So the GPs point about everyone having 10x as much as Donald Trump and still being poor is flawed? That's what I'm saying. Let's take the whole quote:
Now think : if everybody made 10x the wage of donald trump, had a planet to him/herself and an army of robot servants to comply with his/her every whim, would obviously still be 10% "poor" people.
and the definition of poor again ("lacking in material possesions") and look at this again. Would you say that people with their own planets and an army of robots servants lack in material possesions? Would they lack for food and shelter? Nope. Thus they would not be poor.
Do you have a cite for any of the things you assert here? The problem with schools is "feel good people"? Really? Nothing else? Schools may game the system, but the name of that game is "no child left behind".
Poor: "lacking material possessions". If everyone has enough to eat and shelter, which I think they would if they made 10x as much as Donald Trump, no one would be poor. It just sounds like you have an axe to grind against "socialists" so you set up this straw man to grind away on. No one is suggesting (except for maybe Kurt Vonnegut:) ) that we poke out the eyes of people in the name of social equality.
I'd like to see if your attitude is different after teaching for a few years. The high minded stuff goes out the window pretty quickly, I'd imagine. I'm sure teachers, good ones that is, attempt to teach how to think when they can, but probably much of the day is taken up with behavioral control.
We gave up control of our schools to "feel gooders". Now its all about grief counselors and no winners allowed because no one should be a loser. When we removed the reward of success what did we expect? I have seen articles where every student got to walk the diploma line regardless if they graduated just so they didn't feel ostracized.
Cite?
The question isn't whether they walked the line, it's whether they graduated. If they didn't actually get a diploma (and graduate) who cares if they get to play dress up and pretend to graduate?
Strawman. If you need to couch your argument in "imagine...", it's by definition, unrealistic and a simplifictation. People, esp. in large groups and with respect to culture and religion are way too complex to say anything true about in the specific way you are doing.
I think I've been missing a step. GrandCentral will call the POTS line for you, call your SIP line, then connect the two. Since GrandCentral is making the call to the POTS line, they pay for it. Correct?
To be more clear: Grandcentral routes the call to your Gizmo account for free, but then Gizmo will charge you for PC-to-phone calls. From the Gizmo site:
Any call to a Gizmo5 user is free. No matter when, no matter where, no matter how long. Free. There's no monthly service charge. Nor is there a set up cost. Gizmo5 is free.
But,
The only calls you could ever have to pay for are calls to offline phones, i.e. mobile phones and landlines. But with Gizmo Call Out credits these calls are cheap and easy to administer.
Therefore calls from GrandCentral to cell and land lines (via Gizmo or anything I've ever found) are not free.
Yes, but try calling a non-SIP number - a cell phone or a land land. Then they charge you or you have to use this "free" account, which, as I pointed out in the original post, is only free if your time or friends aren't worth anything to you.
How do you make calls through grand central? All I see is people call your grand central number and it gets routed where you want it. I don't see how you can call out using the grand central number. If you see that, please let me know. I know of no way to make VoIP calls to land lines or cell phones without paying.
VoIP to landland or cell phones are not free, at least if your time and friendships are worth something:
"Users NEW to the All Calls Free plan get 20 minutes of free calling simply by getting ONE friend to sign up for a new Gizmo account. There are no commitments and no hidden fees."
Your refined argument is much better and more clear. You still use unneeded hyperbole though. 99% of the time they over regulate? That's simply not true. Leave it out and you'd have a stronger point.
Also, where do I state that legistlators can be trusted? I don't. Because I'm picking at your argument doesn't mean I take the exact opposite position. Law makers are people. Sometimes they do the right thing, sometimes they don't. The "ideal" world doesn't exist and neither does its inverse. Things are always more complicated than one thinks.
Shifting the goal posts are we? Let's look at where we stand.
You said:
You are correct that there is no reason that the government can't have a small set of regulatory powers. In theory I could have a driveway made of milk chocolate. When looking at the REALITY of how the government functions, if you give them an inch they will take a mile. I responded:
This is a slippery slope argument (and not even a reasonable one) and I said no slippery slopes.:) The point does not stand. You said:
...I challenge you to find a Federal government level institution that has been around for more than 20 years that hasn't expanded its responsibilities and oversight capabilities. Find me a department that still has the same number of employees and hasn't been absorbed by another department that was expanding its own influence. I responded to your challenge:
... The EPA is getting less and less effective and less and less regulatory as time goes on.... Now you want me to limit my responses to "agencies that actually might be responsible for securing the internet," in effect making me choose DHS, FBI, or NSA. Your argument keeps shifting. If you want to restate and refine your initial argument, then who knows, maybe I'll even agree with it.
The "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" is the analogy that you've come up with and that you're using. "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" is a direct quote from an earlier post of yours. I'm only using it because you asserted it. I wouldn't make my slopes a slippery as that.:)
Find me a department that still has the same number of employees and hasn't been absorbed by another department that was expanding its own influence.
That's your definition of "give them an inch and they'll take a mile"? That they have a few more employees that they started with? Jeeze, a mile isn't what it used to be. But ok, I'll give it a shot: NASA? the post office? the department of the interior? the EPA? The EPA is getting less and less effective and less and less regulatory as time goes on.
...if you give them an inch they will take a mile. This is a slippery slope argument (and not even a reasonable one) and I said no slippery slopes.:) The point does not stand.
The US War on Drugs has led to lower prices and higher purity of the product being smuggled into the country.
Really, lower prices? You don't think that drugs produced by private enterprise or even the gov't would be cheaper? You don't think that if Bayer produced drugs like they produced aspirin that they'd be cheaper?
Either the government stays out of regulating and securing the internet or they don't. Which one do you really want?
False dichotomy. There is no reason a gov't can't have a small set of limited regulatory powers. And don't try a slippery slope response to this post.:)
Well I may be a bit muddled, at least I'm trying to support my argument with evidence. The main problem I had with your original post was the assertion that:
Compare that to kids in the average US city, where 50% do not graduate high school. Do you have any evidence that 50% of the kids in average US city do not graduate high school?
Slashdot Mirror
and the definition of poor again ("lacking in material possesions") and look at this again. Would you say that people with their own planets and an army of robots servants lack in material possesions? Would they lack for food and shelter? Nope. Thus they would not be poor.
Do you have a cite for any of the things you assert here? The problem with schools is "feel good people"? Really? Nothing else? Schools may game the system, but the name of that game is "no child left behind".
Poor: "lacking material possessions". If everyone has enough to eat and shelter, which I think they would if they made 10x as much as Donald Trump, no one would be poor. It just sounds like you have an axe to grind against "socialists" so you set up this straw man to grind away on. No one is suggesting (except for maybe Kurt Vonnegut :) ) that we poke out the eyes of people in the name of social equality.
I'd like to see if your attitude is different after teaching for a few years. The high minded stuff goes out the window pretty quickly, I'd imagine. I'm sure teachers, good ones that is, attempt to teach how to think when they can, but probably much of the day is taken up with behavioral control.
This quote is now featured front and center on the latest series of ads for the game:
http://ads.penny-arcade.com/delivery/ai.php?filename=rpsd02_728avail_3.jpg&contenttype=jpeg
http://ads.penny-arcade.com/delivery/ai.php?filename=rspd03_160avail.jpg&contenttype=jpeg
ROFL. ROFL.
Cite?
The question isn't whether they walked the line, it's whether they graduated. If they didn't actually get a diploma (and graduate) who cares if they get to play dress up and pretend to graduate?
Strawman. If you need to couch your argument in "imagine ...", it's by definition, unrealistic and a simplifictation. People, esp. in large groups and with respect to culture and religion are way too complex to say anything true about in the specific way you are doing.
(replying to self)
I think I've been missing a step. GrandCentral will call the POTS line for you, call your SIP line, then connect the two. Since GrandCentral is making the call to the POTS line, they pay for it. Correct?
I finally understood once I read this post: http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=542462&cid=23289436
It's not free when calling land lines or cell phones. You need to pay when connecting from SIP to POTS.
But,
Therefore calls from GrandCentral to cell and land lines (via Gizmo or anything I've ever found) are not free.
For reference: http://gizmo5.com/pc/network/free-computer-to-computer-calls
Yes, but try calling a non-SIP number - a cell phone or a land land. Then they charge you or you have to use this "free" account, which, as I pointed out in the original post, is only free if your time or friends aren't worth anything to you.
How do you make calls through grand central? All I see is people call your grand central number and it gets routed where you want it. I don't see how you can call out using the grand central number. If you see that, please let me know. I know of no way to make VoIP calls to land lines or cell phones without paying.
VoIP to landland or cell phones are not free, at least if your time and friendships are worth something:
"Users NEW to the All Calls Free plan get 20 minutes of free calling simply by getting ONE friend to sign up for a new Gizmo account. There are no commitments and no hidden fees."
http://gizmo5.com/pc/network/mobile-or-landline-calls/
Just put all access panels in the back and the curtain around the front.
Your refined argument is much better and more clear. You still use unneeded hyperbole though. 99% of the time they over regulate? That's simply not true. Leave it out and you'd have a stronger point.
Also, where do I state that legistlators can be trusted? I don't. Because I'm picking at your argument doesn't mean I take the exact opposite position. Law makers are people. Sometimes they do the right thing, sometimes they don't. The "ideal" world doesn't exist and neither does its inverse. Things are always more complicated than one thinks.
You said: You are correct that there is no reason that the government can't have a small set of regulatory powers. In theory I could have a driveway made of milk chocolate. When looking at the REALITY of how the government functions, if you give them an inch they will take a mile. I responded: This is a slippery slope argument (and not even a reasonable one) and I said no slippery slopes.
...I challenge you to find a Federal government level institution that has been around for more than 20 years that hasn't expanded its responsibilities and oversight capabilities. Find me a department that still has the same number of employees and hasn't been absorbed by another department that was expanding its own influence. I responded to your challenge:
... The EPA is getting less and less effective and less and less regulatory as time goes on.That's your definition of "give them an inch and they'll take a mile"? That they have a few more employees that they started with? Jeeze, a mile isn't what it used to be. But ok, I'll give it a shot: NASA? the post office? the department of the interior? the EPA? The EPA is getting less and less effective and less and less regulatory as time goes on.
...if you give them an inch they will take a mile. This is a slippery slope argument (and not even a reasonable one) and I said no slippery slopes.-1 flamebait.
Really, lower prices? You don't think that drugs produced by private enterprise or even the gov't would be cheaper? You don't think that if Bayer produced drugs like they produced aspirin that they'd be cheaper?
What is your reasoning here?
False dichotomy. There is no reason a gov't can't have a small set of limited regulatory powers. And don't try a slippery slope response to this post.
That's three words.
Prove it.
There was no magical time in the past when things were morally fine and upstanding. Let that idea go - it's a bad one.