Shakespeare wasn't "suddenly" iconized. I appologize if I implied that. I meant that the type of icon *HE* became takes generations. There wasn't a sudden "blink
Hell, what about Jan Struther? Her movies were "enjoyed" and she was wealthy.
The same goes for modern "playwrites", actors and "artists". But none of them have the "icon" status that's associated with Shakespeare. I think you missed my point.
How many "Knights" are there? Sir Roger Moore? Sir Alec Guiness? etc...
The point is, the type of "fame" associated with Shakespeare is quite different. How many others had similar life-time achivements yet ended up in obsurity after their death?
Seriously, will J.K. Rowling be studied 300 or 400 years from now? Will she be a "Shakespeare"? Or a Thomas Hardy? Both are studied today, but which names are instantly recognizable? Or will she just be another author who shot to fame breifly then faded?
You just can't compare Tolkein to Shakespeare and expect to be taken seriously. Maybe in a 100 years... Maybe not.
For example, we have 65 playwrights alive today for every one in Elizabethan England. Yet do we have dozens of Shakespeares?
I hardly think Shakespeare was considered an icon in his time. Similarly, If there are "dozens of Shakespeares" running around today, we wont know about it. Maybe our grandchildren will turn them in to icons. Or their grandchildren.
It's not uncommon for "greatness" in (literature, painting, scupture -- "the arts") not to be generally recognized until well after the artists death. This might accuont for the recent "Decline" the author talks about.
Was there some other 'point' you were trying to make which I missed other than you stating incorrectly that I pay $1200/mo for car insurance, spend too much time on slashdot (guilty as charged), live in a state with a broken economy, and should move to another less broken state (which is already a possibility)? If so, please point it out to me as I must be hard of hearing to have missed the "woosh" sound...
...and more time collecting policy quotes, or maybe moving to a state with a reasonably functional economy.
Trust me, I've hunted quotes for the last 5 months after our rates were jacked up again -- the best I could do was a reduction of ~$200 on a single car (my wifes). And that should read $1200/year, not MONTH. You may need to re-read my post a bit more carefully.
As far as moving to another state, I've already taken action with regards to how our state economy runs via our last election. If things don't improve, my employeer will most likely leave the state (and I'll go with them).
I suggest that the point WAS missed as the cost addes to the overall expense.
Further, my "guess" is that you don't live in LA. Believe me, I've shopped. My wife and I insure two cars -- my pickup (85) and her Altima (99). My truck alone runs ~$580 every 6 months for liability. No marks in my driving record. The Altima runs us ~$690/6mo (recently changed providers -- it WAS ~$820/6mo).
It depends on WHERE you live (me in SoCal/SF Valley -- VERY expensive).
There is a difference between liability and car insurance, yes... just like theres a difference between property tax and income tax. BOTH add up to monthly out-go.
Just like BOTH those insurances add in to the expense of driving a car. No car, no liability insurance needed.
That 'woosh' sound you hear is the OPs point going over your head. Nobody wants to pay $1200/year for minimal insurance (at least in CA) for a car that's worth only $500 and runs twice or three times that a year in repairs/maintainance.
Add up your car's yearly expenses -- car payments, gas consumpsion, maintainance/repair (tires too!), insurance, registration -- then divide by 12... you'd be surprised just how large that $ amount is for most people. And when there's only a difference of a $100 or so a month between keeping the junker in use now and buying a NEW car -- guess what someone is going to do?
I've got a 18 year old toyota pickup with about 120k miles on it. Other than two clutches and a new starter over the life of the car, I've had no other major work needed. My wife keeps pestering me to get a new car because "we can afford it". There's just no reason to -- yet. My last truck had nearly 330k miles when I sold it.
I've got a Nokia 3360 CACP (cheap ass cell phone). It has that very feature. It's under "Settings | Security Settings | Call Restrictions" (or 4-5-1-1). You can restrict incoming and outgoing calls alike.
You gotta get over this nonsense. It is crippling your ability to think. What makes the people at Merriam Webster so much more knowledgable about a given topic than others who are able to research?
You obviously have no idea how wiki's work. Wiki's are (A) not static, (B) editable by anyone regardless of qualifications, (C) are even mentioned in the Wiki FAQ about reliability (read it sometime).
And what makes a "wiki" so goddamn refutable when the information cited is directly from the APA?
I'm amazed you can find the nose on your face. If the information is cited directly from the APA, cite the APA. The problem with a "wiki" is that any given time some whack job can change anything -- or worse some well-intentioned idiot who THINKS hes knowledgeable about a given topic (like SOME people around here). SO, what's a verbatum APA definition today may be a recipe for hot cocoa tomorrow.
When was the last time you saw Brittanica cataloging all its references?
Um... all the time? Not only that, they list and/or have on record their editing staff who are answerable for accuracy. Further, their articles are subject to peer review before publication. The fact that this needs to be pointed out to you repeatedly suggests an inability to see the obvious.
A) You think I'm PC.
I think you fall in to the typical "taboos" PC establishes. I also think you're an ignorant prick, but these are just opinions based on a few posts I've read from you.
B) You think I care what a freak thinks.
So far, I haven't seen much from you that would have me care one rat's whisker about what you think.
I'll also note that you breezed passed my observation that you not ONLY didn't "refute" anything from the OP as you claim, you even stipulated he was correct -- further suggesting a serious flaw in your ability to construct a cogent argument. It adds up.
So you make your point by repeating all the stupid shit that was already refuted?
I don't think you'd know an argument -- let alone how to refute one -- if it bit you on the arse. What "stupid shit" was "refuted"? And where was it "refuted"? You said a lot of things that sounded PC yet provided no material to back up your claims -- and you even suggest what he says ACTUALLY true:
...even if all that other stuff were true, what does it mean?
...And it appears this section of the brain is, as a rule, "bigger" in women (another of those physiological differences you mention...
But that would be expected from someone who cites a wiki as an authoratative source.
Here's what I think. I think the OP made some valid points that you feel arent PC to talk about such as the fact that there ARE differences between men and women and you jumped on him because you feel the topic is taboo. The fact is there ARE differences. Viv le difference.
The poster even made what I would consider an insightful observation:
I think the best we can hope for is "parity"
I believe this sums up nicely what he was trying to say -- namely: why try to force square pegs in round holes? Let people gravitate to the fields and professions in which they excel... and if that means that there are something like 80% women psychologists and 20% men, and 80% men construction workers and 20% women, then so be it. Why even suggest that its somehow sexist to suggest this? I've read the OPs post and I nowhere see anything suggesting that any sex be held back or prohibited to succeed based on their gender.
Many of these people... have actual jobs that put them on payrolls.
"Many"... A nice vague number. There are an estimated 2.3 million "undocumented workers" in California alone -- and thats from conservative estimates. Far too many of those work off the books and under the table. Further, with the average cost of educating a child in California being over $7000, any tax dollars they bring in are spent on educating their kids alone. You keep saying I'm not addressing PAYROLL taxes -- if you re-read this thread, you'll see that I do -- and DISAGREE with you. You keep insisting that they do -- at least in numbers that make a difference -- but provide no back up material. All studies I've read ALL say that the exact numbers are difficult -- if not impossible to to estimate as huge numbers work under the table.
"Undocumented workers" cost the US overall $67-$87 billion per year. Thats the NET loss -- even after calculating any benefit to the economy. How many LA County hospitals had to close their doors because they couldn't afford all the gonverment mandated services for people with out even medicare/medicaid? Expect to see Oliveview close within the next year. I bet Harbor closes soon after. Pretty soon, you'll be left with just 2 -- LACUSC and MLK/Drew. God help any of us who need an emergency room more than 10 miles a way from either of these.
So far as "inforcing" (outdated) (read: ineffective -j) immigration laws - well, how exactly do you propose doing that?
I heard a wonderful idea in this regard:
Triple whatever the penality is currently for an employeer and include manditory jail time. Offer any illegal employee immunity, perminent residency and fast-track to US citizinship for reporting the employeer -- hell, include the offer to ALL employees of a given business. That would dry up ANY market for illegal labor.
Thanks, but I'd sooner toss my tax dollars into the street than to fund your racist propoganda.
Bite me, you stereotyping prick. You label me a racist because I dont want to pay for the education, medical care, housing (et al) for people who have no respect for our laws and borders? My wife was an immigrent -- as was her entire family. As was my mother. All of whom came to this country legally, respecting it's laws and borders. Far too many studies show the net drain on our economy (California's in particular) and a reasonable solution to STOP the drain when we can't afford it is labeled by you as RACISM? Nice ad homimem.
Yours is utterly fucked. I repeatedly use the words "garden services" and you then translate this to "lawnmower man." Crack? I think you're looking in the mirror, bud. There's a fuck of a lot more to maintaining a grounds than pushing a goddamn lawnmower.
I like how you avoided your karma bonus in that drivle . I'll expand on "lawn-mower-guy" to include "garden services" and suggest once again you open up an LA Times classifieds and verify how out of touch you are.
And let's not overlook your convenient and repeated ignoring those other functions - like electrician and plumber. Have you ever had to hire a plumber? And your assertion is one can be had for a mere ten bucks an hour?
I've never hired a plumber or electrician who wasn't obviously legal resident. Plumbers and electricians are (a) high-skilled and (b) expensive. Not something usually filled by unskilled labor who can't enter the country legally. Are you suggesting there's an abundance of "undocumented workers" working for A-dee or Roto-Rooter?
Crack, indeed.
Well... maybe crystal meth.
And what about your insipid bullshit about those "illegal immigrants" not paying taxes? Rfemember them? The ones that actually do pay state and federal taxes and are refused those services they help support with their own hard work? You seem quite anxious to forget them, so I just thought I'd remind you...
Refused services? Have you ever been to King/Drew? Oliveview? LACUSC? You must be smoking crack. Believe me, the sales tax these people pay do NOT cover those expenses.
Face it. California has made a practice of exporting wealth and importing poverty. Sooner or later, the 'foundation' will fail and the 'house' will collapse. There is a reason why the US has immigration laws -- which I should reminding you are FAR more liberal that most other countries. Wouldn't it be nice if they were inforced? I would suggest that even in the STRONG liberal outpost that is california, this is by far the most popular belief. Just look at the overwhelming passage of Prop 187 and the back-lash of the recent AB60.
I dunno where you live, but gadners in LA typically get MUCH more than minimum wage.
I'm convinced. You're smoking crack.
I live in LA -- the SF Valley. Why don't you open up a copy of the LA Times -- check for jobs. I bet you can find an opening for a grounds keeper SUPERVISOR for $12/hour -- I know this because I looked it up. Thats a SUPERVISOR. The typical lawn-mower guy or leaf blower makes around $6/hour (minimum wage).
Are you further suggesting, in your crack-fog stupor a guy who mows lawns NOW makes even $10/hour? And if we close down the borders will suddenly make $50/hour? I recall you saying the costs would be 5x... 10x5=50.
Regarding McDs... I've seen job postings stating a starting wage of $7/hour in my neighborhood... granted, it's above minimum wage -- but not by much. Before the abundance of unskilled labor, those jobs were typically done by high-school students. My guess is that the market would move back to them if your fears of instant economic desaster were even remotely based in reality.
Close off the border so the apartment landlords all have to pay five times as much for garening and lawn services, and the restaraunts have to pay three times as much for busboys and dishwashers...
Your argument is silly. You state that these people already pay FICA and SSI -- yet you imply that gardening and lawn service employees make 1/5 minimum wage right now and that busboys and dishwashers make 1/3 minimum wage. If this is true, I can assure you that they do NOT pay FICA and SSI as they would need to be paid under the table because that would be in violation of labor laws regarding minimum wage.
Right now, those services you listed pay minimum wage. Are you sugging that if we lock down the borders that the guy who mows my lawn is going to start getting paid $30/hour (about 5x minimum) and busboys are going to make $18/hour? If so, maybe I should go to lawn-mowing-school.
...because he lied about the deficit. Not the taxes.
Actually, it's because he not ONLY lied about the deficit, he lied that taxes would not need to be raised. Days after he was elected, he said: "Oh... that 4 billion shortfall I was talking about? It's really 30+ billion". Then he trippled car registration (tax). Then he talked about going to the California supreme court to remove the 2/3ds assembly/senate majorities needed to raise/levy taxes. Then he talked about raising the highest income tax bracket to over 11% (which in CA starts at $38k!). Then he talked about raising sales tax...
Believe me... as a Californian, it's about the taxes and it's about spending money we don't have. If ANYTHING has come out of the recall effort so far, its that the surest way to PISS OFF the voters is to raise taxes to cover spending money we didn't have -- and it stopped most of what Davis and the legislature wanted to do.
I was out of work for nearly 1 year. You know what I did? I got a job delivering Pizza. Between base pay (minimum wage) and tips, I was able to pay the rent, bills and BARELY cover holding over my medical insurance. Then I got a job doing dataentry (I can type 80+ wpm).
Then guess what? I got a job offer that was once again in my field (and at a pay scale I'm used to)
My advice: while you work, make and keep contact with as many people in your field as possible. It pays off as sooner or later one of them is going to point you to an interview. Take ANY job that can make you at least $10/hour. Remember that tips add up. Dataentry is an option if you know how to type (sucks worse than delivering pizza, but got me medical benefits).
Live as if your salary was 1/2 of what it really is. Put the rest in savings or 401k. It makes hard-times a LOT easier to weather.
They didn't use a "motion detector" way-back-when(tm). They used some type of mat/switch. You step on the mat, the door opened.
Are you now suggesting that Star Trek predated the invention of the motion sensor, rather than the "automatic door" as you previously suggested? (Hint, it didn't).
Why Clinton? Under his watch, an overt effort to emasculate our intellegence gathering apparatus was engaged. Look up information regarding The Torricelli Principle -- application of which couldn't have been possible without whitehouse approval. Additionally, Clinton's total lack of response (treating it like a crime rather than an act of war) to an obvious terrorist attack on the WTC back in 1993 sent a clear message to terrorists that further attacks were quite possible. Shall we talk about the lack of responce to the USS Cole?
Bush had his guard down and we were attacked
Correction: Bush had no or little "guard" to be down -- thanks to Clinton.
You provide a link to a BLOG with commentary (read OPINION) which ALSO disagrees with your previous statements:
Notice when the decline started. It started in the last several months of the Clinton Administration. ... Perhaps we can dispense with the silly notion that Bush was solely responsible for the recession. It sure looks to me like the seeds of the recession were planted prior to his even being in office.
You THEN provide a link to a COMSUMER CONFIDENCE SURVEY which is based on OPINION -- again from your cited links:
The Consumer Confidence Survey is based on a representative sample of 5,000 U.S. households.
Those numbers are based on household OPINIONS. Maybe you should read the methodology it uses. All it shows is how people FEEL -- which may indicate how people will SPEND. It shows nothing with regards to actual economic indicators.
Maybe you should try and use some reason instead of being blinded by some silly Bush-hatred. Do you blame Bush if you get a zit on your nose before a date?
What exactly do I lead, to qualify as a demagogue?
You are acting as a pundent -- an informed source -- that qualfies as a "leader". You are attempting to make use of popular myths and lies to gain power for your party. That qualifies you as a demagog.
Slashdot Mirror
Shakespeare wasn't "suddenly" iconized. I appologize if I implied that. I meant that the type of icon *HE* became takes generations. There wasn't a sudden "blink
Hell, what about Jan Struther? Her movies were "enjoyed" and she was wealthy.
The same goes for modern "playwrites", actors and "artists". But none of them have the "icon" status that's associated with Shakespeare. I think you missed my point.
How many "Knights" are there? Sir Roger Moore? Sir Alec Guiness? etc...
The point is, the type of "fame" associated with Shakespeare is quite different. How many others had similar life-time achivements yet ended up in obsurity after their death?
Seriously, will J.K. Rowling be studied 300 or 400 years from now? Will she be a "Shakespeare"? Or a Thomas Hardy? Both are studied today, but which names are instantly recognizable? Or will she just be another author who shot to fame breifly then faded?
You just can't compare Tolkein to Shakespeare and expect to be taken seriously. Maybe in a 100 years... Maybe not.
It's not uncommon for "greatness" in (literature, painting, scupture -- "the arts") not to be generally recognized until well after the artists death. This might accuont for the recent "Decline" the author talks about.
...we start seeing spam appear in WIKI material? Sometimes we need to design systems which take in to account the "lowest possible denominator".
Was there some other 'point' you were trying to make which I missed other than you stating incorrectly that I pay $1200/mo for car insurance, spend too much time on slashdot (guilty as charged), live in a state with a broken economy, and should move to another less broken state (which is already a possibility)? If so, please point it out to me as I must be hard of hearing to have missed the "woosh" sound...
As far as moving to another state, I've already taken action with regards to how our state economy runs via our last election. If things don't improve, my employeer will most likely leave the state (and I'll go with them).
I suggest that the point WAS missed as the cost addes to the overall expense.
Further, my "guess" is that you don't live in LA. Believe me, I've shopped. My wife and I insure two cars -- my pickup (85) and her Altima (99). My truck alone runs ~$580 every 6 months for liability. No marks in my driving record. The Altima runs us ~$690/6mo (recently changed providers -- it WAS ~$820/6mo).
It depends on WHERE you live (me in SoCal/SF Valley -- VERY expensive).
There is a difference between liability and car insurance, yes... just like theres a difference between property tax and income tax. BOTH add up to monthly out-go.
Just like BOTH those insurances add in to the expense of driving a car. No car, no liability insurance needed.
That 'woosh' sound you hear is the OPs point going over your head. Nobody wants to pay $1200/year for minimal insurance (at least in CA) for a car that's worth only $500 and runs twice or three times that a year in repairs/maintainance.
Add up your car's yearly expenses -- car payments, gas consumpsion, maintainance/repair (tires too!), insurance, registration -- then divide by 12... you'd be surprised just how large that $ amount is for most people. And when there's only a difference of a $100 or so a month between keeping the junker in use now and buying a NEW car -- guess what someone is going to do?
I've got a 18 year old toyota pickup with about 120k miles on it. Other than two clutches and a new starter over the life of the car, I've had no other major work needed. My wife keeps pestering me to get a new car because "we can afford it". There's just no reason to -- yet. My last truck had nearly 330k miles when I sold it.
Damn kids!
I've got a Nokia 3360 CACP (cheap ass cell phone). It has that very feature. It's under "Settings | Security Settings | Call Restrictions" (or 4-5-1-1). You can restrict incoming and outgoing calls alike.
Nothing regarding text messages, though.
30 Gig? I still have my 30 MEG! RLL AND the card to support it. I cant bring myself to throw it away. I spent over $900 for it nearly 20 years ago.
-jhon
I'll also note that you breezed passed my observation that you not ONLY didn't "refute" anything from the OP as you claim, you even stipulated he was correct -- further suggesting a serious flaw in your ability to construct a cogent argument. It adds up.
Here's what I think. I think the OP made some valid points that you feel arent PC to talk about such as the fact that there ARE differences between men and women and you jumped on him because you feel the topic is taboo. The fact is there ARE differences. Viv le difference.
The poster even made what I would consider an insightful observation:I believe this sums up nicely what he was trying to say -- namely: why try to force square pegs in round holes? Let people gravitate to the fields and professions in which they excel... and if that means that there are something like 80% women psychologists and 20% men, and 80% men construction workers and 20% women, then so be it. Why even suggest that its somehow sexist to suggest this? I've read the OPs post and I nowhere see anything suggesting that any sex be held back or prohibited to succeed based on their gender.
"Undocumented workers" cost the US overall $67-$87 billion per year. Thats the NET loss -- even after calculating any benefit to the economy. How many LA County hospitals had to close their doors because they couldn't afford all the gonverment mandated services for people with out even medicare/medicaid? Expect to see Oliveview close within the next year. I bet Harbor closes soon after. Pretty soon, you'll be left with just 2 -- LACUSC and MLK/Drew. God help any of us who need an emergency room more than 10 miles a way from either of these.I heard a wonderful idea in this regard:
Triple whatever the penality is currently for an employeer and include manditory jail time. Offer any illegal employee immunity, perminent residency and fast-track to US citizinship for reporting the employeer -- hell, include the offer to ALL employees of a given business. That would dry up ANY market for illegal labor.
Bite me, you stereotyping prick. You label me a racist because I dont want to pay for the education, medical care, housing (et al) for people who have no respect for our laws and borders? My wife was an immigrent -- as was her entire family. As was my mother. All of whom came to this country legally, respecting it's laws and borders. Far too many studies show the net drain on our economy (California's in particular) and a reasonable solution to STOP the drain when we can't afford it is labeled by you as RACISM? Nice ad homimem.
Face it. California has made a practice of exporting wealth and importing poverty. Sooner or later, the 'foundation' will fail and the 'house' will collapse. There is a reason why the US has immigration laws -- which I should reminding you are FAR more liberal that most other countries. Wouldn't it be nice if they were inforced? I would suggest that even in the STRONG liberal outpost that is california, this is by far the most popular belief. Just look at the overwhelming passage of Prop 187 and the back-lash of the recent AB60.
I live in LA -- the SF Valley. Why don't you open up a copy of the LA Times -- check for jobs. I bet you can find an opening for a grounds keeper SUPERVISOR for $12/hour -- I know this because I looked it up. Thats a SUPERVISOR. The typical lawn-mower guy or leaf blower makes around $6/hour (minimum wage).
Are you further suggesting, in your crack-fog stupor a guy who mows lawns NOW makes even $10/hour? And if we close down the borders will suddenly make $50/hour? I recall you saying the costs would be 5x... 10x5=50.
Regarding McDs... I've seen job postings stating a starting wage of $7/hour in my neighborhood... granted, it's above minimum wage -- but not by much. Before the abundance of unskilled labor, those jobs were typically done by high-school students. My guess is that the market would move back to them if your fears of instant economic desaster were even remotely based in reality.
Right now, those services you listed pay minimum wage. Are you sugging that if we lock down the borders that the guy who mows my lawn is going to start getting paid $30/hour (about 5x minimum) and busboys are going to make $18/hour? If so, maybe I should go to lawn-mowing-school.
Believe me... as a Californian, it's about the taxes and it's about spending money we don't have. If ANYTHING has come out of the recall effort so far, its that the surest way to PISS OFF the voters is to raise taxes to cover spending money we didn't have -- and it stopped most of what Davis and the legislature wanted to do.
If I had the points, I'd mod you up.
I was out of work for nearly 1 year. You know what I did? I got a job delivering Pizza. Between base pay (minimum wage) and tips, I was able to pay the rent, bills and BARELY cover holding over my medical insurance. Then I got a job doing dataentry (I can type 80+ wpm).
Then guess what? I got a job offer that was once again in my field (and at a pay scale I'm used to)
My advice: while you work, make and keep contact with as many people in your field as possible. It pays off as sooner or later one of them is going to point you to an interview. Take ANY job that can make you at least $10/hour. Remember that tips add up. Dataentry is an option if you know how to type (sucks worse than delivering pizza, but got me medical benefits).
Live as if your salary was 1/2 of what it really is. Put the rest in savings or 401k. It makes hard-times a LOT easier to weather.
They didn't use a "motion detector" way-back-when(tm). They used some type of mat/switch. You step on the mat, the door opened.
Are you now suggesting that Star Trek predated the invention of the motion sensor, rather than the "automatic door" as you previously suggested? (Hint, it didn't).
Um... automatic doors were marketed by Horton Automatics back in 1960... and were invented in the 1950s. Well before Star Trek.
Why Clinton? Under his watch, an overt effort to emasculate our intellegence gathering apparatus was engaged. Look up information regarding The Torricelli Principle -- application of which couldn't have been possible without whitehouse approval. Additionally, Clinton's total lack of response (treating it like a crime rather than an act of war) to an obvious terrorist attack on the WTC back in 1993 sent a clear message to terrorists that further attacks were quite possible. Shall we talk about the lack of responce to the USS Cole?Correction: Bush had no or little "guard" to be down -- thanks to Clinton.
You provide a link to a BLOG with commentary (read OPINION) which ALSO disagrees with your previous statements:You THEN provide a link to a COMSUMER CONFIDENCE SURVEY which is based on OPINION -- again from your cited links:Those numbers are based on household OPINIONS. Maybe you should read the methodology it uses. All it shows is how people FEEL -- which may indicate how people will SPEND. It shows nothing with regards to actual economic indicators.
Maybe you should try and use some reason instead of being blinded by some silly Bush-hatred. Do you blame Bush if you get a zit on your nose before a date?You are acting as a pundent -- an informed source -- that qualfies as a "leader". You are attempting to make use of popular myths and lies to gain power for your party. That qualifies you as a demagog.