"Actually I don't recall them defending Pearl Harbor very well either."
Are you seriously suggesting that we take the US defeat at Pearl Harbor as such an example of incompetence that it outweighs everything else accomplished during WWII? Yes we lost at Pearl Harbor. And Wake Island. And numerous other battles and skirmishes. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of American dead. They all lost, too. But our victories outweigh our defeats by such a margin that it makes me think you are just trying to be a dink.
I bought a decent PC notebook that I can build and upgrade myself that also plays games so I don't have to fork out $500 for a PS3 or send it in to the manufacturer if I want to upgrade anything more than the RAMs or AirPort.
The best real argument I have heard for Macs over PCs is this: "I'm used to a Mac, I have already invested hundreds of $$ in software for the MacOS, I know the Mac inside and out, and I already own 3 of them, and I find the networking/printer sharing much easier. Games do not interest me at all, and even if they did, all the best ones come out for the Mac eventually anyway."
It's more a matter of opinion to me.
After rereading your post, perhaps I should be modded down for redundancy.
I'd like to see that proof! I didn't think it had progressed that far. I am thinking about it, and I have to admit that I don't understand the scientific method enough to know how you would even begin to prove it.
I keep that one aroud, just to see the beautiful 'bike fighting' sequence. Easily one of my favorite games of all time. Then there's the fun way Ben talks.
How great was my joy when I learned they were making a sequel. How great my disappointment when I learned the sequel had been cancelled.
My brother lives in New Jersey, I live in Utah. Playing Enemy Territory helps us get together more than once every other year.
My wife and I play Jeopardy on the computer from time to time. It is one of the few games we both really like to play.
My friend and her husband do WoW online as a family. That's kinda wierd, but they enjoy it.
Another buddy and his son make a big deal of playing Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds (if he's been good) or Heroes of Might and Magic IV.
My son is not quite 2 yet, but I plan on playing with Legos and on the computer with him. What's the real difference? Family games are family games, no?
That's what we're working on now. They actually came pretty clean. All they had preinstalled was MS Office (which we asked for) and Google Desktop (which we didn't). We are in the process of making a standard image, and it looks like we're removing Google Desktop. I can't think of a reason why we'd need it, anyway.
"I'm not so worried about my home machine so much as users at work with possibly sensitive documents being saved online."
Bingo! We just got 10 new Dells with Google Desktop, and plan to get 15 more in 6 months. We store sensitive information on our hard drives. Legally protected information. And this is going to be uploaded to Google?
You're probably right about that, but up to a point it's in the eye of the beholder (or survivor).
It reminds me of the Mexican family I met in LA. They lived in a garage with blankets for interior walls. Their indoor lighting consisted of an upright lamp in the "living room" and a shoplite they hung over the blankets when you needed light in other rooms. I still can't believe they had a toilet. I don't remember them having a sink. All they could talk about was how wonderful it was here. How much better off.
In other words, if the fact that I don't have a dirt floor doesn't make me affluent, what exactly does? How do you know when you're affluent?
I think perhaps the standard keeps changing. That makes it no standard at all.
I thought about your little riddle about the $500.00. I think that one solution is to pay the man the $500, sell him something worth $50, then give him the $50.
Of course, anyone who goes into debt for ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD probably deserves to be in their situation. The trick is not to get in to that much debt.
I used to think I subscribed to the American Dream. I guess I don't. My dream is for my children to grow up honest and kind and healthy and free. If that means we have to go without some luxuries, then so be it. If that means I'm still driving my '90 Buick in 5 years, that's fine with me. Oh well, I'll just have to stop calling this the American Dream, and just call it My Family Plan.
Well, once again, the Bible comes through unclear. You can make the Bible say what you want it to say. I had thought about usury as a sin, though, and I don't know. There is one of the parables that encourages a guy to deliver his money to the usurers. If only we had some kind of prophet to tell us what the Bible meant.
I sure do know our Masters don't really protect us all that much. I have been thinking for a while that I need to learn some other kind of backup trade so I don't end up loading trucks if I ever get fired or something. I brought it up to illustrate the possibility of getting a Masters degree without sacrificing everything or getting into excessive debt. I am aware that it is not a job-guarantee. I am thinking that I need to learn another trade, in case something happens.
I think our money system is messed up. I am no economist, obviously, but it seems to me that it is messed up. I can't answer your '500 bucks' riddle. I'll have to think that one over. In board games, if we ran out of cash, we would write it on little papers. Anyway, it's the only game in town that I can see. Someone said the one thing to remember about interest is: "Them that understands it gets it. Them that don't pays it."
About your parents' house.... If they bought it at 120 and it appreciated, how did they lose? Did they get a 2nd mortgage?
Anyway, about how we maintain, I have found that if you are willing to stay out of debt you can make quite good. The trick is how you define 'good.' Some people think the American Dream is keeping up with the Joneses. I think it is staying out of debt. Maybe the trick with us is that our total car payment is like $150. We rarely eat out. I don't know. I like to think it's karma for that 11% (or something like that). I gotta get rid of that car payment. I think if we could have our only debt as the house, we would be well-off indeed.
How do we keep the house up? We are careful, and we curb each others' spending. We have handy friends. I don't know. We haven't had to do many repairs. Our home was built in 1987, and the only problem I have is the shingles. A couple more years and I'll have to put more on. Maybe our low upkeep is also due to good karma.
Other things we do to protect ourselves: we keep a 72-hour emergency kit in the house and in the minivan. We are starting to acquire a year's supply of food.
My wife and I made less than $47,000 last year, and my house is worth more than $200,000.
We own 2 cars.
We have Dish TV.
We have one kid and one due in June.
We put away a couple hundred every month for retirement, and manage to put some into savings.
We have a telephone and 1 cell phone (we used to have 2, but got rid of one. Too much money).
High-speed internet (which I understand costs too much around here)
We get our cars fixed when we need to.
We manage to donate about 11% to charity each month
We have pets. (Only one now. The cat was just killed, and it cost more to put him to sleep than to feed him for a year. How about that?)
My wife and I both got Masters degrees and paid for them both, with the exception of a thousand dollar gift from my dad.
We have the insurance thing going on, on the home, the car, and our health. We have kinda inadequate benefits, so we pay a little extra for some supplemental insurance.
My wife has back problems so that brings in some extra bills (not all covered by our plan) and expenses (more expensive bed, etc.).
You might be interested to know that my wife will quit working in May, and she makes about 1/3 of our total income.
Did I forget anything?
Oh, I am 6'2" and weigh 150 lbs. Hardly fat. Definitely happy.
I must confess I don't understand the point you were trying to make with your post. I am not trying to antagonize, I am trying to give you an example of a family that makes less than $50x/yr and maintains a high standard of living.
Something from your post that bothers me, however, is this: "I haven't bought a house because I find paying interest rates to be antithetical to my way of thinking."
When I payed rent, I was paying someone else's interest rates, now I am paying mine. That's my way of thinking, please tell me more about yours. Again, I am not trying to antagonize, it's just that your statement flies in the face of everything that I have thought since I graduated high school.
"...like the Jewish holocaust - acccording to your article, that was only 5 million."
I think it also says something about killing Soviet prisoners, non-Jewish holocaust, etc. There are numbers for Stalin's non-war dead as well. The most sickening to me are the numbers for Mao. Those figures are for regime, not war.
I remember reading a biography of Washington "The Indispensible Man." I highly recommend it. The author devotes a whole chapter to slavery. Washington was beginning to realize that not only was it immoral, it was impractical.
The slaves were not good workers. They were dishonest and had to be watched constantly and didn't do good work. For the quality of workers, it was just not worth it. Washington started to realize that his slaves were a ball and chain. He couldn't keep them because it wasn't working and it was just wrong anyway. He couldn't free them, because they had been raised with such a terrible work ethic that working for a living was simply alien to them.
If someone has better knowledge of this than I do, please let me know.
I guess that my point is that in the battle of "morality versus wealth" as you put it, the slave holders were losing both ways.
The mistake I made was to assume you were a Liberal. I was attempting to sound as extreme as I did to make a point, not to put forth my philosophies. I asked a question that was grossly unfair (flying off the handle, obscure freedoms) because I thought your question was unfair.
So let me set the record straight:
I think President Bush should uphold the law. Even the ones that make his job a little more difficult.
I am proud to pay taxes.
I could also do with a little less pride.
Rereading my post, I did sound Libertarian, didn't I? No, I don't know that you can call me that. I find it harder every day to find a political idealogy that I can subscribe to. Again, I was trying to sound extreme, as I thought you were doing.
"This is why I am a firm believer in transparency, checks and balances such as a strong and independent judiciary, a well-educated electorate, a free press... you know, the Bill of Rights. American sorts of things."
I also want transparency, etc.
"Here I really must congratulate you. You've demonstrated an excellent grasp of Karl Rove's basic theory of American politics.
a) make all opposition Liberals, who are presumably all the same, and presumably all wish for a Sharpton/Clinton ticket in 2008
b) make all Liberals the friends and protectors of terrorists."
Doesn't it look like you are doing the same thing? You seem to think that all opposition to your idea are Conservatives or Libertarians, presumably supporting all that Bush and Cheney do, and making all Conservatives and Libertarians the enemies of our constitutional liberties.
To be fair, I think this country is becoming more and more polarized into those camps. That which you call Karl Rove's theory is becoming true, as far as I can see. Hopefully it is a long way off.
Seriously, why is it that so many conservatives don't trust that stupid, evil, wasteful government to run a social program (just give me my taxes back!), but trust them completely and lovingly to tap your phone or imprison you without trial?
This begs another question: Why is it that so many liberals are willing to completely and lovingly give up their own and others immediate right to enjoy their rights of property (taxes), but fly off the handle when there is any kind of perception of obscure rights-trampling, even in time of war?
I think your question shows your inability to really look at what conservatives think. People often chalk it up to ignorance, stupidity, or even evil, when that's not the case. In your example, you berade the conservatives for mistrusting the government in one way, but not another, when you mistrust the government in one way, but not another. The conservatives want their rights respected (right of property), but are allowing the government to disrespect the rights of suspected terrorists (right to due process). Allow me to assume you are a liberal. The liberal view would be to disrespect the rights of the conservatives to their property while respecting the rights of the suspected terrorists to due process. You would trample (by degrees) the rights of all to their property, while protecting the rights of some (the suspected terrorists) to their due process.
I have purposefully misrepresented the issue a little bit (I apologize if I went too far, but if I did, so did you), but I hope I made my point: niether you nor the conservatives are interested in the rights of ALL. Your post simply shows that by your own standards (respecting rights), you are as guilty as those you oppose.
Now, to answer your question: Seriously, why is it that so many conservatives don't trust that stupid, evil, wasteful government to run a social program (just give me my taxes back!), but trust them completely and lovingly to tap your phone or imprison you without trial?
Perhaps it is because they see excessive taxation as a direct, constant infringement of their right to property (and the liberty that comes with it), while they see the infringement of the rights of a few (the suspected terrorists) as a necessary sacrifice to ensure the right to life of the citizens of the US.
Another thing that goes along with this: those who support the illegal wiretapping don't think that it will come back to bite them.
The community should band together to help those people. I have seen it happen. I remember in high school this guy was killed in an accident. The community banded together and raised the money to save his life. Notice I said the community, not the government. I think the help given by the governmnet was allowing the "Help Save Shawn" signs to be placed on city property.
If one of my neighbors gets sick, and I find out they haven't the resources to get well, I will do whatever I can to help them through. If little Johnny can't live without an expensive operation, you can be sure that my neighbors and I will see to it that he recieves the operation.
People banding together to make the world better is what makes a community. The government taking care of you does not.
How would I propose to provide health care to everyone? I would not. I know a man whose family is destitute. About a year ago he did a job and got paid $2000. He bought a TV. He can afford health care, he just doesn't want it. I realize there are some who truly need health care, but I don't see what the deal is. Also, I truly don't know anyone who can't get access to a doctor if they need it. One of my friends works for the county health dept. as a doctor for those who can't afford it. There is a Free Doctor's clinic here in town. While I admit I don't have a clear picture of the whole health care problem, I know there are a lot of POOR families around here, and they all have access to medical attention. I don't want to change that right now, but I don't want to expand it, either.
As for water, I am pretty sure my grandparents' home didn't have running water. I am certain their homes where they grew up didn't have running water. This is not to say running water is not a good thing, but history has shown that life does not require indoor plumbing.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you seriously suggesting that we take the US defeat at Pearl Harbor as such an example of incompetence that it outweighs everything else accomplished during WWII? Yes we lost at Pearl Harbor. And Wake Island. And numerous other battles and skirmishes. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of American dead. They all lost, too. But our victories outweigh our defeats by such a margin that it makes me think you are just trying to be a dink.
The best real argument I have heard for Macs over PCs is this: "I'm used to a Mac, I have already invested hundreds of $$ in software for the MacOS, I know the Mac inside and out, and I already own 3 of them, and I find the networking/printer sharing much easier. Games do not interest me at all, and even if they did, all the best ones come out for the Mac eventually anyway."
It's more a matter of opinion to me.
After rereading your post, perhaps I should be modded down for redundancy.
Thank you for clarifying.
I'd like to see that proof! I didn't think it had progressed that far. I am thinking about it, and I have to admit that I don't understand the scientific method enough to know how you would even begin to prove it.
I keep that one aroud, just to see the beautiful 'bike fighting' sequence. Easily one of my favorite games of all time. Then there's the fun way Ben talks.
How great was my joy when I learned they were making a sequel. How great my disappointment when I learned the sequel had been cancelled.
We are in BIG trouble.
That started as a joke, but now I really want to know: Why DO we care?
My wife and I play Jeopardy on the computer from time to time. It is one of the few games we both really like to play.
My friend and her husband do WoW online as a family. That's kinda wierd, but they enjoy it.
Another buddy and his son make a big deal of playing Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds (if he's been good) or Heroes of Might and Magic IV.
My son is not quite 2 yet, but I plan on playing with Legos and on the computer with him. What's the real difference? Family games are family games, no?
Maybe by that time I will forgive someone for the end of KotOR II.
That's what we're working on now. They actually came pretty clean. All they had preinstalled was MS Office (which we asked for) and Google Desktop (which we didn't). We are in the process of making a standard image, and it looks like we're removing Google Desktop. I can't think of a reason why we'd need it, anyway.
Bingo! We just got 10 new Dells with Google Desktop, and plan to get 15 more in 6 months. We store sensitive information on our hard drives. Legally protected information. And this is going to be uploaded to Google?
Interesting, considering BYU is a Christian university.
If it did mutate aroud the cure, we wouldn't be any worse off than we are now, would we?
It reminds me of the Mexican family I met in LA. They lived in a garage with blankets for interior walls. Their indoor lighting consisted of an upright lamp in the "living room" and a shoplite they hung over the blankets when you needed light in other rooms. I still can't believe they had a toilet. I don't remember them having a sink. All they could talk about was how wonderful it was here. How much better off.
In other words, if the fact that I don't have a dirt floor doesn't make me affluent, what exactly does? How do you know when you're affluent?
I think perhaps the standard keeps changing. That makes it no standard at all.
Thank you for the interesting conversation.
Of course, anyone who goes into debt for ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD probably deserves to be in their situation. The trick is not to get in to that much debt.
I used to think I subscribed to the American Dream. I guess I don't. My dream is for my children to grow up honest and kind and healthy and free. If that means we have to go without some luxuries, then so be it. If that means I'm still driving my '90 Buick in 5 years, that's fine with me. Oh well, I'll just have to stop calling this the American Dream, and just call it My Family Plan.
I sure do know our Masters don't really protect us all that much. I have been thinking for a while that I need to learn some other kind of backup trade so I don't end up loading trucks if I ever get fired or something. I brought it up to illustrate the possibility of getting a Masters degree without sacrificing everything or getting into excessive debt. I am aware that it is not a job-guarantee. I am thinking that I need to learn another trade, in case something happens.
I think our money system is messed up. I am no economist, obviously, but it seems to me that it is messed up. I can't answer your '500 bucks' riddle. I'll have to think that one over. In board games, if we ran out of cash, we would write it on little papers. Anyway, it's the only game in town that I can see. Someone said the one thing to remember about interest is: "Them that understands it gets it. Them that don't pays it."
About your parents' house.... If they bought it at 120 and it appreciated, how did they lose? Did they get a 2nd mortgage?
Anyway, about how we maintain, I have found that if you are willing to stay out of debt you can make quite good. The trick is how you define 'good.' Some people think the American Dream is keeping up with the Joneses. I think it is staying out of debt. Maybe the trick with us is that our total car payment is like $150. We rarely eat out. I don't know. I like to think it's karma for that 11% (or something like that). I gotta get rid of that car payment. I think if we could have our only debt as the house, we would be well-off indeed.
How do we keep the house up? We are careful, and we curb each others' spending. We have handy friends. I don't know. We haven't had to do many repairs. Our home was built in 1987, and the only problem I have is the shingles. A couple more years and I'll have to put more on. Maybe our low upkeep is also due to good karma.
Other things we do to protect ourselves: we keep a 72-hour emergency kit in the house and in the minivan. We are starting to acquire a year's supply of food.
I'll have to get back to you on that $500 riddle.
We own 2 cars.
We have Dish TV.
We have one kid and one due in June.
We put away a couple hundred every month for retirement, and manage to put some into savings.
We have a telephone and 1 cell phone (we used to have 2, but got rid of one. Too much money).
High-speed internet (which I understand costs too much around here)
We get our cars fixed when we need to.
We manage to donate about 11% to charity each month
We have pets. (Only one now. The cat was just killed, and it cost more to put him to sleep than to feed him for a year. How about that?)
My wife and I both got Masters degrees and paid for them both, with the exception of a thousand dollar gift from my dad.
We have the insurance thing going on, on the home, the car, and our health. We have kinda inadequate benefits, so we pay a little extra for some supplemental insurance.
My wife has back problems so that brings in some extra bills (not all covered by our plan) and expenses (more expensive bed, etc.).
You might be interested to know that my wife will quit working in May, and she makes about 1/3 of our total income.
Did I forget anything?
Oh, I am 6'2" and weigh 150 lbs. Hardly fat. Definitely happy.
I must confess I don't understand the point you were trying to make with your post. I am not trying to antagonize, I am trying to give you an example of a family that makes less than $50x/yr and maintains a high standard of living.
Something from your post that bothers me, however, is this: "I haven't bought a house because I find paying interest rates to be antithetical to my way of thinking."
When I payed rent, I was paying someone else's interest rates, now I am paying mine. That's my way of thinking, please tell me more about yours. Again, I am not trying to antagonize, it's just that your statement flies in the face of everything that I have thought since I graduated high school.
I think it also says something about killing Soviet prisoners, non-Jewish holocaust, etc. There are numbers for Stalin's non-war dead as well. The most sickening to me are the numbers for Mao. Those figures are for regime, not war.
The real point of this is made just below your post, here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=175839&cid=146 16243.
What does it matter? We stop what we can, fix what we can, mourn, then move on, trying to stop it from happening again.
The slaves were not good workers. They were dishonest and had to be watched constantly and didn't do good work. For the quality of workers, it was just not worth it. Washington started to realize that his slaves were a ball and chain. He couldn't keep them because it wasn't working and it was just wrong anyway. He couldn't free them, because they had been raised with such a terrible work ethic that working for a living was simply alien to them.
If someone has better knowledge of this than I do, please let me know.
I guess that my point is that in the battle of "morality versus wealth" as you put it, the slave holders were losing both ways.
Check out http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm.
While I agree that the slave trade was bad, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao far outstrip it.
That page is kinda freaky.
So let me set the record straight:
I think President Bush should uphold the law. Even the ones that make his job a little more difficult.
I am proud to pay taxes.
I could also do with a little less pride.
Rereading my post, I did sound Libertarian, didn't I? No, I don't know that you can call me that. I find it harder every day to find a political idealogy that I can subscribe to. Again, I was trying to sound extreme, as I thought you were doing.
"This is why I am a firm believer in transparency, checks and balances such as a strong and independent judiciary, a well-educated electorate, a free press... you know, the Bill of Rights. American sorts of things."
I also want transparency, etc. "Here I really must congratulate you. You've demonstrated an excellent grasp of Karl Rove's basic theory of American politics. a) make all opposition Liberals, who are presumably all the same, and presumably all wish for a Sharpton/Clinton ticket in 2008 b) make all Liberals the friends and protectors of terrorists."
Doesn't it look like you are doing the same thing? You seem to think that all opposition to your idea are Conservatives or Libertarians, presumably supporting all that Bush and Cheney do, and making all Conservatives and Libertarians the enemies of our constitutional liberties.
To be fair, I think this country is becoming more and more polarized into those camps. That which you call Karl Rove's theory is becoming true, as far as I can see. Hopefully it is a long way off.
This begs another question: Why is it that so many liberals are willing to completely and lovingly give up their own and others immediate right to enjoy their rights of property (taxes), but fly off the handle when there is any kind of perception of obscure rights-trampling, even in time of war?
I think your question shows your inability to really look at what conservatives think. People often chalk it up to ignorance, stupidity, or even evil, when that's not the case. In your example, you berade the conservatives for mistrusting the government in one way, but not another, when you mistrust the government in one way, but not another. The conservatives want their rights respected (right of property), but are allowing the government to disrespect the rights of suspected terrorists (right to due process). Allow me to assume you are a liberal. The liberal view would be to disrespect the rights of the conservatives to their property while respecting the rights of the suspected terrorists to due process. You would trample (by degrees) the rights of all to their property, while protecting the rights of some (the suspected terrorists) to their due process.
I have purposefully misrepresented the issue a little bit (I apologize if I went too far, but if I did, so did you), but I hope I made my point: niether you nor the conservatives are interested in the rights of ALL. Your post simply shows that by your own standards (respecting rights), you are as guilty as those you oppose.
Now, to answer your question: Seriously, why is it that so many conservatives don't trust that stupid, evil, wasteful government to run a social program (just give me my taxes back!), but trust them completely and lovingly to tap your phone or imprison you without trial?
Perhaps it is because they see excessive taxation as a direct, constant infringement of their right to property (and the liberty that comes with it), while they see the infringement of the rights of a few (the suspected terrorists) as a necessary sacrifice to ensure the right to life of the citizens of the US.
Another thing that goes along with this: those who support the illegal wiretapping don't think that it will come back to bite them.
Mwa ha ha ha!!!
Contact me for the address where you can send the reward check.
Not necessarily. I thought I gave examples of that in my post. But then I suppose you never wanted to hear a response to yours.
If one of my neighbors gets sick, and I find out they haven't the resources to get well, I will do whatever I can to help them through. If little Johnny can't live without an expensive operation, you can be sure that my neighbors and I will see to it that he recieves the operation.
People banding together to make the world better is what makes a community. The government taking care of you does not.
How would I propose to provide health care to everyone? I would not. I know a man whose family is destitute. About a year ago he did a job and got paid $2000. He bought a TV. He can afford health care, he just doesn't want it. I realize there are some who truly need health care, but I don't see what the deal is. Also, I truly don't know anyone who can't get access to a doctor if they need it. One of my friends works for the county health dept. as a doctor for those who can't afford it. There is a Free Doctor's clinic here in town. While I admit I don't have a clear picture of the whole health care problem, I know there are a lot of POOR families around here, and they all have access to medical attention. I don't want to change that right now, but I don't want to expand it, either.
As for water, I am pretty sure my grandparents' home didn't have running water. I am certain their homes where they grew up didn't have running water. This is not to say running water is not a good thing, but history has shown that life does not require indoor plumbing.