Yep, you're getting old... that's where the wisdom you are exercising comes from.
I'm totally with you on kids and games. We did get my daughter both a N64 several years ago and recently a Gamecube, but a game doesn't go in until we've played it and given it a green light.
We chose the Nintendo over Sony or MS because Nintendo seems to have better (read appropriate) games for kids. Sure, there are mature titles like every other console, but it seems like a lower number.
So many people are robbing children of their childhood these days in exposing them to things that are inappropriate. It sounds like you are doing an awesome job with your son in that regard and that parental control will pay huge dividends in the future, just like it is now.
A hard drive is about the worst product to compare as margins on drives are extremely low.
A better example would be a higher margin product, to see which seller is taking less of a profit, such as LCD monitors.
Picked at random from Best Buy's web site:
Samsung SyncMaster 213T Silver 21.3'' LCD Monitor
Best Buys web price: $899.99 - 100.00 rebate = 799.99
PriceGrabber best price (non refurb): $721.00
(PriceGrabber lists 51 resellers for this part, so I didn't bother checking pricewatch or (gag)Froogle)
The rule for everyone is, if you need it today buy it locally. If not, check it out locally and buy it online if you get a better deal.
BTW, I used to own and operate an online reseller site. We refused to do rebates because they are designed to be horrible ripoffs and f*** you in the a**. Resellers count on the fact that most people don't ever pursue the rebate. Sure, it's the customer's fault for not doing their part, but it's the reseller's fault for exploiting the behaviour.
This was one of the reasons we ended up closing our shop and going out of business, we couldn't be profitable without comprising our ethics. Both me and my business partner are Christians (I'm a baptist, he's a catholic)... both of us answer to Christ for our actions and that is much more important than making a business work by any means necessary.
If the reseller or manufacturer is really willing to offer the after rebate price to each and every customer (1:1 ratio between a sale and the reduced price), they would simply lower the price on the item. By offering the rebate, the manufacturer and reseller are banking on the fact that the vast majority of customers don't ever file the rebate, thus they get the benefit of advertising a low price (after rebate) as well as the benefit of selling the item for more profit.
Huh? I find that reasoning hard to apply to my experience.
Ever since we bought our Tivo 3+ years ago, I watch far more T.V. than I used to, plus I find the quality of the shows going up in many areas. I don't care for all of the immoral crap that can be found on T.V. these days, but there are plenty of other quality programs:
Lots of SciFi (well, I am a nerd), History Channel, Discovery Channel, series such as 24, E.R., etc.
Advertisers need to stop whining about commercial skipping PVRs and instead spend that energy innovating... banner ads during shows, small animated bugs during shows much like the channel logos that advertise upcoming programs, etc.
I would say that on average I probably watch about five times as much T.V. now as I used to. Although I fast forward through commercials, I do 'watch' them as I am scanning for the resumption of my program. Quite often I will backup and dip into a commercial for something that I am interested in... a new card model, something my wife might like, etc.
You could say that the PVR is the advertiser's best friend with a consumer like me... I can't be alone in this type of behaviour.
Just some quick facts for anyone else that dips into this thread regarding the reasons the Bush administration gave for invading Iraq:
On Feb 05, 2003 Secretary of State Colin Powell gave a briefing to the U.N. on why we were seeking to finally call Iraq on the carpet after their years and years of ignoring Security Council resolutions. CNN has a transcript here, the White House has a better one here with the presentation slides in-line with the text.
In reading the presentation, Sec. Powell gave two of our main reasons for what was to become an invasion of Iraq: WMDs and the horrible event of a rogue state like Iraq mixing their WMDs with terrorism. Anyone can read the intercepted communications and view the graphical materials for themselves and I think understand why we did what we did.
Not that it means anything as I am the epitome of a nobody, but I certainly would have done the same thing as the administration if I was in their shoes. With years of this type of intelligence from not only our own security agencies, but those of other countries as well... countries of varying 'friendliness' to the U.S., it made the most sense considering the world we live in. Of course some will disagree with that conclusion.
So as far as points 1 & 2 above, I don't see any facts changing there or being pushed after the failure to find WMDs.
On March 19, 2003, President Bush addressed the nation to explain that hostilities were underway in Iraq and to explain yet again why we were taking those actions. The first sentence of his address, from March of 2003, was:
My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger. (emphasis added)
So there is bullet point 3 from above. As you can see, all of those ideas were open and honestly on the table almost two years ago. They didn't come about after the fact. They didn't come to life to distract from the inability to find WMDs. They have always been there. I could cite other instances but that should be enough to make the point.
Please note however that the name of this military option was "Iraqi Freedom". So named by military planners with direction from the administration long before we heard it from President Bush in March of 2003.
Another way to respond would be this:
Many years ago when I married my wife, the fact was that I loved her more due to physical attraction and the fact that we had been friends for quite some time than anything else.
After many years of marriage, I can say quite honestly that being physically attracted to my wife is not my answer today. My love for my wife today springs from the fact that she is a wonderful mom to our children, she is deeply devoted to our family, and of course remains my best friend. That's a good thing too because no matter the amount of healthy living you mold your lifestyle around, age will eventually catch up to you in rather shocking and unseemly ways.
If I'm fortunate to have many years in the future, I'm quite certain my answer then will change as well. The example of motherhood won't be so prevalent then being replaced by the future's needs, etc.
That isn't changing facts over time. It is giving new facts their due while not denying the validity of past facts. My point with my sappy tag line is to be wary of people that would seek to tell you that what they maintained in the past was true, was in fact not true (while refusing to categorize their past stance as being mistaken). They were either lying then, or lying now. In any case, they make a great case for distrust.
As a bona fide news junkie, my opinion after watching this guy across many networks for the last several years is that he is most interested in his own reputation. Not by exhibiting stellar ethics or by being correct on the issues, but by gilding the facts to best deflect the personal criticism of the moment.
As far as his statements in S.F. regarding Microsoft's security practices, he has a good point. But said security practices are so bad, someone mentioning it is akin to a toddler informing me that water is wet... it doesn't take a highly developed intellect to come to the conclusion.
Considering Richard Clarke's Clintonesque respect for 'the facts', why would anyone give him a serious ear? Most especially on a topic where he isn't saying something both true and unique from what other people are saying.
Ethical men give you the facts like a recording, beware of folks who's version of what they call 'facts' develop over time, especially when they take a self serving direction.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm totally with you on kids and games. We did get my daughter both a N64 several years ago and recently a Gamecube, but a game doesn't go in until we've played it and given it a green light.
We chose the Nintendo over Sony or MS because Nintendo seems to have better (read appropriate) games for kids. Sure, there are mature titles like every other console, but it seems like a lower number.
So many people are robbing children of their childhood these days in exposing them to things that are inappropriate. It sounds like you are doing an awesome job with your son in that regard and that parental control will pay huge dividends in the future, just like it is now.
Yes, if that next coder is an idiot.....
A better example would be a higher margin product, to see which seller is taking less of a profit, such as LCD monitors.
Picked at random from Best Buy's web site:
Samsung SyncMaster 213T Silver 21.3'' LCD Monitor
Best Buys web price: $899.99 - 100.00 rebate = 799.99
PriceGrabber best price (non refurb): $721.00
(PriceGrabber lists 51 resellers for this part, so I didn't bother checking pricewatch or (gag)Froogle)
The rule for everyone is, if you need it today buy it locally. If not, check it out locally and buy it online if you get a better deal.
BTW, I used to own and operate an online reseller site. We refused to do rebates because they are designed to be horrible ripoffs and f*** you in the a**. Resellers count on the fact that most people don't ever pursue the rebate. Sure, it's the customer's fault for not doing their part, but it's the reseller's fault for exploiting the behaviour.
This was one of the reasons we ended up closing our shop and going out of business, we couldn't be profitable without comprising our ethics. Both me and my business partner are Christians (I'm a baptist, he's a catholic)... both of us answer to Christ for our actions and that is much more important than making a business work by any means necessary.
If the reseller or manufacturer is really willing to offer the after rebate price to each and every customer (1:1 ratio between a sale and the reduced price), they would simply lower the price on the item. By offering the rebate, the manufacturer and reseller are banking on the fact that the vast majority of customers don't ever file the rebate, thus they get the benefit of advertising a low price (after rebate) as well as the benefit of selling the item for more profit.Ever since we bought our Tivo 3+ years ago, I watch far more T.V. than I used to, plus I find the quality of the shows going up in many areas. I don't care for all of the immoral crap that can be found on T.V. these days, but there are plenty of other quality programs:
Lots of SciFi (well, I am a nerd), History Channel, Discovery Channel, series such as 24, E.R., etc.
Advertisers need to stop whining about commercial skipping PVRs and instead spend that energy innovating... banner ads during shows, small animated bugs during shows much like the channel logos that advertise upcoming programs, etc.
I would say that on average I probably watch about five times as much T.V. now as I used to. Although I fast forward through commercials, I do 'watch' them as I am scanning for the resumption of my program. Quite often I will backup and dip into a commercial for something that I am interested in... a new card model, something my wife might like, etc.
You could say that the PVR is the advertiser's best friend with a consumer like me... I can't be alone in this type of behaviour.
Hi Arbiter,
Just some quick facts for anyone else that dips into this thread regarding the reasons the Bush administration gave for invading Iraq:
On Feb 05, 2003 Secretary of State Colin Powell gave a briefing to the U.N. on why we were seeking to finally call Iraq on the carpet after their years and years of ignoring Security Council resolutions. CNN has a transcript here, the White House has a better one here with the presentation slides in-line with the text.
In reading the presentation, Sec. Powell gave two of our main reasons for what was to become an invasion of Iraq: WMDs and the horrible event of a rogue state like Iraq mixing their WMDs with terrorism. Anyone can read the intercepted communications and view the graphical materials for themselves and I think understand why we did what we did.
Not that it means anything as I am the epitome of a nobody, but I certainly would have done the same thing as the administration if I was in their shoes. With years of this type of intelligence from not only our own security agencies, but those of other countries as well... countries of varying 'friendliness' to the U.S., it made the most sense considering the world we live in. Of course some will disagree with that conclusion.
So as far as points 1 & 2 above, I don't see any facts changing there or being pushed after the failure to find WMDs.
On March 19, 2003, President Bush addressed the nation to explain that hostilities were underway in Iraq and to explain yet again why we were taking those actions. The first sentence of his address, from March of 2003, was:
My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger. (emphasis added)
So there is bullet point 3 from above. As you can see, all of those ideas were open and honestly on the table almost two years ago. They didn't come about after the fact. They didn't come to life to distract from the inability to find WMDs. They have always been there. I could cite other instances but that should be enough to make the point.
Please note however that the name of this military option was "Iraqi Freedom". So named by military planners with direction from the administration long before we heard it from President Bush in March of 2003.
Another way to respond would be this:
Many years ago when I married my wife, the fact was that I loved her more due to physical attraction and the fact that we had been friends for quite some time than anything else.
After many years of marriage, I can say quite honestly that being physically attracted to my wife is not my answer today. My love for my wife today springs from the fact that she is a wonderful mom to our children, she is deeply devoted to our family, and of course remains my best friend. That's a good thing too because no matter the amount of healthy living you mold your lifestyle around, age will eventually catch up to you in rather shocking and unseemly ways.
If I'm fortunate to have many years in the future, I'm quite certain my answer then will change as well. The example of motherhood won't be so prevalent then being replaced by the future's needs, etc.
That isn't changing facts over time. It is giving new facts their due while not denying the validity of past facts. My point with my sappy tag line is to be wary of people that would seek to tell you that what they maintained in the past was true, was in fact not true (while refusing to categorize their past stance as being mistaken). They were either lying then, or lying now. In any case, they make a great case for distrust.
As a bona fide news junkie, my opinion after watching this guy across many networks for the last several years is that he is most interested in his own reputation. Not by exhibiting stellar ethics or by being correct on the issues, but by gilding the facts to best deflect the personal criticism of the moment.
As far as his statements in S.F. regarding Microsoft's security practices, he has a good point. But said security practices are so bad, someone mentioning it is akin to a toddler informing me that water is wet... it doesn't take a highly developed intellect to come to the conclusion.
Considering Richard Clarke's Clintonesque respect for 'the facts', why would anyone give him a serious ear? Most especially on a topic where he isn't saying something both true and unique from what other people are saying.
The left in America (I'm sorry, the People's Republic of America) seem to love the guy, but for the open minded who desire to learn more about him I submit:
Time Magazine article from 03/2004
Security Focus from 02/2003
The Daily Standard from 03/2004
Ethical men give you the facts like a recording, beware of folks who's version of what they call 'facts' develop over time, especially when they take a self serving direction.