Around here, a kid flipping burgers makes $8.00 an hour. So he is in the top 12% of the worlds wealthiest? Give me a break.
When compared to the United States, you are correct that it doesnt sound like much. But compared to the rest of the world, sounds about right to me.
Does that kid have an apartment to live in? Probably yes. Can he feed himself? Probably yes. Can he buy medication like Advil and flu medicine pretty easily? Probably yes. Can he entertain himself with television and movies and alcohol? Probably yes. Does he own an old beater car that works most the time? Probably yes. Does he have heating and maybe even air conditioning? Probably yes.
While he doesnt own a porsche, sounds like that kid flipping burgers has a pretty easy life. I know I did when I was working at KFC.
I have a job that puts me in the top percentile of people in the world, but to have that job I have to pay the top percentile of living expenses
Why does that make that site bullsit? If you are in the top 1% of the world's population, then you must make more than $48k/yr. That is not an incredibly high income, so you dont have to live in a very expensive area to make it. A garbage man in a small town of 20,000 people makes more than that.
Your living expenses may be very high, but you are getting alot from it. You get to eat every single day, and probably 3 times a day. You not only have adequete clothing for any climate, you probably can choose between over a dozen outfits for any weather condition. If you are making $48k/yr you probably have a job that gives benefits, so you have very good health care. Not only that but you can go to a store and buy alot of medicines such as aspirin over the counter.
You probably own a car that you drive about 12k miles per year. You can visit family a few times a year even though they may live over 50 miles away. You obviously own a computer, and probably also own a few TVs. Those TVs are probably even in color, and they probably have cable or a dish hookup. You probably own a refrigerator and an oven, along with a microwave. While you dont own a house you probably have a clean place to live with good heating and air conditioning.
Why does everyone have to own a porsche to feel like they have alot of money? I had a very violent case of food poisoning 2 days ago, but I did not die because I had a hospital to go to. Now I am taking my last sick day at home in front of my TV and laptop, talking on slashdot. I only make $40k/yr but I own a Mustang GT Convertible, 3 TVs, 2 computers, and plenty of other leisure items. I think I am pretty rich compared to most of the world, and I am not even in the top 1%.
Any simplistic measure of income is absolutely useless without correlating it to the actual cost of living.
That is not true. If you are living in a place with a high cost of living then you are getting alot out of it. You are correct that it is not a 100% correlation, but it is hardly useless. If you honestly believe that you are not getting your money's worth regarding your cost of living, then MOVE.
High school should have 3 subjects: reading and writing, mathematics and science. Everything else should be extracurricular
While I agree with some of what you are saying, please add History into your core subjects. In fact I think history should beat out science in importance. I would much rather my children have a good grasp on history than a good grasp on chemistry. I definetly would rather them have both, but history belongs in any list of "core subjects".
A huge number of college graduates leave school with >$100k in student loans and a significant amount of credit card debt
While there might be alot of idiots out there with $100k in student loans, that is hardly an excuse for why they cannot live on $80k/yr. Why dont you just rephrase it like this:
A huge number of college graduates leave school and buy a $65k sports car with 100% financing. That comes to about $1300/mth in car payments (5 yr loan). Plus the insurance will be about $300/mth and with bad mileage they will be spending $200/mth on gas. That is $1800/mth on just their car. How will they ever afford a house with almost half of their money going towards paying off their car?
No one would feel sympathy for this person, just like no one should feel sympathy for someone with $100k in college loans. Even an incredibly good state school is going to cost about $14k/yr in tuition/books/fees/etc. With about $1500 in tax breaks each year that comes to $12.5k. If you are forced to pay for all of it then you are probably poor, and are therefor getting $4k/yr in Pell Grants. That comes to $8.5k/yr. Add $10k/yr in living expenses and that is $74k for your entire education. With a part time job making $6k/yr (after taxes), the total loan payments are only $50k.
And that is without taking advantage of community college. If your parents arent well off and if you dont have alot of scholorships, it is stupid to go straght to a university. You will save at least $20k over two years by going to community college to start off with. And if you choose to go to a good state school instead of the best, you will probably save about $8k over two years.
So with community college and a good state school education, you have $22k in college loans (and NO credit card debt) to pay back. That is about $250/mth if paid off in 10 years.
I have about $8k in college and credit card debt (in 2005), but my parents did pay about $20k of my education. But if my parents were dirt poor the government would have paid $16k of it anyway. The only people with high college loans to pay off have money management problems.
And if you are good at what you do then you do not need an MIT or Harvard education. Numerous studies have found no difference between an undergraduate education at good state schools and ivy league schools. Any increased income from graduates is easily explained by higher family status of the students and a higher average intelligence of the incoming freshmen. If your parents are rich or you are smart enough to get good scholarships then go there. Otherwise its just another stupid decision that is wasting your money.
(I know there are exceptions to everything. Maybe you went to MIT, made a great contact with someone that landed you a $200k/yr job that you probably wouldnt have gotten at a state school. You are either very smart (which means you probably would have been equally successful anyway), or very lucky. Calling your choice a good idea is like saying buying lottery tickets is a good idea)
If you are making $80k/yr but have $120k in debt from college, then you are still very wealthy. You are just a stupid wealthy person, and that is why you feel poor.
So a fair comparison would be the difference in gas consumption between a 300 mile Escalade trip and a 30 mile bike ride. I think the bike will win out.
I agree, but no one in their right mind is saying that cars are more environmentally friendly than bikes. Someone is saying that 747s are more environmentally friendly than SUVs however, and the point I was making is that they are wrong.
I guess I do not see what your point is regarding comparing Escalades to bicycles. You might as well compare Coke to Pepsi, because it has just as much relevence to this discussion.
Even if you were to say that your Escalade itself is technically more efficient than the Jet for that 3000 miles, the fact that the Escalade will take a week vs. 5 hours for the jet should account for something.
Yes, it does account for something. More people travel 3000 miles during holidays just because of these planes. If they had to drive 4 days just to get to their destination, they might choose to not travel so far.
So a fair comparison would be the difference in gas consumption between a 3000 mile 747 trip and a 300 mile Escalade trip. I think the Escalade will win out.
Removing the engine and tires is NOTHING like securing your wireless network. Even taking 5 seconds to lock your car is not an appropriate analogy, because it doesn't INVITE people to drive it while it's unlocked!
An unsecured wireless router does not "invite" someone to use it either. No more than an open window invites someone to break into your home. If you did not pay for the access and were not given express permission by the owner of the router (and only if that owner has permission from his ISP), it is no different than breaking into someone's house.
And I'll bet your Mustang doesn't have a transmitter broadcasting a message like "keys are inside - just ask for a set!"
That's what your wireless router is doing if you haven't secured it!
That is just rediculous. I could just as easily say that since I haven't removed my engine and taken off my tires that I am inviting people to steal my car. It is more convienient and easier to leave my engine in my car, just like it is more convienient and easier to not learn how to secure my wireless router.
The TOS for my DSL connection through Magma specifically says that it's my own connection and I can do whatever I darned well please with it. This includes running servers and sharing the connection with neighbours.
That is why I said "most ISPs". Just because some ISPs say it is okay does not mean that it should be okay for everyone.
If a friend of mine let my borrow his Porsche, I do not have the right to assume that I can just borrow anyone's Porsche without asking. It was okay with one person, why shouldnt it be okay with everyone?
There is no reason my users should assume my network isn't legitimate.
If they have talked with you or have seen a sign in your yard advertising your open connection, they you are correct. But otherwise they should assume that it is not an open connection. Or they should at least find out if it is open before they start using it.
Almost everyone in my neighborhood has wires from a cable box running into their house. Since the cable box is there (and I can even see other people using it) that does not mean I should assume I can connect to the cable box without asking the Cable company.
Same goes for something given away for free. I have loaned my mustang to my brothers and one of my friends on occasion, but that does not mean that someone can just take my keys and drive my car without asking first. Even if I had let my brother borrow my car a dozen times before, I can have him arrested for taking it even once without my permission.
No one should ever just assume that something is free, and anyone who does is just trying to justify to themselves that stealing is okay. --
Your ISP gives you a set amount of bandwidth. If you don't use it, give it away.
Your ISP is not giving you a certain amount of bandwidth that you can give away if you arent using it. I worked at a small ISP about 7 years ago, and we had about 4000 users but only about 8 actual T1s for their connectivity. There was only enough bandwidth for about 190 users at any one time to be using a full DS0 line. The reason that our users only had a pay a small price was because we could assume that the average user would not be using their connection more than 5% of the time.
If all of our users started sharing their connection, we would have had to charge more. Same goes for your ISP. I get a 6 Mbps connection from my Cable provider, but it is only about $50/mth. At work we have a T1 that is dedicated for us at 1.5Mbps, but it is about $550/mth. See the difference?
Sure I get much better upload speeds with the T1, but the real difference is that with the T1 I actual own all of that bandwidth. With my cable connection I am only guaranteed a 6 Mbps when "I" need it, not all of the time. And if someone else is sharing it then I am breaking my user agreement.
What's the difference if you friend uses your computer or brings over and plugs in his own?
The difference is because once my friend brings over his computer he is within my household and therefore is not breaking the user agreement. If I can successfully argue at court that we like to picnic across the street at the park while using my wireless network, then it would still not break the user agreement. But if you just have your network open for anyone to use it at any time for any reason, you are breaking your user agreement.
It is usually pretty easy to tell when something is wrong, but most people will try to justify anything.
The problem here is that many people purposfully leave their wireless open so that others can use it. When I first turned on a new mac notebook recently, it auto searched for networks and found one. Would using that network be wrong?
Yes, it is wrong. The user agreement for virtually all ISPs does not allow their users to share their internet connection wirelessly, no matter how generous your neighbors feel. Permission is not theirs to give. If a friend of mine had 1 Bears football ticket and tried to sneak me in with him, we would both be in the wrong.
other people have a sharing nature and leave theirs open on purpose.
I would be willing to bet that most ISPs do not want their users sharing their internet connection. Maybe there are some ISPs that forget to put something in their user agreement that forbids it, but I doubt there are many. People leaving it open on purpose are probably more prone to being in trouble than those who are doing it by accident.
Personally, I'm more of a fan of Calvin Coolidge's philosophy: "When you see ten problems rolling down the road, if you don't do anything, nine of them will roll into a ditch before they get to you."
Now I am thinking hard about changing my signature quote; that one is great.
But, for the life of me I would not be able to spell my candidates name without a crib sheet.
Thats where electronic ballots could come in. If you have a slight misspelling in the name it could give a suggestion (as far as the spelling goes) about who you want to vote for. But if you cannot even get phonetically close, or even have the foggiest idea what their last name is, then you dont really know that much about the candidates.
or providing completely blank ballots and requiring a full name be written
That is absolutely the best idea I have ever heard (as far as election reform goes). If you do not even know the name of the person you are voting for then why in the hell did you show up?
Unfortunatly they would probably just stick their heads out of the ballot box and ask a guy standing in line what that one "John" guy's last name is.
None of which explains the fact that countries without the death penalty are incredibly less violent than the U.S.
I also did not explain why Asia is bigger than Australia, but what is your point? How does some unrelated information about the United States have anything to do with the death penalty?
Are you actually contending that by having the death penalty Americans have become more violent? That people are so enraged about the death penalty that they become more violent?
Or are you saying that only violent countries would even think about having a death penalty? You could just as easily say that violent countries are the only ones that need the death penalty.
I still dont really know what your comment has to do with this discussion at all, or why you think I was required to explain it in my previous post. --
I thought the problems with the death penalty were that it makes the state hypocritical, is occasionally carried out on the innocent, and yes, usually does not make financial sense. Silly me.
Dont worry about it, its okay to be silly from time to time.
I do not see how the death penalty makes the state hypocritical. Citizens give their government the ability to govern decisions that they do not want individual people to make on their own. Instead of individual vigilante justice, we give the ability to police and punish to the government. Just because it is illegal to kill doesnt make the government hypocritical by killing people. We don't want individual people "declaring war" against their neighbors, but we sure do want our government to declare war against countries such as Nazi Germany.
And the possibility of innocents suffering is not enough to make the death penalty a problem. If we outlawed driving cars then about 40,000 innocent people would be saved every year, but that does not mean its a good idea. For about every 5000 people driving, 1 innocent person dies each year. No one needs to own a car to live, so how could anyone be so monstrous that they would own a car? >/sarcasm>
Since 1973, 123 people have been found innocent on death row. That is less than 4 per year. I wonder if 4 people per year are beaten up instead of killed because the attacker fears death.
Lets assume that every one of those people would have died unjustly if we saved money by making it easier to kill criminals. According the the State of Kansas, the trial costs of the average life sentence case is only $32k per case (+$700k for incarceration). That means the death penalty could save about $700k per case if it wasnt so hard to give the death penalty.
1005 people have been killed by the death penalty, and 123 of them have been found innocent. We could have saved about $800 million ($6.5 million per innocent life).
If 1 in 7 criminals in jail for life are innocent, then it would save us $5 million per innocent life if we got rid of the "in jail for life" penalty (and killed them instead).
If you have a life insurance policy on yourself for at least $5 million, then you can tell me that the risk of killing an innocent inmate is worth getting rid of the death penalty.
How is killing Saddam going to bring peace and democracy to Iraq?? What is the point of "liberating" Iraq by bringing the worst parts of the American judicial system to them?
The only way that killing Saddam would be a disaster is if it costs the county of Iraq more money to kill him than it does to imprison him for life. That is the only real problem with the death penalty in the U.S. The only reason you should even have someone be in prison for life is because it costs more for the court to kill him.
Hopefully Iraq can just take him out and hang him, costing the new government alot less than keeping him imprisoned for a few decades. --
The world has changed quite a bit in that time so it might be more successful now.
China is actually trying to become a world power now, so a war with the U.S. is the last thing they need. I dont think anyone will side with North Korea in any war at this time. It makes war the best option for stoping North Korea, but then you come to the death toll. For anyone to actually stop North Korea from being stupid, people will have to die. We just havent hit a threshold where the world thinks it is worth that yet.
Yes but plenty of American investors own Sony stock. I am sure Sony also has relationship with other companies that have American stockholders. That means that in today's market Sony might have more trouble convincing their investors to stay the course. Once the stock starts to drop Sony will probably have a hard time recovering, expecially since a large amount of their actual cash reserves is going into the PS3.
You post statistics with no citations or references.
That is because this is Slashdot, not an English class. I am not writing an essay, I am posting to an internet site. If you want the reference, it was from "Hedonic prices and the demand for clean air", published by Harrison, D. and Rubinfeld, D.L.
The thought that you even have to cite data on poor areas having more crime is rediculous. I might as well find a study that proves butter is softer than steel. I am still suprised that anyone would even argue this.
Just because they are poor doesn't mean they can't have as many as they want. It's their choice. Who are you, oh Almighty ranton, to deny them that right?
It is irresponsible thinking like this that causes most of the world's problems. Just because you can do something, doesnt mean you should. I am a male of above average athleticism and strength; and I could kill your average person quite easily. Give me a weapon and it becomes alot easier. Hell, with a gun even a yound child can kill quite easily. Does that mean they have the right to kill someone?
It isnt against the law to buy a gas guzzling truck that gets 2 miles/gallon to drive yourself 60 miles to work each day alone. But is definetly irresponsible, just like having children when you dont have enough money to support them yourself.
This planet is extremly overpopulated. I am not suggesting that poor people should be punished by not allowing them to have children. I am simply saying that people should not have children that have a strong chance of being a drain on the economy. They are taking advantage of your average person's sense of decency. It is this sense of decency that causes us to pour money into a welfare system that is only making the problem worse.
I don't see anywhere in the constitution where it says you can only have a quota of two children and then you are cut off.
In 1810 there wasnt anything in the constitution that outlawed slavery. I guess that means that slavery was a perfectly moral enterprise until it was outlawed in the Constitution. Laws and morality are not one in the same.
But they don't seem to have the power to "strike down" any laws.
The only power that anyone ever really has is military power. The only way that the US government can enforce any law on its citizens is to threaten them with force. The only way to actually "strike down" any American law would be to use force against the US government. Or at least threaten to use force.
Because the WTO has no military force, the only thing they can do is put sanctions against the US. It is the same thing that the UN is planning on doing to North Korea. It could still work if they can work up the guts, and I hope they do.
Im an American, but these gambling laws are rediculous. If it takes crippling our own economy to show our rulers that they are out of line then its a small price to pay. If I lose my job I could always become a professional gambler:-)
More wonderful anecdotal evidence. I dont know anyone who had a relative killed in the Holocaust. I guess that means it didnt happen. I dont know anyone who cannot read either. I guess there is 0% illiteracy in Illinois then.
Slashdot Mirror
Around here, a kid flipping burgers makes $8.00 an hour. So he is in the top 12% of the worlds wealthiest? Give me a break.
When compared to the United States, you are correct that it doesnt sound like much. But compared to the rest of the world, sounds about right to me.
Does that kid have an apartment to live in? Probably yes. Can he feed himself? Probably yes. Can he buy medication like Advil and flu medicine pretty easily? Probably yes. Can he entertain himself with television and movies and alcohol? Probably yes. Does he own an old beater car that works most the time? Probably yes. Does he have heating and maybe even air conditioning? Probably yes.
While he doesnt own a porsche, sounds like that kid flipping burgers has a pretty easy life. I know I did when I was working at KFC.
--
I have a job that puts me in the top percentile of people in the world, but to have that job I have to pay the top percentile of living expenses
Why does that make that site bullsit? If you are in the top 1% of the world's population, then you must make more than $48k/yr. That is not an incredibly high income, so you dont have to live in a very expensive area to make it. A garbage man in a small town of 20,000 people makes more than that.
Your living expenses may be very high, but you are getting alot from it. You get to eat every single day, and probably 3 times a day. You not only have adequete clothing for any climate, you probably can choose between over a dozen outfits for any weather condition. If you are making $48k/yr you probably have a job that gives benefits, so you have very good health care. Not only that but you can go to a store and buy alot of medicines such as aspirin over the counter.
You probably own a car that you drive about 12k miles per year. You can visit family a few times a year even though they may live over 50 miles away. You obviously own a computer, and probably also own a few TVs. Those TVs are probably even in color, and they probably have cable or a dish hookup. You probably own a refrigerator and an oven, along with a microwave. While you dont own a house you probably have a clean place to live with good heating and air conditioning.
Why does everyone have to own a porsche to feel like they have alot of money? I had a very violent case of food poisoning 2 days ago, but I did not die because I had a hospital to go to. Now I am taking my last sick day at home in front of my TV and laptop, talking on slashdot. I only make $40k/yr but I own a Mustang GT Convertible, 3 TVs, 2 computers, and plenty of other leisure items. I think I am pretty rich compared to most of the world, and I am not even in the top 1%.
Any simplistic measure of income is absolutely useless without correlating it to the actual cost of living.
That is not true. If you are living in a place with a high cost of living then you are getting alot out of it. You are correct that it is not a 100% correlation, but it is hardly useless. If you honestly believe that you are not getting your money's worth regarding your cost of living, then MOVE.
--
High school should have 3 subjects: reading and writing, mathematics and science. Everything else should be extracurricular
While I agree with some of what you are saying, please add History into your core subjects. In fact I think history should beat out science in importance. I would much rather my children have a good grasp on history than a good grasp on chemistry. I definetly would rather them have both, but history belongs in any list of "core subjects".
--
A huge number of college graduates leave school with >$100k in student loans and a significant amount of credit card debt
While there might be alot of idiots out there with $100k in student loans, that is hardly an excuse for why they cannot live on $80k/yr. Why dont you just rephrase it like this:
A huge number of college graduates leave school and buy a $65k sports car with 100% financing. That comes to about $1300/mth in car payments (5 yr loan). Plus the insurance will be about $300/mth and with bad mileage they will be spending $200/mth on gas. That is $1800/mth on just their car. How will they ever afford a house with almost half of their money going towards paying off their car?
No one would feel sympathy for this person, just like no one should feel sympathy for someone with $100k in college loans. Even an incredibly good state school is going to cost about $14k/yr in tuition/books/fees/etc. With about $1500 in tax breaks each year that comes to $12.5k. If you are forced to pay for all of it then you are probably poor, and are therefor getting $4k/yr in Pell Grants. That comes to $8.5k/yr. Add $10k/yr in living expenses and that is $74k for your entire education. With a part time job making $6k/yr (after taxes), the total loan payments are only $50k.
And that is without taking advantage of community college. If your parents arent well off and if you dont have alot of scholorships, it is stupid to go straght to a university. You will save at least $20k over two years by going to community college to start off with. And if you choose to go to a good state school instead of the best, you will probably save about $8k over two years.
So with community college and a good state school education, you have $22k in college loans (and NO credit card debt) to pay back. That is about $250/mth if paid off in 10 years.
I have about $8k in college and credit card debt (in 2005), but my parents did pay about $20k of my education. But if my parents were dirt poor the government would have paid $16k of it anyway. The only people with high college loans to pay off have money management problems.
And if you are good at what you do then you do not need an MIT or Harvard education. Numerous studies have found no difference between an undergraduate education at good state schools and ivy league schools. Any increased income from graduates is easily explained by higher family status of the students and a higher average intelligence of the incoming freshmen. If your parents are rich or you are smart enough to get good scholarships then go there. Otherwise its just another stupid decision that is wasting your money.
(I know there are exceptions to everything. Maybe you went to MIT, made a great contact with someone that landed you a $200k/yr job that you probably wouldnt have gotten at a state school. You are either very smart (which means you probably would have been equally successful anyway), or very lucky. Calling your choice a good idea is like saying buying lottery tickets is a good idea)
If you are making $80k/yr but have $120k in debt from college, then you are still very wealthy. You are just a stupid wealthy person, and that is why you feel poor.
--
So a fair comparison would be the difference in gas consumption between a 300 mile Escalade trip and a 30 mile bike ride. I think the bike will win out.
I agree, but no one in their right mind is saying that cars are more environmentally friendly than bikes. Someone is saying that 747s are more environmentally friendly than SUVs however, and the point I was making is that they are wrong.
I guess I do not see what your point is regarding comparing Escalades to bicycles. You might as well compare Coke to Pepsi, because it has just as much relevence to this discussion.
--
Even if you were to say that your Escalade itself is technically more efficient than the Jet for that 3000 miles, the fact that the Escalade will take a week vs. 5 hours for the jet should account for something.
Yes, it does account for something. More people travel 3000 miles during holidays just because of these planes. If they had to drive 4 days just to get to their destination, they might choose to not travel so far.
So a fair comparison would be the difference in gas consumption between a 3000 mile 747 trip and a 300 mile Escalade trip. I think the Escalade will win out.
--
I'm paying for a line avertised as "xMbits unlimited internet tubes!" and I'll stuff as much data down it as It'll support, mine or otherwise.
What the advertisment says is irrelevant. It is what the user agreement says that matters.
--
Removing the engine and tires is NOTHING like securing your wireless network. Even taking 5 seconds to lock your car is not an appropriate analogy, because it doesn't INVITE people to drive it while it's unlocked!
An unsecured wireless router does not "invite" someone to use it either. No more than an open window invites someone to break into your home. If you did not pay for the access and were not given express permission by the owner of the router (and only if that owner has permission from his ISP), it is no different than breaking into someone's house.
--
And I'll bet your Mustang doesn't have a transmitter broadcasting a message like "keys are inside - just ask for a set!"
That's what your wireless router is doing if you haven't secured it!
That is just rediculous. I could just as easily say that since I haven't removed my engine and taken off my tires that I am inviting people to steal my car. It is more convienient and easier to leave my engine in my car, just like it is more convienient and easier to not learn how to secure my wireless router.
--
The TOS for my DSL connection through Magma specifically says that it's my own connection and I can do whatever I darned well please with it. This includes running servers and sharing the connection with neighbours.
That is why I said "most ISPs". Just because some ISPs say it is okay does not mean that it should be okay for everyone.
If a friend of mine let my borrow his Porsche, I do not have the right to assume that I can just borrow anyone's Porsche without asking. It was okay with one person, why shouldnt it be okay with everyone?
--
There is no reason my users should assume my network isn't legitimate.
If they have talked with you or have seen a sign in your yard advertising your open connection, they you are correct. But otherwise they should assume that it is not an open connection. Or they should at least find out if it is open before they start using it.
Almost everyone in my neighborhood has wires from a cable box running into their house. Since the cable box is there (and I can even see other people using it) that does not mean I should assume I can connect to the cable box without asking the Cable company.
Same goes for something given away for free. I have loaned my mustang to my brothers and one of my friends on occasion, but that does not mean that someone can just take my keys and drive my car without asking first. Even if I had let my brother borrow my car a dozen times before, I can have him arrested for taking it even once without my permission.
No one should ever just assume that something is free, and anyone who does is just trying to justify to themselves that stealing is okay.
--
Your ISP gives you a set amount of bandwidth. If you don't use it, give it away.
Your ISP is not giving you a certain amount of bandwidth that you can give away if you arent using it. I worked at a small ISP about 7 years ago, and we had about 4000 users but only about 8 actual T1s for their connectivity. There was only enough bandwidth for about 190 users at any one time to be using a full DS0 line. The reason that our users only had a pay a small price was because we could assume that the average user would not be using their connection more than 5% of the time.
If all of our users started sharing their connection, we would have had to charge more. Same goes for your ISP. I get a 6 Mbps connection from my Cable provider, but it is only about $50/mth. At work we have a T1 that is dedicated for us at 1.5Mbps, but it is about $550/mth. See the difference?
Sure I get much better upload speeds with the T1, but the real difference is that with the T1 I actual own all of that bandwidth. With my cable connection I am only guaranteed a 6 Mbps when "I" need it, not all of the time. And if someone else is sharing it then I am breaking my user agreement.
What's the difference if you friend uses your computer or brings over and plugs in his own?
The difference is because once my friend brings over his computer he is within my household and therefore is not breaking the user agreement. If I can successfully argue at court that we like to picnic across the street at the park while using my wireless network, then it would still not break the user agreement. But if you just have your network open for anyone to use it at any time for any reason, you are breaking your user agreement.
It is usually pretty easy to tell when something is wrong, but most people will try to justify anything.
--
The problem here is that many people purposfully leave their wireless open so that others can use it.
When I first turned on a new mac notebook recently, it auto searched for networks and found one. Would using that network be wrong?
Yes, it is wrong. The user agreement for virtually all ISPs does not allow their users to share their internet connection wirelessly, no matter how generous your neighbors feel. Permission is not theirs to give. If a friend of mine had 1 Bears football ticket and tried to sneak me in with him, we would both be in the wrong.
--
other people have a sharing nature and leave theirs open on purpose.
I would be willing to bet that most ISPs do not want their users sharing their internet connection. Maybe there are some ISPs that forget to put something in their user agreement that forbids it, but I doubt there are many. People leaving it open on purpose are probably more prone to being in trouble than those who are doing it by accident.
Personally, I'm more of a fan of Calvin Coolidge's philosophy: "When you see ten problems rolling down the road, if you don't do anything, nine of them will roll into a ditch before they get to you."
Now I am thinking hard about changing my signature quote; that one is great.
But, for the life of me I would not be able to spell my candidates name without a crib sheet.
Thats where electronic ballots could come in. If you have a slight misspelling in the name it could give a suggestion (as far as the spelling goes) about who you want to vote for. But if you cannot even get phonetically close, or even have the foggiest idea what their last name is, then you dont really know that much about the candidates.
or providing completely blank ballots and requiring a full name be written
That is absolutely the best idea I have ever heard (as far as election reform goes). If you do not even know the name of the person you are voting for then why in the hell did you show up?
Unfortunatly they would probably just stick their heads out of the ballot box and ask a guy standing in line what that one "John" guy's last name is.
--
None of which explains the fact that countries without the death penalty are incredibly less violent than the U.S.
I also did not explain why Asia is bigger than Australia, but what is your point? How does some unrelated information about the United States have anything to do with the death penalty?
Are you actually contending that by having the death penalty Americans have become more violent? That people are so enraged about the death penalty that they become more violent?
Or are you saying that only violent countries would even think about having a death penalty? You could just as easily say that violent countries are the only ones that need the death penalty.
I still dont really know what your comment has to do with this discussion at all, or why you think I was required to explain it in my previous post.
--
I thought the problems with the death penalty were that it makes the state hypocritical, is occasionally carried out on the innocent, and yes, usually does not make financial sense. Silly me.
Dont worry about it, its okay to be silly from time to time.
I do not see how the death penalty makes the state hypocritical. Citizens give their government the ability to govern decisions that they do not want individual people to make on their own. Instead of individual vigilante justice, we give the ability to police and punish to the government. Just because it is illegal to kill doesnt make the government hypocritical by killing people. We don't want individual people "declaring war" against their neighbors, but we sure do want our government to declare war against countries such as Nazi Germany.
And the possibility of innocents suffering is not enough to make the death penalty a problem. If we outlawed driving cars then about 40,000 innocent people would be saved every year, but that does not mean its a good idea. For about every 5000 people driving, 1 innocent person dies each year. No one needs to own a car to live, so how could anyone be so monstrous that they would own a car? >/sarcasm>
Since 1973, 123 people have been found innocent on death row. That is less than 4 per year. I wonder if 4 people per year are beaten up instead of killed because the attacker fears death.
Lets assume that every one of those people would have died unjustly if we saved money by making it easier to kill criminals. According the the State of Kansas, the trial costs of the average life sentence case is only $32k per case (+$700k for incarceration). That means the death penalty could save about $700k per case if it wasnt so hard to give the death penalty.
1005 people have been killed by the death penalty, and 123 of them have been found innocent. We could have saved about $800 million ($6.5 million per innocent life).
If 1 in 7 criminals in jail for life are innocent, then it would save us $5 million per innocent life if we got rid of the "in jail for life" penalty (and killed them instead).
If you have a life insurance policy on yourself for at least $5 million, then you can tell me that the risk of killing an innocent inmate is worth getting rid of the death penalty.
--
How is killing Saddam going to bring peace and democracy to Iraq?? What is the point of "liberating" Iraq by bringing the worst parts of the American judicial system to them?
The only way that killing Saddam would be a disaster is if it costs the county of Iraq more money to kill him than it does to imprison him for life. That is the only real problem with the death penalty in the U.S. The only reason you should even have someone be in prison for life is because it costs more for the court to kill him.
Hopefully Iraq can just take him out and hang him, costing the new government alot less than keeping him imprisoned for a few decades.
--
The world has changed quite a bit in that time so it might be more successful now.
China is actually trying to become a world power now, so a war with the U.S. is the last thing they need. I dont think anyone will side with North Korea in any war at this time. It makes war the best option for stoping North Korea, but then you come to the death toll. For anyone to actually stop North Korea from being stupid, people will have to die. We just havent hit a threshold where the world thinks it is worth that yet.
--
Yes but plenty of American investors own Sony stock. I am sure Sony also has relationship with other companies that have American stockholders. That means that in today's market Sony might have more trouble convincing their investors to stay the course. Once the stock starts to drop Sony will probably have a hard time recovering, expecially since a large amount of their actual cash reserves is going into the PS3.
--
You post statistics with no citations or references.
That is because this is Slashdot, not an English class. I am not writing an essay, I am posting to an internet site. If you want the reference, it was from "Hedonic prices and the demand for clean air", published by Harrison, D. and Rubinfeld, D.L.
The thought that you even have to cite data on poor areas having more crime is rediculous. I might as well find a study that proves butter is softer than steel. I am still suprised that anyone would even argue this.
Just because they are poor doesn't mean they can't have as many as they want. It's their choice. Who are you, oh Almighty ranton, to deny them that right?
It is irresponsible thinking like this that causes most of the world's problems. Just because you can do something, doesnt mean you should. I am a male of above average athleticism and strength; and I could kill your average person quite easily. Give me a weapon and it becomes alot easier. Hell, with a gun even a yound child can kill quite easily. Does that mean they have the right to kill someone?
It isnt against the law to buy a gas guzzling truck that gets 2 miles/gallon to drive yourself 60 miles to work each day alone. But is definetly irresponsible, just like having children when you dont have enough money to support them yourself.
This planet is extremly overpopulated. I am not suggesting that poor people should be punished by not allowing them to have children. I am simply saying that people should not have children that have a strong chance of being a drain on the economy. They are taking advantage of your average person's sense of decency. It is this sense of decency that causes us to pour money into a welfare system that is only making the problem worse.
I don't see anywhere in the constitution where it says you can only have a quota of two children and then you are cut off.
In 1810 there wasnt anything in the constitution that outlawed slavery. I guess that means that slavery was a perfectly moral enterprise until it was outlawed in the Constitution. Laws and morality are not one in the same.
But they don't seem to have the power to "strike down" any laws.
:-)
The only power that anyone ever really has is military power. The only way that the US government can enforce any law on its citizens is to threaten them with force. The only way to actually "strike down" any American law would be to use force against the US government. Or at least threaten to use force.
Because the WTO has no military force, the only thing they can do is put sanctions against the US. It is the same thing that the UN is planning on doing to North Korea. It could still work if they can work up the guts, and I hope they do.
Im an American, but these gambling laws are rediculous. If it takes crippling our own economy to show our rulers that they are out of line then its a small price to pay. If I lose my job I could always become a professional gambler
--
More wonderful anecdotal evidence. I dont know anyone who had a relative killed in the Holocaust. I guess that means it didnt happen. I dont know anyone who cannot read either. I guess there is 0% illiteracy in Illinois then.