Search results for:

Meme-proofing surgery, Grazia

Fair point, fair point.

Is there even any point at looking at legislation until someone wants to challenge a magistrate's ruling? There were two well publicised cases in RP in the last couple of years, both found guilty and fined in magistrates court, but AFAIK that does not set precedent. Any discussion seems entirely speculative, but IANAL.

I posted something similar in the Doping thread, but to me there was always a massive conflict of interest between Team Sky and BC. Why is the focus only on Brailsford and Sutton, when Cookson and Drake were simultaneously on the boards of both? Not sure exactly when they stepped down - but this seems to be worth clarification.

Edit: https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/about/article/bc20121029-Home-Page-Message-From-Brian-Cookson-0 indicates they were on a Team Sky board in 2012, but it's described as a liaison board between Team Sky and BC entities, so a bit more complex than it seems at first.

You can buy a 2016 model for £849 new, I just have - looking to make a killing in around 2040. I'm spraying it black now

Is that the Ti railed one?

But this thread dates from 2013, not 2010. Bug?

You could borrow another wired keyboard first (doesn't need to be Mac) to check whether that's the problem. And someone's giving away a couple of Mac keyboards a couple of pages back.

I found the EdX/Microsoft course pretty good quality. Free, or £40ish if you want a certificate. Gives full instructions for setting up sample MS Azure DB on free trial, or local equivalent.

Well, I still find it incredible that the Sky/BC relationship was accepted in the first place, and that Deloitte found no conflict of interest in 2011. Having people in senior positions in government-funded and commercial organisations in the same industry? Aside from Brailsford, Cookson was on the board of Team Sky.

Edit: On re-reading, I think what Deloitte really determined was no risk to Olympic success of BC riders.

Yeah, I just put the numbers straight in the formula to keep it simple, I find it difficult to follow cell refs in examples.

There are also PV, PMT functions etc to find the other terms.

Yep but the original data has constant payments.

For my own mortgage I only use that method to give a simple reckoning of the effect of various interest rates if I pay the required payments.

The proper model has actual and projected payments plotted per month with interest, then I chart outstanding balance against calendar date. Then I can override future payments (or rates) and see when balance hits zero, how curve changes etc.

This is possibly the dullest first post ever, but the generalised answer to "if i make a payment of this much, how many months will it take to pay off..." allowing for interest, is given by:

=NPER(rate,pmt,pv)

where:
nper = number of periods
rate = interest rate per period
pmt = regular payment per period
pv = present value (outstanding balance)

Thus for £250,000 outstanding at 4% APR, paid off at £1500 a month

=NPER(0.04/12, 1500, -250000)

Gives you about 244 months, or 20 years 4 months. Note if you double the interest to 8% APR, you'll get an error, as the number of payments is infinite, i.e. the balance cannot be paid off.

So you can put that formula in a column of a sheet which tracks actual outstanding balance based on actual payments.