It is not possible for a person to be unbiased in anything. Even if I ask you to simply recite some simple uncontested facts, the facts you chose to recite will indicate a bias. If you recite physical constants I will get a different understanding of you than if you recite historical dates.
So, given that the author is proven to be biased, in what way is he biased? The bulk of his article is fairly neutral by my biases but I don't think many people of any background would find the following paragraphs to be written in style that attempts to be neutral:
Superimpose on this intellectual preparation the moist and modish notion of "community" and some vague notions about information "wanting" to be free,
et voilà!
and
The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him.
Given that he dedicated his life to something that may be rendered obsolete by the Wikipedia, it is understandable that he might be critical of the Wikipedia in a way that someone else might not be.
By the way, encyclopedias do not have unlimited space for their articles and, as a result, they choose what to include and what not to include as well as how much space to allocate to the included articles. Those decisions put a bias (as shown in my first paragraph) into the foundation on which the rest of the encyclopedia is built.
While reviewing my post I was reminded of the title of your post "It not biased to be Educated". I would say that instilling bias is the entire purpose of education. The only person who could be unbiased is a genuine tabula rasa.
I loved my "Dr. Nim" from E.S.R. which I had in the mid-1960s. I would have loved to have had an "DigiComp I" or "DigiComp II" also from the same company.
Toys like "Erector" (or "Meccano") and "Tinker-Toy" were always appreciated as were science toys like chemistry and electronics kits. The "All-in-one" was cool too (it had a telescope, a microscope, a compass, a mirror, and other stuff in a Swiss Army Knife sort of package).
Another toy I liked was the "Whizzer" which was gyroscope in a top.
You might want to supplement your satellite based option with Champion Communications which is a quick and easy way to make some money from selling VoIP service. It is an MLM but the people who started it are known to me (they are also in Greenville, SC) and they have absolutely sterling reputations. Google for "Leighton Cubbage", "CTG", and "iOnosphere".
The service is not the cheapest but the quality is very good because the parent company is a PSTN company that has used VoIP for carrying their own traffic for about five years. They are also expanding into offering DSL and cell phone services.
Disclaimer: I sell Champion Communications products.
It depends what state you live in. What you are wanting is called "naked" or "dry" DSL. It is available in GA and NC but not SC (yet). I don't know about other states.
You don't need to apply for a full patent. Put in a "pending patent application" which will protect you for a year. It costs about $75 if you are a small independent inventor. Go to the USPTO to get the details; it's not complicated but it is a little tedious. No one really looks at what you submit but it does mean the USPTO has your idea in their hand so you can prove your case in the event someone tries to rip you off.
Having your idea written and notarized won't do you any good.
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I own a couple of C-64s, a 48K Spectrum, a TS-2068, a PC-8300, a 130XE Atari, and QL (yes, I lived on both sides of the Atlantic). I have also programmed on a ZX-81, a VIC-20 and an Atari 800XL. My all time favorite is the Spectrum. Somehow it was just a lot more satisfying of a machine than any of the others (the 800XL would be second). Maybe it was the time, maybe it was the associated culture, I don't know but I still love my Spectrum while I don't think much about the other machines.
You are absolutely right about the kudzu of computers. I am not a fan of Apple (I think the marketing emphasizes pretentiousness and, for me, the systems don't justify the extra expense) but I greatly appreciate their doing something different. In the Good Old Days (tm) there was another layer of beauty in each machine to appreciate. We were much closer to the metal and each machine really had its own personality.
I was a geek in high school and was very much against team sports. I was also anti-military (it was the early 1970s). However, now that I am in the real world and have to hire/fire people I have found the most mature and responsible employees either have team sports in their background or military service. They are the people who, if they don't know how to do something, figure it out on their own.
After noticing the correlation, I have re-evaluated my view and reached a new conclusion. What people get from team sports and the military is self-discipline, drive, and commitment. Sure, other people can have those characteristics but the reality is they more often don't.
The worst employees have backgrounds showing they are cynical and too cool to participate in any sort of team effort. Cynics don't solve problems, they just point what everyone else already knew.
The figures I provided were for South Carolina. Perhaps I should have included a "YMMV".:-) I agree, $26K for ten years of experience and a master's is awful. As I showed in my previous post, that's about starting pay here for a bachelor's and no experience.
I do not think teaching is all that; what I was saying is it is not all that bad of a deal (at least here in SC and in CT where my in-laws are). Here the pay is competitive and while the hours each day may be long, they aren't any longer than what many other people I know put in who don't get any time off in the summer. However, what you describe sounds awful and really does need fixing.
I agree completely that the main problem in education is parents and students not taking personal responsibility. As a matter of fact, I believe that is the main problem this country, and perhaps the entire Western world, has overall (I wouldn't presume to speak about the Third World).
It is important to realize I was talking only about negotiating the price of routine office visits (the services being paid for out of the MSA). From http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/SavingandDebt/ P44145.asp?special=0409cope
Some hospitals, clinics and doctors offer 5% to 10% discounts right off the bat if you pay in cash. With a little haggling, some are willing to cut even farther.
Of course, you've usually got little incentive to bargain if you're covered by insurance -- and the doc's agreements with insurers may prevent discounts on covered services anyway.
But if you don't have insurance, you have a high deductible or the procedure itself isn't covered, it's time to haggle.
The other thing that needs to be done about insurance companies is that they should pay when they are obligated. They routinely reject not only claims with minor errors but also claims that are perfect on the theory the doctor doesn't have the resources to properly pursue getting paid. After all, who is going to spend $100 to collect $50?
According to Center for Educator Recruitment, Retention, and Advancement, SC -- In South Carolina teachers start at $25,873 [1]. The average salary is $41,162 [2]. Teachers with over ten years of experience make more like $50-$60K [3] (based on what I know of the salaries of friends).
Combine these numbers with the fact that teachers work 9 months/year and the effective salaries become $34,497 [1], $54,882 [2], and about $73,000 [3].
My brother-in-law and sister-in-law are teachers largely because they enjoy getting summers off so the actual pay plus time off is worth it to them.
I just looked up some figures for what I guessed a "mid-low level tech job" might be and got that a "PC Maintenance Technician II" in Greenville, SC makes $37,989 (25th percentile), $43,017 (median), and $47,502 (75th percentile).
You are absolutely right. I used to sell health insurance and I am currently CTO of a company that provides medical practice automation software (which includes claims processing).
When I have had to pay for my own health insurance I get a policy with at least a $5,000 deductible and high maximum benefit. I also open an MSA (Medical Savings Account). That way I pay for my family's routine visits out of my own pocket (cheaper than comprehensive insurance over the course of a year) and I am still protected against a major medical catastrophe.
The next layer to add to this is to, before telling the MD you'll be paying cash, ask if you can get a discount for cash. Sometimes (often?) you can since, on average, it saves the MD about 20% to not have to go through the claims process.
The result is a health insurance set up which is portable and relatively affordable.
I don't see any point in continuing this. You are clearly utterly ignorant of Libertarianism and you don't care to learn, otherwise you would have read the Wikipedia article which would have answered your questions.
I expect you will respond that I've failed to make my point and therefore I am not responding to your points. I assert here that I have responded to your points by providing a pointer to a detailed 3rd party article and I now find myself in the position of "trying to teach a pig to sing".
You might also benefit from reading the articles about Cecil Rhodes, Rhodesia, and Zimbabwe. More on Cecil Rhodes is
here,
here,
here,
here, and
here. Unfortunately, none of those sites support your assertion that the British government couldn't stop him (or that it even wanted to) but then life's not always the way we want it to be.
You are quite mistaken about Britain being a Libertarian society at any time, let alone the 19th century.
Your example is flawed: Cecil Rhodes was only able to operate in Rhodesia because the British government gave him the OK. Once he was ensconced in Rhodesia he was able to make sure their laws favored him and his friends.
To quote Inigo Montoya "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Perhaps this will help?
The problem of the larger company is they had no economy of scale. IBM has 300,000 employees yet a typical consultant costs over $200/hour. You can get the same consultant (me) working as an independent for $100/hour. This is because I don't have to overhead of IBM and I am more efficient.
Similarly, the large plating companies could not compete on price and they could not compete on reputation (who are you going to trust, they guy in town everyone swears by or the faceless megacorp everyone swears at). Therefore, the large companies had to seek a legislated barrier to entry that would prevent new competitors and drive out existing ones.
Logically, I don't have to give an example, what I was saying is I know the person I was replying to cannot give an example of a weak Libertarian government. This is mainly because no country has ever actually had a Libertarian government. I was pointing out, obscurely perhaps, that his assertion was prima facie bogus.
The post above is not correct. There is such a thing as a common interest where people are better off cooperating voluntarily than competing. Of course, people have to be sufficiently well educated and logical to realize that, for example, killing your neighbor today may result in your house burning down tomorrow when no one will help you put out the fire.
The argument above is not entirely correct. There are three basic areas in which to compete: (1) best price, (2) best reputation, (3) best product.
Small businesses which become successful usually do it as a result of being pursuing area #3 by being innovative. Regulated markets tend to discourage innovation as there are mandatory requirements that must be met. These requirements are not a problem for an established company with sufficiently deep pockets but they can be insurmountable for a small company.
Regulation is often lobbied for by existing companies to keep small companies from entering the market. For example, according to a co-worker of mine who used to be in the business, the water leaving a metal plating facility now has to be cleaner than the drinking water entering the facility. This legislation was lobbied for by the larger plating companies because they could afford the extra equipment while the smaller competitors could not. As a result, small plating companies have gone out of business.
I don't know how to be clearer: a Libertarian government does not have the authority to pass laws that would prevent competition. The only reason the laws you describe can be passed and enforced today is because the ultimate source of power and authority, we the people, has ceded that authority to the current government (regardless of party).
Great Britain has never had any close to resembling a Libertarian government.
Finally, Libertarianism has never in this history of the world made for a weak nation.
In a Libertarian world the politicians don't have the sort of power politicians have today. There is no point in trying to buy a politician in a Libertarian world because he has no authority to promote legislation to benefit a group. That's one of the basic points of Libertarianism.
The Bush administration is nothing like a Libertarian government. A Libertarian government would not have the power to be able to pass legislation that benefits companies. What you have described is not Libertarianism.
Democracy, n.: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct expression." Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic -- negating property rights. Attitude of the law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.(U.S. War Department's Training Manual No. 2000-25 of 1928)
Virginia's Edmund Randolph participated in the 1787 convention. Demonstrating a clear grasp of democracy's inherent dangers, he reminded his colleagues during the early weeks of the Constitutional Convention that the purpose for which they had gathered was "to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and trials of democracy...."
Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, championed the new Constitution in his state precisely because it would not create a democracy. "Democracy never lasts long," he noted. "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself." He insisted, "There was never a democracy that 'did not commit suicide.'"
New York's Alexander Hamilton, in a June 21, 1788 speech urging ratification of the Constitution in his state, thundered: "It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity." Earlier, at the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."
Welch understood that democracy is not an end in itself but a means to an end. Eighteenth century historian Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee, it is thought, argued that, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." And as British writer G.K. Chesterton put it in the 20th century: "You can never have a revolution in order to establish a democracy. You must have a democracy in order to have a revolution."
Another champion of democracy was Communist Mao Tse-tung, who proclaimed in 1939 (a decade before consolidating control on the Chinese mainland): "Taken as a whole, the Chinese revolutionary movement led by the Communist Party embraces the two stages, i.e., the democratic and the socialist revolutions, which are essentially different revolutionary processes, and the second process can be carried through only after the first has been completed. The democratic revolution is the necessary preparation for the socialist revolution, and the socialist revolution is the inevitable sequel to the democratic revolution. The ultimate aim for which all communists strive is to bring about a socialist and communist society."
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)
The classes of the militia are -
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia
Pay special attention to paragraphs (a) and (b)(2). As you can see, the phrase "militia" includes many more people than you thought. It basically includes every male U.S. citizen or would-be citizen who could be of use in combat.
The URL in the parent post doesn't work (apparently due to slashdot software eating the underscore character because my preview failed the same way). Cut and paste the one below instead, you'll be glad you did.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not possible for a person to be unbiased in anything. Even if I ask you to simply recite some simple uncontested facts, the facts you chose to recite will indicate a bias. If you recite physical constants I will get a different understanding of you than if you recite historical dates.
So, given that the author is proven to be biased, in what way is he biased? The bulk of his article is fairly neutral by my biases but I don't think many people of any background would find the following paragraphs to be written in style that attempts to be neutral:
and
Given that he dedicated his life to something that may be rendered obsolete by the Wikipedia, it is understandable that he might be critical of the Wikipedia in a way that someone else might not be.
By the way, encyclopedias do not have unlimited space for their articles and, as a result, they choose what to include and what not to include as well as how much space to allocate to the included articles. Those decisions put a bias (as shown in my first paragraph) into the foundation on which the rest of the encyclopedia is built.
While reviewing my post I was reminded of the title of your post "It not biased to be Educated". I would say that instilling bias is the entire purpose of education. The only person who could be unbiased is a genuine tabula rasa.
I loved my "Dr. Nim" from E.S.R. which I had in the mid-1960s. I would have loved to have had an "DigiComp I" or "DigiComp II" also from the same company.
Toys like "Erector" (or "Meccano") and "Tinker-Toy" were always appreciated as were science toys like chemistry and electronics kits. The "All-in-one" was cool too (it had a telescope, a microscope, a compass, a mirror, and other stuff in a Swiss Army Knife sort of package).
Another toy I liked was the "Whizzer" which was gyroscope in a top.
You might want to supplement your satellite based option with Champion Communications which is a quick and easy way to make some money from selling VoIP service. It is an MLM but the people who started it are known to me (they are also in Greenville, SC) and they have absolutely sterling reputations. Google for "Leighton Cubbage", "CTG", and "iOnosphere".
The service is not the cheapest but the quality is very good because the parent company is a PSTN company that has used VoIP for carrying their own traffic for about five years. They are also expanding into offering DSL and cell phone services.
Disclaimer: I sell Champion Communications products.
It depends what state you live in. What you are wanting is called "naked" or "dry" DSL. It is available in GA and NC but not SC (yet). I don't know about other states.
You don't need to apply for a full patent. Put in a "pending patent application" which will protect you for a year. It costs about $75 if you are a small independent inventor. Go to the USPTO to get the details; it's not complicated but it is a little tedious. No one really looks at what you submit but it does mean the USPTO has your idea in their hand so you can prove your case in the event someone tries to rip you off.
Having your idea written and notarized won't do you any good.
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I own a couple of C-64s, a 48K Spectrum, a TS-2068, a PC-8300, a 130XE Atari, and QL (yes, I lived on both sides of the Atlantic). I have also programmed on a ZX-81, a VIC-20 and an Atari 800XL. My all time favorite is the Spectrum. Somehow it was just a lot more satisfying of a machine than any of the others (the 800XL would be second). Maybe it was the time, maybe it was the associated culture, I don't know but I still love my Spectrum while I don't think much about the other machines.
You are absolutely right about the kudzu of computers. I am not a fan of Apple (I think the marketing emphasizes pretentiousness and, for me, the systems don't justify the extra expense) but I greatly appreciate their doing something different. In the Good Old Days (tm) there was another layer of beauty in each machine to appreciate. We were much closer to the metal and each machine really had its own personality.
I think you replied to the wrong post and meant to reply to the post I replied to. Please read/reply more carefully in the future. Thanks!
I was a geek in high school and was very much against team sports. I was also anti-military (it was the early 1970s). However, now that I am in the real world and have to hire/fire people I have found the most mature and responsible employees either have team sports in their background or military service. They are the people who, if they don't know how to do something, figure it out on their own.
After noticing the correlation, I have re-evaluated my view and reached a new conclusion. What people get from team sports and the military is self-discipline, drive, and commitment. Sure, other people can have those characteristics but the reality is they more often don't.
The worst employees have backgrounds showing they are cynical and too cool to participate in any sort of team effort. Cynics don't solve problems, they just point what everyone else already knew.
The figures I provided were for South Carolina. Perhaps I should have included a "YMMV". :-) I agree, $26K for ten years of experience and a master's is awful. As I showed in my previous post, that's about starting pay here for a bachelor's and no experience.
I do not think teaching is all that; what I was saying is it is not all that bad of a deal (at least here in SC and in CT where my in-laws are). Here the pay is competitive and while the hours each day may be long, they aren't any longer than what many other people I know put in who don't get any time off in the summer. However, what you describe sounds awful and really does need fixing.
I agree completely that the main problem in education is parents and students not taking personal responsibility. As a matter of fact, I believe that is the main problem this country, and perhaps the entire Western world, has overall (I wouldn't presume to speak about the Third World).
It is important to realize I was talking only about negotiating the price of routine office visits (the services being paid for out of the MSA). From http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/SavingandDebt/ P44145.asp?special=0409cope
The other thing that needs to be done about insurance companies is that they should pay when they are obligated. They routinely reject not only claims with minor errors but also claims that are perfect on the theory the doctor doesn't have the resources to properly pursue getting paid. After all, who is going to spend $100 to collect $50?
According to Center for Educator Recruitment, Retention, and Advancement, SC -- In South Carolina teachers start at $25,873 [1]. The average salary is $41,162 [2]. Teachers with over ten years of experience make more like $50-$60K [3] (based on what I know of the salaries of friends).
Combine these numbers with the fact that teachers work 9 months/year and the effective salaries become $34,497 [1], $54,882 [2], and about $73,000 [3].
My brother-in-law and sister-in-law are teachers largely because they enjoy getting summers off so the actual pay plus time off is worth it to them.
I just looked up some figures for what I guessed a "mid-low level tech job" might be and got that a "PC Maintenance Technician II" in Greenville, SC makes $37,989 (25th percentile), $43,017 (median), and $47,502 (75th percentile).
Things don't look too far out of whack to me.
You are absolutely right. I used to sell health insurance and I am currently CTO of a company that provides medical practice automation software (which includes claims processing).
When I have had to pay for my own health insurance I get a policy with at least a $5,000 deductible and high maximum benefit. I also open an MSA (Medical Savings Account). That way I pay for my family's routine visits out of my own pocket (cheaper than comprehensive insurance over the course of a year) and I am still protected against a major medical catastrophe.
The next layer to add to this is to, before telling the MD you'll be paying cash, ask if you can get a discount for cash. Sometimes (often?) you can since, on average, it saves the MD about 20% to not have to go through the claims process.
The result is a health insurance set up which is portable and relatively affordable.
I don't see any point in continuing this. You are clearly utterly ignorant of Libertarianism and you don't care to learn, otherwise you would have read the Wikipedia article which would have answered your questions.
I expect you will respond that I've failed to make my point and therefore I am not responding to your points. I assert here that I have responded to your points by providing a pointer to a detailed 3rd party article and I now find myself in the position of "trying to teach a pig to sing".
You might also benefit from reading the articles about Cecil Rhodes, Rhodesia, and Zimbabwe. More on Cecil Rhodes is here, here, here, here, and here. Unfortunately, none of those sites support your assertion that the British government couldn't stop him (or that it even wanted to) but then life's not always the way we want it to be.
You are quite mistaken about Britain being a Libertarian society at any time, let alone the 19th century.
Your example is flawed: Cecil Rhodes was only able to operate in Rhodesia because the British government gave him the OK. Once he was ensconced in Rhodesia he was able to make sure their laws favored him and his friends.
To quote Inigo Montoya "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Perhaps this will help?
The problem of the larger company is they had no economy of scale. IBM has 300,000 employees yet a typical consultant costs over $200/hour. You can get the same consultant (me) working as an independent for $100/hour. This is because I don't have to overhead of IBM and I am more efficient.
Similarly, the large plating companies could not compete on price and they could not compete on reputation (who are you going to trust, they guy in town everyone swears by or the faceless megacorp everyone swears at). Therefore, the large companies had to seek a legislated barrier to entry that would prevent new competitors and drive out existing ones.
Logically, I don't have to give an example, what I was saying is I know the person I was replying to cannot give an example of a weak Libertarian government. This is mainly because no country has ever actually had a Libertarian government. I was pointing out, obscurely perhaps, that his assertion was prima facie bogus.
The post above is not correct. There is such a thing as a common interest where people are better off cooperating voluntarily than competing. Of course, people have to be sufficiently well educated and logical to realize that, for example, killing your neighbor today may result in your house burning down tomorrow when no one will help you put out the fire.
The argument above is not entirely correct. There are three basic areas in which to compete: (1) best price, (2) best reputation, (3) best product.
Small businesses which become successful usually do it as a result of being pursuing area #3 by being innovative. Regulated markets tend to discourage innovation as there are mandatory requirements that must be met. These requirements are not a problem for an established company with sufficiently deep pockets but they can be insurmountable for a small company.
Regulation is often lobbied for by existing companies to keep small companies from entering the market. For example, according to a co-worker of mine who used to be in the business, the water leaving a metal plating facility now has to be cleaner than the drinking water entering the facility. This legislation was lobbied for by the larger plating companies because they could afford the extra equipment while the smaller competitors could not. As a result, small plating companies have gone out of business.
I don't know how to be clearer: a Libertarian government does not have the authority to pass laws that would prevent competition. The only reason the laws you describe can be passed and enforced today is because the ultimate source of power and authority, we the people, has ceded that authority to the current government (regardless of party).
Great Britain has never had any close to resembling a Libertarian government.
Finally, Libertarianism has never in this history of the world made for a weak nation.
In a Libertarian world the politicians don't have the sort of power politicians have today. There is no point in trying to buy a politician in a Libertarian world because he has no authority to promote legislation to benefit a group. That's one of the basic points of Libertarianism.
The Bush administration is nothing like a Libertarian government. A Libertarian government would not have the power to be able to pass legislation that benefits companies. What you have described is not Libertarianism.
Anyone who would like to learn what Libertarianism actually is should visit the Libertarian Party's web site.
The United States is not a democracy, it is a Republic. Unfortunately, we have been slipping towards a Democracy for nearly 100 years now.
As was (not actually) said in "The Blues Brothers" -- "We've got both kinds of politics here: Trotskyism AND Leninism!".
From the U.S. Code:
Pay special attention to paragraphs (a) and (b)(2). As you can see, the phrase "militia" includes many more people than you thought. It basically includes every male U.S. citizen or would-be citizen who could be of use in combat.
The URL in the parent post doesn't work (apparently due to slashdot software eating the underscore character because my preview failed the same way). Cut and paste the one below instead, you'll be glad you did.
http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/