It is ironic that the average tranny is much, much better skilled at applying makeup than the typical woman. Yes, they have to try harder, but I'm talking absolute skill here. Still too much, but done properly.
More importantly, ever wake up next to her the next morning and seen the reality of the same face without makeup? Can be a scary thing sometimes, perhaps best left unseen.
The problem now is that you have to do a tremendous amount of research before you buy now. It used to be much simpler: Pentium 60, 66, 75 or 100, pick one. Later it was still simple with Celeron or P2/P3/P4, as you are picking bigger cache and faster bus speed. Now to get the highest return on partially defective silicon, they offer too many models, many that overlap each other, and can be very confusing, with some dual core models that outperform quad core, etc. A year ago I finally settled on a Q9550 but it took reading 50 articles to figure out that it was, at the time, the best bang for the upper middle buck. So yes, the average consumer will get boned.
hey're also too lazy to support multiple Linux distros.
Dell has supported multiple versions of Linux on their servers for about a decade now, and on their desktops for many years, so not sure if "lazy" is the right word. They offer and support support RedHat, Novell/Suse, Solaris AND even Citrix. And they offer some desktop/laptop models with FreeDOS and Ubuntu. It isn't perfect, but better than most bigger vendors.
I personally run CentOS on several Dell servers, but I don't need their support contracts, which are technically through the Linux vendors anyway. But they do offer the different versions of Linux and have tested that their hardware will run fine with those different versions (ie: drivers). I would say they are supporting Linux better than most vendors, and considering that Linux only has a few percent of the desktop market (and a large chunk of the server market), they are doing an adequate job.
Come now, Microsoft has enough market share and billions of dollars that they don't really need you defending them. And as for security, the reason Linux is more secure than Windows has to do with the security model more than the actual software. Linux IS more secure than Windows, there is no doubt. People like to say it is because "People don't write viruses for Linux, just Windows" not realizing that it is much more difficult to write viruses/trojans for any Unix type system as it has security built into the kernel. There are less viruses because it is harder to exploit, or at least has fewer vectors of attack.
It is a trade-off: MS has more apps and has a lower level of skill required to setup (although higher level to master), Linux has a steeper initial learning curve but is easier to maintain. (You can update a server from your Droid pretty easily). Any admin as lazy as you describe would be fired soon, regardless of which platform he worked on. Saying that all Linux admins look and act like the Comic Book Guy is pretty laughable.
Indoctrinate the children when they are young and they are yours for life. Even Hitler knew this. Not the same thing obviously, but I still don't like any political party working so hard to program children with their version of "wisdom".
Reminds me of the string of murders in a city nearby. They found all the victims strangled in their own bathtubs, covered in milk and Cheerios with a whole banana shoved into their throats. The police are pretty sure that it is a cereal killer.
[rimshot] Thanks folks! I'll be here all week! Try the fish!
What about all the people whose computers are part of a bot net? The ISPs can't even manage to figure that one out. You have to be realistic about it. By the same token, it would be reasonable then to cut off anyone's internet access if their computer is infected by any spam spewing trojan, etc., which means the ISPs would have to hire thousands of people to simply deal with those issues. Likely, 1/4 of all home systems are infected with something. That means that the cutoffs would create a *minimum* of 10x the amount of calls. This is exactly the same thing. It might sound all high and mighty and "the right thing to do" but it doesn't work in the real world. You can't just say "fuck it, if you aren't smart enough to be a computer expert, then you get no access or pay the 50 cents per minute charge." Not only because it is stupid, but because the government doesn't have the legal authority to force ISPs or telcos to charge that. You might as well go for the 1 cent per email tax. Its laughable because it is literally impossible to enforce. Skype or any voip, including your own code, would be subject to it. You couldn't enforce it if you had infinite resources to do so. Look at the Great Firewall of China, which the citizens are able to bypass quite easily.
In short, it is absurd (and frankly, silly) to even suggest such a proposal. Particularly if you want to be taken seriously.
So spammers hijack computers, the owners get stuck with the bill. Again, the spammer doesn't care if you get charged. Incidentally, you can't force a 50 cent price on long distance anyway. That goes against pretty much everything the US is supposed to stand for. Also, it won't work, as you are underestimating how easy it is to hijack or bypass any system. Everyone gets hurt, except the spammer and the phone company collecting the 50 cents.
Your arrogant absolutism regarding the global warming is neither unique, nor justified. We can't tell if it will rain next week, yet you speak with certainty when it comes to what increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will do. Keep being a prick, and I'm sure others will be thrilled to hear you blather on about an issue that you are not nearly as informed as you would like them to believe.
That just makes it a great marketing tool, as long as you talk about Android phones "having reception of NEGATIVE 80dB! And they can download porn! Think of the children!". Just saying, if I was paid by the lie (I am, but not for Apple) I would be all over it;)
If you are going to stereotype, pick one that works. My observation is that the more religious types tend to be Republican and less likely to believe in global warming. (this is anecdotal, granted) The less religious types, and particularly the granola eating Gaia worshiping types tend to 100% believe in global warming. I don't think religion has that much to do with it, but rather "life philosophy" does, which isn't a direct parallel to religious belief.
Political leanings has more to do it than religious belief, or lack of.
Two people married making 200k are put into the highest tax bracket, paying the second 100k at the higher 25 and up to 38% rate. The math really isn't that hard, talk to a CPA.
This is exactly why I tend to stand in the middle on "global warming". My gut says, "yes, obviously we are making some effect" and my brain says "The earth is a pretty big place capable of bigger adjustments than we realize". Perhaps only to me, the obvious is to study more, make positive change now that are significant but don't put people out of jobs next year. (CAFE standards are a fucking joke, and should have been tightening steadily for decades, if only for national security vs. oil). Reduce pollutions (and carbon) simply because I have to BREATH. Same with water. Put a modest tax on older coal technology and subsidize new technology with the funds. Of course, this takes long term thinking and courage, something our Congress/President has lacked for a very long time.
And while I'm at it, if we were going to spend 1 trillion dollars to "jump start the economy", WTF didn't we put people to work building the grid out to North Dakota, where we can easy provide 20% of the electricity we need with wind? Wind isn't "The Answer (R)", but it is obviously part of the answer, and fairly competitive with coal/gas/nuke. Instead we paid people to sit on their asses. Again, courage is needed, and lacking.
We don't HAVE to believe all of what the global warming crowd is saying (I don't) but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that many of the steps you need to take if it is 100% true are beneficial to the country anyway. Agree to disagree, and start working on the things we DO agree on.
Nope. A married couple making 100k combined pay LESS tax than a single person making 100k. If both are making 200k combined, then of course they pay more than someone making 100k, but they pay less than if they file individual. If they didn't they would file as "married but filing separately" anyway.
That's social engineering, pure and unadulterated. In the same thread, no less!
Not taxing food is not designed to encourage or discourage anyone from eating. It would also apply to everyone equally since everyone eats. That isn't remotely the same thing as social engineering by encouraging or discouraging activity based on taxes on VOLUNTARY activities, such as tobacco, alcohol, luxury goods, home ownership, etc.
I accept that my point might have come across wrong. Most schools are paid by state tax, not federal income tax. Over 90% I believe (and the feds have no business being in the local school biz anyway). I have NO problem with federal programs *if* they are designed to either 1) help people help themselves, or 2) help those who can't help themselves. I was speaking solely of the tax deduction credits for income tax, ie: the basis of someone with two kids is $8k less than my basis, even if we make the same income.
I agree we currently use the tax code to encourage/discourage. I just believe that social engineering in this way shouldn't be the job of the government. Tax cigarettes higher because they cause more medical costs to everyone? Ok, I buy that. I just think that taxing something *solely* to encourage or discourage an activity might be outside the constitution (ie: counter to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).
The fact that the government has done it (or anything) for so long is not a valid argument for continuing to do so. The same could have been said of slavery or civil rights.
The less you earn, the higher your total tax bill.
Another reason I believe in making uncooked food stuffs (from the grocery, not McD's) sales tax free. It is (was?) that way in Texas, and NC has much lower sales tax. The most basic needed things would best be sales tax free simply because it is a larger degree of a poor person's income, and it would encourage thrift, as precooked foods would still be taxed. Of course, the problem is that our economy is currently dependent on people spending more money than they have.
There are other things to do with your money besides putting it in CDs, and the average home mortgage over the last 10 years has been between 6-7%, not 4%. Stocks, bonds, investing in your business, collectibles, anything that pays more than a CD.
Everyone touts "but you can save $10000 in taxes each year!", while forgetting that to get that, you must pay in $40000 in interest only. A typical mortgage on my house would be $3500 a month, or $42,000 a year. If that was all interest, it would put $11,000 in my pocket, but my net cost out of pocket would be $31,000. Paid only on interest, not adding to the value, period. No matter what anyone tells you, paying off a house might look "bad" on paper, but in reality is the best thing you can do financially.
As a side note, I *do* have an equity line of credit on the house, for when I buy a car, etc. Because the house is paid and my credit is good, I currently pay 2.9% interest on any money I borrow against it. The interest is deductible, although I pay everything off fast by keeping my expenses well under my income, and have done so for a couple of decades.
Remember, all those people telling you how to invest and get "maximum value for your dollars" are making a living by getting a cut, when when you lose money.
Now indeed, you may perhaps not see your nation, culture, or society as worth preserving.
Strawman arguement. The preservation of my culture and nation are not dependent on tax cuts for having children. I would add that there is no evidence that tax cuts for children have helped anyone except those getting the tax cuts.
Additionally, taking the approach that "if you don't want tax cuts for having children, then you don't love America and want to preserve it" is as lame as "Think of the children!! You don't hate children, do you?" which is marched out everytime one group wants to exploit another. The statement is an insult to any thinking person, and is just an attempt to oversimplify and demonize someone with a differing opinion.
Largely you are right, but you have to see the bigger picture. We have those deductions so we can afford houses, which serves to lock us in place, o make us predictable and lazy, and easy to govern.
If you can't afford a particular house without tax cuts, then maybe you should set your goals a bit lower. That is *exactly* why we are in the mess we are in financially, because people bought more house than they can afford, depending on tax benefits which diminish over time, and lower intro rates that go up over time.
On your other points, I agree that government likes the populous fat and complacent. Religion is also handy as an opiate for the masses. Both of these do make governing easier, but are counter to the idea of liberty.
Slashdot Mirror
It is ironic that the average tranny is much, much better skilled at applying makeup than the typical woman. Yes, they have to try harder, but I'm talking absolute skill here. Still too much, but done properly.
Makeup won't help an ugly chick at all.
Not true. Just add dim lighting and alcohol.
Ever seen a woman wear makeup...?
More importantly, ever wake up next to her the next morning and seen the reality of the same face without makeup? Can be a scary thing sometimes, perhaps best left unseen.
The problem now is that you have to do a tremendous amount of research before you buy now. It used to be much simpler: Pentium 60, 66, 75 or 100, pick one. Later it was still simple with Celeron or P2/P3/P4, as you are picking bigger cache and faster bus speed. Now to get the highest return on partially defective silicon, they offer too many models, many that overlap each other, and can be very confusing, with some dual core models that outperform quad core, etc. A year ago I finally settled on a Q9550 but it took reading 50 articles to figure out that it was, at the time, the best bang for the upper middle buck. So yes, the average consumer will get boned.
hey're also too lazy to support multiple Linux distros.
Dell has supported multiple versions of Linux on their servers for about a decade now, and on their desktops for many years, so not sure if "lazy" is the right word. They offer and support support RedHat, Novell/Suse, Solaris AND even Citrix. And they offer some desktop/laptop models with FreeDOS and Ubuntu. It isn't perfect, but better than most bigger vendors.
I personally run CentOS on several Dell servers, but I don't need their support contracts, which are technically through the Linux vendors anyway. But they do offer the different versions of Linux and have tested that their hardware will run fine with those different versions (ie: drivers). I would say they are supporting Linux better than most vendors, and considering that Linux only has a few percent of the desktop market (and a large chunk of the server market), they are doing an adequate job.
Come now, Microsoft has enough market share and billions of dollars that they don't really need you defending them. And as for security, the reason Linux is more secure than Windows has to do with the security model more than the actual software. Linux IS more secure than Windows, there is no doubt. People like to say it is because "People don't write viruses for Linux, just Windows" not realizing that it is much more difficult to write viruses/trojans for any Unix type system as it has security built into the kernel. There are less viruses because it is harder to exploit, or at least has fewer vectors of attack.
It is a trade-off: MS has more apps and has a lower level of skill required to setup (although higher level to master), Linux has a steeper initial learning curve but is easier to maintain. (You can update a server from your Droid pretty easily). Any admin as lazy as you describe would be fired soon, regardless of which platform he worked on. Saying that all Linux admins look and act like the Comic Book Guy is pretty laughable.
Indoctrinate the children when they are young and they are yours for life. Even Hitler knew this. Not the same thing obviously, but I still don't like any political party working so hard to program children with their version of "wisdom".
Reminds me of the string of murders in a city nearby. They found all the victims strangled in their own bathtubs, covered in milk and Cheerios with a whole banana shoved into their throats. The police are pretty sure that it is a cereal killer.
[rimshot]
Thanks folks! I'll be here all week! Try the fish!
What about all the people whose computers are part of a bot net? The ISPs can't even manage to figure that one out. You have to be realistic about it. By the same token, it would be reasonable then to cut off anyone's internet access if their computer is infected by any spam spewing trojan, etc., which means the ISPs would have to hire thousands of people to simply deal with those issues. Likely, 1/4 of all home systems are infected with something. That means that the cutoffs would create a *minimum* of 10x the amount of calls. This is exactly the same thing. It might sound all high and mighty and "the right thing to do" but it doesn't work in the real world. You can't just say "fuck it, if you aren't smart enough to be a computer expert, then you get no access or pay the 50 cents per minute charge." Not only because it is stupid, but because the government doesn't have the legal authority to force ISPs or telcos to charge that. You might as well go for the 1 cent per email tax. Its laughable because it is literally impossible to enforce. Skype or any voip, including your own code, would be subject to it. You couldn't enforce it if you had infinite resources to do so. Look at the Great Firewall of China, which the citizens are able to bypass quite easily.
In short, it is absurd (and frankly, silly) to even suggest such a proposal. Particularly if you want to be taken seriously.
So spammers hijack computers, the owners get stuck with the bill. Again, the spammer doesn't care if you get charged. Incidentally, you can't force a 50 cent price on long distance anyway. That goes against pretty much everything the US is supposed to stand for. Also, it won't work, as you are underestimating how easy it is to hijack or bypass any system. Everyone gets hurt, except the spammer and the phone company collecting the 50 cents.
Most women can sense desperation the instant a guy walks into a room.
And they can also sense his net worth, and factor those two against each other before jumping to conclusions.
Don't forget the courageous efforts by The Man Show to end women's sufferage. You can still sign the petition.
Your arrogant absolutism regarding the global warming is neither unique, nor justified. We can't tell if it will rain next week, yet you speak with certainty when it comes to what increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will do. Keep being a prick, and I'm sure others will be thrilled to hear you blather on about an issue that you are not nearly as informed as you would like them to believe.
That just makes it a great marketing tool, as long as you talk about Android phones "having reception of NEGATIVE 80dB! And they can download porn! Think of the children!". Just saying, if I was paid by the lie (I am, but not for Apple) I would be all over it ;)
If you are going to stereotype, pick one that works. My observation is that the more religious types tend to be Republican and less likely to believe in global warming. (this is anecdotal, granted) The less religious types, and particularly the granola eating Gaia worshiping types tend to 100% believe in global warming. I don't think religion has that much to do with it, but rather "life philosophy" does, which isn't a direct parallel to religious belief.
Political leanings has more to do it than religious belief, or lack of.
Two people married making 200k are put into the highest tax bracket, paying the second 100k at the higher 25 and up to 38% rate. The math really isn't that hard, talk to a CPA.
This is exactly why I tend to stand in the middle on "global warming". My gut says, "yes, obviously we are making some effect" and my brain says "The earth is a pretty big place capable of bigger adjustments than we realize". Perhaps only to me, the obvious is to study more, make positive change now that are significant but don't put people out of jobs next year. (CAFE standards are a fucking joke, and should have been tightening steadily for decades, if only for national security vs. oil). Reduce pollutions (and carbon) simply because I have to BREATH. Same with water. Put a modest tax on older coal technology and subsidize new technology with the funds. Of course, this takes long term thinking and courage, something our Congress/President has lacked for a very long time.
And while I'm at it, if we were going to spend 1 trillion dollars to "jump start the economy", WTF didn't we put people to work building the grid out to North Dakota, where we can easy provide 20% of the electricity we need with wind? Wind isn't "The Answer (R)", but it is obviously part of the answer, and fairly competitive with coal/gas/nuke. Instead we paid people to sit on their asses. Again, courage is needed, and lacking.
We don't HAVE to believe all of what the global warming crowd is saying (I don't) but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that many of the steps you need to take if it is 100% true are beneficial to the country anyway. Agree to disagree, and start working on the things we DO agree on.
Nope. A married couple making 100k combined pay LESS tax than a single person making 100k. If both are making 200k combined, then of course they pay more than someone making 100k, but they pay less than if they file individual. If they didn't they would file as "married but filing separately" anyway.
That's social engineering, pure and unadulterated. In the same thread, no less!
Not taxing food is not designed to encourage or discourage anyone from eating. It would also apply to everyone equally since everyone eats. That isn't remotely the same thing as social engineering by encouraging or discouraging activity based on taxes on VOLUNTARY activities, such as tobacco, alcohol, luxury goods, home ownership, etc.
Which one? FAT12 and its 32MB limit? One of the FAT16 versions? FAT32 with 2GB limits? FATX? exFAT? TFAT? TexFAT?
I accept that my point might have come across wrong. Most schools are paid by state tax, not federal income tax. Over 90% I believe (and the feds have no business being in the local school biz anyway). I have NO problem with federal programs *if* they are designed to either 1) help people help themselves, or 2) help those who can't help themselves. I was speaking solely of the tax deduction credits for income tax, ie: the basis of someone with two kids is $8k less than my basis, even if we make the same income.
I agree we currently use the tax code to encourage/discourage. I just believe that social engineering in this way shouldn't be the job of the government. Tax cigarettes higher because they cause more medical costs to everyone? Ok, I buy that. I just think that taxing something *solely* to encourage or discourage an activity might be outside the constitution (ie: counter to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).
The fact that the government has done it (or anything) for so long is not a valid argument for continuing to do so. The same could have been said of slavery or civil rights.
The less you earn, the higher your total tax bill.
Another reason I believe in making uncooked food stuffs (from the grocery, not McD's) sales tax free. It is (was?) that way in Texas, and NC has much lower sales tax. The most basic needed things would best be sales tax free simply because it is a larger degree of a poor person's income, and it would encourage thrift, as precooked foods would still be taxed. Of course, the problem is that our economy is currently dependent on people spending more money than they have.
There are other things to do with your money besides putting it in CDs, and the average home mortgage over the last 10 years has been between 6-7%, not 4%. Stocks, bonds, investing in your business, collectibles, anything that pays more than a CD.
Everyone touts "but you can save $10000 in taxes each year!", while forgetting that to get that, you must pay in $40000 in interest only. A typical mortgage on my house would be $3500 a month, or $42,000 a year. If that was all interest, it would put $11,000 in my pocket, but my net cost out of pocket would be $31,000. Paid only on interest, not adding to the value, period. No matter what anyone tells you, paying off a house might look "bad" on paper, but in reality is the best thing you can do financially.
As a side note, I *do* have an equity line of credit on the house, for when I buy a car, etc. Because the house is paid and my credit is good, I currently pay 2.9% interest on any money I borrow against it. The interest is deductible, although I pay everything off fast by keeping my expenses well under my income, and have done so for a couple of decades.
Remember, all those people telling you how to invest and get "maximum value for your dollars" are making a living by getting a cut, when when you lose money.
Now indeed, you may perhaps not see your nation, culture, or society as worth preserving.
Strawman arguement. The preservation of my culture and nation are not dependent on tax cuts for having children. I would add that there is no evidence that tax cuts for children have helped anyone except those getting the tax cuts.
Additionally, taking the approach that "if you don't want tax cuts for having children, then you don't love America and want to preserve it" is as lame as "Think of the children!! You don't hate children, do you?" which is marched out everytime one group wants to exploit another. The statement is an insult to any thinking person, and is just an attempt to oversimplify and demonize someone with a differing opinion.
Largely you are right, but you have to see the bigger picture. We have those deductions so we can afford houses, which serves to lock us in place, o make us predictable and lazy, and easy to govern.
If you can't afford a particular house without tax cuts, then maybe you should set your goals a bit lower. That is *exactly* why we are in the mess we are in financially, because people bought more house than they can afford, depending on tax benefits which diminish over time, and lower intro rates that go up over time.
On your other points, I agree that government likes the populous fat and complacent. Religion is also handy as an opiate for the masses. Both of these do make governing easier, but are counter to the idea of liberty.