There is nothing wrong with using credit and loans as long as they are used responsibly.
Funny that you believe you should have to pay a bank money, just for the "privilege" of spending money. You already earned your pay, but you think you should pay a bank so that you can spend it? This is exactly what I was referring to about people not understanding the scam.
1. A credit history. That's not necessarily debt, it is a history of handling small debts that you've paid off.
This is what I said. If you pay your phone bill every month, you don't get extra points. If you pay your phone bill with a credit card, you will get extra points IF and only IF you pay just the minimum payment (mostly interest to prolong your debt). If you pay it off in full, you may receive negative points. If you don't pay your bill on time you can be reported for negative points as well. Doing the right thing and paying on time the full amount to the company will not help your credit.
Your item 2 has a hell of a lot to do with item 1. If people want you indebted longer, they will target you for additional debt. Banks can somehow take back any property you gained, get insurance money for losses, and receive handouts from the Government for doing just that.
Nobody can force you to go into debt.
True. At the same time if a bank forces you to have a particular credit score to get a loan (as most do) the only way to get the credit score is to live in constant debt paying interest payments. Go ahead and try buying a house with a low credit score. Even if you don't need to be in debt people use credit cards for this exact reason. Hence, why I claim it's a scam.
One reason that I'm sure is a factor in the difference, is that companies are less inclined to bother reporting the "past due" status.
There's another reason that people seem to be ignoring: something that is "past due" will change out of that status, one way or another, after a short time. Something "in collection", not so much. One has to consider why it went into collection in the first place.
Another factor that is rather passed over in OP is that despite a few changes that were made for the better some years ago, they were actually pretty weak changes and credit reporting is still egregiously one-sided today.
Most companies of any size have whole departments that regularly report "past due" debt to collection agencies. But a consumer has many time-consuming and often expensive hoops to jump through to get that back off their record. In many ways it's still guilty-until-proven-innocent.
The fact that over generations people have become used to this travesty of justice just makes it all the more insidious.
The whole point of a "credit score" is horribly broken. In order to get approved for debt, you must have debt. If you have money in the bank and no monthly debt payments you have a reduced score. It's a SCAM! A scheme to make sure that you are constantly in debt, and yet it's perfectly legal. Living in debt constantly costs you money, and for what? So that you can have more debt? Wow!
The fact that people don't get this, or simply don't care, is very telling.
Personally I have almost no debt, just my car payment. I don't have a lot of debt so have a laughably low credit score. If I don't have cash I can wait to buy something. Actually since I manage my personal finances very well purchasing something I want is never an issue.
Yea, apparently I know of more places to put than you do, as well.
The ability of a DVD to be compressed using a different format seems largely to be a function of the quality of the "original". A decent original can compress quite nicely. A crap original will be crap transcoded.
It won't be as impressive as a BluRay but the original isn't either.
Again. MPEG2 is a really outdated format. It doesn't take much to do better (or much better).
Having just read The Forever War last week (and then Old Man's War, and now Forever Free), I agree wholeheartedly. That is a book that could do well on-screen (provided it doesn't turn into Starship Troopers).
Amen. Deckard had the Voigt-Kampf test performed on him. He is demonstrably _not_ a replicant (if you trust the Voigt-Kampf test, of course).
How do we even know it's going to be popular in the first place? Does it solve any problem I can't do with C# or Python and/or on more platforms?
Considering that you can't really use C# or Python for iOS or OS X development, I would say that's one major thing you can't do.
It'll be a language for little hipsters who hope to be the next Steve Jobs by releasing yet another crappy useless iOS app. I don't know anyone who still bothers with iOS apps.
Then you must not know anyone who uses an iPhone meaning you live in a rather small world.
Need? No. You can still use Objective C if you want to code iOS/OS X. Want? Yes.
And while the rest of the featured languages are no-brainers with regard to popularity, it's an open question how long it might take Swift to become popular, given how hard Apple will push it as the language for developing on iOS.
Apple does not have to push very hard. After looking at it and Objective C, it doesn't take a genius to see why programmers would prefer it over Objective C.
Over at Dice
But we are at Dice, sir:
Domain ID: D2289308-LROR
Creation Date: 1997-10-05T04:00:00Z
Updated Date: 2014-03-14T22:12:11Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2015-10-04T04:00:00Z
Sponsoring Registrar:Tucows Inc. (R11-LROR)
Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 69
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited
Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Registrant Name:Host Master
Registrant Organization:Dice Holdings, Inc.
Registrant Street: 1040 Avenue of the Americas
Registrant City:New York
Registrant Postal Code:10018
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Pros: Today's article has more content than the usual Dice front page linkage. Great article if you're not a programmer but feel stymied by the wide assortment of languages out there. Although instead of hemming and hawing before making your first project you're better off listening to Winston Churchill and sticking your feet in the mud: "The maxim 'Nothing avails but perfection' may be spelt shorter -- 'Paralysis."
Cons: It barely scratches the surface of an incredibly deep topic with unlimited facets. And when one is considering investing potential technical debt into a technology, this probably wouldn't even suffice as an introduction let alone table of contents. Words spent on anecdotes ("In 2004, a coworker of mine referred to it as a 'toy language.'" like, lol no way bro!) could have been better spent on things like Lambdas in Java 8. Most interesting on the list is Erlang? Seems to be more of a random addition that could just as easily been Scala, Ruby, Groovy, Clojure, Dart -- whatever the cool hip thing it is we're playing with today but doesn't seem to quite pan out on a massive scale
Almost Latour's entire thesis is that S-B law says net heat transfer is either 0 or in one direction, from the hotter area to the colder. If the roles are reversed, and the colder item becomes the hotter, then the sign changes and the net heat transfer is still only in one direction... from hotter to colder.
And you don't know this because you didn't actually do any actual research about it.You claim "his blog post is still live" but link to an web archive. You haven't researched the topic.
You ignored due diligence, and because of that your "refutation" is nothing but a straw-man, which you continue to deny, either because you know it's a straw-man, and are just doubling down, or because you still refuse to perform the due diligence necessary to make an intelligent argument. The rest of this nonsense falls down because it's all house-of-cards based on your initial misunderstanding of Latour's actual thesis.
Just to be clear: shortly after Latour published that blog post, it became clear that the language he used implied that no radiation at all was absorbed by the warmer body. So a reader could not reasonably be blamed for inferring that. But Latour quickly apologized for the unfortunate wording and corrected himself to make it very clear he was referring to net, not absolute, heat transfer.
As such, just what part of the S-B law do you find controversial?
I don't blame you for inferring -- from that one blog post, which you like to in archive -- that what he meant was any heat transfer, rather than net. But again: he corrected that right away and anybody who knows jack shit about the subject knows that. But you, on the other hand, apparently refused to be bothered with due diligence. Imagine that.
Because you never know. So you keep stuff separated to the very end, even in RAM.
Also, still need that IOPS speed!