Oh please. Tell me why it is different when humans kill animals for food and when other animals kill animals for food? Other species are even cannibals. Many animals that ignorant militant vegitarians like PETAphiles think are herbivores are not. Pigs, for example. Pigs aren't just cute little piglets you see on TV. I've seen both wild and domestic pigs eat small animals. I've seen boars kill and eat their own male offspring in order to reduce competition for their dominant male spot.
Until PETA is ready to domesticate all animals everywhere so that all of the carnivores and omnivores can be forced to give up eating meat, then I think they have no justification for using your sort of argument in trying to prevent humans from eating meat.
Pre-emptive registration of possible negative or parody site domains like this seems like evidence that PETAphiles have an active policy of discouraging free speech and open political discourse.
Perhaps if someone owned "petasucks.com" they could sue PETA over "petasucks.org" on the same grounds PETA sued under in this case. It certainly seems intentionally misleading for PETA to register a "sucks." domain to misdirect people who might be looking for anti-PETA materials.
jesusveg.com (Jesus was a vegetarian, and we're just like Jesus apparently)
Damn, those PETAphiles are really full of crap. Not only is there no biblical evidence to suggest that (assuming you believe that Jesus was a real person) Jesus was a vegetarian, if you read the bible, one of the miracles he is credited with is feeding fish to the multitudes. Sounds like something the PETAphiles would advocate, not.
1> Ever notice how these damn bleeding heart tree hugging dope smoking hippy liberals are just as quick to trample over the rights of those they don't agree with as thosedamn fascist xtians?!
The only difference between Stalinists (extreme leftists for lack of a better term) and Fascists is the order in which they will remove all individual rights and the rhetoric that they will use to justify it. The end result is the same. It seems that when you move too far to either pole of the political extremes you wrap back around.
Hello... You are defending PETA for being tasteful? They are the boneheads who show up at events such as the National Pork Producer's Expo and throw pies at the Pork Queen, amongst other disruptive and illegal activities. They are the ones who run around with t-shirts reading 'meat is murder' and other things that many people find offensive. They condone making fun of other people's culture, why is it not fair to turn the tables on them? PETA seems to have a very thin skin if they can't take what they dish out.
I suggest the parody site should register "PETAphiles.org" or maybe.com or whatever.
I make a habit of referring to PETA nutcases, err, members by the term "PETAphiles".
Given that PETA has a history of abuse of domain names (ringlingbros.com), it isn't fair for them to be critical of the same behavior from others. PETA has also been known to engage or condone other illegal activities (trespassing, vandalism, etc) in order to further their political goals. For that reason alone, I don't agree that PETA is in the right on this. They are merely acting out of revenge over hurt feelings.
In my opinion (IANAL), we have long since passed the time when that adage was true. There are so many laws in the US, and they are so complex, and written in such incredibly opaque legalese that ignorance of the law should really be a reasonable excuse in some cases. There are so many laws that seem contrary to common sense and so many laws on the books are so widely and openly ignored by people that I don't even think it is reasonable to put the burden of proof on the accused for them to prove their own ignorance. It should be up to the accusers to prove that the accused knew what they were doing was illegal, or at least prove that common sense and common action would dictate that they should have known it was illegal.
For that matter, as other people have said, even judges or lawyers can't know every law. Given that they have to spend significant time researching everything, why is it that private citizens are supposed to know everything? If everyone took the time to consult a lawyer every time they did something that was the slightest bit questionable, nothing at all would ever get done.
Seems to me that this adage is just lawyers and the judicial system trying to ensure great profits and long term employment for themselves.
The whole problem is that people seem to think that just adding more legislation to the system will cure its problems. I think that most laws need to be reviewed periodically or expire so that they get updated to reflect the current state of reality. Laws that are unenforceable or that the system has no intention on ever being able to enforce uniformly should probably not be made in the first place.
That was a really necessary feature in SMIT, as some of the low level sysadmin commands and file formats in AIX so were wretchedly different from the standards. The nonstandard wackiness at that level was the thing I hated most about AIX when I had to administer it (in the early 90s). It wasn't so bad for actual use, but the administration took an awful lot of getting used to no matter if you were used to BSDish systems (I had been administering 4.3BSD, SunOS 4.x and Ultrix before that) or SysVish systems (also had been doing SysV on AT&T and Motorola hardware).
Since Linux is open source, and still has an important constituant market in smaller systems, there is no reason to think that incorporation of LVMs has to be exclusive to the current simple partitioning systems. LVMs should remain an optional thing for people who want or need them.
Support for LVMs, particularly the IBM one, if it is compatible with AIX could be important for Linux acceptance in the large enterprise market for that very reason. For that reason alone, I am happy to see IBM bring this to Linux.
I dunno... I work with Solaris and Digital UNIX (a.k.a. Tru64) on a daily basis. I worked extensively with AIX at my previous job. Linux has already come a hell of a long way towards catching up with the commercial UNIXes, and isn't that far behind anymore. At the rate it is progressing, it will be able to compete with any commercial UNIX feature for feature within the next 6 months to a year. Virtually all of the important enterprise checklist items have either been knocked off already, have beta level support in Linux or have announced active projects working on them already.
I would agree that many people are too hard on IBM. I have to admit, that at first I was skeptical as hell about their involvement in the free software/open source world. But I have to say that so far they are doing a much better job of living up to their promises than I ever thought they would have.
I think that if IBM can clean up their act like they have, that maybe there is possibly some hope that Microsoft may someday decide that they don't have to play dirty tricks all the time too. I'm not all that optimistic that will happen any time soon, but I won't say it could never happen.
Unfortunately, for IBM it took a large scale turnover at the top levels of their management to get them to change their status quo. If anything, the replacement of Akers by Gerstner was the key turning point for IBM. Microsoft upper management is still firmly entrenched with Gates and his inner circle. As long as they stay where they are, it is unlikely they will change.
Actually, I always thought the LVM implementation (as well as jfs) are some of the parts of AIX that are the least horrible. There is a good reason for them to port the AIX LVM to Linux -- compatibility. If you could use jfs and lvm interchangably between Linux and AIX, it would make it a lot easier to co-exist Linux in an AIX shop. That would be good for IBM, as it could provide a smooth transition path for their customers (and a possible up-switch for them to AIX), and good for Linux, as it would make Linux an even better sell into IBM shops.
What I'd really hope is that IBM will license the code in such a way that the current LVM project could possibly use it to help the development.
IBM's work on releasing a port of jfs to the Linux community doesn't seem to have hurt the development of ReiserFS, ext3 or SGI's xfs. A little competition can often be a good thing.
I once applied for a job, and had to take a drug test.
I've often turned down jobs (or merely called or wrote to someone advertising a job) because of "required" drug tests. There are too many good jobs out there in the IT industry to allow employers this kind of intrusive power. I've also found that employers who make this kind of arbitrary policy tend to be bad employers in other ways due to rigid or opressive thinking on the part of their management in general.
It is my personal opinion that unless the job is for someone operating a commercial vehicle or other large equipment such as that, that there is no legitimate reason to require a drug test as a condition of hiring.
I would further say that drug tests should only be permitted under normal circumstances if there is a legitimate reason to suspect that an individual might be compromising workplace safety or the quality of their work because of drug use.
Frankly, drug tests are highly unreliable, either in failing to detect use, but more often in false positives. There are too many legitimate over the counter medicines that cause false positives. Too many legitimate prescription drugs that cause false positives for illegal drugs. Too many food items that can cause false positives. If drug tests are only given in a pre-employment exam, then they prove only that a job seeker can abstain for a certain period of time beforehand. That does little to ensure long term safety or performance.
Drug tests are a 'feel good' and 'cover our ass' policy that is just plain a waste of time and money on the part of companies, and an invasion of the dignity and rights of employees.
So, does this mean that AOL should be broken up too?
If they were using illegal practices to exclude competitors from markets, yes. Give me evidence of that, and I will be happy to call for them to be broken up. Given that AOL has nowhere near 90% of the Internet/online market as Microsoft does in the OS and office software markets, I see little reason to think they are a monopoly.
Or Apple
A company that has, what, 5% of their market?
Its not being big, or being successful that is what is wrong with Microsoft, despite their whining to that effect. It is the fact that they got that way and stay that way by doing illegal things.
The point about the lack of a COM port on the BookPC is a good one, and it should be noted as well that the integrated modem is a crapola Win-Modem which I would suspect is not supported at all under Linux. For me, it doesn't matter, as we are only using the kyb, ps2-mouse, SVGA-video, ethernet and spkr-out ports on our BookPCs.
I have no idea about the TV-out, as I haven't ever tried it. You would think that it would be just a hardware issue, with the exception that some video modes (basically anything much over 640x480) is not going to be useful on the typical TV.
Check these little "BookPC" boxes out... They use the same i810 chipset as the iPaq, but include both a floppy and CD-ROM drive (or DVD-ROM, depending on configuration). It is possible to buy them with no OS installed (which is what we did). You can find more info on them here:
We bought ours through buy.com, and they were also significantly cheaper than the iPaq. Performance between the iPaq with a P III-500 wasn't significantly different than the BookPC with a Celeron 500.
That's mainly only true for people who buy a home.
Uh, the rent prices are much higher out there than they are here. A studio or 1br in SV costs $1200-$1500 a month, and usually in a not-so great neighborhood. You can get a nice 2br out here in a decent area for $600 or a 3br for $700.
For renters, the cost of living is a bit lower.
That is shortsighted thinking, as renters in the long run do nothing but enrich their landlords. In the long run, homeowners usually get at least get some return on their investment, and home interest is tax deductable. Plus renters get less space, often have bad parking (or pay extra for parking) and have to deal with sharing hallways, walls and possibly ceilings/floors with others.
Additionally, if you make twice as much in an area that costs twice as much, you usually come out ahead since there are many fixed costs which aren't twice as high, and you don't spend all of your income on cost-of-living expenses.
But the problem is most people only make 25-30% more in SV than they would out here in the midwest, and the cost of living, no matter how you look at it is going to be a lot more than that different.
Gas is about 30% more expensive in CA. That comes out to about $150 more per year for me. Not a big deal.
Its just one more thing.
Smog checks are done once every two years for older cars (once they get beyond four? years old). That's a whole $40 every two years.
Plus the time it takes to do it, plus either what it costs to bribe the checker or pay to get your car fixed or 'tuned' to make it pass. Plus what it costs that CA residents usually have to buy new cars more often than out here. Not to mention that the vehicle registration costs themselves are higher in CA. My truck costs me a flat $65 a year. My '72 Chevelle costs me $18.50 (registration costs go down based on age). I think m wife's car (a '99 model) is under $250, and it will go down each year for quite a while.
In return we get cleaner air,
Cleaner than out here? I don't think so. We don't have smog checks for a reason. No need.
and get older smoking vehicles fixed or off the road.
It is basically a myth that getting older cars off the road is a big win for the environment. It is far more damaging to the environment to build a new car than it is to keep an old one running, even if the steel used in the new car is recycled. There is still a lot of energy put into that process as well as the manufacturing process, not to mention all of the non-recyclable parts of cars (glass, fiberglass, plastic, rubber, etc).
Most of the older cars (especially hobby cars like hot-rods and classic cars) are operated a tiny fraction of the number of miles per year that most new cars are.
Your average lawnmower, snowblower or gas weedeater generates more emissions in a couple hours than your typical older car does in a year. Not to mention the amount of emissions that the average bar-b-q grille or fireplace generate in a couple of hours...
consider the Minneapolis area (or across the river in Madison, WI if you want to avoid the MN taxes),
I was just in Wisconsin over the weekend, and one bad thing I noticed when I was there. Gas prices were outrageous. I had to pay about $1.70 a gallon to get mid-grade gas. I pay about $1.49 a gallon where I live, and the twin cities prices tend to be pretty similar (I make it there on a fairly regular basis). Wisconsin is still a fairly high tax state, as is Illinois. South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa and Misouri are all significantly cheaper on taxes.
Finding techie hires can be a challenge, but not an insurmountable one.
Very interesting anecdotes about Canadian healthcare. I've been skeptical that the socialized medicine proposals down here in the US would end up giving us a system as screwed up as what it sounds like you have to put up with. And for all the whining of the 'liberals' around here, we already have county hospitals where the indigent can go for care. Sure, they aren't as nice as the private hospitals, but they are better than most 3rd world (or 2nd world (eastern bloc)) hospitals.
You should come on down here to the midwestern US. Relatively cheap gas (I filled up the other day with 90 octane mid-grade and it was $1.49 a gallon). No emission checks or inspections in the state I live in, registration is done by mail. Chances are your classic Mopar would cost what my '72 Chevelle does to register, under $20 a year. Insurance is fairly cheap too. My Chevelle would never pass CA emissions -- it doesn't even have a PCV valve, let alone any other emissions devices as the carb (Holley 4010 750cfm double pumper) I am running doesn't have vacuum hookups for any of them. Registration is no problem, just send in the money, and they send you plates. You wouldn't have any trouble finding parts for your car down here either...
As for taxes, the top rate for state taxes here is 9% I believe, and federal taxes are deductable (meaning the actual rate is more like 6 to 8%). Federal income tax of course can set you back 35% if you are in the highest bracket -- but most of us out here aren't. I believe I actually bring home around 65% of my gross pay. Sales tax here is either 5 or 6% depending on whether there is a municipal local option tax or not.
I live in a 2bdr apt with garage in a nice section of MTN View for $1300/mo,
For that you could be making payments on a 2000 sq foot 3br house out here in the midwest. Renting puts money in your landlord's pocket instead of building equity for you.
DSL at home,
No big shakes, even out here in the stix you can get DSL or cable modem.
10 minute drive to work,
Where I live its no more than 30 minutes from opposite ends of town to another even during the worst part of what passes for rush hour around here. You can commute in from one of the rural 'bedroom communities' that are 15 to 20 miles outside of town in 30 minutes.
and I gross $70k/year with 2 years experience.
That isn't much more than people with similar experience are getting out here, maybe 25-30% more at the most.
What is wrong with the Valley lifestyle???
Do you know anything else? Have you lived anywhere else? I'm not saying that SV is all bad, but it has its downside as well.
Am I extremely lucky?
Compared to a lot of people, yes. A lot of people in your area are doing worse.
You are paying a premium to have your entertainment, and that is certainly a valid choice for you. You may find that once you are an old, married geek that your priorities may change a little, especially if you have kids and can't get away 27 days a year to snowboard no matter how close it is. Now, I've personally decided never to have children because I don't want to give up that much freedom (or spend that much money), but that is typical of the kinds of compromises that most people have to make.
One question I have, is do people have a right to live wherever they want? I mean, if I decide that I have to live in an exclusive suburb which has houses that cost $300k and up (expensive where I live), can I get public housing assistance? Why should people get assistance in CA when they make $50k, when people who make $15k can't get it in other parts of the country?
I'm not sure I have an answer to any of those questions. What I would like to know is instead of the government paying ridiculous high prices for people to live in overpopulated, overpriced areas, wouldn't it make more sense to pay some of those people to relocate to cheaper areas?
Florida is probably the LASt place on Earth I'd live. Mumbai or Bangladesh is slightly more appealing.
With your uppity attitude, I'm sure they'd welcome you with open arms.
Hurricanes.
In Orlando? Its way inland... Not really any worse than Tornados where I live now or earthquakes in the SF Bay area. If mother nature is going to get you, it doesn't matter where you are.
Fires.
Can anyone say California or New Mexico? I don't think Florida has as much problem with fires as the southwest does.
Strip malls up the ass.
What the heck is wrong with strip malls? Like anything, they have their place. And do you really think that I believe that Florida has more of them than say, southern California? Or for that matter, San Mateo county?
Lots of bimbos with implants and bad American cars.
Uh... Sounding more like a description of southern California to me... And what do you have against American cars? Bimbos in cheezy import tinboxes would be better somehow? Go visit Beverly Hills and you will find lots of bimbos with implants driving BMWs and Lexuses.
LOTS of older people (who shouldn't be on the road, but they are...).
You are thinking of the Miami area now, I think. Not that it is any worse than say, Phoenix or parts of Texas which are also overburdened with an excess of the elderly.
I think the white trash ratio in Florida is higher than anywhere else.
I dunno, I've been a lot of places, and I can't say that, for example, LA or a lot of the more northerly east coast (Georgia, the Carolinas, etc) is much better.
One can only pray for a monstrous tsunami to wipe out that state.
No more likely than a monstrous earthquake will make California slide into the ocean I guess. What a hideously nasty attitude.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh please. Tell me why it is different when humans kill animals for food and when other animals kill animals for food? Other species are even cannibals. Many animals that ignorant militant vegitarians like PETAphiles think are herbivores are not. Pigs, for example. Pigs aren't just cute little piglets you see on TV. I've seen both wild and domestic pigs eat small animals. I've seen boars kill and eat their own male offspring in order to reduce competition for their dominant male spot.
Until PETA is ready to domesticate all animals everywhere so that all of the carnivores and omnivores can be forced to give up eating meat, then I think they have no justification for using your sort of argument in trying to prevent humans from eating meat.
Pre-emptive registration of possible negative or parody site domains like this seems like evidence that PETAphiles have an active policy of discouraging free speech and open political discourse.
Perhaps if someone owned "petasucks.com" they could sue PETA over "petasucks.org" on the same grounds PETA sued under in this case. It certainly seems intentionally misleading for PETA to register a "sucks." domain to misdirect people who might be looking for anti-PETA materials.
jesusveg.com (Jesus was a vegetarian, and we're just like Jesus apparently)
Damn, those PETAphiles are really full of crap. Not only is there no biblical evidence to suggest that (assuming you believe that Jesus was a real person) Jesus was a vegetarian, if you read the bible, one of the miracles he is credited with is feeding fish to the multitudes. Sounds like something the PETAphiles would advocate, not.
1> Ever notice how these damn bleeding heart tree hugging dope smoking hippy liberals are just as quick to trample over the rights of those they don't agree with as thosedamn fascist xtians?!
The only difference between Stalinists (extreme leftists for lack of a better term) and Fascists is the order in which they will remove all individual rights and the rhetoric that they will use to justify it. The end result is the same. It seems that when you move too far to either pole of the political extremes you wrap back around.
Hello... You are defending PETA for being tasteful? They are the boneheads who show up at events such as the National Pork Producer's Expo and throw pies at the Pork Queen, amongst other disruptive and illegal activities. They are the ones who run around with t-shirts reading 'meat is murder' and other things that many people find offensive. They condone making fun of other people's culture, why is it not fair to turn the tables on them? PETA seems to have a very thin skin if they can't take what they dish out.
I suggest the parody site should register "PETAphiles.org" or maybe .com or whatever.
I make a habit of referring to PETA nutcases, err, members by the term "PETAphiles".
Given that PETA has a history of abuse of domain names (ringlingbros.com), it isn't fair for them to be critical of the same behavior from others. PETA has also been known to engage or condone other illegal activities (trespassing, vandalism, etc) in order to further their political goals. For that reason alone, I don't agree that PETA is in the right on this. They are merely acting out of revenge over hurt feelings.
In my opinion (IANAL), we have long since passed the time when that adage was true. There are so many laws in the US, and they are so complex, and written in such incredibly opaque legalese that ignorance of the law should really be a reasonable excuse in some cases. There are so many laws that seem contrary to common sense and so many laws on the books are so widely and openly ignored by people that I don't even think it is reasonable to put the burden of proof on the accused for them to prove their own ignorance. It should be up to the accusers to prove that the accused knew what they were doing was illegal, or at least prove that common sense and common action would dictate that they should have known it was illegal.
For that matter, as other people have said, even judges or lawyers can't know every law. Given that they have to spend significant time researching everything, why is it that private citizens are supposed to know everything? If everyone took the time to consult a lawyer every time they did something that was the slightest bit questionable, nothing at all would ever get done.
Seems to me that this adage is just lawyers and the judicial system trying to ensure great profits and long term employment for themselves.
The whole problem is that people seem to think that just adding more legislation to the system will cure its problems. I think that most laws need to be reviewed periodically or expire so that they get updated to reflect the current state of reality. Laws that are unenforceable or that the system has no intention on ever being able to enforce uniformly should probably not be made in the first place.
That was a really necessary feature in SMIT, as some of the low level sysadmin commands and file formats in AIX so were wretchedly different from the standards. The nonstandard wackiness at that level was the thing I hated most about AIX when I had to administer it (in the early 90s). It wasn't so bad for actual use, but the administration took an awful lot of getting used to no matter if you were used to BSDish systems (I had been administering 4.3BSD, SunOS 4.x and Ultrix before that) or SysVish systems (also had been doing SysV on AT&T and Motorola hardware).
Since Linux is open source, and still has an important constituant market in smaller systems, there is no reason to think that incorporation of LVMs has to be exclusive to the current simple partitioning systems. LVMs should remain an optional thing for people who want or need them.
Support for LVMs, particularly the IBM one, if it is compatible with AIX could be important for Linux acceptance in the large enterprise market for that very reason. For that reason alone, I am happy to see IBM bring this to Linux.
I dunno... I work with Solaris and Digital UNIX (a.k.a. Tru64) on a daily basis. I worked extensively with AIX at my previous job. Linux has already come a hell of a long way towards catching up with the commercial UNIXes, and isn't that far behind anymore. At the rate it is progressing, it will be able to compete with any commercial UNIX feature for feature within the next 6 months to a year. Virtually all of the important enterprise checklist items have either been knocked off already, have beta level support in Linux or have announced active projects working on them already.
I would agree that many people are too hard on IBM. I have to admit, that at first I was skeptical as hell about their involvement in the free software/open source world. But I have to say that so far they are doing a much better job of living up to their promises than I ever thought they would have.
I think that if IBM can clean up their act like they have, that maybe there is possibly some hope that Microsoft may someday decide that they don't have to play dirty tricks all the time too. I'm not all that optimistic that will happen any time soon, but I won't say it could never happen.
Unfortunately, for IBM it took a large scale turnover at the top levels of their management to get them to change their status quo. If anything, the replacement of Akers by Gerstner was the key turning point for IBM. Microsoft upper management is still firmly entrenched with Gates and his inner circle. As long as they stay where they are, it is unlikely they will change.
Actually, I always thought the LVM implementation (as well as jfs) are some of the parts of AIX that are the least horrible. There is a good reason for them to port the AIX LVM to Linux -- compatibility. If you could use jfs and lvm interchangably between Linux and AIX, it would make it a lot easier to co-exist Linux in an AIX shop. That would be good for IBM, as it could provide a smooth transition path for their customers (and a possible up-switch for them to AIX), and good for Linux, as it would make Linux an even better sell into IBM shops.
What I'd really hope is that IBM will license the code in such a way that the current LVM project could possibly use it to help the development.
IBM's work on releasing a port of jfs to the Linux community doesn't seem to have hurt the development of ReiserFS, ext3 or SGI's xfs. A little competition can often be a good thing.
I once applied for a job, and had to take a drug test.
I've often turned down jobs (or merely called or wrote to someone advertising a job) because of "required" drug tests. There are too many good jobs out there in the IT industry to allow employers this kind of intrusive power. I've also found that employers who make this kind of arbitrary policy tend to be bad employers in other ways due to rigid or opressive thinking on the part of their management in general.
It is my personal opinion that unless the job is for someone operating a commercial vehicle or other large equipment such as that, that there is no legitimate reason to require a drug test as a condition of hiring.
I would further say that drug tests should only be permitted under normal circumstances if there is a legitimate reason to suspect that an individual might be compromising workplace safety or the quality of their work because of drug use.
Frankly, drug tests are highly unreliable, either in failing to detect use, but more often in false positives. There are too many legitimate over the counter medicines that cause false positives. Too many legitimate prescription drugs that cause false positives for illegal drugs. Too many food items that can cause false positives. If drug tests are only given in a pre-employment exam, then they prove only that a job seeker can abstain for a certain period of time beforehand. That does little to ensure long term safety or performance.
Drug tests are a 'feel good' and 'cover our ass' policy that is just plain a waste of time and money on the part of companies, and an invasion of the dignity and rights of employees.
So, does this mean that AOL should be broken up too?
If they were using illegal practices to exclude competitors from markets, yes. Give me evidence of that, and I will be happy to call for them to be broken up. Given that AOL has nowhere near 90% of the Internet/online market as Microsoft does in the OS and office software markets, I see little reason to think they are a monopoly.
Or Apple
A company that has, what, 5% of their market?
Its not being big, or being successful that is what is wrong with Microsoft, despite their whining to that effect. It is the fact that they got that way and stay that way by doing illegal things.
Each company should have a separately traded stock, separate boards of directors and management and be located in separate physical facilities.
The point about the lack of a COM port on the BookPC is a good one, and it should be noted as well that the integrated modem is a crapola Win-Modem which I would suspect is not supported at all under Linux. For me, it doesn't matter, as we are only using the kyb, ps2-mouse, SVGA-video, ethernet and spkr-out ports on our BookPCs.
I have no idea about the TV-out, as I haven't ever tried it. You would think that it would be just a hardware issue, with the exception that some video modes (basically anything much over 640x480) is not going to be useful on the typical TV.
Check these little "BookPC" boxes out... They use the same i810 chipset as the iPaq, but include both a floppy and CD-ROM drive (or DVD-ROM, depending on configuration). It is possible to buy them with no OS installed (which is what we did). You can find more info on them here:
http://www.pal-tec.com/BOOKPC.htm
We bought ours through buy.com, and they were also significantly cheaper than the iPaq. Performance between the iPaq with a P III-500 wasn't significantly different than the BookPC with a Celeron 500.
That's mainly only true for people who buy a home.
Uh, the rent prices are much higher out there than they are here. A studio or 1br in SV costs $1200-$1500 a month, and usually in a not-so great neighborhood. You can get a nice 2br out here in a decent area for $600 or a 3br for $700.
For renters, the cost of living is a bit lower.
That is shortsighted thinking, as renters in the long run do nothing but enrich their landlords. In the long run, homeowners usually get at least get some return on their investment, and home interest is tax deductable. Plus renters get less space, often have bad parking (or pay extra for parking) and have to deal with sharing hallways, walls and possibly ceilings/floors with others.
Additionally, if you make twice as much in an area that costs twice as much, you usually come out ahead since there are many fixed costs which aren't twice as high, and you don't spend all of your income on cost-of-living expenses.
But the problem is most people only make 25-30% more in SV than they would out here in the midwest, and the cost of living, no matter how you look at it is going to be a lot more than that different.
Gas is about 30% more expensive in CA. That comes out to about $150 more per year for me. Not a big deal.
Its just one more thing.
Smog checks are done once every two years for older cars (once they get beyond four? years old). That's a whole $40 every two years.
Plus the time it takes to do it, plus either what it costs to bribe the checker or pay to get your car fixed or 'tuned' to make it pass. Plus what it costs that CA residents usually have to buy new cars more often than out here. Not to mention that the vehicle registration costs themselves are higher in CA. My truck costs me a flat $65 a year. My '72 Chevelle costs me $18.50 (registration costs go down based on age). I think m wife's car (a '99 model) is under $250, and it will go down each year for quite a while.
In return we get cleaner air,
Cleaner than out here? I don't think so. We don't have smog checks for a reason. No need.
and get older smoking vehicles fixed or off the road.
It is basically a myth that getting older cars off the road is a big win for the environment. It is far more damaging to the environment to build a new car than it is to keep an old one running, even if the steel used in the new car is recycled. There is still a lot of energy put into that process as well as the manufacturing process, not to mention all of the non-recyclable parts of cars (glass, fiberglass, plastic, rubber, etc).
Most of the older cars (especially hobby cars like hot-rods and classic cars) are operated a tiny fraction of the number of miles per year that most new cars are.
Your average lawnmower, snowblower or gas weedeater generates more emissions in a couple hours than your typical older car does in a year. Not to mention the amount of emissions that the average bar-b-q grille or fireplace generate in a couple of hours...
consider the Minneapolis area (or across the river in Madison, WI if you want to avoid the MN taxes),
I was just in Wisconsin over the weekend, and one bad thing I noticed when I was there. Gas prices were outrageous. I had to pay about $1.70 a gallon to get mid-grade gas. I pay about $1.49 a gallon where I live, and the twin cities prices tend to be pretty similar (I make it there on a fairly regular basis). Wisconsin is still a fairly high tax state, as is Illinois. South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa and Misouri are all significantly cheaper on taxes.
Finding techie hires can be a challenge, but not an insurmountable one.
Very interesting anecdotes about Canadian healthcare. I've been skeptical that the socialized medicine proposals down here in the US would end up giving us a system as screwed up as what it sounds like you have to put up with. And for all the whining of the 'liberals' around here, we already have county hospitals where the indigent can go for care. Sure, they aren't as nice as the private hospitals, but they are better than most 3rd world (or 2nd world (eastern bloc)) hospitals.
You should come on down here to the midwestern US. Relatively cheap gas (I filled up the other day with 90 octane mid-grade and it was $1.49 a gallon). No emission checks or inspections in the state I live in, registration is done by mail. Chances are your classic Mopar would cost what my '72 Chevelle does to register, under $20 a year. Insurance is fairly cheap too. My Chevelle would never pass CA emissions -- it doesn't even have a PCV valve, let alone any other emissions devices as the carb (Holley 4010 750cfm double pumper) I am running doesn't have vacuum hookups for any of them. Registration is no problem, just send in the money, and they send you plates. You wouldn't have any trouble finding parts for your car down here either...
As for taxes, the top rate for state taxes here is 9% I believe, and federal taxes are deductable (meaning the actual rate is more like 6 to 8%). Federal income tax of course can set you back 35% if you are in the highest bracket -- but most of us out here aren't. I believe I actually bring home around 65% of my gross pay. Sales tax here is either 5 or 6% depending on whether there is a municipal local option tax or not.
I live in a 2bdr apt with garage in a nice section of MTN View for $1300/mo,
For that you could be making payments on a 2000 sq foot 3br house out here in the midwest. Renting puts money in your landlord's pocket instead of building equity for you.
DSL at home,
No big shakes, even out here in the stix you can get DSL or cable modem.
10 minute drive to work,
Where I live its no more than 30 minutes from opposite ends of town to another even during the worst part of what passes for rush hour around here. You can commute in from one of the rural 'bedroom communities' that are 15 to 20 miles outside of town in 30 minutes.
and I gross $70k/year with 2 years experience.
That isn't much more than people with similar experience are getting out here, maybe 25-30% more at the most.
What is wrong with the Valley lifestyle???
Do you know anything else? Have you lived anywhere else? I'm not saying that SV is all bad, but it has its downside as well.
Am I extremely lucky?
Compared to a lot of people, yes. A lot of people in your area are doing worse.
You are paying a premium to have your entertainment, and that is certainly a valid choice for you. You may find that once you are an old, married geek that your priorities may change a little, especially if you have kids and can't get away 27 days a year to snowboard no matter how close it is. Now, I've personally decided never to have children because I don't want to give up that much freedom (or spend that much money), but that is typical of the kinds of compromises that most people have to make.
One question I have, is do people have a right to live wherever they want? I mean, if I decide that I have to live in an exclusive suburb which has houses that cost $300k and up (expensive where I live), can I get public housing assistance? Why should people get assistance in CA when they make $50k, when people who make $15k can't get it in other parts of the country?
I'm not sure I have an answer to any of those questions. What I would like to know is instead of the government paying ridiculous high prices for people to live in overpopulated, overpriced areas, wouldn't it make more sense to pay some of those people to relocate to cheaper areas?
yeah, but you have to live in the Midwest
Better to live in the midwest and make a decent living than be poor in the Bay area... At least that's what I decided and why I moved back.
Florida is probably the LASt place on Earth I'd live. Mumbai or Bangladesh is slightly more appealing.
With your uppity attitude, I'm sure they'd welcome you with open arms.
Hurricanes.
In Orlando? Its way inland... Not really any worse than Tornados where I live now or earthquakes in the SF Bay area. If mother nature is going to get you, it doesn't matter where you are.
Fires.
Can anyone say California or New Mexico? I don't think Florida has as much problem with fires as the southwest does.
Strip malls up the ass.
What the heck is wrong with strip malls? Like anything, they have their place. And do you really think that I believe that Florida has more of them than say, southern California? Or for that matter, San Mateo county?
Lots of bimbos with implants and bad American cars.
Uh... Sounding more like a description of southern California to me... And what do you have against American cars? Bimbos in cheezy import tinboxes would be better somehow? Go visit Beverly Hills and you will find lots of bimbos with implants driving BMWs and Lexuses.
LOTS of older people (who shouldn't be on the road, but they are...).
You are thinking of the Miami area now, I think. Not that it is any worse than say, Phoenix or parts of Texas which are also overburdened with an excess of the elderly.
I think the white trash ratio in Florida is higher than anywhere else.
I dunno, I've been a lot of places, and I can't say that, for example, LA or a lot of the more northerly east coast (Georgia, the Carolinas, etc) is much better.
One can only pray for a monstrous tsunami to wipe out that state.
No more likely than a monstrous earthquake will make California slide into the ocean I guess. What a hideously nasty attitude.