What makes RTS games significantly better than turn-based games like Civ and Advance Wars? The shorter amount of time it takes to finish a game, and the fact that they are real-time makes them more compelling.
Your posts seem to be good intentioned but I think you need to recognize that our population has carried a net debt since it's inception. Um, I know this. Go read the constitution, it makes it clear. Don't presume to lecture me on the methods society uses to keep people in poverty, I assure you I know more about it than would reasonably fit on this forum.
Sorry, I didn't put that quite right. I think trash collectors deserve what they make. I know that teachers don't make much, regardless of what they deserve given their education. It was suppose to be a joke. Responding to the statement that he was lower middle class for various reasons.
Um, as far as I'm concerned, trash collectors deserve their money. My point with the teachers was the opposite, they are well educated and yet make fairly crappy pay.
Why would you expect that the purpose of a credit reporting system was to help the disadvantaged? I don't think it is, I think it was designed to help companies make money and has thus been another tool to help keep poor people poor. And yes, it would be bizarre if I thought that.
Sure, it would be nice if we would do things that would systematically reduce poverty, but I'd think that would start with giving people *less* credit/debt! That would only help if we also gave them a way to pay for necessities in a way other than credit/debt. It sounds like you are suggesting socialism/government funded health care.
A better understandng of "how money works" would be a great help to many, but I've also known people determined to stay poor no matter what (and at some point a grown man is entitled to determine his own priorities in life, disasterous as that may be to himself). I agree here to an extent. No one is actually determined to stay poor. I.E. No one consciously says to them self "hey, I'd like to be poor my whole life." What they do is "take advantage" of the system of credit our society has erected in such a way as to live a life they would otherwise be unable to live. This holds for everyone from the person is is literally unable to have a secure financial life to the upper middle-class person who buys a brand new beemer every year, salary be damned. What we, as a capitalist/corporatist society, do is encourage this behavior. I mean, have you ever seen an ad that say "don't spend too much money." Because I haven't. But I have seen plenty of ads that encourage people to spend beyond their means. And while ultimately we can, and do, hold the individual responsible it is naive to pretend that the larger society plays no role in the process.
There are certainly some people (and a small percentage of 300 million Americans is a large number) who really do lack the means for financial responsibility. Scraping by on part-time jobs is a great honest example. You're not saying that the credit reporting system is broken because these folks have low credit scores, are you? Or disagreeing that being financially responsible means that you don't have to care too much about your credit score? A couple of points here. First, I am saying that the credit reporting system is broken because people who scrape by with a part-time, minimum-wage job are negatively affected by it. They end up needing credit and end up with bad credit. It is part of a larger systemic problem our society has with poverty*. I do agree that being financially responsible means that you don't have to worry about your credit score, for the most part, there are, of course exceptions.
*From my point of view it is not just poverty, race and gender also plays into it, but this would be far too complicated to go into here.
Actually it does. All of those companies were run by the children of the rich who don't need financial responsibility, because they know mummy and daddy will bail them out.
a friend of mine saved about $1000 a month while working as a security guard. Well, I lived on $600 a month living in San Francisco. The only reasons I could survive on that much was because 1) I had a cheap form of transportation (a bike I bought the year before. Best investment I ever made) 2) I knew where I could get food for free from dumpsters. (which doesn't work for everyone, because there are too many poor people for all of them to live out of dumpsters) 3) I had no financial surprises. 4) I had a network of friends and family to help me. This last point is important because lots of people assume that everyone has some sort of support network, but many do not.
There are a lot of people who rack up credit like no there's no tomorrow, but there is also a huge number of people who are actually "in that boat." They're the people that you don't see, the ones who work two or three jobs so they can support their family, including children, parents and grandparents. If you want to believe that the majority of people who are poor are there because they are dumb or spend all their money on vices, then fine do so, but don't pretend like you have some sort of special knowledge about poverty that allows you to pass judgment on those who are in shitty situations.
If you are financially responsible, you maintain health insurance and the ability to pay a large unexpected expense I don't mean to harp on you, but this seems to assume the financial ability to maintain health insurance. Some people lack that. A couple of years ago I was unable to afford health insurance. I was barely scraping by with the part-time job I had, meanwhile looking for more work and not finding it, and had no money left over for heath care after food and housing expenses. I was lucky that I didn't have any serious illnesses that year or I would have been so in debt that I would have been screwed. You need to remember, there are a large number of people who simply cannot afford to do the common sense things they need to do for financial security, they simply lack the access to resources.
Landlords I know of also use the credit report as a tie breaker when otherwise equally qualified persons are seeking housing. The lease that I currently have would have been denied due to my poor credit if I had not had someone to cosign. Landlords, specifically rental management companies, will outright deny leases to people with bad credit if they think someone will come along in a month or so and not have shitty credit.
For which tax bracket is that? Maybe you're averaging all of them? Where did you make that number up from? Are you suggesting that income tax even somewhat represents the total tax burden that an average citizen pays over the course of a year? That is for the highest tax bracket, only.
Part of the problem is that there are a great number of people who are born into a situation that doesn't allow them the means to live, even if the are "froogle," or frugal as it were*. Especially when the inevitable hardships of medical problems and other possible financial hardships are taken into account.
I don't know where you live, but out here in the San Francisco Bay Area, there is no way you could support a family of four on that much and not be screwed if a financial emergency came along. And often moving is too expensive to be a viable option, I know I lack the money to up and move to somewhere cheaper, where I know few if any people and have no idea how long I would be without a job.
All in all, I get what you're saying. There are a lot of people who get screwed because of their lack of care for finances, but there are a great number of people who get screwed simply because they start out in a shitty situation. Also, there seems to be this weird assumption that people have some sort of innate financial sense, not that it is a learned skill, which it seems to me to be.
I agree with everything but this:
No one's credit report score is related to the scores of their parents. Your credit score will most definitely be related to the socio-economic class of your parents. If you have rich parents then it will be incredibly easy to build decent credit, just have mommy and daddy pay off all your credit cards. Even the middle-class has an advantage over those who are poor. Also, mony companies allow for cosigned loans, cards and leases, which are often cosigned for by parents, thus allow the child to grow decent credit. Although, I do understand that you meant this in the strictest sense, that the credit companies don't look at your parents' scores*, in a broader sense it is true.
*I wouldn't be surprised if credit reporting agencies and credit card agencies didn't start looking at you parents' scores, they're kinda dicks like that.
I'm sorry, but this just isn't an option for a lot of people. There are a lot of people who work their ass off, don't go around buying new crap all the time and still don't make enough to support themselves and their family. Then, they get sick, or some disaster happens, or they get fired. Maybe you don't know any of these people, but they exist and they are the ones who get screwed over the most by these credit agencies.
This reminds me of my experience with getting rid of my car and using a bike as my primary form of transit.
I actually had my license suspended because I was driving without registration, so I just decided I couldn't afford a car anymore, mainly because I couldn't pay the $1500 fine. So, I got a bike. About six months after I got the bike I was pulled over for not having a light at night. I got the ticket in the mail about a week or two later. In huge bold print atop the ticket it said something to the effect of "If you don't pay this we sill suspend your license!"
Oh, I laughed and laughed. I still get collection notices for that ticket, which I refuse to pay, and they still in stist that they will take away my license.
Actually, only getting one credit card and maxing it out, then replying to every offer you get for a card in the mail and lying about your income (but not signing) is even better.
Not that I'd know. But I hear you stop getting the stupid credit card things in the mail.
I think the US would do well to implement a hybrid system. Either add another house elected by PR, unlikely, or add seat to a current house and elect those seats PR. Say, double the size of the senate and have all the new senators elected by PR.
Certainly not a perfect plan, but it does allow third parties into the mix, something the US democracy desperately needs.
Water will hinder the development of technology, as I mentioned several times; and
Only if you assume tools similar to ours.
you have to look at the pre-tool section of the evolutionary chain first as, well, it comes first.
This is definitely true, and obviously on earth we evolved, but that doesn't mean that on other planets it has to happen that way. Or even that we had to evolve at all.
My point was, however, that their is nothing to indicate carbon based humanoids will be a rarity and in fact there is strong evidence to support the fact they may be the 'easy' higher order life form; and that is galactic evidence, not solely Earth bound evidence... though I do admit we don't really know nearly as much about the universe as we like to think we do.
Nothing to indicate it will be a rarity? Except that we only know of one carbon based bipedal humanoid, us, and we some how use that as proof that other intelligent races would look like us. It smacks of making a teleological argument.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I didn't put that quite right. I think trash collectors deserve what they make. I know that teachers don't make much, regardless of what they deserve given their education. It was suppose to be a joke. Responding to the statement that he was lower middle class for various reasons.
Thanks for pounding it into the ground.
It basically means that someone with good credit signs and says "we'll pay if they don't" thereby securing the lease or loan.
Um, as far as I'm concerned, trash collectors deserve their money. My point with the teachers was the opposite, they are well educated and yet make fairly crappy pay.
They decided to be born into poverty.
*From my point of view it is not just poverty, race and gender also plays into it, but this would be far too complicated to go into here.
Actually it does. All of those companies were run by the children of the rich who don't need financial responsibility, because they know mummy and daddy will bail them out.
There are a lot of people who rack up credit like no there's no tomorrow, but there is also a huge number of people who are actually "in that boat." They're the people that you don't see, the ones who work two or three jobs so they can support their family, including children, parents and grandparents. If you want to believe that the majority of people who are poor are there because they are dumb or spend all their money on vices, then fine do so, but don't pretend like you have some sort of special knowledge about poverty that allows you to pass judgment on those who are in shitty situations.
Or when you simply lack the money to spend on what you need. Then credit is a necessity, and it's all down hill from there.
Part of the problem is that there are a great number of people who are born into a situation that doesn't allow them the means to live, even if the are "froogle," or frugal as it were*. Especially when the inevitable hardships of medical problems and other possible financial hardships are taken into account.
I don't know where you live, but out here in the San Francisco Bay Area, there is no way you could support a family of four on that much and not be screwed if a financial emergency came along. And often moving is too expensive to be a viable option, I know I lack the money to up and move to somewhere cheaper, where I know few if any people and have no idea how long I would be without a job.
All in all, I get what you're saying. There are a lot of people who get screwed because of their lack of care for finances, but there are a great number of people who get screwed simply because they start out in a shitty situation. Also, there seems to be this weird assumption that people have some sort of innate financial sense, not that it is a learned skill, which it seems to me to be.
*I wouldn't be surprised if credit reporting agencies and credit card agencies didn't start looking at you parents' scores, they're kinda dicks like that.
I'm sorry, but this just isn't an option for a lot of people. There are a lot of people who work their ass off, don't go around buying new crap all the time and still don't make enough to support themselves and their family. Then, they get sick, or some disaster happens, or they get fired. Maybe you don't know any of these people, but they exist and they are the ones who get screwed over the most by these credit agencies.
This reminds me of my experience with getting rid of my car and using a bike as my primary form of transit.
I actually had my license suspended because I was driving without registration, so I just decided I couldn't afford a car anymore, mainly because I couldn't pay the $1500 fine. So, I got a bike. About six months after I got the bike I was pulled over for not having a light at night. I got the ticket in the mail about a week or two later. In huge bold print atop the ticket it said something to the effect of "If you don't pay this we sill suspend your license!"
Oh, I laughed and laughed. I still get collection notices for that ticket, which I refuse to pay, and they still in stist that they will take away my license.
In summary, fuck collection agencies.
He's obviously making the good money.
Don't screw it up by learnin' him bout no spellin.
Actually, only getting one credit card and maxing it out, then replying to every offer you get for a card in the mail and lying about your income (but not signing) is even better.
Not that I'd know. But I hear you stop getting the stupid credit card things in the mail.
I think the US would do well to implement a hybrid system. Either add another house elected by PR, unlikely, or add seat to a current house and elect those seats PR. Say, double the size of the senate and have all the new senators elected by PR.
Certainly not a perfect plan, but it does allow third parties into the mix, something the US democracy desperately needs.
Water will hinder the development of technology, as I mentioned several times; and
Only if you assume tools similar to ours.
you have to look at the pre-tool section of the evolutionary chain first as, well, it comes first.
This is definitely true, and obviously on earth we evolved, but that doesn't mean that on other planets it has to happen that way. Or even that we had to evolve at all.
My point was, however, that their is nothing to indicate carbon based humanoids will be a rarity and in fact there is strong evidence to support the fact they may be the 'easy' higher order life form; and that is galactic evidence, not solely Earth bound evidence... though I do admit we don't really know nearly as much about the universe as we like to think we do.
Nothing to indicate it will be a rarity? Except that we only know of one carbon based bipedal humanoid, us, and we some how use that as proof that other intelligent races would look like us. It smacks of making a teleological argument.