I insure 2 cars-- '85 VW Westfalia and and '87 MB 300 Diesel--in CA for higher than minimum liability (which is 15K, and I have 30k/60k) and pay about $60 a month. I insure through GMAC. Now, I am a member of AAA and Good Sam Club, which reduces my rates, but those membership fees added to my rates are still far less than $1200 - for two cars.
So I don't think the parent missed the point. You just haven't shopped your rates enough.
The problem, unfortunately, is that the added cost of a new diesel cancels out the gain from the mileage. Unlike old gasoline engines, diesels begin to have problems starting in the cold weather very quickly and require much more maintenance and care to the glow plugs and fuel system to sotp this from happening.
You can buy a used diesel MB or VW for a few thousand, save a lot money by not buying a new car, get about 35 MPG, and just pay for periodic maintenance. Glow plugs are really cheap, and the engines last far far longer than gas engines.
Regarding cold weather, I am a California guy myself, so I don't personally deal with this problem, but I've asked plenty of people on the east coast and in the Rockies about winter problems. They have consistently remarked that it was no big deal. So you could've just got an old-ass German diesel, gutted it, rebuilt the engine or put a new one in, drive it for half a million miles, and run it on biodiesel, which is cleaner and has a higher cetane rating.
There are Big 3-made SUVs with diesel engines (late model Suburbans, etc.) that one can run on biodiesel , which is sold in more and more places. I'd suggest giving one of those a shot.
I'm sure this book is good, but...
on
Bay of Souls
·
· Score: 1
Harold Bloom is a self-satisfied twit who is a laughingstock in academia. His last remaining days are spent attempting to shore up some arbitrary "Western canon" and, as one his recent titles put it, to teach you how to read. I've met some arrogant people in academia, but he always takes the cake. It's too bad he included this book, which may be very fine, among his list.
I don't even want to read the mental and logical acrobatics libertarians are going to perform to criticize the decision by the Brazillian government. Examples: It prohibits choice! Best tool for the job! Freedom of competition! Mission-critical responsiblity! Oh no!
Despite this, it is clear Brazil did not stop anyone from competing. They only mandated that for software to be considered, it must be Open Source. That is a condition any business can meet; open your source! If you don't want to, don't! It's that easy.
Actually, the particular article used three people who were considered beerologists or something; I recall being shocked with the results, and looking at the method. While they may have used blind-tasting, the pool of testers was very small, and not diverse (three white men).
That is a very unconvincing website. It would be interesting if it provided actual detailed information about the "junk science" that CR purportly uses, but instead we have a number of quotes by people in several different organizations without any context given to make sense of them.
An aside, when CR rated Coors and Budweiser as top beers, I knew they were untrustworthy.
Non-union members who work in a bargaining unit with a union contract that is in an agency shop state, such as California, pay what's called a fair share fee or agency fee. It is a percentage of their gross income, and not equivalent to dues. Dues are modestly higher in percentage, and are used for different things.
It's because of the anti-union culture fostered by "think tanks", corporate political contributions, and free marketers that so many people are ignorant of the basic laws governing union representation. Your hearsay is half-correct; many federal employees (and state employees) are working in bargaining units covered by a union contract. If they do not join, they still pay a fair share fee, which is covers the cost of the union representation. Now before you get flipping mad at that, let me remind you and any other: 1. Fair share laws are pushed by anti-union forces. It creates the free-rider problem. Elected representatives negotiate higher wages, greater benefits, job security, and other protections, and people who do not join the union still receive the benefits of negotiation. I would be happy if my union was only obligated to represent the members, and if the contract only covered membership. You know why? Our membership would 100% all the time, because fees and dues are merely a fraction of the wage increases and other benefits I receive. There's nothing I dislike more than some snotty guy who won't join but receives the substantial benefits; it's a big fuck you to all the other workers who are HAPPY that they have free health insurance and higher wages. That squirelly way of justifying it, as you say, is making the best out of an unfair situation.
2. As far as about individuality and collectiveness, you say this like you think this is bad. It's not. First of all, I don't want any one worker's ideas privileged over mine and other workers. Why should I? And if that person really really really thinks they have great ideas to implement, well then: run for an elected officer position! Be president! You sure can't do that without a union. It's irritating that so many people complacently consent to the basic undemocratic nature of a corporation, whose CEOS and such are not appointed by the people who actually work for them everyday--in direct contradiction to American popular democratic culture--and yet rail and fuss about individuality and unions. Those kind of people are sheep, to use your terminology. I hope those contracted workers organize the hell outta Microsoft. Stop pursuing temporary solutions like lawsuits that only address the a few workers for a short time, and come up with a long range solution.
And if you think that fair share laws are wrong, then campaign for a law that limits the fruits of negotiations to only members. You'll feel a bit stupid if you work in that bargaining unit, as your rights dissipate, but I can't stop your from bahhhh bahhhhing all you want.
Well, I think this is a troll post, but I'd like to respond.
I'm not sure what your post was arguing with the discussion of Vietnam, China, Cuba, UK, Taiwan, etc. Are you arguing that US former economic (and now military) hegemony has produced wonderful results in those areas, similar to the way you characterize postwar Japan? I'm not really sure I understand the point. The US was forced to withdraw its military operations from Vietnam due to the unyielding struggle from Vietnamese peasants, and while its main objective of preventing the closure of Southeast Asia to capitalist development was successful, no one could argue that US expanded an empire of freedom into Vietnam. China's free trade agreements may impress you, but the national standard of living has dropped and certain towns have essentially lost all freedom in involuntary contracts to work in production for foreign corporations. I don't know if you pay much attention to South Korea, but there is a well organized and militant student and labor movement in direct opposition to the government free trade policies. In the last several years, there have been national strikes.
Germany, which you seem to feel the US is singularly responsible for exorcising the Nazi past, has opposed US unilateralism. Not only that, but in Germany, France, Italy, and Spain, there are very large activist organizations which have proven capable of mobilizing millions of people in protest to free trade and McDonalds-type corporations. To be honest, it appears to me that your post is a product of a very superficial familiarity with the world. The mention of blue jeans and other constant references to commodities as the culture of "freedom" suggests very little attention to the actual places you named.
And to be honest, if the US is as devoted to freedom as you say (hey, maybe the accuations of imperialism are off-base) then why the long-time support of Saddam in the eighties, the gifts and sales of weapons the US condoned to the nation? Why is Saudi Arabia, a monarchy, given first class treatment most of the time by the US state? How can "an empire of freedom" afford to court such unfree states in the past and present?
like a true imperialist. Yeah, maybe Afghanistan will be a good place for a vacation.
Germans were more militaristic? Totalitarianism was far more popular? How do you measure this? Hitler's uniforms for the military? This is not political analysis, man. Sounds like a high school history teacher.
If you kick out Hussein "and his oligarchy" without a sense of the future, you'll get exactly what happened in Afghanistan in the eighties and nineties. The US financed Bin Laden to fight against the government, in the following power vacuum the incredibly reactionary Taliban assumes control. Oh, forget it...
You know, I think the reconstruction of Germany has much more to do with the incredible levels of investment involved in the Marshall plan than censorship and puppet governments. As with Japan, an enormous amount of capital made it possible for Germany to once become a junior partner in the global economy. And what do you mean their "tendencies" to lord it over the rest of Europe? The Third Reich, the nasty racist state that it was, was doing the same thing Britain and France had done in other parts of the world--their crime was to do it to their imperial neighbors.
I want to know what apologists for US actions in Iraq say about Afghanistan, which has received none of the promised investment for reconstruction and is simply doing terribly. Why should I imagine that Iraq will be doing any differently?
The racist part is connected to the "maturation" principle that seems to be embedded within the idea. Brown people need to have a benevolent western monarch before they can have democracy. This was suggested numerous times in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries for India, the Philippines, Japan, regions in Latin America...Forbes doesn't address the basic issue that Hussein had ONLY been able to establish and operate his oppressive regime over Iraqis with the aid of the U.S. in the eighties, which has nothing to do with the Iraqi's ability to run a democratic government. What other than this "benevolent" racism would lead Forbes to suggest autocratic rule for a nation the US administration is denouncing for its undemocratic practices?
Did anyone notice that Forbes first basically calls for a monarchy in Iraq, headed by an appointed de facto rule from the US? At first I thought it was satire (honest) but I was just being too generous in my reading. Oh great, a racist imperialist agrees with my view on patent/copyright reform.What next, endorsing Stallman and calling for apartheid?
And exactly what is your point about the DMCA? Are you suggesting that "liberal" Democrats were the only one supporting that, and that somehow CLinton rammed it through a Republican majority congress? Hmmmm...Boy, we know how those Republicans just caved whenever Clinton pushed something, right? And, you know how that guy just refused to use any force against Iraq during his administration, except for those bombs? What was he thinking?
The clarity of your analysis is impressive. You know, we really do have to get our priorities straight--stop those damn liberals from passing laws restricting digital rights and let's go kill thousands of poor disenfranchised people conscripted into a tyrant's army. And you think people will mod you down?
It's funny, because we know that Saddam had chemical weapons in the first place because we gave the supplies to them. Thank you, Rumsfeld, for the fantastic job you did so many years ago.
Joey4, are you joining up and going there? Are do you just have no problem with sending our poor and minority people to kill the conscripted soldiers in the Iraqi army? Brilliant solution.
Yes, IANAL. I am a UCSD student, however, and one is periodically involved with the Che. All of you right now saying:
1. It's not illegal for the university to do this
and
2. It's the university's computer, so what's the big deal?
are missing the point.
The University is committed to the pursuit of knowledge, so they say, and the principle of academic freedom has been articulated by countless a professor and administrator. This principle is meant to protect scholars who often ask uncomfortable questions and also have wildly divergent political opinions from each other.
Anyone with familiarity with UC policy and practice today should be aware that administrators, mostly former private industry researchers and corporate execs in the twilight of their careers, are in charge. Bureaucrats run the public institutions of learning in California, with the aid of federal, military, and corporate funds.
Now before some of you consign the sharing of knowledge to the realm of private space, where only those who own their own server can provide a link to a relevant topic or issue, ask yourself the consequences of your casual dismissal of the principle of academic freedom.
BTW, this was merely a link, akin to having a book in the UC library except, of course, a mere byte or two was used rather than fifty or more dollars that hardcovers go for today.
Rather than writing off the efficacy of activism against bad legislation, perhaps the author should question how effective e-mailing is. He doesn't sound schooled in any real activist background, so he conflates a e-mail message with the entirety of political lobbying. Activism and lobbying consists of far more than spitting off messages to a representative. If geeks want to form strong opposition to acts like the DMCA, they need to organize themselves collectively and strategize. What would compell reps, for example, to vote against these laws? What has been successful and what has failed?
This is an important issue, and to suggest than coding is the answer is ridiculous. Let's see some better organizing and activism, not less of it.
Re:trying to be objective
on
Mac Rants
·
· Score: 0, Troll
I read the rant, big whoop. He's citing a comparison by someone I've spoken to on a Mac forum from time to time. The point of his comparisons (he's done several) is not that the Macintosh will solve world hunger or anything. He was trying to debunk the myth that Macs are expensive in a bang-for-your-buck method.
Well, he did a poor job. $2500? Maybe that money makes sense if one uses Photoshop all the time, sure. But if a gamer or the average person wants to invest in a high-end system, you can end up with a >1.0 GB PC with a wide selection of peripherals for less than a grand. And you bought a Mac, which holds a monopoly on their hardware (hardware that, except for VirtualPC and Linux, has NO alternative operating systems), because of Windows licensing costs? "Nazism?" I'm not Windows fan, but what kind of logic is that? You don't even have third party choice of hardware for the Mac, let alone software diversity.
Letter:
The Internet is an important cultural phenomenon, but that doesn't excuse its failure to comply with basic economic laws," said Thomas Nolle, a New Jersey telecommunications consultant. "The problem is that it was devised by a bunch of hippie anarchists who didn't have a strong profit motive. But this is a business, not a government-sponsored network."
I would be ecstatic if the internet remains forever out of the grasp of "basic economic laws". I'm not so naive to think it will, though, because of rapacious corporations bents on having cultural phenomena bow to their profit motives. I'm definitely not foolish enough to believe that the Internet was "devised by a bunch of hippie anarchists" since it in fact sprung from the Arpanet project in the US military. But I guess "telecommunications consultant[s]" don't need to know history, since according to cyber-libertarians history ended with U.S. liberal capitalism.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you smoking? Not even a diehard capitalist would stand by numbers like that, with any basic education. Did you learn that in 101?
I insure 2 cars-- '85 VW Westfalia and and '87 MB 300 Diesel--in CA for higher than minimum liability (which is 15K, and I have 30k/60k) and pay about $60 a month. I insure through GMAC. Now, I am a member of AAA and Good Sam Club, which reduces my rates, but those membership fees added to my rates are still far less than $1200 - for two cars.
So I don't think the parent missed the point. You just haven't shopped your rates enough.
The problem, unfortunately, is that the added cost of a new diesel cancels out the gain from the mileage. Unlike old gasoline engines, diesels begin to have problems starting in the cold weather very quickly and require much more maintenance and care to the glow plugs and fuel system to sotp this from happening.
You can buy a used diesel MB or VW for a few thousand, save a lot money by not buying a new car, get about 35 MPG, and just pay for periodic maintenance. Glow plugs are really cheap, and the engines last far far longer than gas engines.
Regarding cold weather, I am a California guy myself, so I don't personally deal with this problem, but I've asked plenty of people on the east coast and in the Rockies about winter problems. They have consistently remarked that it was no big deal. So you could've just got an old-ass German diesel, gutted it, rebuilt the engine or put a new one in, drive it for half a million miles, and run it on biodiesel, which is cleaner and has a higher cetane rating.
You're in luck, because they are developing such tdi-hybrids.
There are Big 3-made SUVs with diesel engines (late model Suburbans, etc.) that one can run on biodiesel , which is sold in more and more places. I'd suggest giving one of those a shot.
Harold Bloom is a self-satisfied twit who is a laughingstock in academia. His last remaining days are spent attempting to shore up some arbitrary "Western canon" and, as one his recent titles put it, to teach you how to read. I've met some arrogant people in academia, but he always takes the cake. It's too bad he included this book, which may be very fine, among his list.
I don't even want to read the mental and logical acrobatics libertarians are going to perform to criticize the decision by the Brazillian government .
Examples:
It prohibits choice! Best tool for the job! Freedom of competition! Mission-critical responsiblity! Oh no!
Despite this, it is clear Brazil did not stop anyone from competing. They only mandated that for software to be considered, it must be Open Source. That is a condition any business can meet; open your source! If you don't want to, don't! It's that easy.
Actually, the particular article used three people who were considered beerologists or something; I recall being shocked with the results, and looking at the method. While they may have used blind-tasting, the pool of testers was very small, and not diverse (three white men).
That is a very unconvincing website. It would be interesting if it provided actual detailed information about the "junk science" that CR purportly uses, but instead we have a number of quotes by people in several different organizations without any context given to make sense of them.
An aside, when CR rated Coors and Budweiser as top beers, I knew they were untrustworthy.
It's because of the anti-union culture fostered by "think tanks", corporate political contributions, and free marketers that so many people are ignorant of the basic laws governing union representation. Your hearsay is half-correct; many federal employees (and state employees) are working in bargaining units covered by a union contract. If they do not join, they still pay a fair share fee, which is covers the cost of the union representation. Now before you get flipping mad at that, let me remind you and any other:
1. Fair share laws are pushed by anti-union forces. It creates the free-rider problem. Elected representatives negotiate higher wages, greater benefits, job security, and other protections, and people who do not join the union still receive the benefits of negotiation. I would be happy if my union was only obligated to represent the members, and if the contract only covered membership. You know why? Our membership would 100% all the time, because fees and dues are merely a fraction of the wage increases and other benefits I receive. There's nothing I dislike more than some snotty guy who won't join but receives the substantial benefits; it's a big fuck you to all the other workers who are HAPPY that they have free health insurance and higher wages. That squirelly way of justifying it, as you say, is making the best out of an unfair situation.
2. As far as about individuality and collectiveness, you say this like you think this is bad. It's not. First of all, I don't want any one worker's ideas privileged over mine and other workers. Why should I? And if that person really really really thinks they have great ideas to implement, well then: run for an elected officer position! Be president! You sure can't do that without a union. It's irritating that so many people complacently consent to the basic undemocratic nature of a corporation, whose CEOS and such are not appointed by the people who actually work for them everyday--in direct contradiction to American popular democratic culture--and yet rail and fuss about individuality and unions. Those kind of people are sheep, to use your terminology. I hope those contracted workers organize the hell outta Microsoft. Stop pursuing temporary solutions like lawsuits that only address the a few workers for a short time, and come up with a long range solution.
And if you think that fair share laws are wrong, then campaign for a law that limits the fruits of negotiations to only members. You'll feel a bit stupid if you work in that bargaining unit, as your rights dissipate, but I can't stop your from bahhhh bahhhhing all you want.
I'm not sure what your post was arguing with the discussion of Vietnam, China, Cuba, UK, Taiwan, etc. Are you arguing that US former economic (and now military) hegemony has produced wonderful results in those areas, similar to the way you characterize postwar Japan? I'm not really sure I understand the point. The US was forced to withdraw its military operations from Vietnam due to the unyielding struggle from Vietnamese peasants, and while its main objective of preventing the closure of Southeast Asia to capitalist development was successful, no one could argue that US expanded an empire of freedom into Vietnam. China's free trade agreements may impress you, but the national standard of living has dropped and certain towns have essentially lost all freedom in involuntary contracts to work in production for foreign corporations. I don't know if you pay much attention to South Korea, but there is a well organized and militant student and labor movement in direct opposition to the government free trade policies. In the last several years, there have been national strikes.
Germany, which you seem to feel the US is singularly responsible for exorcising the Nazi past, has opposed US unilateralism. Not only that, but in Germany, France, Italy, and Spain, there are very large activist organizations which have proven capable of mobilizing millions of people in protest to free trade and McDonalds-type corporations. To be honest, it appears to me that your post is a product of a very superficial familiarity with the world. The mention of blue jeans and other constant references to commodities as the culture of "freedom" suggests very little attention to the actual places you named.
And to be honest, if the US is as devoted to freedom as you say (hey, maybe the accuations of imperialism are off-base) then why the long-time support of Saddam in the eighties, the gifts and sales of weapons the US condoned to the nation? Why is Saudi Arabia, a monarchy, given first class treatment most of the time by the US state? How can "an empire of freedom" afford to court such unfree states in the past and present?
like a true imperialist. Yeah, maybe Afghanistan will be a good place for a vacation.
Germans were more militaristic? Totalitarianism was far more popular? How do you measure this? Hitler's uniforms for the military? This is not political analysis, man. Sounds like a high school history teacher.
If you kick out Hussein "and his oligarchy" without a sense of the future, you'll get exactly what happened in Afghanistan in the eighties and nineties. The US financed Bin Laden to fight against the government, in the following power vacuum the incredibly reactionary Taliban assumes control. Oh, forget it...
Ok. So do version numbers mean ANYTHING? Without any context, your response is completely useless.
I want to know what apologists for US actions in Iraq say about Afghanistan, which has received none of the promised investment for reconstruction and is simply doing terribly. Why should I imagine that Iraq will be doing any differently?
Thank God! What have you done to advance free software? I wish more people refused to "grow up" and consent to control.
The racist part is connected to the "maturation" principle that seems to be embedded within the idea. Brown people need to have a benevolent western monarch before they can have democracy. This was suggested numerous times in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries for India, the Philippines, Japan, regions in Latin America...Forbes doesn't address the basic issue that Hussein had ONLY been able to establish and operate his oppressive regime over Iraqis with the aid of the U.S. in the eighties, which has nothing to do with the Iraqi's ability to run a democratic government. What other than this "benevolent" racism would lead Forbes to suggest autocratic rule for a nation the US administration is denouncing for its undemocratic practices?
Did anyone notice that Forbes first basically calls for a monarchy in Iraq, headed by an appointed de facto rule from the US? At first I thought it was satire (honest) but I was just being too generous in my reading. Oh great, a racist imperialist agrees with my view on patent/copyright reform.What next, endorsing Stallman and calling for apartheid?
And exactly what is your point about the DMCA? Are you suggesting that "liberal" Democrats were the only one supporting that, and that somehow CLinton rammed it through a Republican majority congress? Hmmmm...Boy, we know how those Republicans just caved whenever Clinton pushed something, right? And, you know how that guy just refused to use any force against Iraq during his administration, except for those bombs? What was he thinking?
The clarity of your analysis is impressive. You know, we really do have to get our priorities straight--stop those damn liberals from passing laws restricting digital rights and let's go kill thousands of poor disenfranchised people conscripted into a tyrant's army. And you think people will mod you down?
It's funny, because we know that Saddam had chemical weapons in the first place because we gave the supplies to them. Thank you, Rumsfeld, for the fantastic job you did so many years ago.
Joey4, are you joining up and going there? Are do you just have no problem with sending our poor and minority people to kill the conscripted soldiers in the Iraqi army? Brilliant solution.
Sounds like cronyism to me
When will we be able to moderate someone as a "Dumbass"?
1. It's not illegal for the university to do this
and
2. It's the university's computer, so what's the big deal?
are missing the point.
The University is committed to the pursuit of knowledge, so they say, and the principle of academic freedom has been articulated by countless a professor and administrator. This principle is meant to protect scholars who often ask uncomfortable questions and also have wildly divergent political opinions from each other.
Anyone with familiarity with UC policy and practice today should be aware that administrators, mostly former private industry researchers and corporate execs in the twilight of their careers, are in charge. Bureaucrats run the public institutions of learning in California, with the aid of federal, military, and corporate funds.
Now before some of you consign the sharing of knowledge to the realm of private space, where only those who own their own server can provide a link to a relevant topic or issue, ask yourself the consequences of your casual dismissal of the principle of academic freedom.
BTW, this was merely a link, akin to having a book in the UC library except, of course, a mere byte or two was used rather than fifty or more dollars that hardcovers go for today.
Rather than writing off the efficacy of activism against bad legislation, perhaps the author should question how effective e-mailing is. He doesn't sound schooled in any real activist background, so he conflates a e-mail message with the entirety of political lobbying. Activism and lobbying consists of far more than spitting off messages to a representative. If geeks want to form strong opposition to acts like the DMCA, they need to organize themselves collectively and strategize. What would compell reps, for example, to vote against these laws? What has been successful and what has failed?
This is an important issue, and to suggest than coding is the answer is ridiculous. Let's see some better organizing and activism, not less of it.
I read the rant, big whoop. He's citing a comparison by someone I've spoken to on a Mac forum from time to time. The point of his comparisons (he's done several) is not that the Macintosh will solve world hunger or anything. He was trying to debunk the myth that Macs are expensive in a bang-for-your-buck method.
Well, he did a poor job. $2500? Maybe that money makes sense if one uses Photoshop all the time, sure. But if a gamer or the average person wants to invest in a high-end system, you can end up with a >1.0 GB PC with a wide selection of peripherals for less than a grand. And you bought a Mac, which holds a monopoly on their hardware (hardware that, except for VirtualPC and Linux, has NO alternative operating systems), because of Windows licensing costs? "Nazism?" I'm not Windows fan, but what kind of logic is that? You don't even have third party choice of hardware for the Mac, let alone software diversity.
Letter: The Internet is an important cultural phenomenon, but that doesn't excuse its failure to comply with basic economic laws," said Thomas Nolle, a New Jersey telecommunications consultant. "The problem is that it was devised by a bunch of hippie anarchists who didn't have a strong profit motive. But this is a business, not a government-sponsored network."
I would be ecstatic if the internet remains forever out of the grasp of "basic economic laws". I'm not so naive to think it will, though, because of rapacious corporations bents on having cultural phenomena bow to their profit motives. I'm definitely not foolish enough to believe that the Internet was "devised by a bunch of hippie anarchists" since it in fact sprung from the Arpanet project in the US military. But I guess "telecommunications consultant[s]" don't need to know history, since according to cyber-libertarians history ended with U.S. liberal capitalism.