I reached a point three years ago where the only calls I got on my landline any more were telemarketers. So I cancelled it and went to a $55 a month plan with rollover minutes. I finally exceeded that in August ($127! Ouchee!) and had to go to a $65 a month plan.
I recently got a $16 a month AT&T line just so I could find my phone when I lose it tho. I leave the ringer off and it is good for 25 outgoing calls. If i get a call when I am off plan that looks like it will be long, I take the call on the land line. This is helpful during the holidays when I am off a lot during off-plan hours.
>Then you aren't following your own advice, which was to lie to get what you want.
Okay... let's see, I could start the first date off with "You know there is a 99% chance you will not be a person I can commit to". I know it is likely that things won't work out. It is a lie of omission to not start every date by saying that I'm pretty jaded and fairly sure this will not work out for marriage. So yes, I'm lying-- and hoping this might be the 1% of the time (realistically the.1%) that it might be the right person. I allow them to think whatever they want.
>And that, of course, makes it okay to lie to get your way ? Everyone lies. 3 year olds like-- successfully-- to their parents all the time. The biggest lie is that we do not lie.
>Besides, in my experience, any sentence beginning with "At least I'm" is an attempt to justify the evil the speaker does by comparing it to presumably greater evil.
Okay-- I'm evil... evvveeeeel. Or I'm more self aware that I'm doing the same thing everyone else is doing while allowing themselves to ignore their own bad behavior.
>And that, of course, makes it okay to lie to get your way?
This is a tricky part. It makes me feel very dark to feel this way. But having seen the full breadth of human nature-- if i have to choose between lying and being happy for several years or telling to truth and being alone and being unhappy for several years, I will lie. Be it "no- you look great in those pants" to more serious stuff. I would like to be noble and pure again like I was until my mid 30's but I can't. I'm jaded and bitter about women (and men) at this point. I've had too much experience with people. They go for *fun* *now* over commitment every time they are given a choice. And then they rationalize about how they were treated badly by their husband or wife so they could screw around. Or how they had to do "what their heart wanted".
I was nice, committed, truthful-- and it was abused horribly. I finally gave up and joined the rat pack. Unfortunately my eyes are open while they are all still successfully in self-denial so I can see what I'm doing. I don't like it but I stopped getting my soul ripped out, suicidal depression, and abandoned.
I still make mistakes. The last time I went from dating 3-4 women and having a good time to committing to just one woman three years ago and who was romanced away by a wealthy guy during lunch working hours... she loved him AND me. Wanted to keep both of us. He lasted about 15 minutes in the sack but had a couple million bucks. I was the boy toy who could give her what she needed physically and emotionally (until she screwed it all up) but I didn't have a ranch. Maybe I'll get over being bitter about it before I die.
You know... after seeing several of my friends shredded and humans wonderful ability to lie while thinking they are telling the truth, I hardened up a lot and stopped being such a soft eyed romantic. I'm always clear up front that I'm "dating around" and I'm always clear up front that if I ever found the right woman, I'd settle down. Both statements *are* true.
However, the reality is that the right woman is very elusive while "right now" women are extremely common once you get in your thirties. I've found women like a guy who is fun to be with. They will leave or cheat on their regular guy to be with a fun guy. I've been on the receiving and giving end of that equation. Maybe a third of people (men/women) are worth trusting further than you can toss then when you have a back injury but the two thirds of untrustworthy ones are usually a lot more fun to hang with then the trustworthy party pooper types.
I've got maybe 15-20 years left on the planet, and how I behave, based on my experience so far a lot of attitudes are just either religious or hollywood bullshit. They are not the way people really work.
Women and Men really will leave for a better qualified mate a huge amount of the time. Women and Men really will cheat if they can. Frequently. Even pastors and church secretaries.
At least I'm up front about where I'm headed. The worst liars are the people who lie to themselves-- you believe they are telling the truth and they rip your guts out.
Riaa probably doesn't feel it is fair to have to obey all these different licensing restrictions. They probably want to use the results of the investigations as they choose since they paid good money for the results. Fortunately, they can only legally use investigators the way we can use songs and other copyrighted materials.
And also the cost of supporting mathematical proofs is probably trivial compared to the costs of many other kinds of knowledge. Mathematical proofs have a small amount of data and people view them infrequently.
I heard those figures once but the only published figures I could find when I was posting was 2-3% on infidelity sites.
I think our current social and moral rule are set up for a time when women needed a man's support. Now that they do not in many cases, there just isn't enough "glue" to hold relationships together.
So the guy ends up with 10-12 years of child support and seeing his kids 6 days a month and the joy of having another man raise his children. And that is in a state without alimony.
Meanwhile, a huge number of women (in happy relationships) are very easily attracted to men who are good looking and/or successful. They cheat like hell and society still treats them like angels. The rules are all goofy and anti-male currently.
By 45, many women like sex a lot and are RISKY as hell to give your heart to. Let's face it, a woman can go 4 hours a day (more) if she enjoys it.
Many other women dislike sex and you are looking at suffering in a sexless relationship or begging for it.
Remember - 2 to 3% of children do NOT match the paternity of the father.
And the legal system is setup all goofy so that another perfectly capable human being can have sex with you for 2 to 3 years and then take half of everything you own along with your heart.
If you are a man of *any* means, unless you win the love lotto in your 20's, it is more fun, safer emotionally and financially to date/rent women by implying you are interested in commitment and shedding them off when they get too pushy. There are millions of (decent looking, kind) women who are way too easily attracted by a fairly tiny amount of money (like 2,400 to 4,800 bucks a year on gifts and stuff) and 4-5 hours of listening to their problems-- including a lot who are in relationships with other guys.
And maintaining a solid relationship takes a good 30 hours a week-- if you can't hack that many hours, then have fun- get a girlfriend instead, party and do fun things. You'll always be pushing women away so many will be trying to land you.
I think men and women are really not wired to stick together more than 7 to 10 years. I've read some articles implying women lose commitment when the kids are a bout 5-7 years old-- the possible reason being that at that age they could walk and forage their own food so a man isn't needed as much.
Some of us are evolving to better tolerate artificial estrogens in our environment. Some of us are evolving to better use genetically modified food. Some of us are evolving to better tolerate a starch centric diet.
etc.
If some aspect of our environment affects our ability to reproduce (and the artificial estrogens are a huge issue) then we will either go extinct or some random group of humans will get a mutation that can ignore that factor and they will reproduce better.
For now, I think meme's have a lot more effect on breeding rates than other factors (i.e. catholics and muslims way outbreed atheists and european protestants).
I think it is something like $.50 - Label $.20 - Apple $.30 - Artist
less.05 for vinyl breakage
less.10 for distribution costs
less.06 for cd production costs
less.03 for packaging costs
which should be.07 left over but somehow.02 just vanishes somewhere in accounting.
So they want us to pay them for copyrighted material and do not see a problem infringing other people's copyrighted material.
What is the inducement for them to infringe? Well, a commercial compression library license might have cost them $10k. They can't have it both ways. Either they pay for everything (and for companies "in" the circle, they'll probably get those fees down very low and "share" each other's copyrighted code) or they stop bitching about infringement on their own code.
It is not that simple. A lot of the reason capitalism worked was that social pressure on companies to be good members of the community kept the worst legal abuses in check. It's a fact that bosses who fire workers have more heart attacks in the following year. You can't work with someone every day and not see them as people.
Corporations developed ways around these problems. They lack the "soul" that smaller companies have. As that movie pointed out- they share a lot of traits of sociopaths.
Actually, it's broken that way to so I guess we are selecting the broken version of preference... I think it would be "Viva les Francais!" but it's been a long time since college french.
We recognize that left unchecked, the workers will destroy the business. They have essentially done that in the united states. People with high school degrees used collective bargaining to get college level wages and even better retirement plans. Now the industry is collapsing under that weight.
We also recognize that the executive class is currently unchecked and looting and pillaging our large businesses at grossly abusive rates ( I personally cannot see the justification for paying *ANYONE* over about $10 million a year-- much less giving them $150+ million dollars for being fired).
America is big on capitalism. When constrained by social values, it produces a very good outcome. Unproductive activities are terminated fairly rapidly (and everyone loses their job). Costs are aggressively reduced. Until recently the result was more wealth for us on average with some short term damage to a lot, and a small group people's lives destroyed periodically as buggy whips, or osbourne's or whatever went out of fashion.
We also see that socialism will grow to the point that a lot of society becomes unproductive and leeches off of the working classes. Our welfare system was reaching a point that many people born in it, died in it and had more children who would enter the system and keep it expanding.
Until fairly recently, when the capitol requirements became so high and the existing businesses successfully set up fairly high barriers to new competition, it was fairly easy for an american who wanted to be rich to get out and start a business and make it work.
As the rich get a stranglehold on the company- as the republicans become identified with corporations and the wealthy more than with religious and ethical causes- this is going to change. I expect us to swing hard left very soon. High taxes on the rich, limits on executive compensation, limits on corporate power, stronger better social services nets.
Personally, i think the french have it right. I prefer to work 37 hour weeks myself and usually find a way too. It is ridiculous that after decades of constant productivity improvements we STILL have to work 8 hours a day to earn a living- I suppose it is an artifact of the 24 hour day. 7 hours is reasonable but perhaps 6 hours is what we should drive for- or 8 hours 4 days a week.
I was talking to a labor lawyer on a flight last year and he said that labor's ability to strike effectively in the us has basically been removed. For example- you can't do industry strikes if I understand him correctly. So if you want to strike against amalgamated butter, all the other butter companies keep churning it out. Back in the 60's, you could shut down butter production period by striking at all companies- and even the butter delivery companies.
We are not conditioned to see striking as worse than quitting. We have less unions tho. So when a union effectively strikes and takes away our ability to get garbage collected or police protection- we just get pissed at the strikers. And really- there is an ongoing debate on whether vital services people should have a right to strike.
Slashdot Mirror
And there is even a risk that the ones who opened it were subtly corrupted by viewing it.
Some things you can't unhear and you can't unsee.
hehehe.
Wish I had mod points- I'd mod you up as funny... lol. giant cum shot from god. hehehehheeh.
I reached a point three years ago where the only calls I got on my landline any more were telemarketers.
So I cancelled it and went to a $55 a month plan with rollover minutes. I finally exceeded that in August ($127! Ouchee!) and had to go to a $65 a month plan.
I recently got a $16 a month AT&T line just so I could find my phone when I lose it tho. I leave the ringer off and it is good for 25 outgoing calls. If i get a call when I am off plan that looks like it will be long, I take the call on the land line. This is helpful during the holidays when I am off a lot during off-plan hours.
>Then you aren't following your own advice, which was to lie to get what you want.
.1%) that it might be the right person. I allow them to think whatever they want.
Okay... let's see, I could start the first date off with "You know there is a 99% chance you will not be a person I can commit to". I know it is likely that things won't work out. It is a lie of omission to not start every date by saying that I'm pretty jaded and fairly sure this will not work out for marriage. So yes, I'm lying-- and hoping this might be the 1% of the time (realistically the
>And that, of course, makes it okay to lie to get your way ?
Everyone lies. 3 year olds like-- successfully-- to their parents all the time. The biggest lie is that we do not lie.
>Besides, in my experience, any sentence beginning with "At least I'm" is an attempt to justify the evil the speaker does by comparing it to presumably greater evil.
Okay-- I'm evil... evvveeeeel. Or I'm more self aware that I'm doing the same thing everyone else is doing while allowing themselves to ignore their own bad behavior.
>And that, of course, makes it okay to lie to get your way?
This is a tricky part. It makes me feel very dark to feel this way. But having seen the full breadth of human nature-- if i have to choose between lying and being happy for several years or telling to truth and being alone and being unhappy for several years, I will lie. Be it "no- you look great in those pants" to more serious stuff. I would like to be noble and pure again like I was until my mid 30's but I can't. I'm jaded and bitter about women (and men) at this point. I've had too much experience with people. They go for *fun* *now* over commitment every time they are given a choice. And then they rationalize about how they were treated badly by their husband or wife so they could screw around. Or how they had to do "what their heart wanted".
I was nice, committed, truthful-- and it was abused horribly. I finally gave up and joined the rat pack. Unfortunately my eyes are open while they are all still successfully in self-denial so I can see what I'm doing. I don't like it but I stopped getting my soul ripped out, suicidal depression, and abandoned.
I still make mistakes. The last time I went from dating 3-4 women and having a good time to committing to just one woman three years ago and who was romanced away by a wealthy guy during lunch working hours... she loved him AND me. Wanted to keep both of us. He lasted about 15 minutes in the sack but had a couple million bucks. I was the boy toy who could give her what she needed physically and emotionally (until she screwed it all up) but I didn't have a ranch. Maybe I'll get over being bitter about it before I die.
I do not think so tho.
You know ... after seeing several of my friends shredded and humans wonderful ability to lie while thinking they are telling the truth, I hardened up a lot and stopped being such a soft eyed romantic. I'm always clear up front that I'm "dating around" and I'm always clear up front that if I ever found the right woman, I'd settle down. Both statements *are* true.
However, the reality is that the right woman is very elusive while "right now" women are extremely common once you get in your thirties. I've found women like a guy who is fun to be with. They will leave or cheat on their regular guy to be with a fun guy. I've been on the receiving and giving end of that equation. Maybe a third of people (men/women) are worth trusting further than you can toss then when you have a back injury but the two thirds of untrustworthy ones are usually a lot more fun to hang with then the trustworthy party pooper types.
I've got maybe 15-20 years left on the planet, and how I behave, based on my experience so far a lot of attitudes are just either religious or hollywood bullshit. They are not the way people really work.
Women and Men really will leave for a better qualified mate a huge amount of the time.
Women and Men really will cheat if they can. Frequently. Even pastors and church secretaries.
At least I'm up front about where I'm headed. The worst liars are the people who lie to themselves-- you believe they are telling the truth and they rip your guts out.
Riaa probably doesn't feel it is fair to have to obey all these different licensing restrictions. They probably want to use the results of the investigations as they choose since they paid good money for the results. Fortunately, they can only legally use investigators the way we can use songs and other copyrighted materials.
Ah.. it is so nice when the worm turns.
And also the cost of supporting mathematical proofs is probably trivial compared to the costs of many other kinds of knowledge.
Mathematical proofs have a small amount of data and people view them infrequently.
I heard those figures once but the only published figures I could find when I was posting was 2-3% on infidelity sites.
I think our current social and moral rule are set up for a time when women needed a man's support. Now that they do not in many cases, there just isn't enough "glue" to hold relationships together.
So the guy ends up with 10-12 years of child support and seeing his kids 6 days a month and the joy of having another man raise his children. And that is in a state without alimony.
Meanwhile, a huge number of women (in happy relationships) are very easily attracted to men who are good looking and/or successful. They cheat like hell and society still treats them like angels. The rules are all goofy and anti-male currently.
I agree completely.
The rate of evolution will depend on how significant the selection pressure from these factors is.
Your computer and my ex-wife have a lot in common.
But your computer probably doesn't feel it has a right to stay home for free.
I will add to that.
By 45, many women like sex a lot and are RISKY as hell to give your heart to. Let's face it, a woman can go 4 hours a day (more) if she enjoys it.
Many other women dislike sex and you are looking at suffering in a sexless relationship or begging for it.
Remember - 2 to 3% of children do NOT match the paternity of the father.
And the legal system is setup all goofy so that another perfectly capable human being can have sex with you for 2 to 3 years and then take half of everything you own along with your heart.
If you are a man of *any* means, unless you win the love lotto in your 20's, it is more fun, safer emotionally and financially to date/rent women by implying you are interested in commitment and shedding them off when they get too pushy. There are millions of (decent looking, kind) women who are way too easily attracted by a fairly tiny amount of money (like 2,400 to 4,800 bucks a year on gifts and stuff) and 4-5 hours of listening to their problems-- including a lot who are in relationships with other guys.
And maintaining a solid relationship takes a good 30 hours a week-- if you can't hack that many hours, then have fun- get a girlfriend instead, party and do fun things. You'll always be pushing women away so many will be trying to land you.
I think men and women are really not wired to stick together more than 7 to 10 years. I've read some articles implying women lose commitment when the kids are a bout 5-7 years old-- the possible reason being that at that age they could walk and forage their own food so a man isn't needed as much.
Some of us are evolving to better tolerate artificial estrogens in our environment.
Some of us are evolving to better use genetically modified food.
Some of us are evolving to better tolerate a starch centric diet.
etc.
If some aspect of our environment affects our ability to reproduce (and the artificial estrogens are a huge issue) then we will either go extinct or some random group of humans will get a mutation that can ignore that factor and they will reproduce better.
For now, I think meme's have a lot more effect on breeding rates than other factors (i.e. catholics and muslims way outbreed atheists and european protestants).
Well you certainly wouldn't use a laser with very high energy, very low firing time, and pin point accuracy as a weapon would you?
The potential for such a device is unlimited- digging canals, popping popcorn...
and associate pvi with your media player.
So I would hate it.
Lol- they could equally make a gal's life hell too.
I just realized I was presuming it was a guy and it could be a feisty girl as well.
You are probably breaking three or four laws right now and you do not even know it.
The township can make the guy's life hell-- can make his friend's lives hell so he loses his friends (assuming it is a guy).
Ben Franklin would have been outed very early in his career under this standard.
If I had points, I'd boost you. Mine was set to auto and now is not.
Thanks!
I think it is something like .05 for vinyl breakage .10 for distribution costs .06 for cd production costs .03 for packaging costs .07 left over but somehow .02 just vanishes somewhere in accounting.
$.50 - Label
$.20 - Apple
$.30 - Artist
less
less
less
less
which should be
I agree-- even Blue October has one or two songs per CD that I could pass on after hearing once.
So they want us to pay them for copyrighted material and do not see a problem infringing other people's copyrighted material.
What is the inducement for them to infringe? Well, a commercial compression library license might have cost them $10k. They can't have it both ways. Either they pay for everything (and for companies "in" the circle, they'll probably get those fees down very low and "share" each other's copyrighted code) or they stop bitching about infringement on their own code.
It is not that simple. A lot of the reason capitalism worked was that social pressure on companies to be good members of the community kept the worst legal abuses in check. It's a fact that bosses who fire workers have more heart attacks in the following year. You can't work with someone every day and not see them as people.
Corporations developed ways around these problems. They lack the "soul" that smaller companies have. As that movie pointed out- they share a lot of traits of sociopaths.
I now see it should be Vive les.. sigh. Shouldn't have even tried. Not my area of expertise.
Actually, it's broken that way to so I guess we are selecting the broken version of preference...
I think it would be "Viva les Francais!" but it's been a long time since college french.
Here is my take on it as a libertarian/liberal.
We recognize that left unchecked, the workers will destroy the business. They have essentially done that in the united states. People with high school degrees used collective bargaining to get college level wages and even better retirement plans. Now the industry is collapsing under that weight.
We also recognize that the executive class is currently unchecked and looting and pillaging our large businesses at grossly abusive rates ( I personally cannot see the justification for paying *ANYONE* over about $10 million a year-- much less giving them $150+ million dollars for being fired).
America is big on capitalism. When constrained by social values, it produces a very good outcome. Unproductive activities are terminated fairly rapidly (and everyone loses their job). Costs are aggressively reduced. Until recently the result was more wealth for us on average with some short term damage to a lot, and a small group people's lives destroyed periodically as buggy whips, or osbourne's or whatever went out of fashion.
We also see that socialism will grow to the point that a lot of society becomes unproductive and leeches off of the working classes. Our welfare system was reaching a point that many people born in it, died in it and had more children who would enter the system and keep it expanding.
Until fairly recently, when the capitol requirements became so high and the existing businesses successfully set up fairly high barriers to new competition, it was fairly easy for an american who wanted to be rich to get out and start a business and make it work.
As the rich get a stranglehold on the company- as the republicans become identified with corporations and the wealthy more than with religious and ethical causes- this is going to change. I expect us to swing hard left very soon. High taxes on the rich, limits on executive compensation, limits on corporate power, stronger better social services nets.
Personally, i think the french have it right. I prefer to work 37 hour weeks myself and usually find a way too. It is ridiculous that after decades of constant productivity improvements we STILL have to work 8 hours a day to earn a living- I suppose it is an artifact of the 24 hour day. 7 hours is reasonable but perhaps 6 hours is what we should drive for- or 8 hours 4 days a week.
I was talking to a labor lawyer on a flight last year and he said that labor's ability to strike effectively in the us has basically been removed. For example- you can't do industry strikes if I understand him correctly.
So if you want to strike against amalgamated butter, all the other butter companies keep churning it out. Back in the 60's, you could shut down butter production period by striking at all companies- and even the butter delivery companies.
We are not conditioned to see striking as worse than quitting. We have less unions tho. So when a union effectively strikes and takes away our ability to get garbage collected or police protection- we just get pissed at the strikers. And really- there is an ongoing debate on whether vital services people should have a right to strike.