In theory pension plans have a government-backed guarantee. But in practice, pensions have been cut many times.
The thing to do with a 401k is change jobs. Then you can roll it over into an IRA, and invest it however you damn well please. It's not perfect, but it's the safest option we have.
"It was thrilling—and terrifying. When
even one percent of Apple’s traffic gets stalled, it’s front-page news.
And all too often, we were dealing with problems our vendors had never
contemplated, much less figured out. We began exploring radically new
approaches, including a handful of supposedly open-sourced solutions so
we could dive into the guts of our network ourselves—say, to look
directly at the data coming off network processors. As much as we wanted
these technologies to work, they didn’t. So we developed some of our
own, including a provisioning tool for upgrading the software on
thousands of switches without taking the network offline. If you haven’t
heard, Apple likes to keep such internal accomplishments to itself, so I
can’t share the results. Let’s just say we were able to accomplish in
minutes what would have taken hours, days or even weeks. Slowly, our desire to share our ideas
with the world began to overshadow the thrill and pride of working for
Apple. My team and I left in 2015."
So if we're to believe that, then Apple was doing something like OCP internally, it worked well, and the reason the team quit was that Apple wouldn't let them share it.
You're not being fair and you know it. Most of the public, through no fault of their own, is not educated in the value of software freedom. So they take walled gardens and digital rights management as a given. Now consider the difference between an iPhone and a Macbook versus a Samsung Galaxy S-something and a high end Dell laptop.
First, Apple does have an edge in aesthetics in the judgment of most people. If that didn't matter, we Linux enthusiasts would be merrily running FVWM and Blackbox.
The iPhone is likely to get software updates and security updates from Apple much longer than the Android device. Software updates for the Macbook might only be for four or five years, while Windows 13 will probably run on the Dell. The new Apple operating systems are cheap, too.
And Apple support might charge through the nose, but it's fast and efficient. If you have to call Dell support, it's probably less painful to just light yourself on fire and be done with it.
Android and Windows own most of their respective consumer markets because the great majority of smart phone and laptop shoppers can't budget the iPhone and a $1000 machine. But for people who can afford high end devices, Apple is not a waste of money only pursued by fashion victims and phonies.
As oppose to the guy who thinks Vladimir Putin is a good leader? The Russian dictator that nationalized an oil company, ordered an invasion, and rigged the 2012 elections?
What makes you think he's going to be any more interested in restraining executive power than she is?
The recent over reach of executive power in the US experienced a surge after the September 11, 2001 attacks. The abuses under FDR, Hoover, McCarthyism, etc.... were - as far as I'm aware - toned down or reduced over the decades since until that time. Otherwise you might as well blame Lincoln for the expansion of power during the Civil War.
I was specifically responding to BlueStrat's signature, which seems to lay government surveillance and the police state solely at the feet of the American liberals. Considering the Republican President's actions and Republican support of the Patriot Act, there's plenty of blame for both sides.
Your statement makes the implicit assertion that conservative (the American definition of conservative, to be clear) Supreme Court Justices would slow halt the erosion of the rule of law in the US. So even if you're not American, you picked sides.
Fair point. Let me rephrase. President Bush presided (pun irrelevant) over the largest increase in executive authority in decades. Yes, FDR was as bad or worse. Yes, Obama took the torch from President Bush and ran with it.
But the parent post implicitly asserts that picking conservative Supreme Court justices would fix the problem or at least slow it down - in fact the party of the Supreme Court Justices is irrelevant. Both parties are attacking rule of law.
That's right. Unlawful detention, torture of prisoners, surveillance without warrants. I sure wish we had Republican lawmakers in office, they would never let that kind of abuse of power happen.
Oh wait, it started under the fucking Republicans and the idiot Democrats ran with it. Your party put the first nail in the coffin for rule of law, not mine. And there's no fucking way Donald "I think Vladimir Putin the dictator is cool" Trump would fix it.
Thanks for mentioning it. That's a better deal than Ting for someone that uses lots of data.
I used Virgin Mobile about seven years ago, and at that time their smart phone selection was awful and the Sprint network they piggyback on was poor in my area. I see that today they have the iPhone 6 and 7 and the Samsung Galaxy S7, so the phone selection is no longer an issue. And Sprint cell phone reception has improved considerably in my area in that time, so that's not an issue either.
Actually, competition does exist. I know I'm going to sound like a paid shill, but hell with it. Google has Project Fi, which only works with recent Nexus Phones but switches between wifi, the T-Mobile network, and the Sprint network based on connectivity. It's $20 per month plus $10 per GB, plus state and federal fees.
I use Ting.com. Ting users can use Sprint or T-Mobile on a per-phone basis - one of my sons has a phone that uses Sprint, the other son and I have phones that use T-Mobile. The selection of phones is decent, you can get a Samsung Galaxy S-Exploder, iPhone 6, etc... and it's pay for what you use. Unless you use more than 6GB of data per month, it's cheaper than the big carriers. My wife's monthly Verizon Wireless contract for her work is $120. My sons and I together spend about $60 total per month.
I don't see where you directed me to read any specific research on habits and their formation in the thread. Did you write it elsewhere, or was I supposed to infer it from something you wrote above? I hunted around and found this page, which does admittedly look like something useful to read and apply: http://jamesclear.com/habits
But I still don't see how your point on habit acquisition does anything to refute my point on the de-motivating impact of extrinsic rewards (or for that matter, punishments). Paying fat people to lose weight has been tried, and fails more often than it succeeds. Paying kids to read more likewise fails more often than it succeeds.
So what's to stop both principles from being applied? Provide people with fitness trackers, an education on their use, and education on techniques for habit acquisition, and free access to resources (phone calls, office visits, websites, etc...) to reinforce the fitness education or habit-related education as they need it. But no direct payments or prizes.
Because the test subjects were paid to use a fitness tracker for six months. So they were given a reward to develop a habit, they developed the habit for six months, and then 90% of them broke the habit.
I understand your counter-point, but I see two problems with it. First, the program is now forced to be permanent - if you want people to keep using the fitness tracker, you have to continue the payments. If you want someone to work harder, you have to increase the payments - if you just raise the goals without changing the compensation, people will drop out of the program.
Second, you've removed intrinsic motivation for these people to exercise in any way not connected to the payment. On a given day maybe I might decide to walk around the shopping mall, or take the dogs on a long walk, or go swimming, or work with weights. But if I've been on the paid fitness tracker program, I'm more likely to just set a target of my 10,000 steps (or whatever it is the tracker sets as a daily goal) and have less interest in anything else.
I really think most public policy focus on public fitness is backwards, anyway. For ten or fifteen years - nobody knows for sure how long - I had severe sleep apnea and didn't know it. I had little energy for exercise, and after a nice modest workout I would need an extra six hours of sleep over the next three days. Once I got tested and got treatment, I could manage a workout every day and be fine. I didn't need a fitness tracker or payments, I had an underlying medical problem. But since I started treatment, for a while I had a very long commute. 8.5 hours of work and 2.5 hours of driving each day with kids at home doesn't leave much time for exercise. And again, a fitness tracker wasn't the fix. I got a shorter commute, and I'm exercising again. My brother can't exercise, he's got chronic bleeding ulcers and all of the fancy diets his specialist physicians put him on haven't helped. My mother can't exercise, she's got an auto-immune disorder that took away 70% of her lung capacity - she never smoked, either.
And then you have people in urban areas that use a taxi or Uber or public transit to move around because they don't feel safe walking.
Don't get me wrong, some fat, or unfit, or fat and unfit people are just plain lazy. They exist. But some significant portion of inactive people have problems related to their health or their lifestyle that they may not know about, or that they may know about but have no ability to fix. Offering people in those circumstances money to exercise or giving them a fitness tracker is like giving an exercise bike to someone that can't use their legs. Affordable high quality medical care, better public transit for shorter commutes, shorter work weeks, safer cities - those would probably do more about obesity and inactivity than any kind of public fitness program, paid or otherwise.
I specifically said paying people for things they should already be doing. The whole reason I do my job is for the paycheck. If there was no paycheck, I wouldn't keep the job. That's different.
That's conventional wisdom, but my understanding is that the reward aspect of it has been proven false. Elementary age kids paid to read books or rewarded for reading with coupons for free pizza tend to read less in high school than children that were never given external rewards for reading. Adults paid to walk up the stairs to their work office for a few weeks were less likely to walk up the stairs to work once the payments stopped than people that were never paid. Children placed in a room full of puzzles that were asked to just stay in the room for an hour solved more puzzles than children placed in the same room with the same puzzles and promised one cookie for each of the first four puzzles they solved. Even dogs given treats for playing with a specific toy played with it less when treats were not offered than dogs who were just given access to the toy.
Forming habits is good, but using simple external rewards for motivation is actually counter-productive.
A couple of points. First, motivation for exercise is hard or effectively impossible if you've got other serious problems. I have a brother with chronic bleeding ulcers. He sees specialists periodically, but they haven't figured out a cause or a cure. He can't tolerate much exercise at all - he's thin but unfit, and there's not a damn thing he can do about it. I had a friend with thyroid problems, and once those were diagnosed his energy levels skyrocketed. For me, I had untreated severe sleep apnea. Now that it's treated, even with four young kids and a crazy schedule I get more exercise in a week than I used to get in a month when I had no kids. And the problems don't even need to be medical. For years commute used to be two and a half hours round trip each day. I just sat in a car that whole time, but it still sucked the life out of me. But I couldn't find a good job closer to home or afford housing closer to work. Even if my sleep apnea had been treated at the time, I wouldn't have exercised much. Maybe the fat guy down the block spends all day taking care of a mentally handicapped sister. Maybe the skinny, no-muscles woman suffers from severe depression and can't get out of bed most days. Either way, I don't know anyone's particular situation and I'm not going to cast judgment on them for being unfit, fat, or both.
But further, using rewards for motivation to exercise is terrible. Fitness has to be its own reward for you, or you'll never stick with it. Don't promise yourself a new laptop or car when you drop 15 pounds, or a vacation to Tahiti when you run your 5k. You can spend the money anyway, but the reward for walking the extra mile is knowing you walked the extra mile. The reward for eating fewer donuts (and I'm not picking on anyone in particular with that) is knowing you ate fewer donuts. etc... In my particular case, I'm most consistent with a series of calisthenics and yoga exercises for my back. I herniated a disk seven years ago. As long as I do my exercises, I am pain free. If I'm lazy for a few weeks I'll start to develop mild pain, and if I let it go it will transition to moderate pain. But I rarely take even a week off, because I like waking up feeling great. If you pay people to do something they should do anyway - or punish them for not doing it, they'll just resent that thing. Intrinsic motivation is the only way to go.
Last but not least, the overwhelming majority of people at gyms recognize and respect anyone at any level that's trying to get fit. Yes, there are assholes - but the assholes were going to be assholes to you whether you exercise or not. At most gyms a 350 pound person on an exercise bike won't get any insults from anyone, even the biggest muscleheads in the place. That said, to save time (so I can post useless Slashdot comments) I just use an exercise bike, dumbbells, and a mat at my house. Nobody can see me.
In this particular case there's a larger problem - the way they're trying to motivate people is ineffective. Here's my own post on it further up-thread: https://science.slashdot.org/c...
Some of the earlier fitness trackers couldn't recognize mechanical reciprocating movement very well, so if you accidentally ran it through the washing machine and it didn't break you got amazing numbers for the day.
Actually, no. The real problem with the study is a fundamental misunderstanding of how motivation works. When you pay people to do something they should be doing anyway, they tend to develop a dislike for the activity itself. Kids paid to read books read less, on average when the money is taken away than kids who were never paid in the first place. Adults paid to exercise exercise less, on average when the money is taken away than adults that were never paid.
So the people running the study thought they were studying the effectiveness of fitness trackers, and instead they were just reproducing accepted research on motivational psychology. If you want people to use a fitness tracker, give it to them and provide them with education on its use. You'll probably still have a high dropout rate, but it will most likely be less than 90%.
Read Drive by Daniel H. Pink or Punished by Rewards by Alfie Kohn. (But be warned that Kohn has great evidence but a terribly dry writing style.)
Well, if it were technically feasible to let anyone run email from any IP address that would be more open and free. I should not need to spend an extra fee at a service provider to do it. I can afford it, but it shouldn't be this expensive for the average person to escape Gmail/Hotmail/Yahoo Mail. But as a practical matter I respect your point, most email coming from residential IPs is spam.
Slashdot Mirror
In theory pension plans have a government-backed guarantee. But in practice, pensions have been cut many times.
The thing to do with a 401k is change jobs. Then you can roll it over into an IRA, and invest it however you damn well please. It's not perfect, but it's the safest option we have.
Upthread someone linked to http://www.snaproute.com/our-s... (from post https://apple.slashdot.org/com... ) - and the writer there stated:
"It was thrilling—and terrifying. When even one percent of Apple’s traffic gets stalled, it’s front-page news. And all too often, we were dealing with problems our vendors had never contemplated, much less figured out. We began exploring radically new approaches, including a handful of supposedly open-sourced solutions so we could dive into the guts of our network ourselves—say, to look directly at the data coming off network processors. As much as we wanted these technologies to work, they didn’t. So we developed some of our own, including a provisioning tool for upgrading the software on thousands of switches without taking the network offline. If you haven’t heard, Apple likes to keep such internal accomplishments to itself, so I can’t share the results. Let’s just say we were able to accomplish in minutes what would have taken hours, days or even weeks. Slowly, our desire to share our ideas with the world began to overshadow the thrill and pride of working for Apple. My team and I left in 2015."
So if we're to believe that, then Apple was doing something like OCP internally, it worked well, and the reason the team quit was that Apple wouldn't let them share it.
You're not being fair and you know it. Most of the public, through no fault of their own, is not educated in the value of software freedom. So they take walled gardens and digital rights management as a given. Now consider the difference between an iPhone and a Macbook versus a Samsung Galaxy S-something and a high end Dell laptop.
First, Apple does have an edge in aesthetics in the judgment of most people. If that didn't matter, we Linux enthusiasts would be merrily running FVWM and Blackbox.
The iPhone is likely to get software updates and security updates from Apple much longer than the Android device. Software updates for the Macbook might only be for four or five years, while Windows 13 will probably run on the Dell. The new Apple operating systems are cheap, too.
And Apple support might charge through the nose, but it's fast and efficient. If you have to call Dell support, it's probably less painful to just light yourself on fire and be done with it.
Android and Windows own most of their respective consumer markets because the great majority of smart phone and laptop shoppers can't budget the iPhone and a $1000 machine. But for people who can afford high end devices, Apple is not a waste of money only pursued by fashion victims and phonies.
As oppose to the guy who thinks Vladimir Putin is a good leader? The Russian dictator that nationalized an oil company, ordered an invasion, and rigged the 2012 elections?
What makes you think he's going to be any more interested in restraining executive power than she is?
The recent over reach of executive power in the US experienced a surge after the September 11, 2001 attacks. The abuses under FDR, Hoover, McCarthyism, etc.... were - as far as I'm aware - toned down or reduced over the decades since until that time. Otherwise you might as well blame Lincoln for the expansion of power during the Civil War.
I was specifically responding to BlueStrat's signature, which seems to lay government surveillance and the police state solely at the feet of the American liberals. Considering the Republican President's actions and Republican support of the Patriot Act, there's plenty of blame for both sides.
Your signature places the blame on US liberals, instead of spreading it across both parties.
Your statement makes the implicit assertion that conservative (the American definition of conservative, to be clear) Supreme Court Justices would slow halt the erosion of the rule of law in the US. So even if you're not American, you picked sides.
Fair point. Let me rephrase. President Bush presided (pun irrelevant) over the largest increase in executive authority in decades. Yes, FDR was as bad or worse. Yes, Obama took the torch from President Bush and ran with it.
But the parent post implicitly asserts that picking conservative Supreme Court justices would fix the problem or at least slow it down - in fact the party of the Supreme Court Justices is irrelevant. Both parties are attacking rule of law.
So Bush repudiated FDR's example and took the high road? So Trump would do that if elected?
That's a great quote. But your signature is dishonest. Unlawful surveillance and torture of prisoners started under the Republicans.
Or is the surveillance/police state fine, as long as it's not run by Democrats?
That's right. Unlawful detention, torture of prisoners, surveillance without warrants. I sure wish we had Republican lawmakers in office, they would never let that kind of abuse of power happen.
Oh wait, it started under the fucking Republicans and the idiot Democrats ran with it. Your party put the first nail in the coffin for rule of law, not mine. And there's no fucking way Donald "I think Vladimir Putin the dictator is cool" Trump would fix it.
Thanks for mentioning it. That's a better deal than Ting for someone that uses lots of data.
I used Virgin Mobile about seven years ago, and at that time their smart phone selection was awful and the Sprint network they piggyback on was poor in my area. I see that today they have the iPhone 6 and 7 and the Samsung Galaxy S7, so the phone selection is no longer an issue. And Sprint cell phone reception has improved considerably in my area in that time, so that's not an issue either.
Actually, competition does exist. I know I'm going to sound like a paid shill, but hell with it. Google has Project Fi, which only works with recent Nexus Phones but switches between wifi, the T-Mobile network, and the Sprint network based on connectivity. It's $20 per month plus $10 per GB, plus state and federal fees.
I use Ting.com. Ting users can use Sprint or T-Mobile on a per-phone basis - one of my sons has a phone that uses Sprint, the other son and I have phones that use T-Mobile. The selection of phones is decent, you can get a Samsung Galaxy S-Exploder, iPhone 6, etc... and it's pay for what you use. Unless you use more than 6GB of data per month, it's cheaper than the big carriers. My wife's monthly Verizon Wireless contract for her work is $120. My sons and I together spend about $60 total per month.
You're right. I'm sorry. I wrote very poorly. I meant to be arguing against external rewards unrelated to the task at hand.
I don't see where you directed me to read any specific research on habits and their formation in the thread. Did you write it elsewhere, or was I supposed to infer it from something you wrote above? I hunted around and found this page, which does admittedly look like something useful to read and apply: http://jamesclear.com/habits
But I still don't see how your point on habit acquisition does anything to refute my point on the de-motivating impact of extrinsic rewards (or for that matter, punishments). Paying fat people to lose weight has been tried, and fails more often than it succeeds. Paying kids to read more likewise fails more often than it succeeds.
So what's to stop both principles from being applied? Provide people with fitness trackers, an education on their use, and education on techniques for habit acquisition, and free access to resources (phone calls, office visits, websites, etc...) to reinforce the fitness education or habit-related education as they need it. But no direct payments or prizes.
Because the test subjects were paid to use a fitness tracker for six months. So they were given a reward to develop a habit, they developed the habit for six months, and then 90% of them broke the habit.
If the first two premises of your thesis were correct, wouldn't the outcome of this study be the opposite of what it actually was?
I understand your counter-point, but I see two problems with it. First, the program is now forced to be permanent - if you want people to keep using the fitness tracker, you have to continue the payments. If you want someone to work harder, you have to increase the payments - if you just raise the goals without changing the compensation, people will drop out of the program.
Second, you've removed intrinsic motivation for these people to exercise in any way not connected to the payment. On a given day maybe I might decide to walk around the shopping mall, or take the dogs on a long walk, or go swimming, or work with weights. But if I've been on the paid fitness tracker program, I'm more likely to just set a target of my 10,000 steps (or whatever it is the tracker sets as a daily goal) and have less interest in anything else.
I really think most public policy focus on public fitness is backwards, anyway. For ten or fifteen years - nobody knows for sure how long - I had severe sleep apnea and didn't know it. I had little energy for exercise, and after a nice modest workout I would need an extra six hours of sleep over the next three days. Once I got tested and got treatment, I could manage a workout every day and be fine. I didn't need a fitness tracker or payments, I had an underlying medical problem. But since I started treatment, for a while I had a very long commute. 8.5 hours of work and 2.5 hours of driving each day with kids at home doesn't leave much time for exercise. And again, a fitness tracker wasn't the fix. I got a shorter commute, and I'm exercising again. My brother can't exercise, he's got chronic bleeding ulcers and all of the fancy diets his specialist physicians put him on haven't helped. My mother can't exercise, she's got an auto-immune disorder that took away 70% of her lung capacity - she never smoked, either.
And then you have people in urban areas that use a taxi or Uber or public transit to move around because they don't feel safe walking.
Don't get me wrong, some fat, or unfit, or fat and unfit people are just plain lazy. They exist. But some significant portion of inactive people have problems related to their health or their lifestyle that they may not know about, or that they may know about but have no ability to fix. Offering people in those circumstances money to exercise or giving them a fitness tracker is like giving an exercise bike to someone that can't use their legs. Affordable high quality medical care, better public transit for shorter commutes, shorter work weeks, safer cities - those would probably do more about obesity and inactivity than any kind of public fitness program, paid or otherwise.
I specifically said paying people for things they should already be doing. The whole reason I do my job is for the paycheck. If there was no paycheck, I wouldn't keep the job. That's different.
That's conventional wisdom, but my understanding is that the reward aspect of it has been proven false. Elementary age kids paid to read books or rewarded for reading with coupons for free pizza tend to read less in high school than children that were never given external rewards for reading. Adults paid to walk up the stairs to their work office for a few weeks were less likely to walk up the stairs to work once the payments stopped than people that were never paid. Children placed in a room full of puzzles that were asked to just stay in the room for an hour solved more puzzles than children placed in the same room with the same puzzles and promised one cookie for each of the first four puzzles they solved. Even dogs given treats for playing with a specific toy played with it less when treats were not offered than dogs who were just given access to the toy.
Forming habits is good, but using simple external rewards for motivation is actually counter-productive.
A couple of points. First, motivation for exercise is hard or effectively impossible if you've got other serious problems. I have a brother with chronic bleeding ulcers. He sees specialists periodically, but they haven't figured out a cause or a cure. He can't tolerate much exercise at all - he's thin but unfit, and there's not a damn thing he can do about it. I had a friend with thyroid problems, and once those were diagnosed his energy levels skyrocketed. For me, I had untreated severe sleep apnea. Now that it's treated, even with four young kids and a crazy schedule I get more exercise in a week than I used to get in a month when I had no kids. And the problems don't even need to be medical. For years commute used to be two and a half hours round trip each day. I just sat in a car that whole time, but it still sucked the life out of me. But I couldn't find a good job closer to home or afford housing closer to work. Even if my sleep apnea had been treated at the time, I wouldn't have exercised much. Maybe the fat guy down the block spends all day taking care of a mentally handicapped sister. Maybe the skinny, no-muscles woman suffers from severe depression and can't get out of bed most days. Either way, I don't know anyone's particular situation and I'm not going to cast judgment on them for being unfit, fat, or both.
But further, using rewards for motivation to exercise is terrible. Fitness has to be its own reward for you, or you'll never stick with it. Don't promise yourself a new laptop or car when you drop 15 pounds, or a vacation to Tahiti when you run your 5k. You can spend the money anyway, but the reward for walking the extra mile is knowing you walked the extra mile. The reward for eating fewer donuts (and I'm not picking on anyone in particular with that) is knowing you ate fewer donuts. etc... In my particular case, I'm most consistent with a series of calisthenics and yoga exercises for my back. I herniated a disk seven years ago. As long as I do my exercises, I am pain free. If I'm lazy for a few weeks I'll start to develop mild pain, and if I let it go it will transition to moderate pain. But I rarely take even a week off, because I like waking up feeling great. If you pay people to do something they should do anyway - or punish them for not doing it, they'll just resent that thing. Intrinsic motivation is the only way to go.
Last but not least, the overwhelming majority of people at gyms recognize and respect anyone at any level that's trying to get fit. Yes, there are assholes - but the assholes were going to be assholes to you whether you exercise or not. At most gyms a 350 pound person on an exercise bike won't get any insults from anyone, even the biggest muscleheads in the place. That said, to save time (so I can post useless Slashdot comments) I just use an exercise bike, dumbbells, and a mat at my house. Nobody can see me.
In this particular case there's a larger problem - the way they're trying to motivate people is ineffective. Here's my own post on it further up-thread: https://science.slashdot.org/c...
Some of the earlier fitness trackers couldn't recognize mechanical reciprocating movement very well, so if you accidentally ran it through the washing machine and it didn't break you got amazing numbers for the day.
Actually, no. The real problem with the study is a fundamental misunderstanding of how motivation works. When you pay people to do something they should be doing anyway, they tend to develop a dislike for the activity itself. Kids paid to read books read less, on average when the money is taken away than kids who were never paid in the first place. Adults paid to exercise exercise less, on average when the money is taken away than adults that were never paid.
So the people running the study thought they were studying the effectiveness of fitness trackers, and instead they were just reproducing accepted research on motivational psychology. If you want people to use a fitness tracker, give it to them and provide them with education on its use. You'll probably still have a high dropout rate, but it will most likely be less than 90%.
Read Drive by Daniel H. Pink or Punished by Rewards by Alfie Kohn. (But be warned that Kohn has great evidence but a terribly dry writing style.)
Well, if it were technically feasible to let anyone run email from any IP address that would be more open and free. I should not need to spend an extra fee at a service provider to do it. I can afford it, but it shouldn't be this expensive for the average person to escape Gmail/Hotmail/Yahoo Mail. But as a practical matter I respect your point, most email coming from residential IPs is spam.