Yeah, I don't know what the deal is with warranties, but the only thing I ever bought from Radio Shack where I cared about the Warranty was my cell phone, and they already had all my information (including my SSN) when I bought that anyway.
Always freaked me out being asked my address just to buy some solder or something.
It always freaked me out being forced to provide my email address just so I can block Timothy stories and be notfied when someone responds to my comments.
Yep, me too. They never even made a big deal out of it. This certainly doesn't deserve a story.
Re:Don't blame me, I voted for Nader...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Well, consider that my family was just off food stamps when my mother (herself with an English degree) stayed home to teach first grade.
Why? I'm talking in generalities here (not to mention that you've said that your household income is above average). I went to public school and my IQ is probably higher than at least 90% of homeschooled children. That doesn't refute your assertion that most homeschooled children are smarter than most non-homeschooled children. Do you deny that homeschooled children statistically tend to have a greater household income than non-homeschooled?
I believe your assertion that home-schoolers are rich is false and not backed up by any fact you can cite.
Back up your assertion that homeschoolers are smarter and I'll back up mine that they are richer.
Since when is someone not earning tax money a COST?
It's an opportunity cost.
You're thinking like a typical tax-and-spend liberal.
Interesting, cause I'm a most atypical tax-and-spend liberal.
I'd say that any "lost potential revenue" would be more than made up in a reduced crime rate, more intelligent people to enter the work force, and not going to some state school that would have paid any of us a full scholarship.
Perhaps so, but now we're completely off topic.
Local property taxes? Come on. [....] That's another myth you've been fed, check it out for yourself if you don't believe me.
Depends on the state, so I'll only speak for my own, New Jersey. 3% federal, 60% local property taxes. But even if we put it at 40% like you want to my assertion that the richer communities have better public schools, better than the poorer communities, and better than most other countries. So I really don't see how whether it's 40% or 60% affects my arguments at all.
At least you've backed down from calling me an idiot, and seem to have accepted my statement that vouchers will only serve to "[take] away the smarter and more wealthy kids and [leave] all the poor dumb ones," since you did not refute my main argument at all.
Re:Don't blame me, I voted for Nader...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Flamebait aside, the purpose of school vouchers is to give the kids without money a chance to go to a private school!
I used to believe that. But the problem is that school vouchers don't pay for the entire cost of going to a private school. So those who can almost afford a private school get to go, and the tax money from all the people who already could afford a private school gets diverted away from the public school system.
If vouchers could only be used for the entire cost of the private school education, I would be completely in favor of it.
And yeah, the public school system completely sucks. Look up any comparision of our students with those in other countries. It's depressing.
Since the public school systems are funded mainly by the local governments and not the federal governments, it really depends where you live. For instance, the public school system I went to was surely better than that in 90% of the rest of the world.
Also look at homeschooling. Home schooled students beat out public AND private schools in every area.
Sure, they have rich parents who can afford to take off from work or to hire someone to tutor their child.
Cost to taxpayers: zero. Cost to parents: one has to stay home, which studies have shown helps kids grow up with better health, intelligence, and attitudes anyway.
If one parent stayed home, then the cost to taxpayers was the lost income taxes of that parent.
Maybe if the government wouldn't tax the heck out of us (to pay for worthless public schools) whenever they got a chance, it would be financially painless for one parent to stay home.
Two parents filing jointly with a child can make quite a bit of money before getting taxed at all. Maybe if the Earned Income Credit limits or the standard deduction were raised it would be financially less painful (it's never going to be painless, unless you have 100% tax) for one parent to stay home. Or maybe if the regressive tax of FICA were made more flat. Or maybe if renters could deduct their rent instead of having a double standard for the (generally more wealthy) homeowners.
Of course apparently you're talking about property taxes, since that is primarily what funds public schools. Here in New Jersey low income individuals receive a refund for the portion of their property taxes (or rent) which goes toward the schools. It's called the homestead rebate. So lowering property taxes would have no effect on those families who want to have only one parent working but can't afford it.
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Out of curiosity, how exactly is Liberaterianism (the party) different from anarchism?
Anarchists don't believe in government regulation of contracts.
Re:Don't blame me, I voted for Nader...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
No, they don't want government regulation of the monetary system- its time to go to gold so that the government can't cheat people with inflation.
So wait a second. Are you telling me that the Libertarians want to eliminate counterfeiting laws, banking laws, contract law, corporate laws (and in turn the corporation), copyright laws, inheritance laws, and bankruptcy laws? I thought that was the rational anarchist position, not the Libertarian one.
Further, explain to me how inflation is cheating? If you don't trust dollars, don't use dollars. You're free to use the Euro, gold, barter, whatever you want.
AS to economic checks the free market is far more effective at stopping monopolies than the government-- for every real monopoly they've destroyed they have CREATED a dozen, (using these "economic checks" in many cases) And every natural monopoly the government has broken up was being punished by the market already-- if the government hadn't gotten involved the monopoly would have been broken up by natural means and produced a much more robust economy in the proces.
I quite plainly don't agree. Your statement flies in the face of basic economic principles and as such I really would need to hear a better argument before I could even consider it.
Re:Don't blame me, I voted for Nader...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
The democrats want to take away our guns.
So do the greens! In fact, they are more extreme on this count. The only party that consistently doesn't is the LP. But you're totally right to fear this.
I don't see how they are more extreme. The Greens tend to favor decentralization of criminal laws. Of the four choices, my views tend to be closest to theirs on the issue. I want some gun regulation, but mostly at the state and local level.
[t]hey want to keep draconian drug laws
So do the greens! They call for the abolition of the war on drugs, but NOT the decriminalization of drugs- so basically they just want to change the name of the war on drugs
"End the 'War on Drugs:' Decriminalize possession of drugs. Regulate and tax drug distribution. Release nonviolent drug war prisoners. Treat drug abuse as a health problem, not a criminal problem. Drug abuse treatment on demand."
That's precisely my feelings on the issue.
They want personal possession of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
That's just absurd- they don't want this. Its interesting that you have to make up such crap to defend your position.
"We support repeal of all gun control laws and we demand the immediate abolition of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms."
BTW, who's [sic] weapons do you think it was that wan the war of independance and the civil war? Those were private cannons, guns, and weapons of "mass destruction". Individuals are generally responsible, and more reliable and trustworthy than the government.
The war of independance [sic] was not a war against the United States. The Civil War was most likely unconstitutional.
In other words, nobody is trustworthy to own guns. Thats what this is really about- you don't trust your fellow man, which usually means you have reason not to because you want to steal from him.
No, I never said that.
I don't think any of them would destroy our country.
No, they just want to disassemble every company in the country, and eliminate the entire economy.
Well. 1) No they don't. 2) Why would that be a bad thing? and 3) Don't the libertarians want that as well?
Re:Don't blame me, I voted for Nader...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 1
Just a quick note -- Nader does want to take your guns away [issues2000.org], in similar proportion to the Democrats.
Yeah, you're probably right on that one.
That the drug laws, many of which I criticize, violate the Commerce Clause, is goofy, unless you place yourself above sixty years of Supreme Court law.
Yes, I disagree with a majority of the Supreme Court of 60 years ago.
Don't blame me, I voted for Nader...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Sure, the Greens are rather extreme, but ultimately I find their extremeness the least harmful of the possible choices.
The democrats want to take away our guns. That would lead to horrible results, as it would take away the true power from the hands of the people and into the hands of the government. They want to keep draconian drug laws. Not only are these laws unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, they affect directly what I can and cannot do. They will appoint Supreme Court justices who tend to take away state rights. They generally stand for the death penalty. The anti-terrorism bills they pass take away basic freedoms of Americans.
The republicans are no better in some areas, like terrorism and drug laws, and are worse in some others. They want to implement school vouchers, which will destroy the public schools which both of my parents teach in, by taking away the smarter and more wealthy kids and leaving all the poor dumb ones. They are generally lenient towards monopolies, unless those monopolies happen to be labor unions. They tend to be less aware of economic bads like pollution which need to be mitigated through taxes. They tend to favor making the income tax system even more regressive than it already is. They want to make unconstitutional abortion laws which fly in the face of the Commerce Clause.
The libertarians are probably the most dangerous of them all. They want to keep government regulation of the monetary system while removing all checks on economic bads and monopolies. They want a free for all with regard to drugs such that it will no longer be possible to determine what is safe and effective. They want personal possession of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Needless to say for most, they would destroy our country.
The greens have their own crazy ideas, but I don't think any of them would destroy our country. They want tough discrimination laws. While I disagree on principle, because I think anyone who wants to be a racist should be free to do so, I personally am not a racist, and stopping discrimination isn't exactly a bad thing. They want to limit or eliminate the use of nuclear power plants. While I feel that as long as the power plant pays taxes which pay to dispose of the economic bads they create they should be allowed to stay, I don't think it would be that big of a deal if the price of energy went up a little bit. Yeah, we'd probably see some inflation, but inflation isn't such a bad thing unless you have a lot of cash, and I don't. They want a high minimum wage. Again, I disagree on principle, but I don't think it's going to hurt society if we pay our burger flippers a little more. And if a higher minimum wage actually does cause higher unemployment (I doubt it would, but would just cause higher burger prices), then that would be quickly repealed, and no real harm would be done (since there would be unemployment available in the mean time).
So basically while I disagree with the Greens on a lot of issues, I don't think they're significant enough to override the places where I strongly agree with them. Drug laws, tax justice, political reform, state power, free speech, environmental importance (though not their precise handling of it, I favor economic stimulation rather than legislative), national debt, trade, anti-trust enforcement, etc.
Actually my biggest fear about the greens is their tendency to be overly pacifist with regard to foreign diplomacy. And that's the single reason why even though I did vote for Nader I really didn't want him to actually win. But in reality, if he had won, I'm sure that he would have chosen a strong cabinet which would have made up for most of his weaknesses in this regard.
Microsoft, Lotus and all the rest tried every kind of copy protection that was possible then, including physical lock-out keys and dial-in software authorization. Thanks to very negative consumer response, everyone but very high-end software vendors ended up deciding open was better.
Open was better? You can be damn sure that if Microsoft didn't bundle Windows with such a large percentage of the hardware being sold that they would be forced to either use better copyright protection or go out of business. I wouldn't exactly call Microsoft's collusive practices "open".
Lotus mainly sells to businesses. That's a whole different story, because they have the BSA to help them enforce copyright. What software company makes money off consumer software without a copyright protection mechanism?
Consider the laser; at the time it was invented it was mocked as being a solution in search of a problem. Now we use them in communication, data storage, surveying, surgery, entertainment and weapons.
Yeah but did the government even make money off it? If you want to evaluate the cost effectiveness, sell stock. The gummint could just sell preferred stock on the project with no voting power, for instance.
Sounds like a crack dealer who won't sell to anyone under the age of 18.
Or a nude dancer who won't dance for people under 18. Or a bartender who won't serve people under 21. Or a burger flipper who makes sure the nutritional information chart is prominently posted.
Slashdot Mirror
NYCwireless looks like a great initiative, but I have to wonder how sustainable not-for-profit wireless networks like this are.
1970: This Internet thing sure seems like a great initiative, but I have to woder how sustainable not-for-profit wired networks like this are.
Connect your cell phone to every phone in your home or office
1) Yes they do- its in their platform. Read the review of it I posted at the top of this thread.
I've read the platform. I don't see it. Show me the quote.
2) IT would be a bad thing because nobody would have a job, we'd all be starving and poor.
What does being starving have to do with not having a job? I don't have a job, yet I do not starve.
3) Hell no.
Read the platform.
Sadly, 90% of the time they don't even get it.
Or maybe it's just not funny and they get their commission regardless of whether the information is false.
Yeah, I don't know what the deal is with warranties, but the only thing I ever bought from Radio Shack where I cared about the Warranty was my cell phone, and they already had all my information (including my SSN) when I bought that anyway.
Personally, whenever I'm asked to provide an email address I just type in billg@microsoft.com.
Umm, then why does your slashdot profile say "theconfused1@a[ ]i.com ['ttb' in gap]"?
Always freaked me out being asked my address just to buy some solder or something.
It always freaked me out being forced to provide my email address just so I can block Timothy stories and be notfied when someone responds to my comments.
Yep, me too. They never even made a big deal out of it. This certainly doesn't deserve a story.
Well, consider that my family was just off food stamps when my mother (herself with an English degree) stayed home to teach first grade.
Why? I'm talking in generalities here (not to mention that you've said that your household income is above average). I went to public school and my IQ is probably higher than at least 90% of homeschooled children. That doesn't refute your assertion that most homeschooled children are smarter than most non-homeschooled children. Do you deny that homeschooled children statistically tend to have a greater household income than non-homeschooled?
I believe your assertion that home-schoolers are rich is false and not backed up by any fact you can cite.
Back up your assertion that homeschoolers are smarter and I'll back up mine that they are richer.
Since when is someone not earning tax money a COST?
It's an opportunity cost.
You're thinking like a typical tax-and-spend liberal.
Interesting, cause I'm a most atypical tax-and-spend liberal.
I'd say that any "lost potential revenue" would be more than made up in a reduced crime rate, more intelligent people to enter the work force, and not going to some state school that would have paid any of us a full scholarship.
Perhaps so, but now we're completely off topic.
Local property taxes? Come on. [....] That's another myth you've been fed, check it out for yourself if you don't believe me.
Depends on the state, so I'll only speak for my own, New Jersey. 3% federal, 60% local property taxes. But even if we put it at 40% like you want to my assertion that the richer communities have better public schools, better than the poorer communities, and better than most other countries. So I really don't see how whether it's 40% or 60% affects my arguments at all.
At least you've backed down from calling me an idiot, and seem to have accepted my statement that vouchers will only serve to "[take] away the smarter and more wealthy kids and [leave] all the poor dumb ones," since you did not refute my main argument at all.
Flamebait aside, the purpose of school vouchers is to give the kids without money a chance to go to a private school!
I used to believe that. But the problem is that school vouchers don't pay for the entire cost of going to a private school. So those who can almost afford a private school get to go, and the tax money from all the people who already could afford a private school gets diverted away from the public school system.
If vouchers could only be used for the entire cost of the private school education, I would be completely in favor of it.
And yeah, the public school system completely sucks. Look up any comparision of our students with those in other countries. It's depressing.
Since the public school systems are funded mainly by the local governments and not the federal governments, it really depends where you live. For instance, the public school system I went to was surely better than that in 90% of the rest of the world.
Also look at homeschooling. Home schooled students beat out public AND private schools in every area.
Sure, they have rich parents who can afford to take off from work or to hire someone to tutor their child.
Cost to taxpayers: zero. Cost to parents: one has to stay home, which studies have shown helps kids grow up with better health, intelligence, and attitudes anyway.
If one parent stayed home, then the cost to taxpayers was the lost income taxes of that parent.
Maybe if the government wouldn't tax the heck out of us (to pay for worthless public schools) whenever they got a chance, it would be financially painless for one parent to stay home.
Two parents filing jointly with a child can make quite a bit of money before getting taxed at all. Maybe if the Earned Income Credit limits or the standard deduction were raised it would be financially less painful (it's never going to be painless, unless you have 100% tax) for one parent to stay home. Or maybe if the regressive tax of FICA were made more flat. Or maybe if renters could deduct their rent instead of having a double standard for the (generally more wealthy) homeowners.
Of course apparently you're talking about property taxes, since that is primarily what funds public schools. Here in New Jersey low income individuals receive a refund for the portion of their property taxes (or rent) which goes toward the schools. It's called the homestead rebate. So lowering property taxes would have no effect on those families who want to have only one parent working but can't afford it.
Out of curiosity, how exactly is Liberaterianism (the party) different from anarchism?
Anarchists don't believe in government regulation of contracts.
No, they don't want government regulation of the monetary system- its time to go to gold so that the government can't cheat people with inflation.
So wait a second. Are you telling me that the Libertarians want to eliminate counterfeiting laws, banking laws, contract law, corporate laws (and in turn the corporation), copyright laws, inheritance laws, and bankruptcy laws? I thought that was the rational anarchist position, not the Libertarian one.
Further, explain to me how inflation is cheating? If you don't trust dollars, don't use dollars. You're free to use the Euro, gold, barter, whatever you want.
AS to economic checks the free market is far more effective at stopping monopolies than the government-- for every real monopoly they've destroyed they have CREATED a dozen, (using these "economic checks" in many cases) And every natural monopoly the government has broken up was being punished by the market already-- if the government hadn't gotten involved the monopoly would have been broken up by natural means and produced a much more robust economy in the proces.
I quite plainly don't agree. Your statement flies in the face of basic economic principles and as such I really would need to hear a better argument before I could even consider it.
The democrats want to take away our guns.
So do the greens! In fact, they are more extreme on this count. The only party that consistently doesn't is the LP. But you're totally right to fear this.
I don't see how they are more extreme. The Greens tend to favor decentralization of criminal laws. Of the four choices, my views tend to be closest to theirs on the issue. I want some gun regulation, but mostly at the state and local level.
[t]hey want to keep draconian drug laws
So do the greens! They call for the abolition of the war on drugs, but NOT the decriminalization of drugs- so basically they just want to change the name of the war on drugs
"End the 'War on Drugs:' Decriminalize possession of drugs. Regulate and tax drug distribution. Release nonviolent drug war prisoners. Treat drug abuse as a health problem, not a criminal problem. Drug abuse treatment on demand."
That's precisely my feelings on the issue.
They want personal possession of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
That's just absurd- they don't want this. Its interesting that you have to make up such crap to defend your position.
"We support repeal of all gun control laws and we demand the immediate abolition of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms."
BTW, who's [sic] weapons do you think it was that wan the war of independance and the civil war? Those were private cannons, guns, and weapons of "mass destruction". Individuals are generally responsible, and more reliable and trustworthy than the government.
The war of independance [sic] was not a war against the United States. The Civil War was most likely unconstitutional.
In other words, nobody is trustworthy to own guns. Thats what this is really about- you don't trust your fellow man, which usually means you have reason not to because you want to steal from him.
No, I never said that.
I don't think any of them would destroy our country.
No, they just want to disassemble every company in the country, and eliminate the entire economy.
Well. 1) No they don't. 2) Why would that be a bad thing? and 3) Don't the libertarians want that as well?Just a quick note -- Nader does want to take your guns away [issues2000.org], in similar proportion to the Democrats.
Yeah, you're probably right on that one.
That the drug laws, many of which I criticize, violate the Commerce Clause, is goofy, unless you place yourself above sixty years of Supreme Court law.
Yes, I disagree with a majority of the Supreme Court of 60 years ago.
Sure, the Greens are rather extreme, but ultimately I find their extremeness the least harmful of the possible choices.
The democrats want to take away our guns. That would lead to horrible results, as it would take away the true power from the hands of the people and into the hands of the government. They want to keep draconian drug laws. Not only are these laws unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, they affect directly what I can and cannot do. They will appoint Supreme Court justices who tend to take away state rights. They generally stand for the death penalty. The anti-terrorism bills they pass take away basic freedoms of Americans.
The republicans are no better in some areas, like terrorism and drug laws, and are worse in some others. They want to implement school vouchers, which will destroy the public schools which both of my parents teach in, by taking away the smarter and more wealthy kids and leaving all the poor dumb ones. They are generally lenient towards monopolies, unless those monopolies happen to be labor unions. They tend to be less aware of economic bads like pollution which need to be mitigated through taxes. They tend to favor making the income tax system even more regressive than it already is. They want to make unconstitutional abortion laws which fly in the face of the Commerce Clause.
The libertarians are probably the most dangerous of them all. They want to keep government regulation of the monetary system while removing all checks on economic bads and monopolies. They want a free for all with regard to drugs such that it will no longer be possible to determine what is safe and effective. They want personal possession of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Needless to say for most, they would destroy our country.
The greens have their own crazy ideas, but I don't think any of them would destroy our country. They want tough discrimination laws. While I disagree on principle, because I think anyone who wants to be a racist should be free to do so, I personally am not a racist, and stopping discrimination isn't exactly a bad thing. They want to limit or eliminate the use of nuclear power plants. While I feel that as long as the power plant pays taxes which pay to dispose of the economic bads they create they should be allowed to stay, I don't think it would be that big of a deal if the price of energy went up a little bit. Yeah, we'd probably see some inflation, but inflation isn't such a bad thing unless you have a lot of cash, and I don't. They want a high minimum wage. Again, I disagree on principle, but I don't think it's going to hurt society if we pay our burger flippers a little more. And if a higher minimum wage actually does cause higher unemployment (I doubt it would, but would just cause higher burger prices), then that would be quickly repealed, and no real harm would be done (since there would be unemployment available in the mean time).
So basically while I disagree with the Greens on a lot of issues, I don't think they're significant enough to override the places where I strongly agree with them. Drug laws, tax justice, political reform, state power, free speech, environmental importance (though not their precise handling of it, I favor economic stimulation rather than legislative), national debt, trade, anti-trust enforcement, etc.
Actually my biggest fear about the greens is their tendency to be overly pacifist with regard to foreign diplomacy. And that's the single reason why even though I did vote for Nader I really didn't want him to actually win. But in reality, if he had won, I'm sure that he would have chosen a strong cabinet which would have made up for most of his weaknesses in this regard.
You should stop accepting e-mail from those who don't agree to your silly little rules.
Microsoft, Lotus and all the rest tried every kind of copy protection that was possible then, including physical lock-out keys and dial-in software authorization. Thanks to very negative consumer response, everyone but very high-end software vendors ended up deciding open was better.
Open was better? You can be damn sure that if Microsoft didn't bundle Windows with such a large percentage of the hardware being sold that they would be forced to either use better copyright protection or go out of business. I wouldn't exactly call Microsoft's collusive practices "open".
Lotus mainly sells to businesses. That's a whole different story, because they have the BSA to help them enforce copyright. What software company makes money off consumer software without a copyright protection mechanism?
Consider the laser; at the time it was invented it was mocked as being a solution in search of a problem. Now we use them in communication, data storage, surveying, surgery, entertainment and weapons.
Yeah but did the government even make money off it? If you want to evaluate the cost effectiveness, sell stock. The gummint could just sell preferred stock on the project with no voting power, for instance.
I see... You own an SMTP server and pay for bandwidth on it? Oh, wait a second, you aren't even the person who made the comment.
I don't read the message via POST, but my point is someone pays.
I'd fund only stuff that is likely to eventually make a profit.
Not true. The HTTP protocol is a pull medium. SMTP is push.
You use SMTP to read email? I use POP and IMAP.
Also HTTP POST is push.
Gives the FBI other people to go after, besides modem uncappers in Toledo, OH.
Your tax dollars at waste. Damn, you're brilliant.
He steals MY bandwidth, which I paid good money for. I have to download his crap mail wasting MY TIME and MY BANDWIDTH.
And you just stole MY bandwidth, which I paid good money for. I have to download your crap post wasting MY TIME and MY BANDWIDTH.
The solution would be simple, add you to my foe list, but it's already full.
Boy, if that doesn't sound reminiscent of certain events in Salem I'm not sure what does.
Sounds like a crack dealer who won't sell to anyone under the age of 18.
Or a nude dancer who won't dance for people under 18. Or a bartender who won't serve people under 21. Or a burger flipper who makes sure the nutritional information chart is prominently posted.
Ummm... What's wrong with being a crack dealer?