BTW - My first engagement ring (didn't work out), was a dinky $150 platinum band. I still have it, and still wear it, and still love the guy who gave it to me. Every time I look at it, I think about how he STILL to this day makes sure I am okay, I think about the day he proposed, I think about how great we are as friends. It never enters my head to be spiteful for what he *didn't* spend.
"If she wouldn't marry you with the ring pull from a coke can, then you should question if she is right for you."
How about this:
"If he's not serious enough about your future and his ability to provide for you by saving up two months salary, then you should question if he is right for you."
I'm not saying all that money should go into a ring...Hell no, in fact...but it should be *there* as an expression of committment, and to ensure a fiscally abundant future.
BTW, I forgot to mention here that my engagement ring was a dinky $150 platinum band that I love more than life itself, because every time I look at it, I think about the moment he proposed. (not how much he spent)
That is a great movie and illustrates your point wonderfully. As I said in my long comment however, I still think the bride should have an assurance of fiscal well being instead.
That said, my mother is Korean and never wears her rings, not that they are all that great, but she's just not into it.
As a woman, I've thought about this extensively. Once I found out about the truth behind diamonds (as in the article), I switched my attention to rubies. Unfortunately, the really pretty ones are all lab-created. Still a ruby in all rights, but it lacks that elusive "rarity factor" - a necessity so well created by DeBeers.
My mother came up with the ultimate solution. Buy from Tiffany and Co. Their jewelry is very well made and has world wide renown, which means that no matter the setting or stone, what you spend is what it's worth, and is probably, at very least, the future resale value. Forget Diamond Blue, go for Tiffany Blue.
I went shopping once, and I found the perfect Tiffany ring, a 6mm ruby in a beautiful platinum setting, for about $6500. This is not outlandish or unreasonable for something one will wear, conceivably, for the rest of our lives, or if you are having a handclasping or pagan wedding, "as long as love shall last." And if love only lasts a few years, chances are the Tiffany name will be enough to ensure you get most if not all if not more out of your ring.
Finally, I am prone to losing things. If someone gave me a ring worth more than $1000, I would probably go nuts worrying about losing it. I would be really grateful if my future husband sat down, said, "I want to marry you, and I have X to spend on a ring, but how would you feel if we bought a fake stone in a quality setting (anywhere from $12 - $700)or an inexpensive ring and used the rest to buy a house/income property/investment vehicle?" I don't know about you ladies, but I'd marry him on the spot, and wear my fake ring symbolizing true love, belief in an everlasting future, and a commitment to providing for our family with PRIDE! I stress that there be another exchange - an investment or future dividend to be shared, at some point. A bride is worth that. A guy who just thinks it's a waste or is a cheapskate is worth little.
But if it's got to be a diamond, at least get it on ebay. Alternatively, have one custom made, and ask that they use *metals* of value, such as paladium and platinum as well as upper-end craftsmanship. That way, regardless the worthless lump of carbon, at least it means something special and retains some of your monetary investment. Love is not to be expressed in dollars and cents and the size of a diamond. Anyone who sees it that way is missing the point.
According to Toffler, the very invention of schools created a new brand of individual, i.e. the Employee, who is taught to arrive punctually, respond to a supervisor, and fear discipline that amounts to nothing more than a peice of paper in a file, and this new brand of individual gave rise to the Industrial Age. The power of the school environment to create the future is immense.
What then will happen if our schools switch to Linux, and an entire generation of students is exposed to the ideas behind open source? Will it not translate into a large group of adults who are comfortable using Linux and related software?
IMHO, by going after schools, Microsoft is cutting off its nose to spite its face. They should be giving their products away to educational institutions and raising another generation of MS-dependents. If the schools do choose to go with Linux, Microsoft may have to fight a battle to retain its market share when those children become consuming adults, who may choose to bring Linux into the workplaces of the future. Much like the seasoned drug dealer, Microsoft should give its product to children for free to create dependance. It's good karma, and good capitalism.
My vote is still that the school systems give Linux an equal chance.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad I don't live in your dictatorship.
BTW - My first engagement ring (didn't work out), was a dinky $150 platinum band. I still have it, and still wear it, and still love the guy who gave it to me. Every time I look at it, I think about how he STILL to this day makes sure I am okay, I think about the day he proposed, I think about how great we are as friends. It never enters my head to be spiteful for what he *didn't* spend.
"If she wouldn't marry you with the ring pull from a coke can, then you should question if she is right for you." How about this: "If he's not serious enough about your future and his ability to provide for you by saving up two months salary, then you should question if he is right for you." I'm not saying all that money should go into a ring...Hell no, in fact...but it should be *there* as an expression of committment, and to ensure a fiscally abundant future. BTW, I forgot to mention here that my engagement ring was a dinky $150 platinum band that I love more than life itself, because every time I look at it, I think about the moment he proposed. (not how much he spent)
That is a great movie and illustrates your point wonderfully. As I said in my long comment however, I still think the bride should have an assurance of fiscal well being instead.
That said, my mother is Korean and never wears her rings, not that they are all that great, but she's just not into it.
As a woman, I've thought about this extensively. Once I found out about the truth behind diamonds (as in the article), I switched my attention to rubies. Unfortunately, the really pretty ones are all lab-created. Still a ruby in all rights, but it lacks that elusive "rarity factor" - a necessity so well created by DeBeers.
My mother came up with the ultimate solution. Buy from Tiffany and Co. Their jewelry is very well made and has world wide renown, which means that no matter the setting or stone, what you spend is what it's worth, and is probably, at very least, the future resale value. Forget Diamond Blue, go for Tiffany Blue.
I went shopping once, and I found the perfect Tiffany ring, a 6mm ruby in a beautiful platinum setting, for about $6500. This is not outlandish or unreasonable for something one will wear, conceivably, for the rest of our lives, or if you are having a handclasping or pagan wedding, "as long as love shall last." And if love only lasts a few years, chances are the Tiffany name will be enough to ensure you get most if not all if not more out of your ring.
Finally, I am prone to losing things. If someone gave me a ring worth more than $1000, I would probably go nuts worrying about losing it. I would be really grateful if my future husband sat down, said, "I want to marry you, and I have X to spend on a ring, but how would you feel if we bought a fake stone in a quality setting (anywhere from $12 - $700)or an inexpensive ring and used the rest to buy a house/income property/investment vehicle?" I don't know about you ladies, but I'd marry him on the spot, and wear my fake ring symbolizing true love, belief in an everlasting future, and a commitment to providing for our family with PRIDE! I stress that there be another exchange - an investment or future dividend to be shared, at some point. A bride is worth that. A guy who just thinks it's a waste or is a cheapskate is worth little.
But if it's got to be a diamond, at least get it on ebay. Alternatively, have one custom made, and ask that they use *metals* of value, such as paladium and platinum as well as upper-end craftsmanship. That way, regardless the worthless lump of carbon, at least it means something special and retains some of your monetary investment. Love is not to be expressed in dollars and cents and the size of a diamond. Anyone who sees it that way is missing the point.
According to Toffler, the very invention of schools created a new brand of individual, i.e. the Employee, who is taught to arrive punctually, respond to a supervisor, and fear discipline that amounts to nothing more than a peice of paper in a file, and this new brand of individual gave rise to the Industrial Age. The power of the school environment to create the future is immense.
What then will happen if our schools switch to Linux, and an entire generation of students is exposed to the ideas behind open source? Will it not translate into a large group of adults who are comfortable using Linux and related software? IMHO, by going after schools, Microsoft is cutting off its nose to spite its face. They should be giving their products away to educational institutions and raising another generation of MS-dependents. If the schools do choose to go with Linux, Microsoft may have to fight a battle to retain its market share when those children become consuming adults, who may choose to bring Linux into the workplaces of the future. Much like the seasoned drug dealer, Microsoft should give its product to children for free to create dependance. It's good karma, and good capitalism.
My vote is still that the school systems give Linux an equal chance.