EASE OF USE is also an important factor which I forgot to mention. Not only do the Honda Insight, VW Lupo, and VW 1 L car get ~90 MPG and ~240 MPG per passenger, they are only a few steps from your house. In contrast the nearest train station (for me) is 30 minutes walk. And I'd get soaked or frozen going there.
Also the train doesn't run in the middle of the night, which I might need for an emergency or because I feel like getting some milk at the local store.
I compared my travel time (car) versus my boss (train), and mine was twice as fast. 45 minutes for me versus 90 minutes for him.
>>>There is no law that says you have to play the game,
There's also no law that says I can't express my disappointment that FF11 and FF14 were online, instead of stand-alones. On the previous consoles we had 3 standalone games each..... but in recent years only 2:
NES == FF 1,2,3 SNES = FF 4,5,6 PS1 == FF 7,8,9 PS2 == FF10,12 (one less standalone Final Fantasy) PS3 == FF13,15 (ditto)
Which is why the parents should have held-out for more money. If for example the damages were 2 million, the lawyer would get his 425,000*, and the students would get 1.6 million. The fact the parents chose to accept such a paltry sum merely demonstrates a poor decision on their part.
* * Actually the lawyer only gets ~$220,000. The rest goes to taxes. So gov't made-out big too.
You mean an anti-choice Monopoly. Like our sucky mail system, or lousy Amtrak service, or crumbling bridges, or shitty schools. No. Thanks. I'd rather that I use my OWN money rather than be as a child dependent on politicians/bureaucrats ("please help me sir... please have mercy"). Frak that.
I want to keep my money in MY control, so I can spend my cash in whichever hospital I feel like, plus a safety net (welfare) to help those without money. Just the same way I can choose whether to buy Microsoft or Apple or Amiga or Linux OS. Or Dodge or GM or Ford or Honda or Toyota. Or none at all.
I'm 99.9% pro-choice. Power to the citizen, not the bureaucrat/master.
>>>"Well, I could attack and kill evil people in far off lands. Heroine dealers, warlords, terrorists, etc."
I wouldn't do any of that. Everybody has a right to live, even assholes. Besides heroine isn't any worse than the beer people use to kill themselves every weekend. And "warlord" is just a derogatory term for "king" or "politician" - we've had presidents that acted like warlords. The only real evil person in your list is the terrorist, but even that could be argued to be a "freedom fighter" in the manner of our George Washington when he fought against UK Tyranny.
What I'd probably do is act to protect people from their own government (police) which kill & beat innocent citizens every single day via their unconstitutional raids & just general ineptitude.
>>>They're not choosing to be evil, they just rationalize being a complete dick as _good_ or at least excusable.
Like politicians explaining why it's _good_ to assess a ~$1000 fine against people who choose to pay cash to their doctors, instead of having insurance? How does that saying go? The road to hell (or tyranny) is paved with good intentions? Or as Mark Twain said, "Lord save me from people trying to 'improve' me. I like my vices and foibles."
Like a bad TV show, it just goes on and on and on. Kinda like Smallville. Or Voyager. I'd sooner a game be like a movie or book with a pre-designed fixed ending - a goal for me to reach, with a nice wrap-up of the story, and then move on to the next game.
If you keep expecting me to be perfect, then you're a fool. I never claimed to have all the answers. I have *opinions* based upon a Jeffersonian philosophy.
Furthermore if you realize the world is not black-and-white, then you'd realize why my views vary depending upon the situation. For example, I am 99.9% in favor of free markets because they let people choose which companies they want to give money to..... or not spend money at all (I don't have cable TV). However there are some cases, like water companies, where it would be impossible to run multiple pipes. i.e. Natural monopolies, so in those cases it's logical to have government do the job. .
>>I've not stated any opinion regarding any of this.
It's pretty obvious you are a pro-big government person, from your previous comments. You (or someone like you) would probably force me to get cable TV "because it's for your own good" and/or "it's cheaper to tax everyone". And then make me pay a ~$75/month tax to government to support it. Vice-versa: I am of the opinion I shouldn't have to spend money on something I don't want or need
>>>To the point of your belief that private insurance can solve things.
STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. I never said anything of the kind. Please don't put words in my mouth, because I consider insurance to be almost as big a scam as government-run healthcare. Corporations/government - Two halves of the same evil. *I* would rather pay cash for everything and get the 10-20% discount doctors provide, and then have the Welfare/Medicare safety net in case disaster happens (i.e. I run out of money).
Also for those persons who have insurance, a lot of the holes are being filled in. Like the just-passed law that forbids companies from insuring people with pre-existing illness. .
>>>Charitable institutions have historically had a pretty spotty history when it comes to accountability and ensuring money goes where it was intended rather than exorbitant administrative salaries and other misappropriations. >>>
Ditto government. Actually it's worse. When you learn a charity is bad, you can stop giving them money. That's not an option with government.
>>>speed limits are a must in 99% of the situations
Except in Montana, where speed limits are only needed on 1% of the roadways. Who the hell does Congress think it is to order Montana to impose limits, when its citizens don't want them?
Ya know..... if you did just a little bit of research..... you'd know that US Priuses are now ten years old. I've not heard of rampant failures at the 5 or 3 year mark. Have you?
>>>That and what they let the schools teach their children about history.
That Thomas Jefferson supported the abolition of slavery? That blacks played in integral part of America's revolution and early history? Yeah that's horrible. Texas and other states should return to liberal texts that pretend none of that ever happened./end sarcasm
>>>you should never be driving the car at more than 70 mph as it is illegal to do so.
It must be nice to live near the west or east coast and never go anywhere. The REALITY is that there are lots of states where 70 and 75 mph are perfectly legal, and therefore the gasoline engine would kick in.
Honda Insight == 90mpg. If I carry a friend it increases to 170 people-miles/gallon.
The VW Lupo 3L gets similar numbers but can carry 5 people, and get 440 people-miles/gallon. And then there's that soon-to-be-released gets 240 MPG for one person and 480 with two people. Can mass transit beat any of these? Not even close. A typical buss or train averages the equivalent of 25 people-miles/gallon.
>>>I don't know if wireless really competes against wires, cables or fiber optic
Well I know at least one friend who is considering switching to wireless, because it's faster than the dialup he has now. So yeah it does sometimes compete with wired internet especially in rural areas (which is why the FCC pushed for these TV Band/whitespace Devices).
Two random thoughts:
- Five empty channels will no onger be empty if the FCC follows its plan to remove TV stations from channels 30-to-51 and "repack" them into the remaining 7-29 space. Followed by a 30-51 auction. Whitepsace will then be non-existent (no open channels).
- I looked at the Houston market, and I don't know where they got 5 empty channels? I only see 1. - Probably the professors are broadcasting directly over existing TV channels. A definite no-no.
>>>"why should I pay for that guy's grocery bill? I've got my own to buy."
Because it's theft. I am the one who worked his ass off to earn the money. It's MINE. Nobody has a right to steal my labor, anymore than my boss can decide "I'm only paying you 20 hours instead of 40." I don't mind having a safety net for hungry & homeless persons, but if someone has a job and money then they should stop wasting it on beer/cigarettes/$150 per month cable tv and buy some fucking food, instead of swiping it from their neighbors' wallets.
I think the firefighters should have still saved his house (since he asked them to), but then charge him $1500 afterwards. i.e. twenty years of coverage. It would be a way for the government to encourage people to pay upfront rather than after the fact.
>>>Lose your job due to an illness--and by extension your ability to maintain your private health insurance coverage.
Then you'd be covered by either Medicare or SSI Disability. You wouldn't die. That's the purpose of a "safety net" - to help the poor.
But the well-off should pay their own bills, not become like children (dependents of mommy government). BTW what the hell does your question have to do with my decision to not fire insure my house, and let it burn to the ground? Or not insure my car (note I said MY car), and let it get totaled? You going to hold a gun to my held and FORCE me to buy something I don't want? If so then you're a damn tyrant.
>>>$900B/year DoD budget. Picking on low income people by removing various social services and other public good programs won't go net very much. >>>
First off, the DOD is constitutional. The public handouts are not (not in the long list of enumerated US powers). Plus even if you completely dismantled the army, navy, et cetera you'd still have a huge deficit (1500-900 ==600 billion overspending). You need to make additional cuts, and the biggest line item is social security.
I don't have any objections to a safety net, but SS, medicare, and Bush's prescription plan should all be limited to the poor and middle incomes. i.e. If you earn more than, say, 5 million lifetime income you should be ineligible for these programs.
I don't see any contradiction there. I'm pro-choice on virtually everything (except when your actions physically harm another), and when you take that position, everything becomes obvious:
- People should be able to CHOOSE for themselves if they want to insure their house or car or selves. Hell I think people should be able to commit suicide if they want - who are you to tell them they can't? I believe in maximum freedom and minimal limitations (whereas you seem to believe in maximum chains and almost no individual freedom).
Of course there are practical limitations to my view:
- In the case of police I don't see how "opt out" would be workable, anymore than I can decide I'd rather have "Pennsylvania Power & Light" instead of BGE. Would they stop chasing a thief when he drove past my house? And then resume the chase once the guy was in front of my neighbors' home? Furthermore how would they know my home did not pay the "police tax". It seems more logical to treat police how we treat the army - a service that benefits all.
- But for firefighters? Yes "opt out" is absolutely a workable system. As the linked article proved. You can choose to have your home protected, or let it burn to the ground. Or you can choose to have health insurance, or you can choose to die. Key word: Choice. I favor it and you don't.
That's exactly what happens in my State. If you don't hire a company to pick-up your trash, then it just lays there and rots. In fact that's what a lot of farmers do - in order to generate fertilizer for crops, or bedding for cows, pigs, etc. .
>>>You'd advocate shutting down the ER to people who can't pay?
Strawman arguments are Never an effective tactic. Obviously I would not. Instead I would let the medical corporation who owns that hospital pay the bill, if someone is too poor to pay it themselves. I'd also supplement it with charitable donations from the local community. My city has a hospital that operates exactly like that: On donations. .
>>>libraries
In my opinion libraries are as obsolete as the Bankrupt Blockbuster stores, or VHS tapes, or buggy whips. Their purpose has been replaced by the internet, which can feed free books and information directly to the home. I don't think the government should continue subsidizing obsolete technologies like VHS or horsewhips or libraries. The world has moved on - time for the government to catch up.
Otherwise a thousand years from now we might still be paying for empty library buildings, when everyone has the info beamed directly to their neural net. Similar to how we were still paying for the Spanish-American War tax (applied to phone bills) even though the war ended 100 years earlier. .
>>>You know I never realized just how much you truly cared about those whose lot is worse than yours. I'm touched...
Keep stabbing at that strawman. Doesn't affect me at all. Stupid twit.
>>>the people IN THAT COUNTY get to rule themselves on that matter, and THEY DECIDED not to pay for a fire department out of tax dollars, for whatever reason. Their decision.
"They have no right to make that decision. Democracy is shit." - current assholes in Congress. And no I'm not trolling; they truly do hate democracy because they want to FORCE us to have a fire department, even if out local or state legislatures decided not to. They don't support self-rule.
Yes people who don't want to have fire service should be allowed to "opt out".
Just the same way I choose not to insure my car (although I still have to insure the other guy's car, in case of accident). I'm tired of people acting as if we "have" to do something. Maybe I live in a shack and don't care if it burns to the ground. I should be allowed to make that choice, if I'm truly Free and not just a serf.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>Japanese trains have high ridership
That's because they treat the people like sardines, shoving them into trains. I'll keep my car, rather than put up with that inhumane shit.
EASE OF USE is also an important factor which I forgot to mention. Not only do the Honda Insight, VW Lupo, and VW 1 L car get ~90 MPG and ~240 MPG per passenger, they are only a few steps from your house. In contrast the nearest train station (for me) is 30 minutes walk. And I'd get soaked or frozen going there.
Also the train doesn't run in the middle of the night, which I might need for an emergency or because I feel like getting some milk at the local store.
I compared my travel time (car) versus my boss (train), and mine was twice as fast. 45 minutes for me versus 90 minutes for him.
>>>There is no law that says you have to play the game,
There's also no law that says I can't express my disappointment that FF11 and FF14 were online, instead of stand-alones. On the previous consoles we had 3 standalone games each..... but in recent years only 2:
NES == FF 1,2,3
SNES = FF 4,5,6
PS1 == FF 7,8,9
PS2 == FF10,12 (one less standalone Final Fantasy)
PS3 == FF13,15 (ditto)
Which is why the parents should have held-out for more money. If for example the damages were 2 million, the lawyer would get his 425,000*, and the students would get 1.6 million. The fact the parents chose to accept such a paltry sum merely demonstrates a poor decision on their part.
*
* Actually the lawyer only gets ~$220,000. The rest goes to taxes. So gov't made-out big too.
>>>you could have a socialised system like we do
You mean an anti-choice Monopoly. Like our sucky mail system, or lousy Amtrak service, or crumbling bridges, or shitty schools. No. Thanks. I'd rather that I use my OWN money rather than be as a child dependent on politicians/bureaucrats ("please help me sir... please have mercy"). Frak that.
I want to keep my money in MY control, so I can spend my cash in whichever hospital I feel like, plus a safety net (welfare) to help those without money. Just the same way I can choose whether to buy Microsoft or Apple or Amiga or Linux OS. Or Dodge or GM or Ford or Honda or Toyota. Or none at all.
I'm 99.9% pro-choice. Power to the citizen, not the bureaucrat/master.
>>>"Well, I could attack and kill evil people in far off lands. Heroine dealers, warlords, terrorists, etc."
I wouldn't do any of that. Everybody has a right to live, even assholes. Besides heroine isn't any worse than the beer people use to kill themselves every weekend. And "warlord" is just a derogatory term for "king" or "politician" - we've had presidents that acted like warlords. The only real evil person in your list is the terrorist, but even that could be argued to be a "freedom fighter" in the manner of our George Washington when he fought against UK Tyranny.
What I'd probably do is act to protect people from their own government (police) which kill & beat innocent citizens every single day via their unconstitutional raids & just general ineptitude.
>>>They're not choosing to be evil, they just rationalize being a complete dick as _good_ or at least excusable.
Like politicians explaining why it's _good_ to assess a ~$1000 fine against people who choose to pay cash to their doctors, instead of having insurance? How does that saying go? The road to hell (or tyranny) is paved with good intentions? Or as Mark Twain said, "Lord save me from people trying to 'improve' me. I like my vices and foibles."
>>>is still getting fairly solid content updates.
Like a bad TV show, it just goes on and on and on. Kinda like Smallville. Or Voyager. I'd sooner a game be like a movie or book with a pre-designed fixed ending - a goal for me to reach, with a nice wrap-up of the story, and then move on to the next game.
If you keep expecting me to be perfect, then you're a fool.
I never claimed to have all the answers.
I have *opinions* based upon a Jeffersonian philosophy.
Furthermore if you realize the world is not black-and-white, then you'd realize why my views vary depending upon the situation. For example, I am 99.9% in favor of free markets because they let people choose which companies they want to give money to..... or not spend money at all (I don't have cable TV). However there are some cases, like water companies, where it would be impossible to run multiple pipes. i.e. Natural monopolies, so in those cases it's logical to have government do the job.
.
>>I've not stated any opinion regarding any of this.
It's pretty obvious you are a pro-big government person, from your previous comments. You (or someone like you) would probably force me to get cable TV "because it's for your own good" and/or "it's cheaper to tax everyone". And then make me pay a ~$75/month tax to government to support it. Vice-versa: I am of the opinion I shouldn't have to spend money on something I don't want or need
>>>To the point of your belief that private insurance can solve things.
STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. I never said anything of the kind. Please don't put words in my mouth, because I consider insurance to be almost as big a scam as government-run healthcare. Corporations/government - Two halves of the same evil. *I* would rather pay cash for everything and get the 10-20% discount doctors provide, and then have the Welfare/Medicare safety net in case disaster happens (i.e. I run out of money).
Also for those persons who have insurance, a lot of the holes are being filled in. Like the just-passed law that forbids companies from insuring people with pre-existing illness.
.
>>>Charitable institutions have historically had a pretty spotty history when it comes to accountability and ensuring money goes where it was intended rather than exorbitant administrative salaries and other misappropriations.
>>>
Ditto government. Actually it's worse.
When you learn a charity is bad, you can stop giving them money.
That's not an option with government.
>>>speed limits are a must in 99% of the situations
Except in Montana, where speed limits are only needed on 1% of the roadways. Who the hell does Congress think it is to order Montana to impose limits, when its citizens don't want them?
Ya know..... if you did just a little bit of research..... you'd know that US Priuses are now ten years old. I've not heard of rampant failures at the 5 or 3 year mark. Have you?
>>>80? really? Wow, that's fast.
Not when you consider Congressional Law requires interstates to be spec'd for 125 mph speeds. 80 is only 2/3rd of the maximum safe travel speed.
>>>That and what they let the schools teach their children about history.
That Thomas Jefferson supported the abolition of slavery? That blacks played in integral part of America's revolution and early history? Yeah that's horrible. Texas and other states should return to liberal texts that pretend none of that ever happened. /end sarcasm
>>>you should never be driving the car at more than 70 mph as it is illegal to do so.
It must be nice to live near the west or east coast and never go anywhere. The REALITY is that there are lots of states where 70 and 75 mph are perfectly legal, and therefore the gasoline engine would kick in.
Honda Insight == 90mpg. If I carry a friend it increases to 170 people-miles/gallon.
The VW Lupo 3L gets similar numbers but can carry 5 people, and get 440 people-miles/gallon. And then there's that soon-to-be-released gets 240 MPG for one person and 480 with two people. Can mass transit beat any of these? Not even close. A typical buss or train averages the equivalent of 25 people-miles/gallon.
>>>I don't know if wireless really competes against wires, cables or fiber optic
Well I know at least one friend who is considering switching to wireless, because it's faster than the dialup he has now. So yeah it does sometimes compete with wired internet especially in rural areas (which is why the FCC pushed for these TV Band/whitespace Devices).
Two random thoughts:
- Five empty channels will no onger be empty if the FCC follows its plan to remove TV stations from channels 30-to-51 and "repack" them into the remaining 7-29 space. Followed by a 30-51 auction. Whitepsace will then be non-existent (no open channels).
- I looked at the Houston market, and I don't know where they got 5 empty channels? I only see 1.
- Probably the professors are broadcasting directly over existing TV channels. A definite no-no.
>>>"why should I pay for that guy's grocery bill? I've got my own to buy."
Because it's theft. I am the one who worked his ass off to earn the money. It's MINE. Nobody has a right to steal my labor, anymore than my boss can decide "I'm only paying you 20 hours instead of 40." I don't mind having a safety net for hungry & homeless persons, but if someone has a job and money then they should stop wasting it on beer/cigarettes/$150 per month cable tv and buy some fucking food, instead of swiping it from their neighbors' wallets.
I think the firefighters should have still saved his house (since he asked them to), but then charge him $1500 afterwards. i.e. twenty years of coverage. It would be a way for the government to encourage people to pay upfront rather than after the fact.
>>>Lose your job due to an illness--and by extension your ability to maintain your private health insurance coverage.
Then you'd be covered by either Medicare or SSI Disability.
You wouldn't die.
That's the purpose of a "safety net" - to help the poor.
But the well-off should pay their own bills, not become like children (dependents of mommy government). BTW what the hell does your question have to do with my decision to not fire insure my house, and let it burn to the ground? Or not insure my car (note I said MY car), and let it get totaled? You going to hold a gun to my held and FORCE me to buy something I don't want? If so then you're a damn tyrant.
>>>$900B/year DoD budget. Picking on low income people by removing various social services and other public good programs won't go net very much.
>>>
First off, the DOD is constitutional. The public handouts are not (not in the long list of enumerated US powers). Plus even if you completely dismantled the army, navy, et cetera you'd still have a huge deficit (1500-900 ==600 billion overspending). You need to make additional cuts, and the biggest line item is social security.
I don't have any objections to a safety net, but SS, medicare, and Bush's prescription plan should all be limited to the poor and middle incomes. i.e. If you earn more than, say, 5 million lifetime income you should be ineligible for these programs.
I don't see any contradiction there. I'm pro-choice on virtually everything (except when your actions physically harm another), and when you take that position, everything becomes obvious:
- People should be able to CHOOSE for themselves if they want to insure their house or car or selves. Hell I think people should be able to commit suicide if they want - who are you to tell them they can't? I believe in maximum freedom and minimal limitations (whereas you seem to believe in maximum chains and almost no individual freedom).
Of course there are practical limitations to my view:
- In the case of police I don't see how "opt out" would be workable, anymore than I can decide I'd rather have "Pennsylvania Power & Light" instead of BGE. Would they stop chasing a thief when he drove past my house? And then resume the chase once the guy was in front of my neighbors' home? Furthermore how would they know my home did not pay the "police tax". It seems more logical to treat police how we treat the army - a service that benefits all.
- But for firefighters? Yes "opt out" is absolutely a workable system. As the linked article proved. You can choose to have your home protected, or let it burn to the ground. Or you can choose to have health insurance, or you can choose to die. Key word: Choice. I favor it and you don't.
>>>You would advocate letting the trash collect?
That's exactly what happens in my State. If you don't hire a company to pick-up your trash, then it just lays there and rots. In fact that's what a lot of farmers do - in order to generate fertilizer for crops, or bedding for cows, pigs, etc.
.
>>>You'd advocate shutting down the ER to people who can't pay?
Strawman arguments are Never an effective tactic. Obviously I would not. Instead I would let the medical corporation who owns that hospital pay the bill, if someone is too poor to pay it themselves. I'd also supplement it with charitable donations from the local community. My city has a hospital that operates exactly like that: On donations.
.
>>>libraries
In my opinion libraries are as obsolete as the Bankrupt Blockbuster stores, or VHS tapes, or buggy whips. Their purpose has been replaced by the internet, which can feed free books and information directly to the home. I don't think the government should continue subsidizing obsolete technologies like VHS or horsewhips or libraries. The world has moved on - time for the government to catch up.
Otherwise a thousand years from now we might still be paying for empty library buildings, when everyone has the info beamed directly to their neural net. Similar to how we were still paying for the Spanish-American War tax (applied to phone bills) even though the war ended 100 years earlier.
.
>>>You know I never realized just how much you truly cared about those whose lot is worse than yours. I'm touched...
Keep stabbing at that strawman.
Doesn't affect me at all.
Stupid twit.
>>>the people IN THAT COUNTY get to rule themselves on that matter, and THEY DECIDED not to pay for a fire department out of tax dollars, for whatever reason. Their decision.
"They have no right to make that decision. Democracy is shit." - current assholes in Congress. And no I'm not trolling; they truly do hate democracy because they want to FORCE us to have a fire department, even if out local or state legislatures decided not to. They don't support self-rule.
Yes people who don't want to have fire service should be allowed to "opt out".
Just the same way I choose not to insure my car (although I still have to insure the other guy's car, in case of accident). I'm tired of people acting as if we "have" to do something. Maybe I live in a shack and don't care if it burns to the ground. I should be allowed to make that choice, if I'm truly Free and not just a serf.