I don't know if you recall the old Buffy website, but it basically gave the same two-dimensional labels to each of those characters. From experience, we know that isn't the case, and that quite a bit of depth is imbued into each and every character, even cameos and guest stars.
Seriously, you're judging a book by its (marketing) cover.
There are plenty of good shows on American TV lately. Alias is one of the most intriguing crime-drama-esque shows I've ever seen, and while Buffy's last season was slumpish, it's still good enough to qualify as "quality programming" (depending on tastes). Angel (the Buffy spinoff), in my opinion has surpassed Buffy as of last season, making it officially good, and there are plenty of other exceptional shows out there too. Gilmore Girls (admittedly a chick-oriented show), Junkyard Wars (the American one too), Law & Order, Law & Order: Criminal Intent (better than the original, IMHO), ER, etc., are all exceptional programs, and extremely well-done, whether you like them or not.
Granted, there may be more crap than quality, but that isn't sufficient to dismiss all the programming as crap.
I prefer the pay-for-service / subscription model. I pay to specifically have HBO. It's an option, on my local cable provider, that I selected and pay for. I don't have HBO for the movies, or any of that, but for shows like "Oz", "Six Feet Under", "The Wire", and others of their ilk. I find them to be immensely entertaining, and don't have any problem at all paying for HBO.
On that same token, I'd be happy to pay for the other channels that I watch more regularly, instead of having to pay for a "package" that includes channels I don't want. I seldom, if ever, watch anything on TNN, or E!, etc., and would rather pay, individually, for channels that I watch more frequently, like Discovery (and some of its brethren), TLC, History, and maybe even Fox, or whatever stations show Alias and Buffy these days, which are about the only prime time shows that I watch.
If I had to pay for each show, individually, that wouldn't be too bad, except that I'd almost never be exposed to new shows to be addicted to, since there wouldn't be commercials in the shows that I was watching. Perhaps, if a show-on-demand functionality were in place, then there would be ads for other shows, or recommended shows, sort of like an "If you like Buffy, you'll love Angel" kind of recommendation, that I could look at on my "program / menu" channel, or what have you.
Basically though, while ads don't bother me so badly (thanks Tivo), I'd rather not pay for the things that I don't watch, and have more control over what I do pay for. If that's on a per channel or per show basis, I really couldn't say, but I suspect that "per channel" is going to slake the thirst of more people.
It's always going up and down. I think the servers are UK based, as my UK brethren have stated that it is definitely much faster across the pond, while it sucks in the states. It's also over-saturated, and it's not at all uncommon to have it go down three, four times in a night.
Mostly, those are the reasons I stopped using it. Still though, it's a ton of fun when things are working correctly.
Actually, the not too unlikely scenario that might follow would involve people picking up the "internet issues" to gain popularity, who know nothing about them, and who have no real intentions to do anything different than how things are.
If Grubb gets any votes, "Digital Rights Management" will be the next big election platform that nobody does anything about.
Maybe, maybe not. Honestly, I really doubt that people understand the processes involved in DNA analysis, but if you have an expert on the stand saying that it's identical, then twelve average persons believe it. Now, it becomes a bit different if you have two experts disputing each other, but even then, it doesn't necessarily come down to who is more accurate, but who is more likeable.
Well, I certainly agree with that sentiment. It's not the government's business what goes on private property. While I understand how noble their intentions, it simply isn't their place.
That said, I don't see why cinemas don't more actively usher their theaters. I mean, seriously, I will never go to a theater on the weekend (Friday nights especially) because there's too much noise and racket going on, from cell phones, to persons on opposite ends of the theater chatting, to latecomers, etc.
If a given cinema were to ACTIVELY ush (is that a word?) their theaters, especially on weekends, then they'd most likely earn my weekend business at the very least. There are plenty of Fridays that I'd like to go see a movie, or a debut, but usually put it off until during the week because I know I won't be able to enjoy it. If there were a theater I could go to that actively monitored each theater, and was able to maintain a peaceful environment in which I could enjoy my movie, I'd go there in a heartbeat.
I'm not all that hot on the economics, but I expect that with as little cinema employees are paid, and the (expected) revenue increase as word of mouth spread about how quiet their theaters were, the profit gain on food and beverage sales would more than make up for the extra outlay in manpower, but more importantly, I could enjoy the movie.
Please. You really ARE wasting my time. It's not the wisest thing to act as if you're a mind-reader. You're not. There are many public works that I don't have any problems paying taxes for. I understand the purpose of soup kitchens and homeless shelters, but that is, in my opinion, not the role of the government. Should they need to exist, in my opinion, they should be not-for-profits.
As for my "redneck ass" never reading this, I try to respond to anything that looks even halfway intelligent. You just barely passed the margin, and of course, insulting me does little to get your points across. Oh, and while I might currently live in Tennessee (a redneck state), I'm almost assuredly more well travelled than you, and by no means grew up here.
Oh, and by the way, perhaps, if you actually bothered to try and start some conversation and/or dialogue, instead of bashing what you (obviously) didn't understand, then we might have realized that there are plenty of your points that I agree with. Unfortunately, you've taken to the notion that even the slightest disagreement is obviously contrary to your own superior notions of how things should be.
Of course my taxes pay for police and the armed forces, and whatnot. That's the PURPOSE of the government.
If you read the other reply I wrote to you, you'll see that I don't object to paying taxes at all. I object to paying taxes that go towards things like welfare and supporting the lives of convicted murderers for life terms.
I HAVE gotten where I am on my own, and for you to demean that means that you're either on crack, or too used to having the government bail you out of your every petty woe to see that that's not their purpose.
Well, to my knowledge, it isn't open source, but Habbo Hotel is pretty close to what you're describing. It's free to anyone that wishes to use it, but actually buying stuff costs money.
It's oddly addictive, especially if you've got a bunch of friends that are also users.
Just for the record, I fucking hate Limbaugh with a passion. The opinions that I've formed are predominately my own. I simply believe in personal responsibility. If that means that I have to pay the penalty for having made whatever bad decisions led me to a life of poverty, then so be it.
I don't claim that my opinion is popular, or that it should be yours, but it's mine, and thank the heavens, I'm entitled to it.
That said, if I were, for example, to receive back all the money that I'd paid in taxes, thus far, that were earmarked and or paid to schools, then I'd at least have the money to put my own daughter through the schools of my choosing.
And also, I'm not opposed to taxes, I'm opposed to where my taxes go. I have no problem paying taxes at all, and understand where and why they are used in the methods that they are. Frankly, I would just rather have more choice.
As for what is "holding me back", currently, nothing is. I'm quite happy in the life that I lead. I've got a great wife, great daughter, and a great job, with enough to put away for savings and enough food on the table to feed everyone.
However, to do the question justice, what's holding me back is everyone else. Just as a lifeguard with a rescuee in tow is being "held back" by the person he's rescuing, I am being held back by everyone on Tennessee welfare, and a host of others.
Anyway, if you'd like to have a real discussion, then I'm certainly open to it. If you, however, are going to make accusations that you can't possibly back up (which you've already done a number of times), then please, don't distract me any more.
I don't have a problem with tax-funded health care. No problem at all. If it were all or nothing, then frankly, I'd have nothing, but all isn't so bad either. The problem I have with "the way things are" currently, is that there are people out there recieving the benefit of my taxes, and are getting state funded health care, and I am not. If I go to the hospital, I am expected to pay. If nobody were expected to pay, then I wouldn't have a problem with it, as it would be entirely governmentally funded at that point. I fear that the quality of health care may decline, but that's a seperate issue altogether.
Same thing basically goes for welfare. I understand that it is, essentially, to provide those less fortunate with the means to pull themselves up, but, with its current failure rate, I simply can't see why it hasn't been pulled. Rather, I can see why it hasn't been pulled (to keep crime in check in poverty-stricken areas), but don't agree with it. If either everybody or nobody received welfare (and everybody just seems kind of stupid, doesn't it?) then it would be fair to all, whereas it currently isn't.
Ironically, while I live in the country where you're free to make as much of yourself as you're able (yeah, the US), the more that I make, the more I have to help others up to my level. I fought damn hard to have the meager little life that I have today, and I get a little out of sorts seeing portions of my paycheck handed to those not willing to try as hard.
As for your "tragedy scenario", honestly, I really hope that I never end up in a situation to have to take welfare from the state. As I stated earlier, I am constantly doing everything I can to prevent it from happening, and while I sit here and staunchly proclaim that I'm "above it", the truth is that, like everybody, if it were take welfare or let my daughter starve to death, I'd likely take the welfare, but the caveat to that statement is that I'm doing everything in my power to ensure that I never need to.
To put the light in a SLIGHTLY different perspective:
You have package a (closed product) and package b (open product) that are similar in features, blah blah blah.
Package a and package b have similar bugs. Because Package B is open source, any one of the users experiencing that bug has the ability to fix it. While this may or may not be you, and may or may not be the manufacturer or package b, if it's a pretty widespread bug, it can be fixed by anyone, and is likely to be fixed by someone.
Compare and contrast the recent SSL bug. When discovered, company a (Microsoft in this case)has not yet patched the bug (correct me if that's wrong), whereas the same bug, as found in Konqueror (open source) was patched in 90 minutes.
While you're right that Package B manufacturers may not have as much monetary incentive to fix the bug, any of the users can as well, though typically fixes are provided in a rapid manner for high profile bugs in open source projects. For less common bugs (read: something that only you are experiencing), you might not ever get a fix at all, but then again, that goes for the closed source product as well.
Don't get me wrong... I completely understand where you're coming from, and I respect your opinion, and, as things currently are, I respect your right to utilize tax-funded services. That IS what they are there for. I don't think poorly of those on welfare, or those that DO utilize state-funded services, but seriously, if I had the option of either giving them my money or not, then I wouldn't.
Currently, I have a small-ish nest egg set aside in the event that I do lose my job. I maintain an occupation the provides benefits in the event that I, or my wife or daughter should suffer any "expensive" illnesses. I came from a VERY poor family, with almost no education, much of it home-schooled / tutored, and taught myself literally everything that I know, except that which I was lucky enough to find other people's brains to pick from or that which my parents taught me.
I don't wish any ill upon those with lesser paystubs, or less ability to get better pay, and understand that especially, in a down economy, things are hard all the way around.
The bulk of my belief is founded upon the principle that I, with poor education and poor "options in life", born of a proud father who refused welfare even when we needed it, was able to make a living for myself. I'm not rich, by any means, but I do okay for myself.
Hopefully, I'll raise my daughter in such a manner that she would never feel that she had to run away instead of talking to me. Yeah, I know that this may not be the case, and while I respect that there are shelters out there that take kids in and do good, I don't feel that it's the duty of the government (local, city, state, federal, whatever) to provide them.
Again, I don't wish any ill on the "have-nots", but having been there, and having worked myself into adult-hood, and been able to escalate my standing in life without a whole lot going for me, I don't see why I should have to help others out. Yes, there was aid for me and my family if I needed it, and yes, there are families out there that I'm sure do need it, but it isn't necessary, and I know that first hand.
Is my belief selfish? Maybe. Probably even. But I can honestly say that I've gotten where I am today on my own accord, and would hope that others realize that they could as well.
I'm sure that there are plenty of us that own Xboxes, but fortunately, I'm not one of them. I'm glad that Carmack is getting more exposure, though, even if I don't like the crowd so much.
I have given quite a bit of thought to what I said. That said, color me as evil as you like, but I don't see where it's my responsibility to pay for state run nursing homes and hospitals, and I don't honestly understand why they should necessarily exist.
This is not to say that I don't understand WHY they're there, but to say that I don't agree with why they're there. Also, for the record, I don't agree with state-run homeless shelters, soup kitchens, dog pounds, and (oooh, here's a biggie) schools. I don't see why my taxes should pay for them, or, to restate it, I don't see why someone (for example) who doesn't have any children should have to pay property taxes that go towards schools.
Yes, I am a parent, and I'm perfectly prepared to send them to private schools and / or pay for their schooling altogether. If I had the choice, it would be the tax dollars that I didn't spend that would (at least in part) fund my daughter's education.
I don't give a fuck if they're put to death or kept in sentence for life, as long as they're not a drain on my tax budget. As it stands though, it's cheaper for me, the taxpayer, to kill a convicted murderer than it is to pay for his life in prison. Since I'm the one paying the taxes, it should be my decision.
Again, I don't care which is the better, or more humane way to deal with convicted criminals. I care about my own welfare above theirs, and don't see the point in wasting my tax dollars to sustain their lives, when it isn't contributing anything back to "the community".
Seems to me like HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, et al are all making money.
I imagine that, should the bottom fall out of the advertising model, it will all move to a subscription model, which frankly, suits me fine, since it will (hopefully) allow me to pick and choose which channels I want (Discovery, TLC, History, HGTV, Noggn, Cartoon Channel, etc) instead of having to pay for a bunch of crap I'll NEVER EVER EVER watch (QVC, HSN, TNN, BET, etc)
Precisely. I've got a failing PC in the kitchen. I've set up a "home web site" that does a few nice things that the wife enjoys. Basically, I've got a website running (internal to the home only) that allows my wife, from any of the computers in the house (but mainly the kitchen one, where she belongs!!!;)) to add items to our grocery list (which, when printed out, is automatically sorted by aisle for our local Kroger for easy shopping), or browse recipes that we've cataloged. We're not the best cooks (though we've found some killer recipes), so every now and again we fill the kitchen with smoke (mostly from letting oil get too hot before inserting food to be cooked in it), which has put quite a wear and tear on the kitchen box. When it dies, this would be the perfect type of PC to replace it with.
Is that to say that you spend 200 Au dollars per quarter for power? With current exchange rates, you're spending about $105 per quarter, while I'm spending around $150 per month, or $450 per quarter.
Slashdot Mirror
Then how about upgradeable RAM AND GPUs?
I know nothing of this. It's probably a stupid idea.
I should be modded down on principle.
-9mm-
I don't know if you recall the old Buffy website, but it basically gave the same two-dimensional labels to each of those characters. From experience, we know that isn't the case, and that quite a bit of depth is imbued into each and every character, even cameos and guest stars.
Seriously, you're judging a book by its (marketing) cover.
-9mm-
There are plenty of good shows on American TV lately. Alias is one of the most intriguing crime-drama-esque shows I've ever seen, and while Buffy's last season was slumpish, it's still good enough to qualify as "quality programming" (depending on tastes). Angel (the Buffy spinoff), in my opinion has surpassed Buffy as of last season, making it officially good, and there are plenty of other exceptional shows out there too. Gilmore Girls (admittedly a chick-oriented show), Junkyard Wars (the American one too), Law & Order, Law & Order: Criminal Intent (better than the original, IMHO), ER, etc., are all exceptional programs, and extremely well-done, whether you like them or not.
Granted, there may be more crap than quality, but that isn't sufficient to dismiss all the programming as crap.
-9mm-
I prefer the pay-for-service / subscription model. I pay to specifically have HBO. It's an option, on my local cable provider, that I selected and pay for. I don't have HBO for the movies, or any of that, but for shows like "Oz", "Six Feet Under", "The Wire", and others of their ilk. I find them to be immensely entertaining, and don't have any problem at all paying for HBO.
On that same token, I'd be happy to pay for the other channels that I watch more regularly, instead of having to pay for a "package" that includes channels I don't want. I seldom, if ever, watch anything on TNN, or E!, etc., and would rather pay, individually, for channels that I watch more frequently, like Discovery (and some of its brethren), TLC, History, and maybe even Fox, or whatever stations show Alias and Buffy these days, which are about the only prime time shows that I watch.
If I had to pay for each show, individually, that wouldn't be too bad, except that I'd almost never be exposed to new shows to be addicted to, since there wouldn't be commercials in the shows that I was watching. Perhaps, if a show-on-demand functionality were in place, then there would be ads for other shows, or recommended shows, sort of like an "If you like Buffy, you'll love Angel" kind of recommendation, that I could look at on my "program / menu" channel, or what have you.
Basically though, while ads don't bother me so badly (thanks Tivo), I'd rather not pay for the things that I don't watch, and have more control over what I do pay for. If that's on a per channel or per show basis, I really couldn't say, but I suspect that "per channel" is going to slake the thirst of more people.
-9mm-
Domino runs on Linux, and runs well.
I can't say if there are Linux clients of Notes though, but the server not only exists, but excels.
-9mm-
It's always going up and down. I think the servers are UK based, as my UK brethren have stated that it is definitely much faster across the pond, while it sucks in the states. It's also over-saturated, and it's not at all uncommon to have it go down three, four times in a night.
Mostly, those are the reasons I stopped using it. Still though, it's a ton of fun when things are working correctly.
-9mm-
Actually, the not too unlikely scenario that might follow would involve people picking up the "internet issues" to gain popularity, who know nothing about them, and who have no real intentions to do anything different than how things are.
If Grubb gets any votes, "Digital Rights Management" will be the next big election platform that nobody does anything about.
-9mm-
Maybe, maybe not. Honestly, I really doubt that people understand the processes involved in DNA analysis, but if you have an expert on the stand saying that it's identical, then twelve average persons believe it. Now, it becomes a bit different if you have two experts disputing each other, but even then, it doesn't necessarily come down to who is more accurate, but who is more likeable.
-9mm-
Well, I certainly agree with that sentiment. It's not the government's business what goes on private property. While I understand how noble their intentions, it simply isn't their place.
That said, I don't see why cinemas don't more actively usher their theaters. I mean, seriously, I will never go to a theater on the weekend (Friday nights especially) because there's too much noise and racket going on, from cell phones, to persons on opposite ends of the theater chatting, to latecomers, etc.
If a given cinema were to ACTIVELY ush (is that a word?) their theaters, especially on weekends, then they'd most likely earn my weekend business at the very least. There are plenty of Fridays that I'd like to go see a movie, or a debut, but usually put it off until during the week because I know I won't be able to enjoy it. If there were a theater I could go to that actively monitored each theater, and was able to maintain a peaceful environment in which I could enjoy my movie, I'd go there in a heartbeat.
I'm not all that hot on the economics, but I expect that with as little cinema employees are paid, and the (expected) revenue increase as word of mouth spread about how quiet their theaters were, the profit gain on food and beverage sales would more than make up for the extra outlay in manpower, but more importantly, I could enjoy the movie.
-9mm-
-9mm-
I'm sorry Tony. I didn't realize that you were a troll.
-9mm-
Again you attribute my opinions to Limbaugh.
Please. You really ARE wasting my time. It's not the wisest thing to act as if you're a mind-reader. You're not. There are many public works that I don't have any problems paying taxes for. I understand the purpose of soup kitchens and homeless shelters, but that is, in my opinion, not the role of the government. Should they need to exist, in my opinion, they should be not-for-profits.
As for my "redneck ass" never reading this, I try to respond to anything that looks even halfway intelligent. You just barely passed the margin, and of course, insulting me does little to get your points across. Oh, and while I might currently live in Tennessee (a redneck state), I'm almost assuredly more well travelled than you, and by no means grew up here.
Oh, and by the way, perhaps, if you actually bothered to try and start some conversation and/or dialogue, instead of bashing what you (obviously) didn't understand, then we might have realized that there are plenty of your points that I agree with. Unfortunately, you've taken to the notion that even the slightest disagreement is obviously contrary to your own superior notions of how things should be.
-9mm-
You're silly.
Of course my taxes pay for police and the armed forces, and whatnot. That's the PURPOSE of the government.
If you read the other reply I wrote to you, you'll see that I don't object to paying taxes at all. I object to paying taxes that go towards things like welfare and supporting the lives of convicted murderers for life terms.
I HAVE gotten where I am on my own, and for you to demean that means that you're either on crack, or too used to having the government bail you out of your every petty woe to see that that's not their purpose.
-9mm-
It's oddly addictive, especially if you've got a bunch of friends that are also users.
-9mm-
Just for the record, I fucking hate Limbaugh with a passion. The opinions that I've formed are predominately my own. I simply believe in personal responsibility. If that means that I have to pay the penalty for having made whatever bad decisions led me to a life of poverty, then so be it.
I don't claim that my opinion is popular, or that it should be yours, but it's mine, and thank the heavens, I'm entitled to it.
That said, if I were, for example, to receive back all the money that I'd paid in taxes, thus far, that were earmarked and or paid to schools, then I'd at least have the money to put my own daughter through the schools of my choosing.
And also, I'm not opposed to taxes, I'm opposed to where my taxes go. I have no problem paying taxes at all, and understand where and why they are used in the methods that they are. Frankly, I would just rather have more choice.
As for what is "holding me back", currently, nothing is. I'm quite happy in the life that I lead. I've got a great wife, great daughter, and a great job, with enough to put away for savings and enough food on the table to feed everyone.
However, to do the question justice, what's holding me back is everyone else. Just as a lifeguard with a rescuee in tow is being "held back" by the person he's rescuing, I am being held back by everyone on Tennessee welfare, and a host of others.
Anyway, if you'd like to have a real discussion, then I'm certainly open to it. If you, however, are going to make accusations that you can't possibly back up (which you've already done a number of times), then please, don't distract me any more.
Thanks,
-9mm-
I don't have a problem with tax-funded health care. No problem at all. If it were all or nothing, then frankly, I'd have nothing, but all isn't so bad either. The problem I have with "the way things are" currently, is that there are people out there recieving the benefit of my taxes, and are getting state funded health care, and I am not. If I go to the hospital, I am expected to pay. If nobody were expected to pay, then I wouldn't have a problem with it, as it would be entirely governmentally funded at that point. I fear that the quality of health care may decline, but that's a seperate issue altogether.
Same thing basically goes for welfare. I understand that it is, essentially, to provide those less fortunate with the means to pull themselves up, but, with its current failure rate, I simply can't see why it hasn't been pulled. Rather, I can see why it hasn't been pulled (to keep crime in check in poverty-stricken areas), but don't agree with it. If either everybody or nobody received welfare (and everybody just seems kind of stupid, doesn't it?) then it would be fair to all, whereas it currently isn't.
Ironically, while I live in the country where you're free to make as much of yourself as you're able (yeah, the US), the more that I make, the more I have to help others up to my level. I fought damn hard to have the meager little life that I have today, and I get a little out of sorts seeing portions of my paycheck handed to those not willing to try as hard.
As for your "tragedy scenario", honestly, I really hope that I never end up in a situation to have to take welfare from the state. As I stated earlier, I am constantly doing everything I can to prevent it from happening, and while I sit here and staunchly proclaim that I'm "above it", the truth is that, like everybody, if it were take welfare or let my daughter starve to death, I'd likely take the welfare, but the caveat to that statement is that I'm doing everything in my power to ensure that I never need to.
-9mm-
To put the light in a SLIGHTLY different perspective:
You have package a (closed product) and package b (open product) that are similar in features, blah blah blah.
Package a and package b have similar bugs. Because Package B is open source, any one of the users experiencing that bug has the ability to fix it. While this may or may not be you, and may or may not be the manufacturer or package b, if it's a pretty widespread bug, it can be fixed by anyone, and is likely to be fixed by someone.
Compare and contrast the recent SSL bug. When discovered, company a (Microsoft in this case)has not yet patched the bug (correct me if that's wrong), whereas the same bug, as found in Konqueror (open source) was patched in 90 minutes.
While you're right that Package B manufacturers may not have as much monetary incentive to fix the bug, any of the users can as well, though typically fixes are provided in a rapid manner for high profile bugs in open source projects. For less common bugs (read: something that only you are experiencing), you might not ever get a fix at all, but then again, that goes for the closed source product as well.
Hope I've helped,
-9mm-
Don't get me wrong... I completely understand where you're coming from, and I respect your opinion, and, as things currently are, I respect your right to utilize tax-funded services. That IS what they are there for. I don't think poorly of those on welfare, or those that DO utilize state-funded services, but seriously, if I had the option of either giving them my money or not, then I wouldn't.
Currently, I have a small-ish nest egg set aside in the event that I do lose my job. I maintain an occupation the provides benefits in the event that I, or my wife or daughter should suffer any "expensive" illnesses. I came from a VERY poor family, with almost no education, much of it home-schooled / tutored, and taught myself literally everything that I know, except that which I was lucky enough to find other people's brains to pick from or that which my parents taught me.
I don't wish any ill upon those with lesser paystubs, or less ability to get better pay, and understand that especially, in a down economy, things are hard all the way around.
The bulk of my belief is founded upon the principle that I, with poor education and poor "options in life", born of a proud father who refused welfare even when we needed it, was able to make a living for myself. I'm not rich, by any means, but I do okay for myself.
Hopefully, I'll raise my daughter in such a manner that she would never feel that she had to run away instead of talking to me. Yeah, I know that this may not be the case, and while I respect that there are shelters out there that take kids in and do good, I don't feel that it's the duty of the government (local, city, state, federal, whatever) to provide them.
Again, I don't wish any ill on the "have-nots", but having been there, and having worked myself into adult-hood, and been able to escalate my standing in life without a whole lot going for me, I don't see why I should have to help others out. Yes, there was aid for me and my family if I needed it, and yes, there are families out there that I'm sure do need it, but it isn't necessary, and I know that first hand.
Is my belief selfish? Maybe. Probably even. But I can honestly say that I've gotten where I am today on my own accord, and would hope that others realize that they could as well.
-9mm-
Yay?
I'm sure that there are plenty of us that own Xboxes, but fortunately, I'm not one of them. I'm glad that Carmack is getting more exposure, though, even if I don't like the crowd so much.
-9mm-
Forgive me if I can't see the societal benefit of keeping convicted murderers alive on my dollars.
-9mm-
I have given quite a bit of thought to what I said. That said, color me as evil as you like, but I don't see where it's my responsibility to pay for state run nursing homes and hospitals, and I don't honestly understand why they should necessarily exist.
This is not to say that I don't understand WHY they're there, but to say that I don't agree with why they're there. Also, for the record, I don't agree with state-run homeless shelters, soup kitchens, dog pounds, and (oooh, here's a biggie) schools. I don't see why my taxes should pay for them, or, to restate it, I don't see why someone (for example) who doesn't have any children should have to pay property taxes that go towards schools.
Yes, I am a parent, and I'm perfectly prepared to send them to private schools and / or pay for their schooling altogether. If I had the choice, it would be the tax dollars that I didn't spend that would (at least in part) fund my daughter's education.
-9mm-
I don't give a fuck if they're put to death or kept in sentence for life, as long as they're not a drain on my tax budget. As it stands though, it's cheaper for me, the taxpayer, to kill a convicted murderer than it is to pay for his life in prison. Since I'm the one paying the taxes, it should be my decision.
Again, I don't care which is the better, or more humane way to deal with convicted criminals. I care about my own welfare above theirs, and don't see the point in wasting my tax dollars to sustain their lives, when it isn't contributing anything back to "the community".
-9mm-
Seems to me like HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, et al are all making money.
I imagine that, should the bottom fall out of the advertising model, it will all move to a subscription model, which frankly, suits me fine, since it will (hopefully) allow me to pick and choose which channels I want (Discovery, TLC, History, HGTV, Noggn, Cartoon Channel, etc) instead of having to pay for a bunch of crap I'll NEVER EVER EVER watch (QVC, HSN, TNN, BET, etc)
-9mm-
Precisely. I've got a failing PC in the kitchen. I've set up a "home web site" that does a few nice things that the wife enjoys. Basically, I've got a website running (internal to the home only) that allows my wife, from any of the computers in the house (but mainly the kitchen one, where she belongs!!! ;)) to add items to our grocery list (which, when printed out, is automatically sorted by aisle for our local Kroger for easy shopping), or browse recipes that we've cataloged. We're not the best cooks (though we've found some killer recipes), so every now and again we fill the kitchen with smoke (mostly from letting oil get too hot before inserting food to be cooked in it), which has put quite a wear and tear on the kitchen box. When it dies, this would be the perfect type of PC to replace it with.
-9mm-
Is that to say that you spend 200 Au dollars per quarter for power? With current exchange rates, you're spending about $105 per quarter, while I'm spending around $150 per month, or $450 per quarter.
-9mm-