Oh dear god no. There's a reason I use 5.1-channel headphones, and the reason IS to get directional information based on sound location!

WTB SoundPhysics card upgrade ;) I wouldn't have a problem with this solution.

But we can't achieve that no matter how much work we put in... we don't have the genetics like they do.

Anarchy is mob rule on a local level.
Democracy is mob rule on a national level.

Governments tend to work better on the local level. More direct influence, more accountability.

So, in a strange quirky way... he's correct.

you have a limit on the length of a 10Base2 coax
200m, which is 100m longer than Ethernet over 5e ;)

There was also 10b5 which used a thicker coax and could make a 500m run.

I can assure you that if they can't afford to pay SS, they won't pay your bonds either.

We'll have to disagree here. SS will go away long before government bonds. And by that i mean either the program will be removed or the "retirement" age raised drastically to the point where 60+% of workers will die before ever seeing a dime on their investments. Government bonds, on the other hand, can be cashed in at 62 (or 50 if you want to retire early).

You might get more return on your bonds but US government bonds have a very, very low return.

Yes, but even with that very very low return, I get a better return than with SS. And more safety (in my eye at least). The safety is more of the argument than the return.

Most people don't realize the state of things at the time. It's a fact. Research it because it's a very interesting period in history.

So you are going to tell me that the government did nothing for "joe average" before 1929-ish? I just don't buy that. That's why I felt it was "partisan buzzwords" rather than a real argument.

SS is a reasonable compromise between homeless everywhere and a total nanny state. Ideal worlds just don't exist my friend. You have to forget ideologies and do what's practical.

For me, it has to do with what works vs what doesn't. Government "charity" doesn't work because it's no longer a charity and instead an entitlement. It is robing from the rich to pay for the poor. SS should have been a temporary thing (even FDR said so) but the nature of our government is that once it's started it isn't going away.

Now, I'm not against everything FDR did. In fact, I think the TVA was a wonderful idea to stimulate the economy and get people working again. Even if it was piddle-work, it gave people jobs to work at and job skills to grow with. It was also an investment in infrastructure. This is double good because 1) it enhances our industry by having the infrastructure available and 2) it has an end point and cannot become a perpetual government program.

And trust me that I know utopias can't exist. That's my big problem with a lot of groups and ideologies that they are attempting to sell a utopia. A utopia to work would require perfect people. If we had perfect people, then we would already be in a utopia. We are not in a utopia. Ergo, people are not perfect. Ergo, we cannot have a utopia.

So for what's practical: the government is not here to "take care of us (on the rich man's dime)". The more the government buys the poor's vote with such practices, the less the poor are motivated to learn to take care of themselves (there is no stick) and the less the rich are motivated to make more and advance us (the carrot gets smaller and smaller). Now, I am a strong believer in charity, but government handouts are not charity... they are thievery.

I understand that there will be cases where a large portion of our population needs help. I am not against government providing some level of help. But I am against creating a perpetual government program to remove sticks and carrots. Temporary is one thing, perpetuity is a society destroyer as it obliterates the natural laws that made civilization work in the first place.

our middle class is dying because our government has neglected necessary social structures that don't build themselves outside of government control or encouragement.

Our middle class is dying because our government, measured as a percentage of GNP, has gone from 3% (1776 to 1920) to nearly 40% today. The middle class is being crushed by the amount of taxes they have to pay to support the government the poor have voted into place. Either they make it, and move up to the rich, or are crushed and fall into the poor.

The idea that the "poor" lobby has any power whatsoever is laughable.

The idea that a 50% voting block that votes as a block (More for me!) has no power is laughable.

You Robin Hood scenario is as baseless as the existence of a vast class of "welfare queens".

Strange that you would pick "welfare queens" because it IS the woman's vote that has turned our government from "We'll let you take care of yourself" to "We'll force you to take care of everyone!"

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/WashTimesWomensSuff112707.html <---- the US example.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x737rhv91438554j/ <----Swizerland (women's suffrage in 1971).

Want to increase your take-home pay by 35%? Repeal the 19th Amendment.

Actually, SS could give a much better return if congress didn't raid its coffers every time it built up some cash.

Actually, the SS program is _not allowed_ to build up coffers... by design (IIRC). It is entirely a ponzi scheme.

I do find it hilarious that you offered being dependent on the government for bonds as being ok.

Well, if it was my money I could put it anywhere. But the biggest complaints I've seen against going away from SS seem to focus on "Well SS is safe! You can't lose your retirement in the stock market when your retirement is SS!" So that's why I give the example of me investing my own money in government bonds: More return AND more security.

if the government didn't do something to help "Average Joe" instead of the rich for once.

Please.. Come up with a real argument based on fact rather than partisan buzzwords.

But, honestly, the role of government is not to take care of you (other than for thing such as the common defense). The best government is one that gets the hell out of your way and lets you take care of yourself... or fall on your ass if you fail to do so.

That's not necessary. Just make it so if you don't pay a certain level of taxes, you don't get to vote. Or else institute a flat-tax so everyone pays the same percentage of their income in taxes. Flat tax is fine with me, even if the poor will pay "less", because at least then when they vote for social programs it will hit their own pocketbooks as well.

The poor don't deserve to rob me at government's gunpoint. The bottom 50% don't pay any income taxes. The top 5% pay 30% of income taxes. The current progressive tax system is little more than legalized robbery where the poor get to turn the government into Robin Hood in order to fund programs to support them because they don't want to support themselves.

A horrible system instituted by a democrat congress/president.

I could get a better return and more security by taking the money I am forced to send to SS and investing it in government bonds instead.

They voted for it, didn't they?

It's sustainable as long as the voters don't vote themselves enough "gifts" from other people's money to the point where the state can no longer afford to give tax breaks to attract business/wealthy individuals.

Unfortunately, "Take some damn responsibility for yourself" buys less votes than "I'll give you more gifts from the public treasury!"

The Tea Party should adopt a new slogan: "No representation without taxation" Honestly, if you're not paying for the government you vote for, do you deserve to influence it's direction?

Democracy is really just a "pretty" form of anarchy.

Anarchy is mob rule on a local level.
Democracy is mob rule on a national level.

In either case, the ones with the biggest sticks (violence, money, whatever) get what they want.

Queue: "But we're a representative republic!" No, we aren't. Universal suffrage = democracy.

Why is diversity valuable?

I've always heard that "diversity is valuable" but nobody ever explains why.

Perhaps we should have more midgets in the NBA. That would increase diversity and make the teams better, right?

You've just won the argument.

Women only want "equality" when it doesn't risk their life or limb. Women don't want equality, they couldn't handle it.

This is very true. It's all part of the dominance hierarchy.

The alphas are alphas. The betas are worried about their position and therefore often turn to bullying those beneath them to keep them down. The deltas, gammas, and omegas are below.

I wish I could remember the studies offhand, but there were a handful where the did some social experimentation by taking groups of bullies and isolating them together as a social group: Some stayed bullies, some got bullied. The more interesting study was when they took the bullied kids and isolated them together: new bullies formed while others remained on the bottom.

School seems to be one of the worst environments for bullying, and there's a good reason for that: There are no alphas in the crowd. Instead, the role of alpha is taken by the teachers/administration (the ones with real power) and because they are "separate" from the kids in High Security (erm.. high school) it's next to impossible for the deltas-gammas to bond with the alphas in order to become safe from the actions of the betas.