Haven't published any posts lately. I've written many, but more and more of them are ending up like this one. So I thought I'd post it anyway.
We need to make our elected officials more responsible to the PEOPLE they represent. This will not happen as long as money buys influence in government. I think this is a common message that both the OWS and TEA could unite on. Both believe government is corrupt. There is a difference in belief as to where the blame lies, but both believe that we have a problem with the officials not representing We The People anymore.
My Proposal:
We need an amendment to the constitution that limits the amount of money an elected official can spend to get elected. The amount would be limited based upon the number of people that elected representative would represent.
So let's say that limit is set at $2 per person. Candidates vying for President would be allowed to raise as much as $2 * 300,000,000 people so a maximum of $600M could be raised and spent on the campaign for that person to get their message out to the people. Congressional representatives would be able to spend $2 * 900,000 = $1.8M. These are just examples.
It's a fair sum. It certainly isn't the amount being raised in Presidential races nowadays. But it will cause the candidate to Budget and Spend Wisely, two qualities I think we really want our elected leaders to have.
The biggest problem is that anybody can go out and spend money to promote a candidate. That's a huge issue. If you say people can't do that, then you are violating their first amendment rights. It doesn't matter whether that person is in the 99% or the 1%. Everybody has that right to express their support and try to get others to agree with them. So how do you account for the money behind that? You can't. And that's where the problem comes from.
If I write a letter to my local newspaper expressing support for a politician, then why couldn't some corporation buy a full page advertisement doing the same thing? You could try to limit it from TV and Media print, but what about the web, and blogs, and forums, and tweets, and facebook pages and so on! You simply cannot prohibit people and/or corporations from getting the word out.
And that's where my idea lies dead in the water. I don't know how to close that loophole, or at least prevent it from being abused as a secret form of donating to somebody's campaign. I don't have a solution to tackle that part of the problem yet.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Friday, July 22, 2011
Netflix again
Everybody pissed at netflix.
Ok, exec made a stupid comment. I think he must have been talking about his lattes, cause I sure don't drink them. And I'm sure he'll be getting less lattes with the number of people leaving the subscription service -- at least they are saying they are leaving it. Don't know how many I believe really are.
A while ago I did the math. I was on the 3 DVDs out at a time plan. Timed it so that we received a new DVD each day, sending back one each day and one in transit. It came to about 24 DVDs a month (don't get them on Sundays or Holidays).
24 * .44 (postage one way) = 10.56. And then they pay the return postage, which is another 10.56. And yes, it is first class postage each way (USPS was complaining about the added cost of processing the Netflix mailers and Netflix's response was that they were paying for first class postage). So 21.12 just in postage alone, and I was only paying $21 a month to Netflix. And then I get all the streaming....streaming I never asked for in the first place, they just started offering one day automatically with my plan. So that was basically a free add-on, which my kids have enjoyed immensely (no less then 3 to 4 movies/shows a day streamed during the summer).
I had been paying for 4 to 6 DVD rentals a week at blockbusters every other week (4 kids, 2 adults, everybody has to have their own), and that was coming to $40 / mo in DVD entertainment...way more than $24, the new cost of streaming + 3 DVDs out at a time. And for that $40, I got half the number of DVDs and NO streaming other than youtube.
Still seems like a deal to me.
I'm on streaming only for a small period of time, see if it meets the demand well enough. I was happy to see some stuff on streaming I'd been waiting for (such as Star Trek) and if we want to see something new, there's always blockbuster...or redbox. Not that I've been all that impressed with hollywood offerings for a while now.
I laugh at the complaints of the streaming movies getting bogged down and going slow and what not making the streaming not worth it. It isn't Netflix's fault. My connection is great. It is the ISP. When we were on comcast, 2 at a time were not a problem. Now we have to share nicely because our DSL is much slower. But for those using wireless -- yeah, your ISP throttles you big time, it ain't netflix doing it! LOL
Ok, exec made a stupid comment. I think he must have been talking about his lattes, cause I sure don't drink them. And I'm sure he'll be getting less lattes with the number of people leaving the subscription service -- at least they are saying they are leaving it. Don't know how many I believe really are.
A while ago I did the math. I was on the 3 DVDs out at a time plan. Timed it so that we received a new DVD each day, sending back one each day and one in transit. It came to about 24 DVDs a month (don't get them on Sundays or Holidays).
24 * .44 (postage one way) = 10.56. And then they pay the return postage, which is another 10.56. And yes, it is first class postage each way (USPS was complaining about the added cost of processing the Netflix mailers and Netflix's response was that they were paying for first class postage). So 21.12 just in postage alone, and I was only paying $21 a month to Netflix. And then I get all the streaming....streaming I never asked for in the first place, they just started offering one day automatically with my plan. So that was basically a free add-on, which my kids have enjoyed immensely (no less then 3 to 4 movies/shows a day streamed during the summer).
I had been paying for 4 to 6 DVD rentals a week at blockbusters every other week (4 kids, 2 adults, everybody has to have their own), and that was coming to $40 / mo in DVD entertainment...way more than $24, the new cost of streaming + 3 DVDs out at a time. And for that $40, I got half the number of DVDs and NO streaming other than youtube.
Still seems like a deal to me.
I'm on streaming only for a small period of time, see if it meets the demand well enough. I was happy to see some stuff on streaming I'd been waiting for (such as Star Trek) and if we want to see something new, there's always blockbuster...or redbox. Not that I've been all that impressed with hollywood offerings for a while now.
I laugh at the complaints of the streaming movies getting bogged down and going slow and what not making the streaming not worth it. It isn't Netflix's fault. My connection is great. It is the ISP. When we were on comcast, 2 at a time were not a problem. Now we have to share nicely because our DSL is much slower. But for those using wireless -- yeah, your ISP throttles you big time, it ain't netflix doing it! LOL
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Internet provider games
My broadband providers have been...interesting. My first attempt was to use Qwest. I got it all signed up, but cancelled after I found out that they were going to charge me extra for the DSL modem rental, unless I purchased one, which would also be extra. So looking at my options, I figured out that it was less expensive to go with Earthlink for one year. They'd give me the DSL modem, and a year at a discounted rate for the first 3 months and a bumped up rate thereafter ended up being cheaper than paying qwest for the same service at a lower price but then tacking on the modem. I figured I could then switch to Qwest after a year, when it became cheaper to be with qwest and have no modem rental fee.
After 1 year, comcast ended up having the best deal available. So I switched over to Comcast. Again, figuring that after a year I'd switch back to Qwest when the Comcast deal ran out. After a year, the Comcast deal ran out, but they gave me an even better offer. So I stayed another year. And this happened a third time. Each time when I called to cancel my service with Comcast, they then gave me a good or better deal to keep me on. Well, this year that ended. No matter who I talked to, they were just unwilling to give me a good deal. That's their game. They try to work you into their regular, really bad deals when the good deals expire. They gave me two deals. 1) Pay $18 more for the next 6 months to get the same level of service I have been getting, at which point then it bumps up another $8 for the remaining 6 months of the contract. 2) Pay only $8 more for substantially lower service than I currently get (much slower line). I just could not get them to realize that having $0 from me is considerably less than keeping me at my current rate, which isn't exactly cheap to begin with. But I'm not going to pay $46 for a 1.5 MB line. Just no way.
So I checked out the wireless providers in my area. Nobody had anything better than 1.5 MB and all of them were loaded with complaints on the forums. Obviously wireless isn't going to work for me. Kudos to Clear for admitting to me up front that I would probably not be happy with their service because I was right on the border of their "best" vs. "good" reception. At least they were honest about it. The other thing that bothered me was the huge upfront costs for the equipment and/or installation and/or activation.
So I went to qwest, figuring I'd sign up for DSL. Only, now they were telling me that I don't have DSL in my area. Odd, since they used to provide it. So I went to earthlink and ... presto, I have DSL again for average of about $33 a month until next year...in my area...provided by qwest. I don't get how Qwest can tell me that I don't have DSL service but then send me a welcome packet and provide it. They still don't think I have DSL in my area, even though my account clearly shows that I have it through them. Don't know what their game is. Maybe they are still upset at me for cancelling the day I signed up, several years ago.
After 1 year, comcast ended up having the best deal available. So I switched over to Comcast. Again, figuring that after a year I'd switch back to Qwest when the Comcast deal ran out. After a year, the Comcast deal ran out, but they gave me an even better offer. So I stayed another year. And this happened a third time. Each time when I called to cancel my service with Comcast, they then gave me a good or better deal to keep me on. Well, this year that ended. No matter who I talked to, they were just unwilling to give me a good deal. That's their game. They try to work you into their regular, really bad deals when the good deals expire. They gave me two deals. 1) Pay $18 more for the next 6 months to get the same level of service I have been getting, at which point then it bumps up another $8 for the remaining 6 months of the contract. 2) Pay only $8 more for substantially lower service than I currently get (much slower line). I just could not get them to realize that having $0 from me is considerably less than keeping me at my current rate, which isn't exactly cheap to begin with. But I'm not going to pay $46 for a 1.5 MB line. Just no way.
So I checked out the wireless providers in my area. Nobody had anything better than 1.5 MB and all of them were loaded with complaints on the forums. Obviously wireless isn't going to work for me. Kudos to Clear for admitting to me up front that I would probably not be happy with their service because I was right on the border of their "best" vs. "good" reception. At least they were honest about it. The other thing that bothered me was the huge upfront costs for the equipment and/or installation and/or activation.
So I went to qwest, figuring I'd sign up for DSL. Only, now they were telling me that I don't have DSL in my area. Odd, since they used to provide it. So I went to earthlink and ... presto, I have DSL again for average of about $33 a month until next year...in my area...provided by qwest. I don't get how Qwest can tell me that I don't have DSL service but then send me a welcome packet and provide it. They still don't think I have DSL in my area, even though my account clearly shows that I have it through them. Don't know what their game is. Maybe they are still upset at me for cancelling the day I signed up, several years ago.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Explanation of the dead birds
Surely you've seen this, birds dropping out of the sky in Louisiana, Arkansas, Italy, and Kentucky. Now the move is on to link stories. Tampa recently had to change the signage of their airport due to the magnetic poles, which have been constantly shifting for a while.
mysterious bird deaths
My wife suggested that it was due to pollution. I think the some people are forgetting a very basic fact about these mysterious deaths: Caused by BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA. Do the moving magnetic poles prevent the birds from seeing things and therefore they run into them? Anyway, it's my turn to link stories.
Nobody thought this was about China!
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-china-military-20110107,0,3324067.story
So, that's it. China has been secretly flying over the US and Italy undetected and the poor birds just can't see those stealth planes and fly right into them!
LOL, ok, I'm being facetious. Obviously the birds are not blind, yet why would my explanation be any less convincing than "the magnetic poles are moving" which they've done for as long as we've had them.
mysterious bird deaths
My wife suggested that it was due to pollution. I think the some people are forgetting a very basic fact about these mysterious deaths: Caused by BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA. Do the moving magnetic poles prevent the birds from seeing things and therefore they run into them? Anyway, it's my turn to link stories.
Nobody thought this was about China!
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-china-military-20110107,0,3324067.story
So, that's it. China has been secretly flying over the US and Italy undetected and the poor birds just can't see those stealth planes and fly right into them!
LOL, ok, I'm being facetious. Obviously the birds are not blind, yet why would my explanation be any less convincing than "the magnetic poles are moving" which they've done for as long as we've had them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)