Are you also so quick to dismiss the accomplishments of Hippocrates and Socrates because the ancient Greeks kept slaves? Maybe we should stop using Arabic numerals and the Roman alphabet because both of them kept slaves too.
Are their words often used to support one argument, when their personal actions didn't follow? Yeah, that's what I thought. If there were one trait that both Hippocrates and Socrates had the least of, compared most men, it was hypocrisy.
And what the fuck does being white have to do with anything?
If someone as dedicated, intellectual and powerful as Jefferson had a belief, it should be expected that his actions would reflect those beliefs. So, either he was talking out of the other side of his mouth--believing that slaves were not "men" at all, a truly Evil and humanity corruptung belief which was commonly held at the time--or he was a flaming hypocrite. Neither are good character traits.
Lots of words, both good and evil ring true throughout the ages, because people will them to do so. The tangibility of phrases like this, on the other hand is only obtained through action, and the consequent good or evil which is brought to bear through them. Lincoln's and King's words have been infinitely more effective in establishing a positive change. Even some of Hitlers' one liners sound great and good, but the big picture sure is another thing--and the only way you can measure a man is to look at the big picture.
I don't care if emancipating all of his slaves would have boiled down to poverty for himself, he didn't care enough about the problem to do, well, much of anything but spout hot air. I continually fail to see how this man is regarded as man of the people, and when people spout his insubstantial words like they were trumpeted by some great ancient benefactor, it puts a little smirk on my face and another line in my forehead.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Said a fat white man born into a wealthy family, no less one who kept slaves and concubines.
Its like the #40 first language in India with only a pretty small number of people speaking it first. Its the most popular second language, IIRC, though, with something like a third of billion Indians fluent in it.
Judging by the Indians I've talked to over the phone that number has to be grossly overestimated. Or maybe they put the other two thirds of the population in the call centers?
Well, in all fairness, air strikes were probably pretty effective in Afghanistan, where the assholes and their supporters were relatively more concentrated and less embedded in the civilian population. If you say there have been a couple wanted guys bombed in Iraq, I'll take your word on it. I just haven't heard of it.
quote me: Anyway, it's been demonstrated that the CIA did not believe that Iraq had or was in the process of acquiring, making or otherwise using any kind of WMD--and that the people with this knowledge in the CIA repeatedly called on the White House to correct misinformation in politicians speeches and shit.
Quote you: So the fact finally hit the US media at last (don't live in the US, so I don't follow those media)?
Actually, as far as I'm aware, this claim was presented on 20/20 or some other national news program precisely twice. They interviewed a former CIA guy, who wasn't at liberty to divulge too much, but hinted at the general nature of the things I said, and then they interviewed Valerie Plame, the CIA operative who got outed (surely) by the head honchos at the white house, in retaliation for her husbands' (who is Joseph Wilson--a guy who was a diplomat to both Iraq and some African countries during his career) claim that the white house manipulated intelligence to make a case for invading Iraq. He was sent to Niger to research the claim that Saddam was trying to buy yellowcake, and then went around telling everyone that the idea of Iraq seeking uranium from African countries was just plain idiotic, because the claim had already been debunked. They only pretended to not listen, of course...
Actually, no. That's not at all what I was referring to. I'm referring to fact that the Air Force likes to drop 500lb bombs where they think the top ranking baddies are, and yet with all of the sophisticated air borne weapons, they've managed to get pretty much nobody of any importance with an air strike--ever. They do a pretty good job of disintegrating women and children, though.
I'm saying that all of the precision guided munitions in the world are only as good as the intelligence that directs them. In other words, it doesn't matter if you can fly a 2000lb laser guided bomb into a window, if the people you really want to get are a mile away.
Anyway, it's been demonstrated that the CIA did not believe that Iraq had or was in the process of acquiring, making or otherwise using any kind of WMD--and that the people with this knowledge in the CIA repeatedly called on the White House to correct misinformation in politicians speeches and shit. The WMD thing was probably, almost exclusively, invented by the white house.
At any rate, it was pretty obvious that Iraq had squat to do with 9/11, and the top echelon were inventing reasons to invade.
You do know, the word is mightier than the sword, after all...
No, I'm pretty sure you've got that wrong. It's the pen. The pen is mightier than the sword.
Of course, whoever penned that immortal phrase certainly had no inkling of how true it really could be! Oh the damage that thousands upon thousands of supersonic pens could reap... It's enough to make a man giggle in glee.
I'm not a lawyer, either, but much of my business has stuff to do with this area of law, and I've consulted lawyers on these issues. Basically, if you register for the copyright on whatever pieces, and someone willfully breaks the copyright, they could be liable for statutory damages up to $100,000 per infraction, reimbursement of attorneys fees, etc if you go to court. Basically, it gives you more weight to throw around, not a bad thing for a small company/individual.
If you do not register, you could only hope to win actual damages, and lost profits, which may not be worth pursuing. Registering may also have other benefits, like making it easier to get U.S. Customs to help block the import of knockoffs from other countries, in the event that starts happening.
Another fun, more recent example was some video I saw of a bunch of Boston police officers. It was night, and there was a large line of police officers in riot gear. Some were on horses. I was trying to figure out what was happening in Boston that would justify such a police response.
The answer? The local baseball team had won the baseball championship. The police response was against fans, celebrating the victory in the streets. The Boston response to people celebrating a sporting victory is to call out the riot police. According to the reporter, the last time something like this happened, the Boston police actually killed a fan, using a "less than lethal" weapon that proved not to live up to its name.
Given the way Bostonians are likely to behave after having the Red Sox win the World Series, I think having a machine gun emplacement overlooking the crowd might also be an appropriate response. Seriously, though: the police are there to do their job: to protect and serve. They're there in riot gear to protect life and property against damage from the drunken fuckheads who are there to cause problems.
Let's also not forget that Boston has been known for its fair share of riots throughout the years. Ask the British: two Boston riots led to events which helped start the American Revolutionary War!
You know, you struck on pretty much all of the points which I forgot needed to be addressed, and you're 100% right on all counts.
I kind of laughed when I read how you felt about the cinematography. Yeah, the cut-scenes are as cinema like as anything I've seen before, but due to the confining urban nature of the battleground(of the first map, at least), the game does feel as much like you're watching a movie as it does that you're playing a game. Unlike a lot of FPSs, which have a disappointing "rail shooter" feeling, CoD does seem to take you along a fairly confined path, but manages to not feel much like you're on a rail. I suppose that's due in part to the squad nature, it feels like you're on a mission.
I've only played the demo, but I will be getting the game for PC later on tonight.
Here's my perspective: I'm an FPS hog, but have never laid my hands on a CoD game prior to starting the demo. Basically, I've been playing Battlefield 2, 2142, Day of Defeat, Counterstrike, America's Army and some other recent title for a while. I recently upgraded my gaming computer and haven't laid my hands on a lot of the shiny, newer FPS games.
I'm all for improved graphics, if it adds to atmosphere. The thing with CoD4 is that it's got a metric assload of atmosphere. After an hour of messing around with the various difficulty levels in the demo and trying stuff out, I got a little motion sick, to be honest. I mean, I didn't have run to the bathroom to retch, but it's the closest I think I've ever come to that due to motion related stuff, and I do not get sick on planes, boats, or anything else, even if I'm watching someone empty their stomach--probably due to my love of FPSs.
If someone strapped a high def camera to a soldier's helmet and put him in a similar situation, I imagine the result would be pretty close to what you see in the game play. My second run the next day didn't hit me that way, but it's still pretty powerful. Actually, the detail in the game isn't all that noticeable when you're running and gunning.
Sure, if you sit there and look around, it's pretty stunning; but if you sit there, you and your squad are dead! For the most part, the game keeps you going pretty much constantly. One cool thing I noticed in the demo is how an overhead illuminating flare is used to light up the battlefield in the last encounter of the demo. I mean, it looked pretty freaking good, created shadows all over the place, etc. Likewise, the night vision segment was really good, and it just feels real unlike it does in most other games.
I think a problem the/. crowd has with super snazzy graphics is that games with great graphics are often poorly done in other areas, simply because the game studio concentrated only on graphics and not other (more important) game mechanics, and as a result the game becomes generally un-fun and disappointing. IMHO, from what I've seen, CoD4 is not one of those games--I do think it's going to be a very fun, compelling game, and the graphics, sound and play do make it an immersing experience.
I don't agree with bullet #1. A well designed, 2-4 passenger, general aviation aircraft shouldn't burn all that much fuel. Sure, some burn more than others, but when you consider a Mooney can do about 200mph, at 20,000 feet and burn around a little less than 10 gallons per hour--that's about 20 miles per gallon, which is pretty good considering you're cooking along at 200mph.
The real problem is that features which work good on aircraft (especially aerodynamics which help increase speed reduce fuel consumption) don't translate very well to practical (or safe) ground vehicles.
Bullet #2, you're absolutely right. The barrier to entry in the aviation field isn't really very high, as it is, and under-experienced pilots routinely get themselves, their friends and their families, and sometimes random other people killed. Having even more people who are even less experienced buzzing around the skies sends chills down my spine.
Bullet #3, you're right and wrong. I mean, sure, if you lose your engine in a small plane, it's not good--but it's not like you instantly plummet into a mountain side. However, if you're high enough, smart and trained well enough, and aren't flying in conditions beyond your experience and skill level, engine failure shouldn't be a fatal experience. Also, a ton "engine failure" emergencies are the result of the pilot not watching the fuel meter, or forgetting to switch tanks. This is mostly related to bullet #2, idiots in the air. Airframe and control surface failures are very rare, but are one of those things that can make an airplane a giant lawn dart.
Gore is an idiot. The real "Inconvenient Truth" is that following Gore's advice will kill you within minutes. I'm not convinced that mass suicide is really the right answer.
Yeah, but if we did that, we'd really fuck the CO2 levels of the Earth, you know, about 2 days to a week later, anyway.
Conversely, (purely for instance, and not related to any spacecraft) if if you design a system capable of acquiring and transmitting 1 megabit of information per second, it doesn't matter how you chunk it up; you're still acquiring 1 megabit of information per second, because that's the way it's designed. If you had a buffer of only 80 kilobits, it means that if you want to transmit 1 megabit per second, the process will completely fill and empty the buffer a little over twelve times per second. That kind of cycle time is certainly not unheard of!
It's like the Ethernet frames. The maximum data per frame is 1500 bytes (not counting header, checksum or modern jumbo frames)--which is a fraction of the total memory the voyager spacecraft had--about 1/55th, specifically; who knows how much of that was actually used for data acquisition, processing, etc.
The lesson here is that the only thing which determines overall data rate is how many times PER SECOND the cycle happens at! Even with a MTU of only 1500 bytes, Ethernet networks are capable of passing many millions of bits per second.
Yeah, I was trying to think of some examples of acts that might have the potential to go big... I came up blank. Totally forgot about them, thanks for pointing it out. However, I'm thinking someone new is due for nationwide stardom, and the net's gonna be their bread and butter at first.
Well, I'm not saying they will necessarily become famous world wide like Michael Jackson was before he really started going weird. Anyway, that's pretty interesting. This isn't something I keep track of, but yeah, you've hit the nail on the head. I'm not surprised that some bands have made it of the viral marketing tactics, but I'm more surprised that nobody's made it really huge yet. For all I know the Arctic Monkeys are plain freaking gigantic in the UK--just as an American, I haven't really seen it over here.
Actually, due to how the public consciousness works today, it's probably much easier for a band to gain stardom level of attention through social networking sites, youtube, etc. than it is to sign up to a label and give them a big chunk for advertising and stuff.
I'm going to prophesy for a second here: it's not going to be too long till a band gains bigtime real world fame and profit by first becoming popular through the internet and its associated media outlets, and the traditional media will pick up the ball after this, forever implanting them in the hearts, minds and wallets of the mainstream. I don't think it's happened yet, for many reasons, but it's gonna happen soon.
Look, I mean this: they can cut back on the premium ultra deluxe $80/month cable to the $39.95 plan, and save $40 bucks a month, cut out the starbucks to twice a week from four times a week, cut the restaurant dining from 5 nights to 3, or whatever. I'm not suggesting that people drop all the stuff they like, completely.
However, if there's something you want, and you don't immediately have the cash, you can plan your budget for the next several months, cut back on the regular expenses, and save up! Too few people know how to do this today. They instead charge it, and those purchases hang over their heads like a black cloud for the next several years.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you also so quick to dismiss the accomplishments of Hippocrates and Socrates because the ancient Greeks kept slaves? Maybe we should stop using Arabic numerals and the Roman alphabet because both of them kept slaves too.
Are their words often used to support one argument, when their personal actions didn't follow? Yeah, that's what I thought. If there were one trait that both Hippocrates and Socrates had the least of, compared most men, it was hypocrisy.
And what the fuck does being white have to do with anything?
One word: context.
If someone as dedicated, intellectual and powerful as Jefferson had a belief, it should be expected that his actions would reflect those beliefs. So, either he was talking out of the other side of his mouth--believing that slaves were not "men" at all, a truly Evil and humanity corruptung belief which was commonly held at the time--or he was a flaming hypocrite. Neither are good character traits.
Lots of words, both good and evil ring true throughout the ages, because people will them to do so. The tangibility of phrases like this, on the other hand is only obtained through action, and the consequent good or evil which is brought to bear through them. Lincoln's and King's words have been infinitely more effective in establishing a positive change. Even some of Hitlers' one liners sound great and good, but the big picture sure is another thing--and the only way you can measure a man is to look at the big picture.
I don't care if emancipating all of his slaves would have boiled down to poverty for himself, he didn't care enough about the problem to do, well, much of anything but spout hot air. I continually fail to see how this man is regarded as man of the people, and when people spout his insubstantial words like they were trumpeted by some great ancient benefactor, it puts a little smirk on my face and another line in my forehead.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Said a fat white man born into a wealthy family, no less one who kept slaves and concubines.
Way to kill a joke with facts, Mr. Party Pooper.
Say your friend lives on the fourth floor. What is knocking going to accomplish. Think he'll hear all the way down to the main entrance?
Well, if you're of Viking descent, he damned well better.
Like they used to say in the old country... Make Thor Proud. KNOCK REAL LOUD!
Its like the #40 first language in India with only a pretty small number of people speaking it first. Its the most popular second language, IIRC, though, with something like a third of billion Indians fluent in it.
Judging by the Indians I've talked to over the phone that number has to be grossly overestimated. Or maybe they put the other two thirds of the population in the call centers?
And then he performs back alley abortions with that very same club.
Well, in all fairness, air strikes were probably pretty effective in Afghanistan, where the assholes and their supporters were relatively more concentrated and less embedded in the civilian population. If you say there have been a couple wanted guys bombed in Iraq, I'll take your word on it. I just haven't heard of it.
quote me: Anyway, it's been demonstrated that the CIA did not believe that Iraq had or was in the process of acquiring, making or otherwise using any kind of WMD--and that the people with this knowledge in the CIA repeatedly called on the White House to correct misinformation in politicians speeches and shit.
Quote you: So the fact finally hit the US media at last (don't live in the US, so I don't follow those media)?
Actually, as far as I'm aware, this claim was presented on 20/20 or some other national news program precisely twice. They interviewed a former CIA guy, who wasn't at liberty to divulge too much, but hinted at the general nature of the things I said, and then they interviewed Valerie Plame, the CIA operative who got outed (surely) by the head honchos at the white house, in retaliation for her husbands' (who is Joseph Wilson--a guy who was a diplomat to both Iraq and some African countries during his career) claim that the white house manipulated intelligence to make a case for invading Iraq. He was sent to Niger to research the claim that Saddam was trying to buy yellowcake, and then went around telling everyone that the idea of Iraq seeking uranium from African countries was just plain idiotic, because the claim had already been debunked. They only pretended to not listen, of course...
Actually, no. That's not at all what I was referring to. I'm referring to fact that the Air Force likes to drop 500lb bombs where they think the top ranking baddies are, and yet with all of the sophisticated air borne weapons, they've managed to get pretty much nobody of any importance with an air strike--ever. They do a pretty good job of disintegrating women and children, though.
I'm saying that all of the precision guided munitions in the world are only as good as the intelligence that directs them. In other words, it doesn't matter if you can fly a 2000lb laser guided bomb into a window, if the people you really want to get are a mile away.
Anyway, it's been demonstrated that the CIA did not believe that Iraq had or was in the process of acquiring, making or otherwise using any kind of WMD--and that the people with this knowledge in the CIA repeatedly called on the White House to correct misinformation in politicians speeches and shit. The WMD thing was probably, almost exclusively, invented by the white house.
At any rate, it was pretty obvious that Iraq had squat to do with 9/11, and the top echelon were inventing reasons to invade.
You do know, the word is mightier than the sword, after all...
No, I'm pretty sure you've got that wrong. It's the pen. The pen is mightier than the sword.
Of course, whoever penned that immortal phrase certainly had no inkling of how true it really could be! Oh the damage that thousands upon thousands of supersonic pens could reap... It's enough to make a man giggle in glee.
Oh, the bombs don't miss too badly. Intelligence on the other hand...
I'm not a lawyer, either, but much of my business has stuff to do with this area of law, and I've consulted lawyers on these issues. Basically, if you register for the copyright on whatever pieces, and someone willfully breaks the copyright, they could be liable for statutory damages up to $100,000 per infraction, reimbursement of attorneys fees, etc if you go to court. Basically, it gives you more weight to throw around, not a bad thing for a small company/individual.
If you do not register, you could only hope to win actual damages, and lost profits, which may not be worth pursuing. Registering may also have other benefits, like making it easier to get U.S. Customs to help block the import of knockoffs from other countries, in the event that starts happening.
Another fun, more recent example was some video I saw of a bunch of Boston police officers. It was night, and there was a large line of police officers in riot gear. Some were on horses. I was trying to figure out what was happening in Boston that would justify such a police response.
The answer? The local baseball team had won the baseball championship. The police response was against fans, celebrating the victory in the streets. The Boston response to people celebrating a sporting victory is to call out the riot police. According to the reporter, the last time something like this happened, the Boston police actually killed a fan, using a "less than lethal" weapon that proved not to live up to its name.
Given the way Bostonians are likely to behave after having the Red Sox win the World Series, I think having a machine gun emplacement overlooking the crowd might also be an appropriate response. Seriously, though: the police are there to do their job: to protect and serve. They're there in riot gear to protect life and property against damage from the drunken fuckheads who are there to cause problems.
Let's also not forget that Boston has been known for its fair share of riots throughout the years. Ask the British: two Boston riots led to events which helped start the American Revolutionary War!
You know, you struck on pretty much all of the points which I forgot needed to be addressed, and you're 100% right on all counts.
I kind of laughed when I read how you felt about the cinematography. Yeah, the cut-scenes are as cinema like as anything I've seen before, but due to the confining urban nature of the battleground(of the first map, at least), the game does feel as much like you're watching a movie as it does that you're playing a game. Unlike a lot of FPSs, which have a disappointing "rail shooter" feeling, CoD does seem to take you along a fairly confined path, but manages to not feel much like you're on a rail. I suppose that's due in part to the squad nature, it feels like you're on a mission.
I've only played the demo, but I will be getting the game for PC later on tonight.
/. crowd has with super snazzy graphics is that games with great graphics are often poorly done in other areas, simply because the game studio concentrated only on graphics and not other (more important) game mechanics, and as a result the game becomes generally un-fun and disappointing. IMHO, from what I've seen, CoD4 is not one of those games--I do think it's going to be a very fun, compelling game, and the graphics, sound and play do make it an immersing experience.
Here's my perspective: I'm an FPS hog, but have never laid my hands on a CoD game prior to starting the demo. Basically, I've been playing Battlefield 2, 2142, Day of Defeat, Counterstrike, America's Army and some other recent title for a while. I recently upgraded my gaming computer and haven't laid my hands on a lot of the shiny, newer FPS games.
I'm all for improved graphics, if it adds to atmosphere. The thing with CoD4 is that it's got a metric assload of atmosphere. After an hour of messing around with the various difficulty levels in the demo and trying stuff out, I got a little motion sick, to be honest. I mean, I didn't have run to the bathroom to retch, but it's the closest I think I've ever come to that due to motion related stuff, and I do not get sick on planes, boats, or anything else, even if I'm watching someone empty their stomach--probably due to my love of FPSs.
If someone strapped a high def camera to a soldier's helmet and put him in a similar situation, I imagine the result would be pretty close to what you see in the game play. My second run the next day didn't hit me that way, but it's still pretty powerful. Actually, the detail in the game isn't all that noticeable when you're running and gunning.
Sure, if you sit there and look around, it's pretty stunning; but if you sit there, you and your squad are dead! For the most part, the game keeps you going pretty much constantly. One cool thing I noticed in the demo is how an overhead illuminating flare is used to light up the battlefield in the last encounter of the demo. I mean, it looked pretty freaking good, created shadows all over the place, etc. Likewise, the night vision segment was really good, and it just feels real unlike it does in most other games.
I think a problem the
radiation killed the transistors,
in her brand new pacemaker
while the flashing indicators
marked her Honda-mausoleum
I don't agree with bullet #1. A well designed, 2-4 passenger, general aviation aircraft shouldn't burn all that much fuel. Sure, some burn more than others, but when you consider a Mooney can do about 200mph, at 20,000 feet and burn around a little less than 10 gallons per hour--that's about 20 miles per gallon, which is pretty good considering you're cooking along at 200mph.
The real problem is that features which work good on aircraft (especially aerodynamics which help increase speed reduce fuel consumption) don't translate very well to practical (or safe) ground vehicles.
Bullet #2, you're absolutely right. The barrier to entry in the aviation field isn't really very high, as it is, and under-experienced pilots routinely get themselves, their friends and their families, and sometimes random other people killed. Having even more people who are even less experienced buzzing around the skies sends chills down my spine.
Bullet #3, you're right and wrong. I mean, sure, if you lose your engine in a small plane, it's not good--but it's not like you instantly plummet into a mountain side. However, if you're high enough, smart and trained well enough, and aren't flying in conditions beyond your experience and skill level, engine failure shouldn't be a fatal experience. Also, a ton "engine failure" emergencies are the result of the pilot not watching the fuel meter, or forgetting to switch tanks. This is mostly related to bullet #2, idiots in the air. Airframe and control surface failures are very rare, but are one of those things that can make an airplane a giant lawn dart.
Anyway, good points.
Gore is an idiot. The real "Inconvenient Truth" is that following Gore's advice will kill you within minutes. I'm not convinced that mass suicide is really the right answer.
Yeah, but if we did that, we'd really fuck the CO2 levels of the Earth, you know, about 2 days to a week later, anyway.
Conversely, (purely for instance, and not related to any spacecraft) if if you design a system capable of acquiring and transmitting 1 megabit of information per second, it doesn't matter how you chunk it up; you're still acquiring 1 megabit of information per second, because that's the way it's designed. If you had a buffer of only 80 kilobits, it means that if you want to transmit 1 megabit per second, the process will completely fill and empty the buffer a little over twelve times per second. That kind of cycle time is certainly not unheard of!
It's like the Ethernet frames. The maximum data per frame is 1500 bytes (not counting header, checksum or modern jumbo frames)--which is a fraction of the total memory the voyager spacecraft had--about 1/55th, specifically; who knows how much of that was actually used for data acquisition, processing, etc.
The lesson here is that the only thing which determines overall data rate is how many times PER SECOND the cycle happens at! Even with a MTU of only 1500 bytes, Ethernet networks are capable of passing many millions of bits per second.
It comes as no great surprise, really. Compared to the US, the UK is usually ahead in things. Why not time?
Yeah, I was trying to think of some examples of acts that might have the potential to go big... I came up blank. Totally forgot about them, thanks for pointing it out. However, I'm thinking someone new is due for nationwide stardom, and the net's gonna be their bread and butter at first.
Well, I'm not saying they will necessarily become famous world wide like Michael Jackson was before he really started going weird. Anyway, that's pretty interesting. This isn't something I keep track of, but yeah, you've hit the nail on the head. I'm not surprised that some bands have made it of the viral marketing tactics, but I'm more surprised that nobody's made it really huge yet. For all I know the Arctic Monkeys are plain freaking gigantic in the UK--just as an American, I haven't really seen it over here.
Actually, due to how the public consciousness works today, it's probably much easier for a band to gain stardom level of attention through social networking sites, youtube, etc. than it is to sign up to a label and give them a big chunk for advertising and stuff.
I'm going to prophesy for a second here: it's not going to be too long till a band gains bigtime real world fame and profit by first becoming popular through the internet and its associated media outlets, and the traditional media will pick up the ball after this, forever implanting them in the hearts, minds and wallets of the mainstream. I don't think it's happened yet, for many reasons, but it's gonna happen soon.
Look, I mean this: they can cut back on the premium ultra deluxe $80/month cable to the $39.95 plan, and save $40 bucks a month, cut out the starbucks to twice a week from four times a week, cut the restaurant dining from 5 nights to 3, or whatever. I'm not suggesting that people drop all the stuff they like, completely.
However, if there's something you want, and you don't immediately have the cash, you can plan your budget for the next several months, cut back on the regular expenses, and save up! Too few people know how to do this today. They instead charge it, and those purchases hang over their heads like a black cloud for the next several years.