---
not if the ISP has a monopoly on a certain section of your neighbourhood. thats a bullshit argument that M$ was using in their anti trust trial.
---
A monopoly in your neighborhood? What are you talking about?
You can't extend the definition of 'monopoly' to any company you don't like - even if they don't happen to have competition in your area. Microsoft didn't get the smackdown because they're merely a monopoly. They got in trouble because they allegedly used their monopoly in order to illegally squeeze out any potential competition.
It is not illegal if there is only one provider in your geographic area. It's quite possible that no real competition has even attempted to penetrate your local market, or it's just not worth bothering with for various business reasons.
And to be honest, in these days of Earthlink, Sprint, GTE.net, AOL, etc. I kind of doubt very many people are stuck with only one provider. This is a market segment that very clearly does not have a single monopoly controlling it. The argument is a bit of a joke.
Face it: If you don't like the policies of your provider, you can feel free to open up a competing provider or search for another. Under our current (decidedly non-Communistic) system, you don't have a right to force the existing players to do something with their own resources.
Of course, you can always vote with your wallet. If enough people agree with you, it's quite likely you'll find success. Unfortunately more people seem to think avoiding spam is more marketable.
...
Either way, my original point was that the guy saying that supporting the RBL was 'Commie' had it all wrong and was talking out of his ass. Communism would be more likely to support right control over the ability of people to make things like blacklists.
Regardless of whether you are for or against strong 'market regulation', you have to know that stopping MAPS from publishing their list is just like banning Consumer Reports. This is definitely not in the spirit of our free market system.
---
People seem to keep saying that RBL is optional, well what about the situation, where someone is using it on a backbone, as was the case in the article? I dont see much choice in the matter then.
---
Maybe not, but who are we to tell anyone how they should treat the data flowing through their networks?
It's a free market - if enough customers of enough ISPs complain, those ISPs will move the issue up the chain and market pressure may change their mind. It's your right as a consumer to choose who you do business with, and your ISP's right to choose who they do business with. It's really quite simple.
---
One thing, it does seem that a lot of people are mistakenly thinking that it would block the website as well, but it will only prevent mail, however some companies may rely on this for their ordering system.
---
Maybe, but if I control a significant amount of bandwidth, isn't it my right to allow that traffic to flow over it on my terms? Especially if the product of that bandwidth is using CPU and drive space on my servers?
I'm not necessarily saying that I agree with the somewhat over-zealous ways in which MAPS operates (I'm in a position to utilize the RBL, but choose not to), but I agree that they have a perfectly legal and ethical right to offer their service if they wish. There is nobody forcing anyone to use them.
(I fear you're just trolling, but I have enough free time, so here goes...)
Actually, you got it backwards. It's your thesis that it closer to the socialist ideal.
Private companies choose to use the RBL to filter their incoming mail. This is analogous to paying someone to throw out junk mail before you get to it. It is a business choice they choose to do in order to lessen the load on their business.
You as a private individual have the right to choose to do business with that company or not. But nobody has the right to tell that company that they can't block certain traffic from coming into their networks.
Whether or not you agree with spam is irrelevent. The RBL is totally in line with a free market. If you don't believe the RBL should be allowed to do what they do, you are essentually saying that someone shouldn't be able to kick unruly people out of their place of business.
---
(please stop using racist terms like "black" in this forum)
---
Huh? Since when is that racist? Is it racist to refer to someone as being white?
Politeness is one thing, but this is the first time I've heard of anyone being offended over the term 'black' - even African Americans. And I've never heard anyone offended over the term 'white'. What's up with the overt political correctness?
How is this guy anti-establishment? Maximum wage? Getting rid of SUVs? WTF?
Basically, he seems to advocate big government, telling people what they can and cannot have, and divvying up the proceeds. Sounds like an extreme version of what we already have to me.
This just reminds me that I've got to vote Browne this time around, if at the very least to keep kooks like this out of power...
---
That means that for the first time since well...as far back as my memory goes, we will have a SERIOUS 3rd-party candidate in the running.
---
Your memory needs improving. Ross Perot - whatever you think of his politics - did pretty well. He didn't win, but he was definitely a non-trivial candidate.
Lest you haven't noticed, there's a sizable number of us who don't want government supplies 'safety nets' or 'education', on the grounds that they are neither safe nor educational. And having seen a number of do-nothing idiots repairing perfectly good roads, I can't say much for the road maintainence either.
What we want - to opt out. We don't need a nanny government to tell us what to do or live our lives for us.
---
But the flat tax doesn't really change anything about those.
---
Sure it does. The tax system will be fair when it is either abolished (yeah, I'm a libertarian at heart), or comes down to this:
1. Enter earnings here: ____
2. Times above number by 15% (or whatever)
3. Pay that much.
And that's it. Make it so ridiculously simple that anyone and everyone can find out how much they owe, and pay it. It would be nearly rock solid, so loopholes are impossible to come by. Everyone saves money on accountants, and we can damn near get rid of the IRS (saving us all money).
Of course, this all assumes that such a flat tax would come with some serious cutting down of the tax system. Unless we can get rid of the loopholes, though, it by definition wouldn't be fair (just like our current system).
---
That's not a counterexample. A luxury yacht is not a bad thing: its production and sale does not negatively affect anyone in society. Thus luxury taxes are unrelated to the issue of taxing things that are bad for society.
---
Neither is being rich. In many ways, it benefits society. And simply being rich does not mean that said rich-person stepped on a lot of people to get where they are. And yet, we have a completely unfair progressive tax system. Why?
---
Unlike the collection of cells that I gather swiping a q-tip inside my cheek, however, a fetus can and will grow into a person unless forcibly prevented from doing so.
---
Interesting metric. Where does it stop?
The same could be said about semen. Is a man who 'pulls out' or uses a condom committing mass genocide of millions of potential humans?
How about a woman who has the gall to have a period every month? That was a potential human being as well.
The debate, when you get down to it, is when does a human become a human...
1 - Contribute to the well being of his family members directly, making sure that they get the full benefit of the money he provides.
...or...
2 - Give his money to the government, which takes most of it, and hands out the leftover scraps to the rest... Not only his family, but those who may not even deserve the entitlement.
I think I know how best to spend my money in charity - better than the government, which is bloated, slow, and hardly a model of ethical behavior.
---
Especially, if getting better graphics would entail giving $500 to Sony, which Sony would then use to take away my freedom of speech.
---
Out of curiosity, how exactly is the PSX or Sony infringing on your freedom of speech?
Please please please don't let this turn out to be some sort of "it's evil because it's proprietary" speech. If there's something substantive, I'm sure we'd love to know.
Last I checked, Slashdot wasn't some great single consciousness with One Opinion and One Voice.
Some of us are quite likely money grubbing, materialistic, capitalists. A share of those quite likely don't give a damn, as they don't see anyone doing anything wrong.
But I will tell you this - if anyone, it's you who is out of touch with the Slashdot populace. You attribute shame on Rob & Co. for being interested in something, but fail to recognize the scores of geeks who are just as excited as he is.
Either way, don't try to lay down some sort of defacto Slashdot policy - not everyone is interested in conforming to your personal opinions.
---
Oh, btw. while everyone is fighting for the PS2 i'll be watching DVD's in all glory on a full DTS compatible DVD player with digital outs as dvd's are meant to be.
---
Oooh...
---
I will also be playing PSX and Dreamcast and N64 games that everyone blindly forgets
---
Ahhh...
---
and oh, i'll have 400-500.00 left to buy christmas gifts for my friends.
---
Wow. I sure wish someone would spend $500 bucks on a christmas gift for me.
*ahem*
Anyhow, there's a principle in consumer electronics that goes roughly like this (please store this in your long-term memory for the next time you feel like chastising people for what they like):
In short, different people want different things.
I personally don't need a super duper DVD player with all sorts of bells and whistles. The PS2 DVD player, which somewhat spartan in features, does exactly what I need it to do - play DVD movies. Assuming that there is an actual picture quality difference that isn't limited to the minds of self-possessed yuppies, it's quite unlikely to show up on my TV. Plus, this saves me from making yet another purchase and clogging up my entertainment center. Plus one for the Playstation 2.
I also have a somewhat decent sized library of (original) Playstation games that I'd like to keep, but I really don't want to have more consoles than necessary. I could get a Dreamcast and end up with _3_ consoles hooked up to my TV, or stick with a Playstation 2 and my N64. The latter is less cluttered. Score another for the Playstation 2.
Another reason is, quite simply, there are some games I like that will be coming out for the Playstation 2. Shortly. Some of the launch titles look pretty decent (and the few I bought recently I enjoy already), and before long Playstation development will be moving over to the new system. While the current crop may only be superficially better than the Dreamcast versions, that will change as developers get used to the system. Another bonus.
Speaking of Dreamcast, I'd rather not buy into a console whose developer has a tendency to screw up. Sure, they're not doing too bad right now (not great either), but Sega seems to be able to screw up a good thing with their consoles. Be it marketing or technology, they don't pick up a lot of games or are dropped. And to be honest, there are only a few games that I'm into on their console.
Last but not least, those of you who insist that people are "paying too much" need to understand that some of us don't consider $300-500 an ungodly sum for something that will provide loads of entertainment for a few years. I can understand some peoples' issues with the cost, but don't project it on everybody, okay?
---
How much of it was due to parental assistance? Be honest - how much of you and your sister's education was paid for by your family?
---
Most of my education was paid for by my employer at the time. That was a bit of a special case. My sister has a whole lot of student loans to pay off, but she's in a good position to do so as she now has access to a pick of decent jobs.
The initial part of my education was paid for by the state, out of funds that would have went to the local high school (I skipped out 2 years early). That funding, which would have been wasted on the pathetic high school I was attending, instead went to a fairly decent private community college where I actually learnt a few things.
If my parents didn't have the same tax burden, they could have done it directly.
---
What's the effect of growing up in a middle class neighbourhood with good schools and no gun fights? That's luck.
---
I didn't really grow up in a middle class neighborhood (go to Finley, WA and look around sometime - definitely a trailer park kind of place. We were comparitively wealthy, and crime wasn't all that horrible, but the local schools were worthless).
Either way, it's not luck. Nobody bought my mom's house for her, or bought the property on her behalf. Living in a somewhat rural setting makes things cheaper in many aspects, which was a decent reason to move there. Nobody is forcing anyone to live in a crime ridden inner city.
---
I realize that you weren't replying directly to me, but I never advocated an maximum wage.
---
I know, I wasn't really aiming at that (although I realize some people do advocate one, which is a vaguely fascist notion IMHO). I'm talking more about the undercurrent of class warfare that some people seem to ride on. A lot of people talk about others having 'enough' or 'too much' money, even though that's completely irrelevent. It's a matter of principle to me, I guess.
---
I don't for a minute believe I got where I am because I'm smarter or work harder than people who didn't get here. I'm just lucky.
---
You're largely where you are because of a combination of your intelligence and that of your parents. I don't really believe in luck, but I do believe in someone spotting opportunity and taking it.
In our society, I think it's common for some really smart people to not realize how bright they are, and lowering their own expectations as to what they can do. There are enough stories of people coming from near poverty to great success to prove that smart people CAN get somewhere - and enough untold stories of smart people who never get anywhere to show that some just don't get around to it.
---
I find beliefs such as that so repugnant, mostly because I've never heard anyone spout that type of drivel at me unless they or their parents made at least $80-90k per year
---
Let me be the first, then (be warned: this is a bit of a rambling narrative).
My grandmother grew up in a home with a dirt floor, two sisters, and a somewhat unsupportive family life. She was pretty poor overall.
She married my grandfather who, while not rich, wasn't quite as bad off. Once they got married they moved elsewhere for a job, and had two kids.
While their home certainly had a 'real' floor, there wasn't much extra cash to spare on entertainment or extravagant gifts. My grandparents were very loving and caring individuals, though, and raised a couple of pretty good kids. One of which is my mother.
My uncle got a little college in (and did pretty well, as he's a fairly bright guy), although my mom did not (I also consider her pretty bright as well). Cash wasn't the easiest thing to come by, and by the time she had her kids there was lots of other stuff to take care of.
My sister and I grew up comfortable - about as spoiled as any typical middle class kid might be. My parents spent a lot of their cash helping my sister get a college education, and some on me as well (I'm just a little ways off from a basic Associate's degree). They also bought me a computer at a young age - not a trivial purchase - which helped inspire me to continue on with my interests in computers and related stuff.
My sister just got her Master's degree, and has become a pretty successful teacher - and well liked at that. I'm a bit younger, but I have a great job at a company I like, make a pretty decent wage, and work from home with a company supplied laptop.:>
Note that almost none of this is due to governmental assistance.
While not rich by any means, I definitely don't have to sweep excess dirt off of a dirt floor every night. And I have those who preceded me to thank for that. I only put the pieces together in the end in making my relative success.
My point: There is no such thing as making 'too much'. Yes, luck has something to do with it. So does being in the right place at the right time (or putting yourself in the right place at the right time). There's nothing wrong with that - if there is a demand for certain skills or people, they should feel free to reap those rewards. It's not our place to tell people that they are 'too in demand' or aren't worth that much to someone else.
And no, I don't doubt one bit that your mother is a very hard worker and probably deserves more. And she has probably tried hard to raise you in such a way that you'll have it better than she did. BUT don't blame someone just because they have a lot of cash because she doesn't. Some people may be assholes, and maybe she got screwed over a few times or made bad choices, but don't blame the rich for that. Especially when they already take up a higher percentage burden of the taxes as is.
In the end, I hope that I can provide for my kid(s) in such a way that they do better than I. Please don't chastise or look down upon me if I end up being pretty successful at it...
---
But public money should not be used for vouchers, saying "I'm sorry, our public schools are crap, here, take this consolation gift".
---
An important distinction needs to be made.
This is not a 'gift'. It is not being 'given'.
It is being returned.
If I can opt-out of funding the public school system, thus losing the right to send my kid there, I should be able to put them into what I feel is a better school (and frankly, if someone starts up a non-religious, non government funded school for the same price, it'll be much better).
It's not a gift. It's my money, let me decide how I want to use it to educate my kid.
Despite popular left wing or right wing belief, TV is not an essential part of life - parents can feel free to turn it off - or even subscribe to channels that are mostly devoid of advertising. If there are none, they can take the initiative to find a good alternative revenue stream and start up their own TV channel.
Either way, this is not the purpose of government.
---
And unlike Libertarians, I recognize that the government *is* the people.
---
The problem is, it very much isn't. My government daily makes hundreds of decisions that in some way affect me, and I have no voice in the matter.
While I respect the Green party idea that you don't have to be stuck with the two main choices, the similarity ends there. A central government almost by definition can't represent the people - since we're not a "central" people, and have diverse needs.
You're not throwing away your vote if you vote 3rd party (Browne, Nader, etc). You're making a statement.
They won't win, sure. But if you don't vote you have truly wasted your opportunity. If you vote for the lesser of the two evils, you just perpetuate the status quo.
Now, if you really truly believe in either of the two main people, vote for them. But don't let that limit you from learning about (and possibly voting for) the alternatives.
Slashdot Mirror
---
not if the ISP has a monopoly on a certain section of your neighbourhood. thats a bullshit argument that M$ was using in their anti trust trial.
---
A monopoly in your neighborhood? What are you talking about?
You can't extend the definition of 'monopoly' to any company you don't like - even if they don't happen to have competition in your area. Microsoft didn't get the smackdown because they're merely a monopoly. They got in trouble because they allegedly used their monopoly in order to illegally squeeze out any potential competition.
It is not illegal if there is only one provider in your geographic area. It's quite possible that no real competition has even attempted to penetrate your local market, or it's just not worth bothering with for various business reasons.
And to be honest, in these days of Earthlink, Sprint, GTE.net, AOL, etc. I kind of doubt very many people are stuck with only one provider. This is a market segment that very clearly does not have a single monopoly controlling it. The argument is a bit of a joke.
Face it: If you don't like the policies of your provider, you can feel free to open up a competing provider or search for another. Under our current (decidedly non-Communistic) system, you don't have a right to force the existing players to do something with their own resources.
Of course, you can always vote with your wallet. If enough people agree with you, it's quite likely you'll find success. Unfortunately more people seem to think avoiding spam is more marketable.
...
Either way, my original point was that the guy saying that supporting the RBL was 'Commie' had it all wrong and was talking out of his ass. Communism would be more likely to support right control over the ability of people to make things like blacklists.
Regardless of whether you are for or against strong 'market regulation', you have to know that stopping MAPS from publishing their list is just like banning Consumer Reports. This is definitely not in the spirit of our free market system.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VxReality (BETA)
---
People seem to keep saying that RBL is optional, well what about the situation, where someone is using it on a backbone, as was the case in the article? I dont see much choice in the matter then.
---
Maybe not, but who are we to tell anyone how they should treat the data flowing through their networks?
It's a free market - if enough customers of enough ISPs complain, those ISPs will move the issue up the chain and market pressure may change their mind. It's your right as a consumer to choose who you do business with, and your ISP's right to choose who they do business with. It's really quite simple.
---
One thing, it does seem that a lot of people are mistakenly thinking that it would block the website as well, but it will only prevent mail, however some companies may rely on this for their ordering system.
---
Maybe, but if I control a significant amount of bandwidth, isn't it my right to allow that traffic to flow over it on my terms? Especially if the product of that bandwidth is using CPU and drive space on my servers?
I'm not necessarily saying that I agree with the somewhat over-zealous ways in which MAPS operates (I'm in a position to utilize the RBL, but choose not to), but I agree that they have a perfectly legal and ethical right to offer their service if they wish. There is nobody forcing anyone to use them.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VxReality (BETA)
(I fear you're just trolling, but I have enough free time, so here goes...)
Actually, you got it backwards. It's your thesis that it closer to the socialist ideal.
Private companies choose to use the RBL to filter their incoming mail. This is analogous to paying someone to throw out junk mail before you get to it. It is a business choice they choose to do in order to lessen the load on their business.
You as a private individual have the right to choose to do business with that company or not. But nobody has the right to tell that company that they can't block certain traffic from coming into their networks.
Whether or not you agree with spam is irrelevent. The RBL is totally in line with a free market. If you don't believe the RBL should be allowed to do what they do, you are essentually saying that someone shouldn't be able to kick unruly people out of their place of business.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VxReality (BETA)
---
...gets an masters...
---
"An masters"?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
He must have forgot. :>
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
(please stop using racist terms like "black" in this forum)
---
Huh? Since when is that racist? Is it racist to refer to someone as being white?
Politeness is one thing, but this is the first time I've heard of anyone being offended over the term 'black' - even African Americans. And I've never heard anyone offended over the term 'white'. What's up with the overt political correctness?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
--- .com
Check out Ralph Nader for President. He doesnt need a
---
Huh? Yes he does.
http://www.votenader.com/
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
How is this guy anti-establishment? Maximum wage? Getting rid of SUVs? WTF?
Basically, he seems to advocate big government, telling people what they can and cannot have, and divvying up the proceeds. Sounds like an extreme version of what we already have to me.
This just reminds me that I've got to vote Browne this time around, if at the very least to keep kooks like this out of power...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
That means that for the first time since well...as far back as my memory goes, we will have a SERIOUS 3rd-party candidate in the running.
---
Your memory needs improving. Ross Perot - whatever you think of his politics - did pretty well. He didn't win, but he was definitely a non-trivial candidate.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Why? It's probably not as bad as you think.
? bfromind=232&eeid=2768059&eetype=article&r ender=y&ck=&ver=2.11
http://www.grassroots.com/scripts/editorial.dll
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Lest you haven't noticed, there's a sizable number of us who don't want government supplies 'safety nets' or 'education', on the grounds that they are neither safe nor educational. And having seen a number of do-nothing idiots repairing perfectly good roads, I can't say much for the road maintainence either.
What we want - to opt out. We don't need a nanny government to tell us what to do or live our lives for us.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
But the flat tax doesn't really change anything about those.
---
Sure it does. The tax system will be fair when it is either abolished (yeah, I'm a libertarian at heart), or comes down to this:
1. Enter earnings here: ____
2. Times above number by 15% (or whatever)
3. Pay that much.
And that's it. Make it so ridiculously simple that anyone and everyone can find out how much they owe, and pay it. It would be nearly rock solid, so loopholes are impossible to come by. Everyone saves money on accountants, and we can damn near get rid of the IRS (saving us all money).
Of course, this all assumes that such a flat tax would come with some serious cutting down of the tax system. Unless we can get rid of the loopholes, though, it by definition wouldn't be fair (just like our current system).
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
That's not a counterexample. A luxury yacht is not a bad thing: its production and sale does not negatively affect anyone in society. Thus luxury taxes are unrelated to the issue of taxing things that are bad for society.
---
Neither is being rich. In many ways, it benefits society. And simply being rich does not mean that said rich-person stepped on a lot of people to get where they are. And yet, we have a completely unfair progressive tax system. Why?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
Unlike the collection of cells that I gather swiping a q-tip inside my cheek, however, a fetus can and will grow into a person unless forcibly prevented from doing so.
---
Interesting metric. Where does it stop?
The same could be said about semen. Is a man who 'pulls out' or uses a condom committing mass genocide of millions of potential humans?
How about a woman who has the gall to have a period every month? That was a potential human being as well.
The debate, when you get down to it, is when does a human become a human...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Which gives him two choices:
... Not only his family, but those who may not even deserve the entitlement.
1 - Contribute to the well being of his family members directly, making sure that they get the full benefit of the money he provides.
...or...
2 - Give his money to the government, which takes most of it, and hands out the leftover scraps to the rest
I think I know how best to spend my money in charity - better than the government, which is bloated, slow, and hardly a model of ethical behavior.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
Especially, if getting better graphics would entail giving $500 to Sony, which Sony would then use to take away my freedom of speech.
---
Out of curiosity, how exactly is the PSX or Sony infringing on your freedom of speech?
Please please please don't let this turn out to be some sort of "it's evil because it's proprietary" speech. If there's something substantive, I'm sure we'd love to know.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Last I checked, Slashdot wasn't some great single consciousness with One Opinion and One Voice.
Some of us are quite likely money grubbing, materialistic, capitalists. A share of those quite likely don't give a damn, as they don't see anyone doing anything wrong.
But I will tell you this - if anyone, it's you who is out of touch with the Slashdot populace. You attribute shame on Rob & Co. for being interested in something, but fail to recognize the scores of geeks who are just as excited as he is.
Either way, don't try to lay down some sort of defacto Slashdot policy - not everyone is interested in conforming to your personal opinions.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
Oh, btw. while everyone is fighting for the PS2 i'll be watching DVD's in all glory on a full DTS compatible DVD player with digital outs as dvd's are meant to be.
---
Oooh...
---
I will also be playing PSX and Dreamcast and N64 games that everyone blindly forgets
---
Ahhh...
---
and oh, i'll have 400-500.00 left to buy christmas gifts for my friends.
---
Wow. I sure wish someone would spend $500 bucks on a christmas gift for me.
*ahem*
Anyhow, there's a principle in consumer electronics that goes roughly like this (please store this in your long-term memory for the next time you feel like chastising people for what they like):
In short, different people want different things.
I personally don't need a super duper DVD player with all sorts of bells and whistles. The PS2 DVD player, which somewhat spartan in features, does exactly what I need it to do - play DVD movies. Assuming that there is an actual picture quality difference that isn't limited to the minds of self-possessed yuppies, it's quite unlikely to show up on my TV. Plus, this saves me from making yet another purchase and clogging up my entertainment center. Plus one for the Playstation 2.
I also have a somewhat decent sized library of (original) Playstation games that I'd like to keep, but I really don't want to have more consoles than necessary. I could get a Dreamcast and end up with _3_ consoles hooked up to my TV, or stick with a Playstation 2 and my N64. The latter is less cluttered. Score another for the Playstation 2.
Another reason is, quite simply, there are some games I like that will be coming out for the Playstation 2. Shortly. Some of the launch titles look pretty decent (and the few I bought recently I enjoy already), and before long Playstation development will be moving over to the new system. While the current crop may only be superficially better than the Dreamcast versions, that will change as developers get used to the system. Another bonus.
Speaking of Dreamcast, I'd rather not buy into a console whose developer has a tendency to screw up. Sure, they're not doing too bad right now (not great either), but Sega seems to be able to screw up a good thing with their consoles. Be it marketing or technology, they don't pick up a lot of games or are dropped. And to be honest, there are only a few games that I'm into on their console.
Last but not least, those of you who insist that people are "paying too much" need to understand that some of us don't consider $300-500 an ungodly sum for something that will provide loads of entertainment for a few years. I can understand some peoples' issues with the cost, but don't project it on everybody, okay?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
How much of it was due to parental assistance? Be honest - how much of you and your sister's education was paid for by your family?
---
Most of my education was paid for by my employer at the time. That was a bit of a special case. My sister has a whole lot of student loans to pay off, but she's in a good position to do so as she now has access to a pick of decent jobs.
The initial part of my education was paid for by the state, out of funds that would have went to the local high school (I skipped out 2 years early). That funding, which would have been wasted on the pathetic high school I was attending, instead went to a fairly decent private community college where I actually learnt a few things.
If my parents didn't have the same tax burden, they could have done it directly.
---
What's the effect of growing up in a middle class neighbourhood with good schools and no gun fights? That's luck.
---
I didn't really grow up in a middle class neighborhood (go to Finley, WA and look around sometime - definitely a trailer park kind of place. We were comparitively wealthy, and crime wasn't all that horrible, but the local schools were worthless).
Either way, it's not luck. Nobody bought my mom's house for her, or bought the property on her behalf. Living in a somewhat rural setting makes things cheaper in many aspects, which was a decent reason to move there. Nobody is forcing anyone to live in a crime ridden inner city.
---
I realize that you weren't replying directly to me, but I never advocated an maximum wage.
---
I know, I wasn't really aiming at that (although I realize some people do advocate one, which is a vaguely fascist notion IMHO). I'm talking more about the undercurrent of class warfare that some people seem to ride on. A lot of people talk about others having 'enough' or 'too much' money, even though that's completely irrelevent. It's a matter of principle to me, I guess.
---
I don't for a minute believe I got where I am because I'm smarter or work harder than people who didn't get here. I'm just lucky.
---
You're largely where you are because of a combination of your intelligence and that of your parents. I don't really believe in luck, but I do believe in someone spotting opportunity and taking it.
In our society, I think it's common for some really smart people to not realize how bright they are, and lowering their own expectations as to what they can do. There are enough stories of people coming from near poverty to great success to prove that smart people CAN get somewhere - and enough untold stories of smart people who never get anywhere to show that some just don't get around to it.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
:>
I find beliefs such as that so repugnant, mostly because I've never heard anyone spout that type of drivel at me unless they or their parents made at least $80-90k per year
---
Let me be the first, then (be warned: this is a bit of a rambling narrative).
My grandmother grew up in a home with a dirt floor, two sisters, and a somewhat unsupportive family life. She was pretty poor overall.
She married my grandfather who, while not rich, wasn't quite as bad off. Once they got married they moved elsewhere for a job, and had two kids.
While their home certainly had a 'real' floor, there wasn't much extra cash to spare on entertainment or extravagant gifts. My grandparents were very loving and caring individuals, though, and raised a couple of pretty good kids. One of which is my mother.
My uncle got a little college in (and did pretty well, as he's a fairly bright guy), although my mom did not (I also consider her pretty bright as well). Cash wasn't the easiest thing to come by, and by the time she had her kids there was lots of other stuff to take care of.
My sister and I grew up comfortable - about as spoiled as any typical middle class kid might be. My parents spent a lot of their cash helping my sister get a college education, and some on me as well (I'm just a little ways off from a basic Associate's degree). They also bought me a computer at a young age - not a trivial purchase - which helped inspire me to continue on with my interests in computers and related stuff.
My sister just got her Master's degree, and has become a pretty successful teacher - and well liked at that. I'm a bit younger, but I have a great job at a company I like, make a pretty decent wage, and work from home with a company supplied laptop.
Note that almost none of this is due to governmental assistance.
While not rich by any means, I definitely don't have to sweep excess dirt off of a dirt floor every night. And I have those who preceded me to thank for that. I only put the pieces together in the end in making my relative success.
My point: There is no such thing as making 'too much'. Yes, luck has something to do with it. So does being in the right place at the right time (or putting yourself in the right place at the right time). There's nothing wrong with that - if there is a demand for certain skills or people, they should feel free to reap those rewards. It's not our place to tell people that they are 'too in demand' or aren't worth that much to someone else.
And no, I don't doubt one bit that your mother is a very hard worker and probably deserves more. And she has probably tried hard to raise you in such a way that you'll have it better than she did. BUT don't blame someone just because they have a lot of cash because she doesn't. Some people may be assholes, and maybe she got screwed over a few times or made bad choices, but don't blame the rich for that. Especially when they already take up a higher percentage burden of the taxes as is.
In the end, I hope that I can provide for my kid(s) in such a way that they do better than I. Please don't chastise or look down upon me if I end up being pretty successful at it...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
But public money should not be used for vouchers, saying "I'm sorry, our public schools are crap, here, take this consolation gift".
---
An important distinction needs to be made.
This is not a 'gift'. It is not being 'given'.
It is being returned.
If I can opt-out of funding the public school system, thus losing the right to send my kid there, I should be able to put them into what I feel is a better school (and frankly, if someone starts up a non-religious, non government funded school for the same price, it'll be much better).
It's not a gift. It's my money, let me decide how I want to use it to educate my kid.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Turn off the TV.
Despite popular left wing or right wing belief, TV is not an essential part of life - parents can feel free to turn it off - or even subscribe to channels that are mostly devoid of advertising. If there are none, they can take the initiative to find a good alternative revenue stream and start up their own TV channel.
Either way, this is not the purpose of government.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
And unlike Libertarians, I recognize that the government *is* the people.
---
The problem is, it very much isn't. My government daily makes hundreds of decisions that in some way affect me, and I have no voice in the matter.
While I respect the Green party idea that you don't have to be stuck with the two main choices, the similarity ends there. A central government almost by definition can't represent the people - since we're not a "central" people, and have diverse needs.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
You're not throwing away your vote if you vote 3rd party (Browne, Nader, etc). You're making a statement.
They won't win, sure. But if you don't vote you have truly wasted your opportunity. If you vote for the lesser of the two evils, you just perpetuate the status quo.
Now, if you really truly believe in either of the two main people, vote for them. But don't let that limit you from learning about (and possibly voting for) the alternatives.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
I wouldn't want my kids going down to the library to research something on the Internet and...
---
Good. Don't.
Case settled.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)