
$60 at 10% compounded continuously over 30 years is $489.29. $60 dropped into your very first loan payment at 10% saves you $1000. $1000 is bigger than $489.29; paying off long-term debt is bigger than holding continuously-compounding savings at the same interest rate for the same period.
I live in an area that has 106F summers and -16F winters.
Heating bill: $244/mo gas.
AC bill: I run a dehumidifier that costs me $60/mo; have considered switching to a window AC, or getting a small AC unit, to replace the dehumidifier.
Welcome to science! In 10 years, a lot of what we believe today will be somehow invalid bullshit!
Say it with me: current theory suggests....
I'm an engineer. When the entire field of cognitive science rolled over on its back for K. Anders Ericsson, I said, alright, the research is funny, but the conclusions are useful. So it's all fucked up, full of bullshit and misunderstood data. Ericsson's hundreds of papers and books all boil down to one thing: experts become experts by a principle he calls "deliberate practice", whereby a person must have goal-oriented, technique-focused practice strategies with constant and immediate feedback. Cognitive scientists now define "practice" as some sort of activity that GENERATES ERRORS, having decided you don't learn if you're not fucking it up.
So maybe they don't understand all this bullshit; but they understand now that the prior theory--10,000 hours of rote mechanical behavior to become skilled in something--was bullshit. As an engineer, I don't care that the new theory is full of holes; all I care about is they definitely know that time doesn't really correlate with expertise, except by the confounding of more types of activities occurring in longer time. If you've done something for 10 years, you'll have made and corrected for more mistakes in your career as if you've done it for 10 minutes. The new theory? You have to pick a technical facet of the skill, practice that directly, and do so in a manner that strains your abilities and forces you to make mistakes you can learn from. I'm on board with that, because it works; at least, it works better.
In 10, 20, 50, 100 years, they'll come out and say, hey, we figured out you're like 5 times more effective if you practice in this way, and that whole "deliberate practice" pseudotheory bullshit was just missing this key common behavior among practitioners of deliberate practice! I'll be like, hey, that's cool, we'll do that then, because it works better.
Current theory suggests playing complex songs you can already play on the piano day after day won't make you any better; playing difficult songs will make you better very slowly; and determining what piano musicmanship skills you're weak in and drilling them directly in a fashion demanding skill beyond yours such that you make mistakes of a nature you are able to identify and correct for *will* advance your skill *very* quickly. Maybe current theory is full of bullshit, but all of these statements are verifiable as true, and so I know how I'm practicing my skills.
Well, people have been getting STDs for thousands of years, too.
You pulled an appeal to tradition first. I made a brief summary of loincloth-wearing tribal man with witchdoctors and bones in their noses to complete the picture. Did you honestly think a well-known logical fallacy was a good argument?
People have been tattooing for thousands of years
Argument: Primitives will distinguish their primitive brains and retarded evolution via tattoos.
Counter-argument: ... none.
I look at the whole human body as an aesthetic. I'm not usually looking at women in a sexual way at first glance; the first things I notice are body shape, skin tone consistency (blotchy and ragged or smooth and soft?), hair, and so forth. I see a complete picture, a canvas I guess you could say, all these elements brought together to express the physical state of a person; it even goes so far as exactly how they move, what expressions they show, and, of course, what they're wearing.
After taking all that in, I decide what category of attractiveness she falls into, if she's sexually attractive, if she's intimidating, or whatnot. All the normal stuff. You'd be surprised how much sexual attraction falls squarely on a good smile, a good voice, body movement, the emotional regard of personality (yes, even for a sociopath with no real empathy). The first look is to see what image I'm looking at, how it flows, and how visually pleasing it is; the second is to see how I feel about it, if I want it, and what I want it for.
Tattoos are art. Unfortunately, they're the kind of art you get by printing out RWBY fanart and gluing it into the middle of a Van Gogh: maybe the artist has really good lines and anatomy, and the picture is really great, but it fucks up the Van Gogh.
I'll be bangin' 18 year olds when I'm 40, because the fad will finally be over and I can get some women whose skin doesn't have blue and black blotches like the fucking bubonic plague all over it.
Tattoos look nice, but they don't look nice on your body. It's like grabbing piles of cool shit and plastering it all together in a house: you have the ugliest fucking house in existence. If you would learn to theme it properly, you'd get a nice interior design. Problem: tattoos don't make for a nice body design; they're a blotch on your body. They make for nice pictures and fantastic decals on your car.
Aren't braces a temporary project to permanently make your teeth normal? Don't you have wisdom teeth pulled to make a minor deviation for the purpose of correcting a major one?
Adaptive project life cycle, a project life cycle, also known as change-driven or agile methods, that is intended to facilitate change and require a high degree of ongoing stakeholder involvement. Adaptive life cycles are also iterative and incremental, but differ in that iterations are very rapid (usually 2-4 weeks in length) and are fixed in time and resources.
PMBOK on Agile, which it terms "Adaptive project life cycle." It's just iterative and incremental in small bites, which can be planned and executed exactly like all other projects.
There are a lot of implications to fixed time and resource iterations. At the end of the month, anything that didn't make it has now exposed how far you can get in X time, rather than how much time it takes to produce X result. all risks and implications are factored based on this behavior. It's essentially your standard project management using iterative and incremental techniques, but paced to a metronome.
Every extra dollar you pay to reduce the principle on a loan is equivalent to taking that dollar and investing it with a rate of return equal to the interest rate on the loan.
False.
Every dollar you pay to reduce the balance of a loan is equivalent to investing with an instant return of the principle-to-interest ratio of the total payments that would naturally decrease that loan.
Let's say your next five $1000 payments each drop your loan balance by $20, $20.01, $20.03, $20.04, and $20.05. In common terms, these are your principle payments, and the rest is interest. Over the next five months, you will pay $5000; $100.13 will go to principle, and $4998.87 will go to interest.
If you pay $1080.13 this month, you'll skip the next 4 months. $100.13 will go to principle, and $980 will go to interest; for that $80.13 invested in your debt, you will have saved yourself $4018.87 in interest--a return of 5,000%!
You might argue that the loan is 30 years long, so it's only like 10% for 30 years--but that's only $1600, and the actual amount saved is 250% of that. Likewise, you've just reduced what you owe; keep it up and you'll have a 30 year mortgage paid off in 3 years (I did, and at 2.5% interest, making 4x or 5x payments each month). As well, you're paying interest on accrued interest: each month, you accrue a brand new $980-ish interest, which you are continuously compounding interest on until you make your payment; you're paying interest on the average $490, approximately, which is still bigger than that $80 you invested.
Any way you look at it, putting a small prepayment on a loan with a big balance reduces your debt--thus provides you income--a shitload bigger than that amount of money accruing interest over the life of the loan.