I like how your third and fourth facts can be disproved by your second fact.:) If one can't make the assumption that CFLs are as pleasant as regular light, one also can't make the assumption that CFLs do or do not buzz.
A buzz can be measured by impersonal equipment.
As far as environmentalists go, they come in all varieties, and often have different reasons for supporting or not supporting issues.
But an environmentalist qua environmentalist must want to protect the environment. If he throws in some other motive for why incandescents must be banned, he's not doing it out of concern for the environment.
My fourth point makes no assumptions about consciousness, just what someone must support to meet a definition.
Myth: CFL's help the environment. Fact: CFL's reduce one instance of energy use; they don't stop foreigners from gobbling up the energy you didn't use, and they don't stop you from spending the savings on things that use energy. cf. Jevons paradox
Myth: CFL's are just as pleasant as regular light. Fact: State of the art technology does not currently permit direct experience of another's consciousness.
Myth: CFL's don't buzz. Fact: How about uninstalling your car's subwoofers and seeing an audiologist? Wikipedia's CFL page, mainly edited by CFL fanatics, admits this.
Myth: Environmentalists promote CFL's to protect the environment. Fact: Environmentalists promote incandescent bans to have control over others. If they wanted to protect the environment, they wouldn't care how you save energy, just that the harms are abated, and a tax on CO2 does this with minimal inconvenience for all parties. Why won't they leave it at that?
Why charge a fee when selling the device (which does nothing on its own) instead of on the energy used to run it then?
Er, that's exactly what I meant: don't tax the device; tax the actual bad you're looking to abate: the C02 emissions when the energy is produced.
And if you're going to use taxation to influence behavior, why not go all out? Do what CA is doing and ban the activity you disapprove of....
Calm down. The justification for taxing CO2 emissions has nothing to do with personal preferences and everything to do with the abating the harms to other unconsenting victims (*if* the estimates are right, which is a rather imporant "if").
I replied to a child poster, but because I'm really interested in your response and want to make sure you see it:
Switching jobs rapidly significantly lowers your credit score as well as making lenders think you're a flake, which will push the APR on any money you borrow through the roof.
It *will* push your APR through the roof, and lenders will think you're a flake, but it won't specifically impact your credit score. (So sayeth Fair Isaac.)
If you don't use credit, that's not a problem
You can't not use credit. If you (as I) prefer to live in apartments rather than have a mortgage, they still check your credit, believe it or not, and even paying the full rent upfront or in escrow (which I could do if I felt like it) will not assuage their fears of abandoning the place with damage. Credit scores are being used in more and more places these days.
you can borrow money under the rate of inflation it's a huge benefit.
How do you borrow under inflation rate? Which inflation rate are you using?
Even when you put down securities as collateral in twice the value of the loan, you're still borrowing at the prime rate (8%) or above. Ditto for a HE loan.
Many employee benefits (401K matching, long-term incentives, etc.) don't vest unless you're with a company for 3-5 years, so switching jobs often can incur a hidden cost of tens of thousands of dollars per year. You probably won't see this immediately on your paycheck but you'll feel it at retirement time.
Some 401k's have minimum matching contrib. holding times before you can switch to another investment, but a) these are rapidly going away, and b) they always end when you leave the job. As for other long-term incentives, I can only think of a) stock options, and b) defined benefit plans, which are both becoming undesirable, a) because of accounting scandals and b) because of a long list of problems with them I won't burden you with.
How about mandating a level of efficiency rather than assuming that innovation can't happen?
How about charging for the abatement costs ($3 per ton of CO2 or whatever) and let people decide for themselves what activities are still worth it?
Remember efficiency is the ratio of value provided per input required. I accept that you can know the latter, but since you can't know the former, you can't really know what's inefficient for any on person.
Charging by the *output* you want to get rid of would cover all existing uses of energy and all future as-of-yet unknown energy uses, instead of scapegoating those who like incandescent light for the high energy consumption of Mr. and Mrs. Howmuchamonth in their giant home in suburbia.
Give me a break. Someone lacking the liberal arts education required up through a four-year program is a "mindless drone" who is unaware of "things beyond the end of their nose"?
Again, I agree these things are great to have, but it's a matter of prioritization. Do you really support holding all kinds of productive people off the market, dependent, deep in debt at an unnecessarily young age to avoid the horrors of insufficient Shakespeare appreciation?
How about the fact that most people have to go through 17+ years of education to do one of these jobs (k-12 + 4-year program) even though you clearly don't need that much training? Plus either get someone else to pay for it or go deep in debt at an early age. Most of the education system has very little to do with your job, and everything to do with ID'ing yourself as in the x-th percentile of intelligence, because employers can't run such tests themselves.
I mean, it's great to learn all that extra stuff, get new "perspectives", be "well-rounded", etc. I won't deny that at all. But isn't it more important that you be able to live independently first, in a job commensurate with your abilities?
I think the GP erred, but his essential point remains. Your job history, or lack of one, does not affect your credit score, believe it or not. So in that respect, you're right. However, lenders look at more than just your credit score, and in that respect, jumping around will increase the interest rate they'll offer.
That said, how do you borrow under the inflation rate? Please, please tell me. And this better not be "Oh, I mean the *real* inflation rate of 8%." At least, don't say that without telling me which basket of securities tracks inflation by that calculation;-)
Right. See, the thing is, my credit is *unranked*. That's worse than bad credit.
So I didn't take on debt before? That means I'm more likely to default.
So I've paid bills (rent, cable, electric, insurance, etc.) for three years? Doesn't matter.
So the debt would be my only debt and less than a quarter of my gross (1/6 at a normal rate)? Doesn't matter.
Apparently, if over that time, I had put those EXACT SAME PAYMENTS on a credit card and paid it off, that would reveal that I am a much better credit risk.
Can you see why I'm pissed?
Can you see why I like hearing about lenders going under because of bad loans?
Well, at the very least, one string is that you're on the government dole.
But I suspect there are more: what tactics does the government use to enforce it? Does it check this against other databases? Does it have higher priority against other loans, hurting your credit rating?
Quite frankly, if you have 6 years of rent in the bank,
It's not in a bank, it's in mutual funds. (It sounds like a nitpick but "bank" implies "low-yield, will not lose value". Only an idiot would keep that much in the bank.)
you might want o looka t buying a house or condo.
Why?
If you go to a mortgage broker, they will be able to set you up with a finance person. They can tell you all kinds of ways the bank can lend you money.
Right -- the best offer I got from a bank was 80% financing with 9.75% 3-year adjustable. (Credit union was more reasonable.)
To answer your question, buying a home is the best way to establish credit.
? You need credit to buy a home. A LOT of it. Or at least, if you're me. (Everyone else seems to have it easy because they took on debt before.)
I have never had a co-signer.
How did you establish credit for the first apartment?
I used to work on software that implemented credit calculation for one of the largest credit agencies.
Well, with all due respect, that software sucks.
Look at the crunch going on in subprime loans.
Look at the best offer I got on a home loan, despite the fact that even at the higher rate, it would be less than a quarter of my gross, and my only debt.
Look at all the things you can do to increase your credit that say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about your likelihood of default. (Get a credit card you never pay interest on.)
Look at all the things that hurt your credit that say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about your likelihood of default. (Shop around for a loan.)
Well then I have a question. I didn't get a credit card until age 24, specifically because of all the consumer advisor shows that say not to.
Then I found out that this basically means you're a ghost for non-credit card transactions, like electricity and renting an apartment.
Yep, I have enough verifiable liquid assets saved up to pay about 6 years of rent, and still I have to get a cosigner.
What do you do to establish credit for those kinds of things, plus mortgages if you've gotten one? (Yes, I'm aware that you can have an employment history or simply have mommy and daddy cosign. If you do, that must take real balls, shoving off the SSN privacy violation you consider horrible, onto your parents.)
I thought the main complaint about immigrants was that they don't give anything back.
Well, when it comes to big businesses, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't:
-Bank of America gives CC's to illegals.:
"OMG j00 are teh violatign teh immigration rulzorz!"
-Bank of America refuses to give CC's illegals.:
"OMG y wont j00 extend tehm credit just bcuz tehy are from teh DIFFREN COUNTRY!!!!!!111"
Oh, and just a nitpick: from what I read here, they're not *specifically* giving cards to illegals, just to people without a SSN. (I know, I know, "Yeah, and let me guess: you're not a mail-order bride pimp, you're a foreign romance counselor, right?")
Aren't those designed to only be using power when charging a controller? And wouldn't that power have to be spent regardless, to charge the controller?
Why not ban the PS3? After all, it's wasteful, since (like with incandescents) human enjoyment of PS3s either:
a) counts for nothing b) can be outright denied (mindmelds FTW) c) does not currently replace some other, more wasteful energy use, or d) has such a high environmental impact not even a huge tax could outweight the SEVERE HARMS of using it.
Right? Is that right out of the "ban incandescents" playbook?
Currently, central banks are trusted not to inflate their currencies to nothing, without being forced. In fact, this trust is quite strong. The Chinese government has invested a significant amount of revenues in long-term, low-yield U.S. government bonds, even though inflation slightly higher than historical averages would completely screw them over.
Unlike fiat currencies, however, Linden Dollars *are* redeemable on demand for certain goods, at least from what I remember when I played. Specifically, to teleport, rent land, bring an item into the world, or take a screenshot, you have to pay LD's. You don't just use them for buying from other players. So if Linden Labs did inflate its currency, it would have to "back" that inflation with increased capacity for storing in-game items.
In contrast, the guarantor of Federal Reserve notes (US Dollars) has long since suspended any promise that you can redeem goods from it on demand.
In simple words, what he has said was that human brain is futile. Any effort to understand nature/God through reasoning and thought is a waste of time.
Oh, you mean kinda like trendy philosophy profs at American universities today?
Ultimately, humans have free will and choose their own actions.
Well, hey, glad we got that controversy patched up.
Philosophy of mind scholars: y'all can get real jobs now.:-P
I agree with you, but it's hardly indisputable. (As long as you mean humans *at least at some times* have free will.) There are some good points you made that I want to highlight, though:
Saying someone is "born bad" is equivilant to saying that they have been possessed by Satan.
This is a reminder to all those who associate belief in free will, with religion: it's a two-way street.
When you argue that people are "born bad" or otherwise don't have free will, you're arguing that all these people are wasting their time. That they will never overcome their difficulties and they should either give up an committ a crime, cause trouble, go insane or just kill themselves. That is a flawed assumption. We all have the power to change our own lifes, and to alter the course of our lives.
I want to add that the implication of "no free will" is not "no punishment" but "...". If there really is no free will, ever, then the question of what "should" be done to criminals is moot. No one will ever actually make a choice, including those setting the law!
I think we need a new term instead of "environmentalist". Basically, in a sense, everyone's an environmentalist. They don't want to breathe smelly air and they don't want the planet to become uninabitable. But that's not what people intend when they refer to "the environmentalists". What people actually have in mind is "someone favoring hampering economic activity as long as that also helps some environmental concern that most people don't share".
What's a name we can use, just for that group? "Anti-growther"? "Static worlder"? "Pretenser"? "Ecotraditionalist"?
Slashdot Mirror
I like how your third and fourth facts can be disproved by your second fact. :) If one can't make the assumption that CFLs are as pleasant as regular light, one also can't make the assumption that CFLs do or do not buzz.
A buzz can be measured by impersonal equipment.
As far as environmentalists go, they come in all varieties, and often have different reasons for supporting or not supporting issues.
But an environmentalist qua environmentalist must want to protect the environment. If he throws in some other motive for why incandescents must be banned, he's not doing it out of concern for the environment.
My fourth point makes no assumptions about consciousness, just what someone must support to meet a definition.
Oooh, I've got some myths of my own:
Myth: CFL's help the environment.
Fact: CFL's reduce one instance of energy use; they don't stop foreigners from gobbling up the energy you didn't use, and they don't stop you from spending the savings on things that use energy. cf. Jevons paradox
Myth: CFL's are just as pleasant as regular light.
Fact: State of the art technology does not currently permit direct experience of another's consciousness.
Myth: CFL's don't buzz.
Fact: How about uninstalling your car's subwoofers and seeing an audiologist? Wikipedia's CFL page, mainly edited by CFL fanatics, admits this.
Myth: Environmentalists promote CFL's to protect the environment.
Fact: Environmentalists promote incandescent bans to have control over others. If they wanted to protect the environment, they wouldn't care how you save energy, just that the harms are abated, and a tax on CO2 does this with minimal inconvenience for all parties. Why won't they leave it at that?
Why charge a fee when selling the device (which does nothing on its own) instead of on the energy used to run it then?
...
Er, that's exactly what I meant: don't tax the device; tax the actual bad you're looking to abate: the C02 emissions when the energy is produced.
And if you're going to use taxation to influence behavior, why not go all out? Do what CA is doing and ban the activity you disapprove of.
Calm down. The justification for taxing CO2 emissions has nothing to do with personal preferences and everything to do with the abating the harms to other unconsenting victims (*if* the estimates are right, which is a rather imporant "if").
I replied to a child poster, but because I'm really interested in your response and want to make sure you see it:
Switching jobs rapidly significantly lowers your credit score as well as making lenders think you're a flake, which will push the APR on any money you borrow through the roof.
It *will* push your APR through the roof, and lenders will think you're a flake, but it won't specifically impact your credit score. (So sayeth Fair Isaac.)
If you don't use credit, that's not a problem
You can't not use credit. If you (as I) prefer to live in apartments rather than have a mortgage, they still check your credit, believe it or not, and even paying the full rent upfront or in escrow (which I could do if I felt like it) will not assuage their fears of abandoning the place with damage. Credit scores are being used in more and more places these days.
you can borrow money under the rate of inflation it's a huge benefit.
How do you borrow under inflation rate? Which inflation rate are you using?
Even when you put down securities as collateral in twice the value of the loan, you're still borrowing at the prime rate (8%) or above. Ditto for a HE loan.
Many employee benefits (401K matching, long-term incentives, etc.) don't vest unless you're with a company for 3-5 years, so switching jobs often can incur a hidden cost of tens of thousands of dollars per year. You probably won't see this immediately on your paycheck but you'll feel it at retirement time.
Some 401k's have minimum matching contrib. holding times before you can switch to another investment, but a) these are rapidly going away, and b) they always end when you leave the job. As for other long-term incentives, I can only think of a) stock options, and b) defined benefit plans, which are both becoming undesirable, a) because of accounting scandals and b) because of a long list of problems with them I won't burden you with.
How about mandating a level of efficiency rather than assuming that innovation can't happen?
How about charging for the abatement costs ($3 per ton of CO2 or whatever) and let people decide for themselves what activities are still worth it?
Remember efficiency is the ratio of value provided per input required. I accept that you can know the latter, but since you can't know the former, you can't really know what's inefficient for any on person.
Charging by the *output* you want to get rid of would cover all existing uses of energy and all future as-of-yet unknown energy uses, instead of scapegoating those who like incandescent light for the high energy consumption of Mr. and Mrs. Howmuchamonth in their giant home in suburbia.
Give me a break. Someone lacking the liberal arts education required up through a four-year program is a "mindless drone" who is unaware of "things beyond the end of their nose"?
Again, I agree these things are great to have, but it's a matter of prioritization. Do you really support holding all kinds of productive people off the market, dependent, deep in debt at an unnecessarily young age to avoid the horrors of insufficient Shakespeare appreciation?
How about the fact that most people have to go through 17+ years of education to do one of these jobs (k-12 + 4-year program) even though you clearly don't need that much training? Plus either get someone else to pay for it or go deep in debt at an early age. Most of the education system has very little to do with your job, and everything to do with ID'ing yourself as in the x-th percentile of intelligence, because employers can't run such tests themselves.
I mean, it's great to learn all that extra stuff, get new "perspectives", be "well-rounded", etc. I won't deny that at all. But isn't it more important that you be able to live independently first, in a job commensurate with your abilities?
I think the GP erred, but his essential point remains. Your job history, or lack of one, does not affect your credit score, believe it or not. So in that respect, you're right. However, lenders look at more than just your credit score, and in that respect, jumping around will increase the interest rate they'll offer.
;-)
That said, how do you borrow under the inflation rate? Please, please tell me. And this better not be "Oh, I mean the *real* inflation rate of 8%." At least, don't say that without telling me which basket of securities tracks inflation by that calculation
Yeah, when I played SL back in '03, it was rather easy to learn LSL. If you know C++, you're basically set.
First thing I did was make a listening bug to spy on people. Hope they've handled that problem since I left...
Open source Windows! Open source Windows!
...)
(okay, probably not the first
No, it's still ideal for porn. After all, what else does one call the thing, but a:
Fully-automated Universal Construction Kit
My credit rating is very high.
Right. See, the thing is, my credit is *unranked*. That's worse than bad credit.
So I didn't take on debt before? That means I'm more likely to default.
So I've paid bills (rent, cable, electric, insurance, etc.) for three years? Doesn't matter.
So the debt would be my only debt and less than a quarter of my gross (1/6 at a normal rate)? Doesn't matter.
Apparently, if over that time, I had put those EXACT SAME PAYMENTS on a credit card and paid it off, that would reveal that I am a much better credit risk.
Can you see why I'm pissed?
Can you see why I like hearing about lenders going under because of bad loans?
Well, at the very least, one string is that you're on the government dole.
But I suspect there are more: what tactics does the government use to enforce it? Does it check this against other databases? Does it have higher priority against other loans, hurting your credit rating?
Are you talking about the FHA welfare loans with strings attached?
I did use my SSN when buying a house,
Oh, so I guess using the SSN isn't so bad, is it?
Quite frankly, if you have 6 years of rent in the bank,
It's not in a bank, it's in mutual funds. (It sounds like a nitpick but "bank" implies "low-yield, will not lose value". Only an idiot would keep that much in the bank.)
you might want o looka t buying a house or condo.
Why?
If you go to a mortgage broker, they will be able to set you up with a finance person. They can tell you all kinds of ways the bank can lend you money.
Right -- the best offer I got from a bank was 80% financing with 9.75% 3-year adjustable. (Credit union was more reasonable.)
To answer your question, buying a home is the best way to establish credit.
? You need credit to buy a home. A LOT of it. Or at least, if you're me. (Everyone else seems to have it easy because they took on debt before.)
I have never had a co-signer.
How did you establish credit for the first apartment?
I used to work on software that implemented credit calculation for one of the largest credit agencies.
Well, with all due respect, that software sucks.
Look at the crunch going on in subprime loans.
Look at the best offer I got on a home loan, despite the fact that even at the higher rate, it would be less than a quarter of my gross, and my only debt.
Look at all the things you can do to increase your credit that say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about your likelihood of default. (Get a credit card you never pay interest on.)
Look at all the things that hurt your credit that say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about your likelihood of default. (Shop around for a loan.)
Well then I have a question. I didn't get a credit card until age 24, specifically because of all the consumer advisor shows that say not to.
Then I found out that this basically means you're a ghost for non-credit card transactions, like electricity and renting an apartment.
Yep, I have enough verifiable liquid assets saved up to pay about 6 years of rent, and still I have to get a cosigner.
What do you do to establish credit for those kinds of things, plus mortgages if you've gotten one? (Yes, I'm aware that you can have an employment history or simply have mommy and daddy cosign. If you do, that must take real balls, shoving off the SSN privacy violation you consider horrible, onto your parents.)
I thought the main complaint about immigrants was that they don't give anything back.
Well, when it comes to big businesses, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't:
-Bank of America gives CC's to illegals.:
"OMG j00 are teh violatign teh immigration rulzorz!"
-Bank of America refuses to give CC's illegals.:
"OMG y wont j00 extend tehm credit just bcuz tehy are from teh DIFFREN COUNTRY!!!!!!111"
Oh, and just a nitpick: from what I read here, they're not *specifically* giving cards to illegals, just to people without a SSN. (I know, I know, "Yeah, and let me guess: you're not a mail-order bride pimp, you're a foreign romance counselor, right?")
Pardom my possible ignorance here, but:
Aren't those designed to only be using power when charging a controller? And wouldn't that power have to be spent regardless, to charge the controller?
Well, now that you mention it...
Why not ban the PS3? After all, it's wasteful, since (like with incandescents) human enjoyment of PS3s either:
a) counts for nothing
b) can be outright denied (mindmelds FTW)
c) does not currently replace some other, more wasteful energy use, or
d) has such a high environmental impact not even a huge tax could outweight the SEVERE HARMS of using it.
Right? Is that right out of the "ban incandescents" playbook?
Currently, central banks are trusted not to inflate their currencies to nothing, without being forced. In fact, this trust is quite strong. The Chinese government has invested a significant amount of revenues in long-term, low-yield U.S. government bonds, even though inflation slightly higher than historical averages would completely screw them over.
Unlike fiat currencies, however, Linden Dollars *are* redeemable on demand for certain goods, at least from what I remember when I played. Specifically, to teleport, rent land, bring an item into the world, or take a screenshot, you have to pay LD's. You don't just use them for buying from other players. So if Linden Labs did inflate its currency, it would have to "back" that inflation with increased capacity for storing in-game items.
In contrast, the guarantor of Federal Reserve notes (US Dollars) has long since suspended any promise that you can redeem goods from it on demand.
More like:
YES
That will be $0 please.
*one week later*
"Hey, why the fuck did Amazon just bill my credit card $15.95?"
In simple words, what he has said was that human brain is futile. Any effort to understand nature/God through reasoning and thought is a waste of time.
Oh, you mean kinda like trendy philosophy profs at American universities today?
Ultimately, humans have free will and choose their own actions.
:-P
Well, hey, glad we got that controversy patched up.
Philosophy of mind scholars: y'all can get real jobs now.
I agree with you, but it's hardly indisputable. (As long as you mean humans *at least at some times* have free will.) There are some good points you made that I want to highlight, though:
Saying someone is "born bad" is equivilant to saying that they have been possessed by Satan.
This is a reminder to all those who associate belief in free will, with religion: it's a two-way street.
When you argue that people are "born bad" or otherwise don't have free will, you're arguing that all these people are wasting their time. That they will never overcome their difficulties and they should either give up an committ a crime, cause trouble, go insane or just kill themselves. That is a flawed assumption. We all have the power to change our own lifes, and to alter the course of our lives.
I want to add that the implication of "no free will" is not "no punishment" but "...". If there really is no free will, ever, then the question of what "should" be done to criminals is moot. No one will ever actually make a choice, including those setting the law!
I give up. You can't possibly expect me to take your post seriously.
I think we need a new term instead of "environmentalist". Basically, in a sense, everyone's an environmentalist. They don't want to breathe smelly air and they don't want the planet to become uninabitable. But that's not what people intend when they refer to "the environmentalists". What people actually have in mind is "someone favoring hampering economic activity as long as that also helps some environmental concern that most people don't share".
What's a name we can use, just for that group? "Anti-growther"? "Static worlder"? "Pretenser"? "Ecotraditionalist"?