You don't have to blow a lot of money, but unless your definition of "weekend family getaway" is driving 300 miles, your whole family sleeping in the car and not eating any food the whole time, I'm suggesting you're not going to do it for $60. The larger point I'm arguing is that nobody said you can't have a weekend family getaway for a lot less than $2350, they are saying it that's what it could average. Immediately everybody jumps on that to point out how you could do it a lot less.... yes, you could. You could do it for a lot more, too. That's why it's an average.
I typed all those words because people are talking the statement "A typical weekend family getaway with all things factored in, could average $2,328" and completely misunderstanding what they are saying. I have an annual parking permit to a park nearby - I go hiking there all the time for no extra cost, but that's not a weekend getaway, is it? A getaway involves, you know, getting away, which means travel, hotels, and restaurants at least. Nobody said you can't do something for a lot less money; nobody said you can't even get away for a whole weekend for a lot less money - that's why they said "could average" instead of "costs at least."
A "day" is not a weekend, and going to the local park isn't a "getaway." You're conflating what you could do to occupy time with what they are claiming the "average" cost is for a weekend getaway. That means travel, hotels, restaurants, and the cost of whatever it is you are traveling to (if it's not a theme park, it's something else - an aquarium, a zoo, something). They also say it's an average cost, not the cheapest thing you can possibly do.
Yeah.... we'd be gone all day and only come home around dinner time... and then go back to our friends houses or the parks and come home for bedtime. My wife sounds a lot like yours. I point out there's no difference, just more ubiquitous media scare tactics, but it doesn't work.
My father runs an accounting business. His tax software is only available on Windows, and not as a service.
I work in a media company. Yes, some have Macs, but most of the software is only available for Windows, so most users must use Windows. Now the other departments could possibly use something like Linux, but then it's another system that needs to be supported (given that we still must support Windows, anyway).
I'm sorry Linux fans (of which I am one... the web servers I set up for work are Linux, and I'm typing this on Linux as my desktop right now), but there's a lot of proprietary software that many companies use that is only available on Windows. Most of it has no serious competition on Linux.
$60 will get you a round trip 300 miles away... for an entire weekend? That is impressive. I need to point out, again, they are talking about an "average" cost, not a bare minimum you could get away with cost, for a weekend getaway. Yes, you can spend a lot less; you can also spend a lot more. That's why it's an "average" they have somehow come up with for a family to travel somewhere for a weekend (which one would assume would be at least two nights). I'm not trying to argue with anybody - we have a park nearby that I have an annual parking pass to that I can use to go hiking whenever I want at no additional cost, but that's not what they are talking about.
I agree, but they are not talking about going to a park, they are talking about a weekend "getaway." That means travel expenses, restaurants, hotels, and paying for whatever you're visiting (like theme parks or museums or whatever you are doing). You can do it for a lot less than the "average" they give, but you could do it a lot more expensively (a LOT more expensively). That's why it's an "average," and not a bare minimum.
They are getting away... not going to some local park or a movie theater. Have you had to pay for your whole family to travel somewhere for a few nights? Hotels, travel expenses, restaurants.... and then you are typically paying for what you're going to, like theme parks or something. In a post above I described taking my family from GA to Universal Theme Parks in Orlando... we drove, we stayed on site, went to the park for two full days. It easily cost a lot more than that "average." Could you do things more cheaply? Of course! But they are giving an average, not the cheapest price you could possibly do something for. I could visit my parents (also in Florida, near the beach) for a lot less - stay with them for free. I'd only have travel expenses.... but then my family has to deal with my parents, which sucks the fun out of everything.
I don't buy the cost thing. It's most likely more convenient for the parents and the kids prefer their screens to the outdoors.
Do you have a family to support and take on vacation? I admit, it could be a little bit high, but I took my family of four to Universal Studios Orlando for a three night (two days in the parks) trip last month. We stayed on site, which boosted the cost quite a bit - more than the estimate in TFS just for the hotel and park tickets. We didn't have to, but you get a lot of perks and conveniences staying on site that you would have to pay for otherwise anyway, like express pass and not having to pay for parking (and early entry into the parks). Add in several days of decent (not McDonalds) meals, gas (we saved a lot by driving from GA), tolls (Florida Turnpike) and maybe a few souvenirs, and I easily topped $3500.
If you want to do something like that as cheaply as possible, you could do it for a lot less, but I suspect you'd compromise your enjoyment of it a lot as well.
I'm of the opinion that if I'm going to be spending that much anyway, it's better to spend a bit more to get the best experience instead of cheaping out, but YMMV.
As far as preferring screens to outdoors, you're absolutely right. I would love to go hiking, camping, rafting, canoeing... my kids would hate it. They don't want to go to the zoo, the aquarium, or anything that even sounds like it might be a museum of any sort. I don't know what to say about that - I've forced them in the past, hoping they'd feel it wasn't so bad, but that didn't happen. They don't hate the outdoors, but our options for cheap local outdoor activities are limited.
I actually had a worker at one of these phone stores actually stop to read facebook or twitter post (I honestly don't know what social media she was using). She actually stopped helping us to watch a f#@king video. This was after we told her we were in a hurry to get to work (it was first thing and they don't open until 10am). That was on top of a lot of other BS at the store. Yes, I think you are 100% correct in your assessment of these "employees."
Agree about setting up for the parents (both in their 80s). For the record, I was juggling four remotes - one JUST to turn on the TV, because none of the codes worked to completely control other devices on any of the remotes I had. I do have fireTV, and found a programmable (point the old remote at it) remote that clips onto the side of the FireTV remote, so I was able to eliminate two of the remotes, anyway. If I'm just using FireTV I have the "combined" remote and that's all I need.
I only need the cable remote if I watch live TV.
There's another issue here, too. Frankly, I live in an old house, and while I have plans to massively upgrade the home soon, there is but one outlet near the TV in my bonus room. It has to include the TV, the FireTV, a sound bar, the cable box, an HDMI switch (not really all that important, but for when we plug in a laptop). In addition, since it's where the cable enters the home, I have the cable modem, a router, a couple of ethernet switches; there is a work in progress Myth box I'm working on. Every little thing has it's own plug (or worse, wall wart that doesn't like being next to other things plugged in). Eliminating the need for a number of these devices might not only clean up the clutter, reduce the number of remotes needed, but also likely save some electricity. I imagine a "built in" FireTV would eliminate the switch and the external FireTV, anyway.
No, I'm pointing out, if you follow this thread, that it's not just as dangerous to put a potential laptop bomb in the cargo hold (not that I agree with this at all).
Exactly... nearly 30 years ago. That and Pan Am 103 spurred the creation of these bomb mitigating cargo containers. Haven't heard of another such incident in decades.
In fact, I saw a show that had a segment about the cargo containers they use in planes (and this was a LONG time ago, maybe some point after Pan Am flight 103). They are supposed to suppress the damage caused by a cargo area explosion. When was the last time we heard of any such successful bombing?
While I'm sure they'd let you use your laptop, you are NOT free from the same kind of scrutiny to board a ship for international travel than you are an airplane.
I know I don't "need" anything Google is offering, I'm saying it works good for me, it's convenient, and I already realize that I'm "paying" for it. Having it all in one package makes it even better/easier. My problem is in offering an alternative search engine to show that you don't need Google - choosing a different search engine is the easiest part of giving up Google.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have to blow a lot of money, but unless your definition of "weekend family getaway" is driving 300 miles, your whole family sleeping in the car and not eating any food the whole time, I'm suggesting you're not going to do it for $60. The larger point I'm arguing is that nobody said you can't have a weekend family getaway for a lot less than $2350, they are saying it that's what it could average. Immediately everybody jumps on that to point out how you could do it a lot less.... yes, you could. You could do it for a lot more, too. That's why it's an average.
I typed all those words because people are talking the statement "A typical weekend family getaway with all things factored in, could average $2,328" and completely misunderstanding what they are saying. I have an annual parking permit to a park nearby - I go hiking there all the time for no extra cost, but that's not a weekend getaway, is it? A getaway involves, you know, getting away, which means travel, hotels, and restaurants at least. Nobody said you can't do something for a lot less money; nobody said you can't even get away for a whole weekend for a lot less money - that's why they said "could average" instead of "costs at least."
A "day" is not a weekend, and going to the local park isn't a "getaway." You're conflating what you could do to occupy time with what they are claiming the "average" cost is for a weekend getaway. That means travel, hotels, restaurants, and the cost of whatever it is you are traveling to (if it's not a theme park, it's something else - an aquarium, a zoo, something). They also say it's an average cost, not the cheapest thing you can possibly do.
Yeah.... we'd be gone all day and only come home around dinner time... and then go back to our friends houses or the parks and come home for bedtime. My wife sounds a lot like yours. I point out there's no difference, just more ubiquitous media scare tactics, but it doesn't work.
My father runs an accounting business. His tax software is only available on Windows, and not as a service.
I work in a media company. Yes, some have Macs, but most of the software is only available for Windows, so most users must use Windows. Now the other departments could possibly use something like Linux, but then it's another system that needs to be supported (given that we still must support Windows, anyway).
I'm sorry Linux fans (of which I am one... the web servers I set up for work are Linux, and I'm typing this on Linux as my desktop right now), but there's a lot of proprietary software that many companies use that is only available on Windows. Most of it has no serious competition on Linux.
$60 will get you a round trip 300 miles away... for an entire weekend? That is impressive. I need to point out, again, they are talking about an "average" cost, not a bare minimum you could get away with cost, for a weekend getaway. Yes, you can spend a lot less; you can also spend a lot more. That's why it's an "average" they have somehow come up with for a family to travel somewhere for a weekend (which one would assume would be at least two nights). I'm not trying to argue with anybody - we have a park nearby that I have an annual parking pass to that I can use to go hiking whenever I want at no additional cost, but that's not what they are talking about.
I agree, but they are not talking about going to a park, they are talking about a weekend "getaway." That means travel expenses, restaurants, hotels, and paying for whatever you're visiting (like theme parks or museums or whatever you are doing). You can do it for a lot less than the "average" they give, but you could do it a lot more expensively (a LOT more expensively). That's why it's an "average," and not a bare minimum.
They are getting away... not going to some local park or a movie theater. Have you had to pay for your whole family to travel somewhere for a few nights? Hotels, travel expenses, restaurants.... and then you are typically paying for what you're going to, like theme parks or something. In a post above I described taking my family from GA to Universal Theme Parks in Orlando... we drove, we stayed on site, went to the park for two full days. It easily cost a lot more than that "average." Could you do things more cheaply? Of course! But they are giving an average, not the cheapest price you could possibly do something for. I could visit my parents (also in Florida, near the beach) for a lot less - stay with them for free. I'd only have travel expenses.... but then my family has to deal with my parents, which sucks the fun out of everything.
I don't buy the cost thing. It's most likely more convenient for the parents and the kids prefer their screens to the outdoors.
Do you have a family to support and take on vacation? I admit, it could be a little bit high, but I took my family of four to Universal Studios Orlando for a three night (two days in the parks) trip last month. We stayed on site, which boosted the cost quite a bit - more than the estimate in TFS just for the hotel and park tickets. We didn't have to, but you get a lot of perks and conveniences staying on site that you would have to pay for otherwise anyway, like express pass and not having to pay for parking (and early entry into the parks). Add in several days of decent (not McDonalds) meals, gas (we saved a lot by driving from GA), tolls (Florida Turnpike) and maybe a few souvenirs, and I easily topped $3500.
If you want to do something like that as cheaply as possible, you could do it for a lot less, but I suspect you'd compromise your enjoyment of it a lot as well. I'm of the opinion that if I'm going to be spending that much anyway, it's better to spend a bit more to get the best experience instead of cheaping out, but YMMV.
As far as preferring screens to outdoors, you're absolutely right. I would love to go hiking, camping, rafting, canoeing... my kids would hate it. They don't want to go to the zoo, the aquarium, or anything that even sounds like it might be a museum of any sort. I don't know what to say about that - I've forced them in the past, hoping they'd feel it wasn't so bad, but that didn't happen. They don't hate the outdoors, but our options for cheap local outdoor activities are limited.
I actually had a worker at one of these phone stores actually stop to read facebook or twitter post (I honestly don't know what social media she was using). She actually stopped helping us to watch a f#@king video. This was after we told her we were in a hurry to get to work (it was first thing and they don't open until 10am). That was on top of a lot of other BS at the store. Yes, I think you are 100% correct in your assessment of these "employees."
Seriously... after reading the summary, I just feel like cancelling everything so that I don't have to deal with any of these companies any more.
Agree about setting up for the parents (both in their 80s). For the record, I was juggling four remotes - one JUST to turn on the TV, because none of the codes worked to completely control other devices on any of the remotes I had. I do have fireTV, and found a programmable (point the old remote at it) remote that clips onto the side of the FireTV remote, so I was able to eliminate two of the remotes, anyway. If I'm just using FireTV I have the "combined" remote and that's all I need. I only need the cable remote if I watch live TV.
There's another issue here, too. Frankly, I live in an old house, and while I have plans to massively upgrade the home soon, there is but one outlet near the TV in my bonus room. It has to include the TV, the FireTV, a sound bar, the cable box, an HDMI switch (not really all that important, but for when we plug in a laptop). In addition, since it's where the cable enters the home, I have the cable modem, a router, a couple of ethernet switches; there is a work in progress Myth box I'm working on. Every little thing has it's own plug (or worse, wall wart that doesn't like being next to other things plugged in). Eliminating the need for a number of these devices might not only clean up the clutter, reduce the number of remotes needed, but also likely save some electricity. I imagine a "built in" FireTV would eliminate the switch and the external FireTV, anyway.
No, I'm pointing out, if you follow this thread, that it's not just as dangerous to put a potential laptop bomb in the cargo hold (not that I agree with this at all).
Exactly - a LONG time ago.
Exactly... nearly 30 years ago. That and Pan Am 103 spurred the creation of these bomb mitigating cargo containers. Haven't heard of another such incident in decades.
We didn't need this company to make this point, it's already common knowledge.
... fill out an application? Mad props to those car makers!
I prefer "explosion mitigating," but yes, they DO exist. I can't recall the last time a plane was lost due to a cargo area bomb.
But you feel safe, right? Right?
In fact, I saw a show that had a segment about the cargo containers they use in planes (and this was a LONG time ago, maybe some point after Pan Am flight 103). They are supposed to suppress the damage caused by a cargo area explosion. When was the last time we heard of any such successful bombing?
While I'm sure they'd let you use your laptop, you are NOT free from the same kind of scrutiny to board a ship for international travel than you are an airplane.
Because your company won't pay for two weeks of cruise line when they can pay for 2 days of air travel? For the record, I'd prefer the cruise.
I'm pretty sure you understand what "pedantic jerk" means, though.
Maybe not, but as you so aptly stated in this thread topic, beggars can't be choosers.
I know I don't "need" anything Google is offering, I'm saying it works good for me, it's convenient, and I already realize that I'm "paying" for it. Having it all in one package makes it even better/easier. My problem is in offering an alternative search engine to show that you don't need Google - choosing a different search engine is the easiest part of giving up Google.