"However the public don't want that, so instead they are killing the BBC with cuts".
Mayhap. If so, there's a long way to go. Last time I heard - a few years ago - I was aghast to hear that the BBC had some 40 "executives" who were paid more than the Prime Minister. While that's not a huge amount in business terms, it's ridiculously excessive for a broadcaster. Especially since the BBC's actual work would probably go ahead much more quickly and smoothly without those executives, who do little except hold meetings, issue policy documents, and interfere with people who are doing a pretty good job.
Forecasting the exact weather for specific parts of the UK must be very challenging. Look, a bunch of rain-bearing cloud is coming in from the south-west (almost always the case). But how fast will the wind carry it? When will it actually dump some rain? Will it go straight over Town X, or dodge sideways and miss it by 10 miles?
That said, I have been appalled for many years by the BBC/Met Office forecasts. I try to walk every morning, but I won't usually go out if it is already raining or about to start. Many is the time "white cloud" turned out to be "white cloud with steady rain underneath". On occasion I have looked at the BBC forecast for my town RIGHT NOW and seen "heavy rain", while outside the window the sun was shining in a cloudless sky. (Or vice versa, which of course tends to be wetting).
Whatever the technical challenges, I have to ask how much credence to put in forecasts a week, a month, or a year ahead when they can't even forecast the weather RIGHT NOW?
"I don't know if that's driven by government or quasi-government led efforts, or simply driven by economic realities of the news business".
Aha! That's the really cool thing about the current setup. The economic realities of the news business dictate that media should do nothing but parrot the government line (and occasionally accept payment for printing entire articles wholly written by the CIA). That's what pays. Doing anything else really, really, REALLY doesn't pay. (Plus some people might end up dead, or worse - who knows?)
Robert A Heinlein gave quite detailed descriptions of household robots in his 1956 SF novel "The Door Into Summer" (although admittedly the novel's action is set in 1970 and later). The protagonist's company is called "Hired Girl", and he creates Flexible Frank, Drafting Dan, and finally Protean Pete. Whatever slight lacunae there may have remained in the engineering details, Heinlein had the marketing down pat.
For quite a good account of the novel, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... One of the footnotes there recounts the amusing story of how the Heinleins decided on a title:
"When we were living in Colorado there was snowfall. Our cat — I'm a cat man — wanted to get out of the house so I opened a door for him but he wouldn't leave. Just kept on crying. He'd seen snow before and I couldn't understand it. I kept opening other doors for him and he still wouldn't leave. Then Ginny said, 'Oh, he's looking for a door into summer.' I threw up my hands, told her not to say another word, and wrote the novel The Door Into Summer' in 13 days." - Heinlein interview with Alfred Bester; pg 487 Redemolished ISBN 0-7434-0725-3
It never ceases to amuse and baffle me how even intelligent, educated Americans (such as slashdotters) allow themselves to be lured into vicious "Republican-Democrat" battles. Isn't it obvious that Demoblicans and Republicrats are just the two hands of the same power? Every minute and every quantum of attention and passion you devote to slanging off the "other" party is a minute and a quantum of attention wasted; because the American political circus has been carefully set up so that neither party can ever win decisively. Instead, you attentively watch a series of more or less random fluctuations in fortune, and whip yourself up into a rage about the character defects of the other party's politicians, all the while ignoring the psychopaths in your own chosen party. And you will never succeed in changing the government's policies by any exercise of your votes - just look at what Obama promised before BOTH of his elections, and how he gave you Dubya's third and fourth terms when you kindly elected him.
When will we see a serious discussion on Slashdot about the underlying political system that controls both parties, and excludes everyone else? Why doesn't anyone seem to care about the impossibility of voting for a political leader who doesn't want to conduct genocidal foreign wars? How about a government that reins in the banks and declines to follow the orders of billionaires? Why don't any of you seem even slightly interested in government of the people, by the people, for the people? (In case you hadn't noticed, what you currently have is government of the people, by the servants of the rich, for the rich).
Exactly so. Money and its pursuit cannot replace the more human values such as honesty, courage, kindness, courtesy, imagination, charity, etc. There is something uniquely corrupting about money, in that when you start to think about it a lot you eventually become almost incapable of thinking about anything else. That's when you start sacrificing the good things of life for more money - and more, and more. If you are Larry Ellison, you want to be richer than Bill Gates. And so on.
"Americans are actually considerably less materialistic than other nations: http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-p... [ipsos-na.com]"
Americans SAY they are considerably less materialistic than other nations. FTFY.
Have you noticed that people from the wealthier nations tend to say they are less materialistic? Funny that. Moreover, I didn't say that Americans were unduly concerned about material possessions. I said that the American culture is obsessed my money - quite a different statement. In fact, money is often prized as a measure of status rather than for what it can buy. The poorer the nation, the more value is attached to possessions - again, hardly surprising.
when did academia get taken over by idiots? now that the gatekeepers are dumb we're fucked and all the smart people just go make money.
Well, actually, academia wasn't taken over by idiots. It was taken over - infiltrated - by smart people who were much more interested in money, prestige and power than in scientific truth.
That's the unfortunate fact about American culture. The USA was founded on the belief that all people (well, all white males of a certain age with property, but that's a small detail) should be treated alike. No titles of royalty, nobility or gentry. No class system. No special distinctions or honours.
The result, which became obvious very early on, was a society in which the only value was money. And money, it turns out, corrodes everything that is honest, decent and worthwhile. Now that culture is flooding the rest of the world - although some nations have done their valiant best to build dykes to keep it out.
"As the sociologist Georg Simmel wrote over a century ago, if you make money the center of your value system, then finally you have no value system, because money is not a value". – Morris Berman, “The Moral Order”, Counterpunch 8-10 February 2013. http://www.counterpunch.org/20...
The trouble is that when a pharmaceutical corporation carries out research on a new drug, it very much wants that drug to be found useful, safe, and fit for use. (Although it's in the corporation's interest that any really serious side-effects should be identified, as it would lose even more money if it marketed something that turned out to be a new thalidomide).
Unlike a proper scientific team, the corporation undertakes its research wanting a particular outcome. That alone is almost enough to guarantee that any results reported will be unreliable and unsafe. Research can only be reliable if it is done without concern for the outcome - that is, a given set of results is never regarded as "good" or "bad". It should all be just knowledge.
This is what comes of mingling pure scientific research with technology or engineering. In principle, science is the dispassionate pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. Technology and engineering are the application of scientific knowledge to accomplish something deemed useful. As far as possible, the two should be kept separate.
'There was a derisive laugh from Alexandrov. "Bloody argument," he asserted. "What d'you mean 'bloody argument'?" "Invent bloody argument, like this. Golfer hits ball. Ball lands on tuft of grass - so. Probability ball landed on tuft very small, very very small. Millions other tufts for ball to land on. Probability very small, very very very small. So golfer did not hit ball, but deliberately guided on tuft. Is bloody argument. Yes? Like Weichart's argument"'.
"It pays better to stay outside their borders, lend their governments money, get them hopelessly in debt, and force all their citizens to work for you at rock-bottom pay for the rest of their lives".
See, for example, Joseph Stiglitz' explanation here:
Very true. But, as you admit, he acknowledged that the unfair advantage existed. He also said that businessmen could increase their profits by offshoring manufacture, but gave his opinion that they shouldn't because that was unpatriotic.
Nobody pays any attention to what Adam Smith really said these days. They just talk about the "invisible hand", which he was actually concerned to debunk.
"This is how the labour market is supposed to work".
Unfortunately, that is literally true. Read those original 18th-century and 19th-century economists like Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, etc. They had it all worked out that wages - the price of labour - would be forced down to the minimum that would support life (plus a little extra to let the next generation of workers be born and brought up). Any attempt to pay more would inevitably makes matters still worse.
In the 20th century it looked, for a while, as if things would turn out differently. But maybe not.
If you can quit and go work elsewhere, then it is not slavery.
Hmmmm. Even if the pay and conditions elsewhere are not better than where you are?
Technically, you are not a slave unless you are legally someone else's property. But owning human property in the form of slaves has a downside. They represent a big investment, so you need to keep them healthy. That means reasonable shelter, board and lodging, clothes, some form of medical help when needed... it all adds up.
Today the wealthy have discovered that it pays much better to leave the "slaves" free. That way shelter, board, lodging, clothing, and medical care are their problem, not yours.
Exactly as modern imperialists have discovered that it's a mug's game to invade countries and take them over. Then, as Colin Powell memorably noted, you own them - and you're responsible for governing them. It pays better to stay outside their borders, lend their governments money, get them hopelessly in debt, and force all their citizens to work for you at rock-bottom pay for the rest of their lives. Followed by their children and their grandchildren.
I disagree. There are many possible ways of defining "middle class", but job security is not one of them - never has been. There used to be a time when middle class people enjoyed a lot more job security than they do now - but that's true of everyone.
Apart from politicians and those who are in a position to blackmail politicians, almost everyone nowadays has to worry about losing their job.
'Then why didn't they grab him during the 18 months he was in the UK arguing his appeals before he went into hiding in the embassy? Hell, if the US really is all "fark you, laws," why haven't we sent a SEAL team to invade the embassy? I don't think we're terribly concerned about Ecuador's military might'.
It's not about Ecuador; it's about the UK. Militarily, there isn't much difference between Ecuador and the UK except that the UK has lots of US bases on its territory, and some US-supplied and US-controlled nuclear weapons, making it a prime target if war breaks out.
But the UK does have a "special relationship" with the USA. It's not the kind of deep friendship that politicians like to suggest. (After all, the Americans did have to rebel against British rule; and in 1812 the British burned Washington - hardly the act of a best buddy). No, the British are Washington's most reliable stooges (or "poodles" if you prefer). It looks bad if the USA goes forth to war against some little pipsqueak nation without allies - "the Coalition of the Willing" or whatever crap. The UK's most important role is as the seed crystal around which such coalitions can be formed. As such, it would look exceedingly bad for the USA to use open military force within the UK's territory.
"Does anyone actually care about this guy's legal troubles?"
Yes, like Socrates and Jesus Christ he got into trouble with the authorities for telling the truth in public and upsetting people. (Please don't twist that into any implication that Assange is as good a person generally as Socrates or Jesus Christ). And he is currently getting the same treatment. Certainly, he hasn't yet been crucified or made to drink poison. (Indeed, if he were ever to find his way to the good ol' USA I'm willing to bet he would soon be begging for some hemlock). Nor has he been sodomized with a bayonet like Colonel Qadafi, or hanged like Saddam Hussein. But that's not for want of trying.
What continues to amaze me is how eager many ordinary people are to see all those things done to someone whose main crime has been revealing the filthy tricks of their government, in the vain hope that this might help to moderate that government's appalling conduct. I suppose there will always be a lot of human beings who simply want to be led by someone who seems authoritative, which saves them the trouble and pain of thinking or standing up for themselves.
(Jesus got into trouble for consorting with publicans and sinners - more or less equivalent to government officials and prostitutes. Luckily for him he never consorted with Swedish women).
"I would also point out, that the fear of extradition to the US is a little baseless, he hasn't actually broken any US laws".
I do hope that was meant as a joke. Surely there isn't anyone left who believes the US government gives a flying fuck about laws? The salient fact is that they hate Assange because he disobliged them and annoyed them. They certainly could create a new law specifically to make him illegal, or retroactively reinterpret some old laws to do the same... but history shows that they mostly just kidnap, torture and kill whomever they want, without any concern for laws.
In case you doubt any of that, ask yourself what laws the people in Guantanamo Bay broke. And then ask yourself, if they did break any American laws, why they weren't brought to trial in a US court of law. You might then graduate to asking yourself what US laws were broken by the thousands or millions of dead civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen... etc., etc. to merit the summary capital punishment that was visited on them.
Hire a consultant instead of lookin' for free shit here
Why? Is it a crime against The American Way Of Life (TM) to invite free suggestions from people who are willing to offer them? I thought it was only the IRS that insisted we should pay hard dollars (and get receipts) for everything good in life - possibly including each breath we inhale.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should we, given that they are?
"However the public don't want that, so instead they are killing the BBC with cuts".
Mayhap. If so, there's a long way to go. Last time I heard - a few years ago - I was aghast to hear that the BBC had some 40 "executives" who were paid more than the Prime Minister. While that's not a huge amount in business terms, it's ridiculously excessive for a broadcaster. Especially since the BBC's actual work would probably go ahead much more quickly and smoothly without those executives, who do little except hold meetings, issue policy documents, and interfere with people who are doing a pretty good job.
Forecasting the exact weather for specific parts of the UK must be very challenging. Look, a bunch of rain-bearing cloud is coming in from the south-west (almost always the case). But how fast will the wind carry it? When will it actually dump some rain? Will it go straight over Town X, or dodge sideways and miss it by 10 miles?
That said, I have been appalled for many years by the BBC/Met Office forecasts. I try to walk every morning, but I won't usually go out if it is already raining or about to start. Many is the time "white cloud" turned out to be "white cloud with steady rain underneath". On occasion I have looked at the BBC forecast for my town RIGHT NOW and seen "heavy rain", while outside the window the sun was shining in a cloudless sky. (Or vice versa, which of course tends to be wetting).
Whatever the technical challenges, I have to ask how much credence to put in forecasts a week, a month, or a year ahead when they can't even forecast the weather RIGHT NOW?
"I don't know if that's driven by government or quasi-government led efforts, or simply driven by economic realities of the news business".
Aha! That's the really cool thing about the current setup. The economic realities of the news business dictate that media should do nothing but parrot the government line (and occasionally accept payment for printing entire articles wholly written by the CIA). That's what pays. Doing anything else really, really, REALLY doesn't pay. (Plus some people might end up dead, or worse - who knows?)
Robert A Heinlein gave quite detailed descriptions of household robots in his 1956 SF novel "The Door Into Summer" (although admittedly the novel's action is set in 1970 and later). The protagonist's company is called "Hired Girl", and he creates Flexible Frank, Drafting Dan, and finally Protean Pete. Whatever slight lacunae there may have remained in the engineering details, Heinlein had the marketing down pat.
For quite a good account of the novel, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... One of the footnotes there recounts the amusing story of how the Heinleins decided on a title:
"When we were living in Colorado there was snowfall. Our cat — I'm a cat man — wanted to get out of the house so I opened a door for him but he wouldn't leave. Just kept on crying. He'd seen snow before and I couldn't understand it. I kept opening other doors for him and he still wouldn't leave. Then Ginny said, 'Oh, he's looking for a door into summer.' I threw up my hands, told her not to say another word, and wrote the novel The Door Into Summer' in 13 days."
- Heinlein interview with Alfred Bester; pg 487 Redemolished ISBN 0-7434-0725-3
It never ceases to amuse and baffle me how even intelligent, educated Americans (such as slashdotters) allow themselves to be lured into vicious "Republican-Democrat" battles. Isn't it obvious that Demoblicans and Republicrats are just the two hands of the same power? Every minute and every quantum of attention and passion you devote to slanging off the "other" party is a minute and a quantum of attention wasted; because the American political circus has been carefully set up so that neither party can ever win decisively. Instead, you attentively watch a series of more or less random fluctuations in fortune, and whip yourself up into a rage about the character defects of the other party's politicians, all the while ignoring the psychopaths in your own chosen party. And you will never succeed in changing the government's policies by any exercise of your votes - just look at what Obama promised before BOTH of his elections, and how he gave you Dubya's third and fourth terms when you kindly elected him.
When will we see a serious discussion on Slashdot about the underlying political system that controls both parties, and excludes everyone else? Why doesn't anyone seem to care about the impossibility of voting for a political leader who doesn't want to conduct genocidal foreign wars? How about a government that reins in the banks and declines to follow the orders of billionaires? Why don't any of you seem even slightly interested in government of the people, by the people, for the people? (In case you hadn't noticed, what you currently have is government of the people, by the servants of the rich, for the rich).
I hired a guy in India to do my primary job, and I use the time freed up to work on a second, more interesting, job.
It's the capitalist way! You are just demonstrating entrepreneurship - that most desirable of qualities.
Exactly so. Money and its pursuit cannot replace the more human values such as honesty, courage, kindness, courtesy, imagination, charity, etc. There is something uniquely corrupting about money, in that when you start to think about it a lot you eventually become almost incapable of thinking about anything else. That's when you start sacrificing the good things of life for more money - and more, and more. If you are Larry Ellison, you want to be richer than Bill Gates. And so on.
Yes, that's exactly what is wrong.
"Americans are actually considerably less materialistic than other nations: http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-p... [ipsos-na.com]"
Americans SAY they are considerably less materialistic than other nations. FTFY.
Have you noticed that people from the wealthier nations tend to say they are less materialistic? Funny that. Moreover, I didn't say that Americans were unduly concerned about material possessions. I said that the American culture is obsessed my money - quite a different statement. In fact, money is often prized as a measure of status rather than for what it can buy. The poorer the nation, the more value is attached to possessions - again, hardly surprising.
when did academia get taken over by idiots? now that the gatekeepers are dumb we're fucked and all the smart people just go make money.
Well, actually, academia wasn't taken over by idiots. It was taken over - infiltrated - by smart people who were much more interested in money, prestige and power than in scientific truth.
That's the unfortunate fact about American culture. The USA was founded on the belief that all people (well, all white males of a certain age with property, but that's a small detail) should be treated alike. No titles of royalty, nobility or gentry. No class system. No special distinctions or honours.
The result, which became obvious very early on, was a society in which the only value was money. And money, it turns out, corrodes everything that is honest, decent and worthwhile. Now that culture is flooding the rest of the world - although some nations have done their valiant best to build dykes to keep it out.
"As the sociologist Georg Simmel wrote over a century ago, if you make money the center of your value system, then finally you have no value system, because money is not a value".
– Morris Berman, “The Moral Order”, Counterpunch 8-10 February 2013. http://www.counterpunch.org/20...
The trouble is that when a pharmaceutical corporation carries out research on a new drug, it very much wants that drug to be found useful, safe, and fit for use. (Although it's in the corporation's interest that any really serious side-effects should be identified, as it would lose even more money if it marketed something that turned out to be a new thalidomide).
Unlike a proper scientific team, the corporation undertakes its research wanting a particular outcome. That alone is almost enough to guarantee that any results reported will be unreliable and unsafe. Research can only be reliable if it is done without concern for the outcome - that is, a given set of results is never regarded as "good" or "bad". It should all be just knowledge.
This is what comes of mingling pure scientific research with technology or engineering. In principle, science is the dispassionate pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. Technology and engineering are the application of scientific knowledge to accomplish something deemed useful. As far as possible, the two should be kept separate.
'There was a derisive laugh from Alexandrov.
"Bloody argument," he asserted.
"What d'you mean 'bloody argument'?"
"Invent bloody argument, like this. Golfer hits ball. Ball lands on tuft of grass - so. Probability ball landed on tuft very small, very very small. Millions other tufts for ball to land on. Probability very small, very very very small. So golfer did not hit ball, but deliberately guided on tuft. Is bloody argument. Yes? Like Weichart's argument"'.
- "The Black Cloud" by Fred Hoyle
"It pays better to stay outside their borders, lend their governments money, get them hopelessly in debt, and force all their citizens to work for you at rock-bottom pay for the rest of their lives".
See, for example, Joseph Stiglitz' explanation here:
http://www.theguardian.com/bus...
Very true. But, as you admit, he acknowledged that the unfair advantage existed. He also said that businessmen could increase their profits by offshoring manufacture, but gave his opinion that they shouldn't because that was unpatriotic.
Nobody pays any attention to what Adam Smith really said these days. They just talk about the "invisible hand", which he was actually concerned to debunk.
"This is how the labour market is supposed to work".
Unfortunately, that is literally true. Read those original 18th-century and 19th-century economists like Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, etc. They had it all worked out that wages - the price of labour - would be forced down to the minimum that would support life (plus a little extra to let the next generation of workers be born and brought up). Any attempt to pay more would inevitably makes matters still worse.
In the 20th century it looked, for a while, as if things would turn out differently. But maybe not.
If you can quit and go work elsewhere, then it is not slavery.
Hmmmm. Even if the pay and conditions elsewhere are not better than where you are?
Technically, you are not a slave unless you are legally someone else's property. But owning human property in the form of slaves has a downside. They represent a big investment, so you need to keep them healthy. That means reasonable shelter, board and lodging, clothes, some form of medical help when needed... it all adds up.
Today the wealthy have discovered that it pays much better to leave the "slaves" free. That way shelter, board, lodging, clothing, and medical care are their problem, not yours.
Exactly as modern imperialists have discovered that it's a mug's game to invade countries and take them over. Then, as Colin Powell memorably noted, you own them - and you're responsible for governing them. It pays better to stay outside their borders, lend their governments money, get them hopelessly in debt, and force all their citizens to work for you at rock-bottom pay for the rest of their lives. Followed by their children and their grandchildren.
Isn't finance wonderful?
I disagree. There are many possible ways of defining "middle class", but job security is not one of them - never has been. There used to be a time when middle class people enjoyed a lot more job security than they do now - but that's true of everyone.
Apart from politicians and those who are in a position to blackmail politicians, almost everyone nowadays has to worry about losing their job.
"I think people tend to look at what has happened in the last 50 years rather than what happened over 200 years ago".
In the last 50 years, the UK has been more or less the 51st state. Only, like Puerto Rico, without representation, power, or influence.
But it is very foolish indeed to focus only on the last 50 years. Although certain people would much prefer that other people did so.
'Then why didn't they grab him during the 18 months he was in the UK arguing his appeals before he went into hiding in the embassy? Hell, if the US really is all "fark you, laws," why haven't we sent a SEAL team to invade the embassy? I don't think we're terribly concerned about Ecuador's military might'.
It's not about Ecuador; it's about the UK. Militarily, there isn't much difference between Ecuador and the UK except that the UK has lots of US bases on its territory, and some US-supplied and US-controlled nuclear weapons, making it a prime target if war breaks out.
But the UK does have a "special relationship" with the USA. It's not the kind of deep friendship that politicians like to suggest. (After all, the Americans did have to rebel against British rule; and in 1812 the British burned Washington - hardly the act of a best buddy). No, the British are Washington's most reliable stooges (or "poodles" if you prefer). It looks bad if the USA goes forth to war against some little pipsqueak nation without allies - "the Coalition of the Willing" or whatever crap. The UK's most important role is as the seed crystal around which such coalitions can be formed. As such, it would look exceedingly bad for the USA to use open military force within the UK's territory.
Sweden, not so much.
"Does anyone actually care about this guy's legal troubles?"
Yes, like Socrates and Jesus Christ he got into trouble with the authorities for telling the truth in public and upsetting people. (Please don't twist that into any implication that Assange is as good a person generally as Socrates or Jesus Christ). And he is currently getting the same treatment. Certainly, he hasn't yet been crucified or made to drink poison. (Indeed, if he were ever to find his way to the good ol' USA I'm willing to bet he would soon be begging for some hemlock). Nor has he been sodomized with a bayonet like Colonel Qadafi, or hanged like Saddam Hussein. But that's not for want of trying.
What continues to amaze me is how eager many ordinary people are to see all those things done to someone whose main crime has been revealing the filthy tricks of their government, in the vain hope that this might help to moderate that government's appalling conduct. I suppose there will always be a lot of human beings who simply want to be led by someone who seems authoritative, which saves them the trouble and pain of thinking or standing up for themselves.
(Jesus got into trouble for consorting with publicans and sinners - more or less equivalent to government officials and prostitutes. Luckily for him he never consorted with Swedish women).
'When asked about this the prosecution said "Ah, but they're not lawyers"'.
You mean there are people so degenerate they'd rape a LAWYER???
Ewwww.
Or just detained... indefinitely (or until they develop a nasty case of death, from natural causes of course).
"I would also point out, that the fear of extradition to the US is a little baseless, he hasn't actually broken any US laws".
I do hope that was meant as a joke. Surely there isn't anyone left who believes the US government gives a flying fuck about laws? The salient fact is that they hate Assange because he disobliged them and annoyed them. They certainly could create a new law specifically to make him illegal, or retroactively reinterpret some old laws to do the same... but history shows that they mostly just kidnap, torture and kill whomever they want, without any concern for laws.
In case you doubt any of that, ask yourself what laws the people in Guantanamo Bay broke. And then ask yourself, if they did break any American laws, why they weren't brought to trial in a US court of law. You might then graduate to asking yourself what US laws were broken by the thousands or millions of dead civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen... etc., etc. to merit the summary capital punishment that was visited on them.
Hire a consultant instead of lookin' for free shit here
Why? Is it a crime against The American Way Of Life (TM) to invite free suggestions from people who are willing to offer them? I thought it was only the IRS that insisted we should pay hard dollars (and get receipts) for everything good in life - possibly including each breath we inhale.