[citation needed]. This article says it's everyone under one roof, it doesn't say anything about "mommy, daddy and dependents".
"Household income is a measure of the combined incomes of all people sharing a particular household or place of residence."
The IRS has a definition closer to what the AC said: Household income is the modified adjusted gross income of you, your spouse (if filing jointly), and any dependents who are required to file a tax return.
How sumptuously vague. It could mean that it lasts as long as it lasts or that if your battery fails they have you assassinated.
The 2012 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid’s new battery warranty will reportedly last for the life of the car. “If the battery fails, the company will replace it and take care of any recycling costs,” Cars.com reports." More here.
If the word "reportedly" makes you queasy, there's this, straight from Hyundai: The Lifetime Hybrid Battery Warranty applies to all U.S. 2012-2016 model-year Sonata Hybrids. The Lifetime Hybrid Battery Warranty ensures that if the lithium polymer battery fails, Hyundai will replace the battery and cover recycling costs for the old battery free of charge to the original owner. The Lifetime Hybrid Battery Warranty excludes coverage for vehicles placed in commercial use (e.g., taxi, route delivery, rental, etc.).
Also, if you sell the car, the next owner gets an additional 10 years/100,000 mile warranty on the battery.
For example, we could (and did) predict a network like the internet, but no one really understood what it would be like to be connected to everything all the time.
Get yourself a copy of John Brunner's The Shockwave Rider (1976). You're in for a treat.
This has strayed a bit from the original point: the AC said he'd rather retire early than have a new phone every two or three years. So the question is, "How much earlier can you retire if you invest the $1000 you would otherwise spend on new phones every three years," with the implication that either (1) the return on investing the money would make up for income lost due to retiring early (i.e., it would replace the wages you don't get paid because you're not working); or, (2) the return on investment would make up for decreased Social Security benefits due to retiring before Full Retirement Age (currently 66).
In the first case, the answer depends on your current salary. If you're a highly paid professional, it's going to be much less than a year; probably less than six months. If you're making minimum wage, it could be up to four years. Of course, if you're making minimum wage, you're probably not buying $1000 phones to start with, and it would be quite a struggle to invest any amount for retirement.
In the second case, the answer depends on your Full Retirement Age benefit. If you've been maxing out on your Social Security taxes for the past 35 years (not unusual for well-compensate professionals), you'll receive the maximum benefit, which this year is $32,244/year. The $2800/year return on your "no cell-phone" investment is 8.7% of your SS benefit. Retiring one year early decreases your SS benefit by 6.7%, so you're ahead. Two years early means a 13.3% decrease, so you've lost money. The average Full Retirement Age benefit is $16,104 this year. $2800 is 17% of that, so you can retire two years early and be ahead of the game, but 3 years means a 20% SS benefit hit, so you lose money.
Something many people with dreams of early retirement don't consider: if you find that you can't get by on your retirement income and decide to go back to work to ease the pain, you will pay a very substantial penalty in the form of decreased Social Security benefits.
So, is going without a shiny new phone every 3 years for 40 years worth the financial payback? If you think so, by all means go for it.
At retirement age, depending on how good finances were otherwise (mortgage paid off? No debt?), given current costs, that should last more than a year, but I'd say at least a year.
If you spend it all in a year or so, it's gone. Most financial advisors say you shouldn't withdraw more than 4% per year, which in this case works out to less than $2800/year. Also, don't forget the taxes due when you withdraw from that IRA. Depending on other sources of income (pension, Social Security, other investment income) you'll lose 15% to 25%. Been there, done that.
Are you kidding? $1000 * interest for 40 years + $1000 * interest for 37 years + $1000 * interest for 34 years... if you think that total cost from potential retirement savings is anywhere near $13k, you need to revisit econ 101.
I said if he put it in an IRA, not his mattress, but I'll play along. $333 per year for 40 years at 7% compounded annually comes out to about $66,500. So again, how many months?
My nice thing will be an early retirement. Let me know when your expensive upgraded every year iphone/pixel does that for you.
A 25 year old who buys a new $1000 phone every three years will have spent $13,000 on phones by the time he retires at age 65. How much earlier could he have retired if he'd put that in an IRA instead? A few months?
A number up / down box serves the exact same thing and is smaller
The exact same thing? I don't think so. If the number box offers integers from 0 to 10 and I want 4.3, I'm out of luck. If the box offers decimal fractions from 0 to 10 in increments of 0.1, the list is 'way too long.
I deleted my FB account 6 months ago. And, I mean I *DELETED* it.. I didn't "deactivate" it.
This week I found out that Facebook is still showing my old profile picture to people in People You May Know and encouraging them to send me an email asking me to join.
So, I guess you can never really quit Facebook.
No; you can quit Facebook. But Facebook will never, ever quit you.
Nope. It's the way of things. Whether you Admititornot.
It's the Progressives who only respect a right when it benefits them.
Nope. The way it works is that Conservatives make claims about Progressives, expect us to ignore what they've said and done, and then mysteriously, expect us not to notice the rank hypocrisy that they possess themselves as they do what they want to do anyway.
It is part of their false virtues. When it comes down to it, I'd respect somebody who admitted what they were doing, rather than try to cloak it in sanctimony like Conservatives do.
Privacy is enshrined in the 4th Amendment as any US Conservative will tell you.
The 4th amendment, according to Conservatives only limits the government in its searches, providing no other protection, but you know this since...
We may admit that it's not as all encompassing a protected right as some would like.
Oh good, you admit your principles, if not as earnestly as you might have.
But it is there in our "Precious" Bill of Rights and it most certainly does exist.
Not according to Conservative thought. It isn't there at all. They wouldn't have a problem with this kind of ID, though fortunately, their own abusive acts keep losing in court.
I think both of you missed the point. The fact that the Constitution does not address privacy as a specific right does not mean privacy is not a right. From the 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
It's a right given to you by the government. What's so difficult to understand about that?
It's a right given to you by the government. What's so difficult to understand about that?
The part about it not being true is what makes it difficult to understand. The First Amendment to the US Constitution does not give you freedom of speech; it prohibits Congress from making laws that infringe on your freedom of speech.
Yup, an abusive moderator has censored this post to -1 rather than addressing the points raised within it. This is further evidence as to why moderation should be removed from Slashdot.
Well, the post to which you refer was almost entirely opinion stated as fact, which is enough to earn a downmod. With regard to "moderators don't post in stories because it will undo the moderation", I have moderated and posted (as AC) in the same story many times, and I suspect many others have as well.
Interesting, as both could be depicted in a simplified way by a plain circle.
The Hula Hoop, sure. But the Frisbee is not a "plain circle"; in cross-section it's an airfoil, and it generates lift when traveling horizontally. Very clever in its simplicity.
Trademarks have been lost in the past because they have came to describe a product rather than its source. I think Frizbee is one of those: everyone knows what a frizbee is, even if it isn't made by the Frizbee Corp.
It's spelled, "Frisbee", and yes, it's a registered trademark of the Wham-O Toy Company. If a competitor advertised their own flying disc as a "frisbee", Wham-O would undoubtedly take legal action. Wham-O also owns the trademark for Hula Hoop.
One of the things companies do to prevent the loss of trademarks through genericization is to place messages in trade magazines targeted toward journalists, reminding them to include the trademark symbol when writing about trademarked items. That's enough to prevent loss of the mark.
Well, actually there is, and you'd know that "copyright abandonment" is a term of law if you'd troubled yourself to do 15 seconds of research to find out your impression was mistaken. However, failure to defend a copyright does not constitute abandonment; abandonment requires an explicit release of the copyrighted material by the copyright holder. Go ahead, search on "copyright abandonment". It won't hurt much.
We don't need a law against this, you need to control yourself and your kids.
Not advocating for this supposed law, but let me guess: you've never had kids. Young children, no matter how well they're raised, have terrible judgement, no common sense, high levels of curiosity, and make a huge number of mistakes. This is how human beings learn. I suppose a parent could "control" a child by draconian means, but then the child would turn into a useless, dangerous adult.
Interesting statistics. Also interesting that in Canada, with it's highly socialized health care system, the rate of medical bankruptcy is half of America's under the ACA. Why isn't it almost zero? Oh, that's because in both cases, loss of income due to illness is part of medical bankruptcy statistics. In other words, if you break your leg the medical costs won't bankrupt you, but staying home from work for a couple of months just might. Guess they need AFLAC.
At any rate, I'm still confident confident that no one in the US has died or gone bankrupt because they were on vacation when their blood pressure appointment rolled around.
Slashdot Mirror
[citation needed]. This article says it's everyone under one roof, it doesn't say anything about "mommy, daddy and dependents".
"Household income is a measure of the combined incomes of all people sharing a particular household or place of residence."
The IRS has a definition closer to what the AC said: Household income is the modified adjusted gross income of you, your spouse (if filing jointly), and any dependents who are required to file a tax return.
How sumptuously vague. It could mean that it lasts as long as it lasts or that if your battery fails they have you assassinated.
The 2012 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid’s new battery warranty will reportedly last for the life of the car. “If the battery fails, the company will replace it and take care of any recycling costs,” Cars.com reports." More here.
If the word "reportedly" makes you queasy, there's this, straight from Hyundai: The Lifetime Hybrid Battery Warranty applies to all U.S. 2012-2016 model-year Sonata Hybrids. The Lifetime Hybrid Battery Warranty ensures that if the lithium polymer battery fails, Hyundai will replace the battery and cover recycling costs for the old battery free of charge to the original owner. The Lifetime Hybrid Battery Warranty excludes coverage for vehicles placed in commercial use (e.g., taxi, route delivery, rental, etc.).
Also, if you sell the car, the next owner gets an additional 10 years/100,000 mile warranty on the battery.
For example, we could (and did) predict a network like the internet, but no one really understood what it would be like to be connected to everything all the time.
Get yourself a copy of John Brunner's The Shockwave Rider (1976). You're in for a treat.
Inanimate objects and software can't be good or evil
Land mines and malware would like a word with you.
This has strayed a bit from the original point: the AC said he'd rather retire early than have a new phone every two or three years. So the question is, "How much earlier can you retire if you invest the $1000 you would otherwise spend on new phones every three years," with the implication that either (1) the return on investing the money would make up for income lost due to retiring early (i.e., it would replace the wages you don't get paid because you're not working); or, (2) the return on investment would make up for decreased Social Security benefits due to retiring before Full Retirement Age (currently 66).
In the first case, the answer depends on your current salary. If you're a highly paid professional, it's going to be much less than a year; probably less than six months. If you're making minimum wage, it could be up to four years. Of course, if you're making minimum wage, you're probably not buying $1000 phones to start with, and it would be quite a struggle to invest any amount for retirement.
In the second case, the answer depends on your Full Retirement Age benefit. If you've been maxing out on your Social Security taxes for the past 35 years (not unusual for well-compensate professionals), you'll receive the maximum benefit, which this year is $32,244/year. The $2800/year return on your "no cell-phone" investment is 8.7% of your SS benefit. Retiring one year early decreases your SS benefit by 6.7%, so you're ahead. Two years early means a 13.3% decrease, so you've lost money. The average Full Retirement Age benefit is $16,104 this year. $2800 is 17% of that, so you can retire two years early and be ahead of the game, but 3 years means a 20% SS benefit hit, so you lose money.
Something many people with dreams of early retirement don't consider: if you find that you can't get by on your retirement income and decide to go back to work to ease the pain, you will pay a very substantial penalty in the form of decreased Social Security benefits.
So, is going without a shiny new phone every 3 years for 40 years worth the financial payback? If you think so, by all means go for it.
At retirement age, depending on how good finances were otherwise (mortgage paid off? No debt?), given current costs, that should last more than a year, but I'd say at least a year.
If you spend it all in a year or so, it's gone. Most financial advisors say you shouldn't withdraw more than 4% per year, which in this case works out to less than $2800/year. Also, don't forget the taxes due when you withdraw from that IRA. Depending on other sources of income (pension, Social Security, other investment income) you'll lose 15% to 25%. Been there, done that.
Are you kidding? $1000 * interest for 40 years + $1000 * interest for 37 years + $1000 * interest for 34 years... if you think that total cost from potential retirement savings is anywhere near $13k, you need to revisit econ 101.
I said if he put it in an IRA, not his mattress, but I'll play along. $333 per year for 40 years at 7% compounded annually comes out to about $66,500. So again, how many months?
My nice thing will be an early retirement. Let me know when your expensive upgraded every year iphone/pixel does that for you.
A 25 year old who buys a new $1000 phone every three years will have spent $13,000 on phones by the time he retires at age 65. How much earlier could he have retired if he'd put that in an IRA instead? A few months?
your restaurant only serves dead animal chunks like cavemen
I haven't been able to find a restaurant that has cavemen on the menu. Do you know of any in the Los Angeles metro area?
Like Mormons!
HaHaHaHaHa!!! Exactly like Mormons! I dropped out 40 years ago, and I still get visits from the home teachers.
A number up / down box serves the exact same thing and is smaller
The exact same thing? I don't think so. If the number box offers integers from 0 to 10 and I want 4.3, I'm out of luck. If the box offers decimal fractions from 0 to 10 in increments of 0.1, the list is 'way too long.
I deleted my FB account 6 months ago. And, I mean I *DELETED* it.. I didn't "deactivate" it.
This week I found out that Facebook is still showing my old profile picture to people in People You May Know and encouraging them to send me an email asking me to join.
So, I guess you can never really quit Facebook.
No; you can quit Facebook. But Facebook will never, ever quit you.
Once we became aware of this situation
Translation: once we became aware that we'd been caught doing this
Nope you have it backwards.
Nope. It's the way of things. Whether you Admit it or not.
It's the Progressives who only respect a right when it benefits them.
Nope. The way it works is that Conservatives make claims about Progressives, expect us to ignore what they've said and done, and then mysteriously, expect us not to notice the rank hypocrisy that they possess themselves as they do what they want to do anyway.
It is part of their false virtues. When it comes down to it, I'd respect somebody who admitted what they were doing, rather than try to cloak it in sanctimony like Conservatives do.
Privacy is enshrined in the 4th Amendment as any US Conservative will tell you.
The 4th amendment, according to Conservatives only limits the government in its searches, providing no other protection, but you know this since...
We may admit that it's not as all encompassing a protected right as some would like.
Oh good, you admit your principles, if not as earnestly as you might have.
But it is there in our "Precious" Bill of Rights and it most certainly does exist.
Not according to Conservative thought. It isn't there at all. They wouldn't have a problem with this kind of ID, though fortunately, their own abusive acts keep losing in court.
I think both of you missed the point. The fact that the Constitution does not address privacy as a specific right does not mean privacy is not a right. From the 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
It's a right given to you by the government. What's so difficult to understand about that?
It's a right given to you by the government. What's so difficult to understand about that?
The part about it not being true is what makes it difficult to understand. The First Amendment to the US Constitution does not give you freedom of speech; it prohibits Congress from making laws that infringe on your freedom of speech.
Yup, an abusive moderator has censored this post to -1 rather than addressing the points raised within it. This is further evidence as to why moderation should be removed from Slashdot.
Well, the post to which you refer was almost entirely opinion stated as fact, which is enough to earn a downmod. With regard to "moderators don't post in stories because it will undo the moderation", I have moderated and posted (as AC) in the same story many times, and I suspect many others have as well.
... particularly when that basket is connected to the Internet.
And when that basket is full of deplorables.
Interesting, as both could be depicted in a simplified way by a plain circle.
The Hula Hoop, sure. But the Frisbee is not a "plain circle"; in cross-section it's an airfoil, and it generates lift when traveling horizontally. Very clever in its simplicity.
Trademarks have been lost in the past because they have came to describe a product rather than its source. I think Frizbee is one of those: everyone knows what a frizbee is, even if it isn't made by the Frizbee Corp.
It's spelled, "Frisbee", and yes, it's a registered trademark of the Wham-O Toy Company. If a competitor advertised their own flying disc as a "frisbee", Wham-O would undoubtedly take legal action. Wham-O also owns the trademark for Hula Hoop.
One of the things companies do to prevent the loss of trademarks through genericization is to place messages in trade magazines targeted toward journalists, reminding them to include the trademark symbol when writing about trademarked items. That's enough to prevent loss of the mark.
There is no "abandonment" in copyright.
Well, actually there is, and you'd know that "copyright abandonment" is a term of law if you'd troubled yourself to do 15 seconds of research to find out your impression was mistaken. However, failure to defend a copyright does not constitute abandonment; abandonment requires an explicit release of the copyrighted material by the copyright holder. Go ahead, search on "copyright abandonment". It won't hurt much.
We don't need a law against this, you need to control yourself and your kids.
Not advocating for this supposed law, but let me guess: you've never had kids. Young children, no matter how well they're raised, have terrible judgement, no common sense, high levels of curiosity, and make a huge number of mistakes. This is how human beings learn. I suppose a parent could "control" a child by draconian means, but then the child would turn into a useless, dangerous adult.
This is just more fake news from Microsoft.
I'm tired of the term "fake news". Can't we just go back to calling it "bullshit" like we did in the good old days?
Interesting statistics. Also interesting that in Canada, with it's highly socialized health care system, the rate of medical bankruptcy is half of America's under the ACA. Why isn't it almost zero? Oh, that's because in both cases, loss of income due to illness is part of medical bankruptcy statistics. In other words, if you break your leg the medical costs won't bankrupt you, but staying home from work for a couple of months just might. Guess they need AFLAC.
At any rate, I'm still confident confident that no one in the US has died or gone bankrupt because they were on vacation when their blood pressure appointment rolled around.
I'll see your Crispin Glover, Kevin James, Seth Rogen, and raise you Melissa McCarthy, Jennifer Hudson, and Gabourey Sidibe.
Why do I gain weight when I drink water if it doesn't have calories?
Weigh yourself. Drink 16 oz. of water. Weigh yourself again -- you've gained a pound. Magic, I tell you!