Do I want a cellphone tower on my property?

Existing walls are probably
> sufficient to block anything at mmWave frequencies.

OK then you actually agree with me
m

 

makolber@yahoo.com wrote in
news:a4de7a5d-6a7f-4cf7-adc0-ebc95cf15fa6@googlegroups.com:

What he really needs is an RF absorber as used in an anechoic RF
test chamber:


yes, but these are installed INSIDE the chamber.

And the OUTSIDE is copper screen or other conductive REFLECTIVE
surface.

m

Not so much reflective as attenuative. Some even get wrapped in mu
metal under the copper. EMI and RFI screening.

 

On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 10:14:50 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 09:24:41 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

I remember the time when there were hot dog stand microwave ovens at
1.27 GHz. Has the hot dog resonance doubled in a few decades .

That's in the 1.2GHz ham band. Are you sure about that?

After WWII most microwave bands were allocated for radio location
(radar). Any other microwave communications user wanted to stay as far
as possible away from the radars that caused a lot of interference.

Radio amateurs were allowed to share those huge radiolocation
allocations on secondary bases i.e not causing interference to the
primary user (radar) and had to accept interference from primary user.
For this reason ham allocations were huge.

During years radar technology improved with better stability and
spectral purity. Other paying customers wanted more and more spectrum,
thus the radiolocation allocations were reduced and as a consequence
also ham microwave allocations were reduced. Those hams that the ham
microwave allocation is reduced now and then don't seem to know the
history.

The original ovens were designed to work at 915MHz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven#Components
See paragraph starting with "The microwave frequencies used in..."

I'm told that big industrial MW ovens, such as fruit dryers and
plastic dryers, still use 915MHz, but all that I've seen use 2.4Ghz.

The 900 MHz ISM (industrial, scientific, medical) band is not
recognized in every country. So, to be able to sell the same product
anywhere on the planet, the operating frequency was moved to 2.4GHz,
which is recognized in all the ITU regions. The higher frequency also
has the economic advantages of using a smaller magnetron, smaller
waveguide, and smaller door seal choke ring. The down side of this
frequency change is that 915MHz cooks more uniformly.

As you pointed out, 915 MHz band is only available in ITU Region 2
(Americas) but not in Region 1 (Europe). For this reason the 1.2 GHz
band was used by microwave ovens in 1960/70's in Europe.

Why don't microwaves use 915 MHz?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X2bb9nc6uM> (3:06)

 

[gregz]

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 06:49:36 -0700 (PDT), makolber@yahoo.com wrote:

What he really needs is an RF absorber as used in an anechoic RF test
chamber:

yes, but these are installed INSIDE the chamber.
And the OUTSIDE is copper screen or other conductive REFLECTIVE surface.
m

I'm not suggesting that he convert his house into an RF screen room or
RF anechoic chamber. Such a house or room would not be livable or
comfortable. However, for blocking mmWave frequencies, the mesh would
need to be very tightly woven. Unless there is a need to be porous to
pass air, using soldered sheet copper would be more effective.
However, that's expensive, heavy, and a thermal nightmare. Because it
has no gaps, sheets of conductive material, with fairly low
resistivity, would be much cheaper and easier.

In the distant past, I would hold a wet towel over large parts of the
frontal area of a dish antenna, to estimate the fade margin. When I
tried the same thing with aluminum foil, I had all kinds of
reflections bouncing around the dish. With an RF absorber, there were
no reflections to ruin my test. Hanging wet towels inside the house
might work, but the high humidity, mold, and mildew problems would
make it impractical.

Actually, the solution to reducing indoor RF "electro-smog" is not in
shielding the walls. It's to shield the doors and windows. Modern
construction uses aluminum foil backed insulation in the walls. Most
of the other construction materials (especially those containing water
such as concrete) are RF absorbers. Existing walls are probably
sufficient to block anything at mmWave frequencies. However, the
doors and windows tend to be wide open and leak RF badly. Conductive
glass Low-E glass does tolerably well at blocking cellular and mmWave
frequencies. For doors, and to improve RF blocking through windows,
aluminum bug screening is probably adequate.

Reflections is also the reason a tin foil hat doesn't really work.
Since the parabolic shape of the reflective skull cap will concentrate
any RF that enters the head to a fairly small volume inside the brain.
Putting a cell phone antenna in your mouth while wearing a tin foil
kippah might concentrate the RF sufficiently to fry the brain cells at
the focus. Wearing a carbon doped towel or hat would be much more
effective. Most of these use a wire mesh or metal wires woven into
the fabric, but some use conductive materials with fairly low sheet
resistivity:
http://www.lessemf.com/personal.html
The resistivity is high enough to act as an absorber and would
probably work quite well.

Since the electrosensitive and RF paranoia market seems to be growing
with the invention of 5g technology, RF shielding products are
appearing on the market. They offer EMF shielding wallpaper:
https://www.emrss.com/collections/emf-wallpaper
including some designed especially for 5g mmWave frequencies:
https://emfclothing.com/en/emf-shielding-wallpaper/244-5g-shielding-material-securiblok.html
or are adapted from available clothing:
https://www.google.com/search?q=aluminum+survival+poncho&tbm=isch

I am always reading about 5G opposition groups. I have been trying to find
comparative data of towers vs hand held and ear position cell phones on
signal levels. These people seem OK using cell phones but fear towers.

Greg

 

On 8 Jun 2019 10:55:09 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Jan Panteltje wrote...

Do not do it, high level RF radiation for a
long time is dangerous.

If he's worried about that, he can take a small
portion of the $300k, and clad portions of his
house with tinfoil under siding, or use metal
siding, etc. Doing the bedroom wall and one or
two other rooms could cut total exposure to 1/4.

There appears to be a lot of measurements during the last decade of 28
GHz propagation through various building materials. It appears that
the attenuation through concrete walls and tinted (IR-reflective)
window glasses is about 30 to 40 dB. This should reduce the indoor
exposure from a nearby base stations significantly.

For lighter building materials and ordinary window glass the
attenuation is much less.

Already with 2G/3G/4G systems people living in concrete houses with
tinted window glass have problems communicating with the base station.
If the communication somehow is possible, the handset will have to use
full power to reach the base station, not a desirable situation.

Passive repeaters (indoor and outdoor antennas with coaxial cable
through the wall) are tried, but you have to keep the handset very
close to the indoor antenna.

 

[amdx]

On 6/9/2019 9:09 PM, bitrex wrote:

On 6/9/19 9:31 PM, amdx wrote:
On 6/9/2019 8:06 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/9/19 8:43 PM, amdx wrote:
On 6/8/2019 8:14 PM, amdx wrote:
On 6/8/2019 7:19 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/8/19 7:12 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
Banders <snap@mailchute.com> wrote in
news:qdgo8r$d9p$1@gioia.aioe.org:

AT&T wants to install a new tower in this area, offered me
$800/month
for a spot to put it.


   That's good money.  You can start a CD and get taxed very
little on
it and send your kides or grandkids to school with it.

   Tell them you want $1400 and then take their next offer of $1150.


   Yeah...  that'll do it.


You could send _one_ kid to a mid-tier out-of-state four year
college for $200,000....like if you had the money _now_, that is.

  Do you have a lot of money saved?
                                    Mikek

  You seem very negative about corporations, college tuition, and
money.

I don't believe in magic or that "positive thinking" or a "wealth
mentality" has much of any bearing on one's success or lack thereof,
no. I leave magic to the magicians and the gullible.

   I never said anything about magic, I just think--- know, we have it
very good in America. If you have a net worth of $30,000 you are in
the top 1% in the world. We have every need we have easily met with
just a little output. With more output, we have a surplus of time to
do great or silly things. You can hate on corporations, but if we
didn't have a
desire to purchase their products they wouldn't survive. Universities
have education goals that you must meet or you are not excepted, there
are more people with the finances to go than actually get in, so
apparently people can afford it, one way or another.

The Right is justifiably skeptical of the university system but for the
wrong reasons, IMO. The university system is a racket not because it
teaches all those "snowflake subjects" that aren't engineering. There
are many many worthy subjects that are taught in the university system,
yes even "gender studies."

A population well-educated in what are historically called the "liberal
arts and sciences" is in large part what Western Civilization is about.
y'know. the classics.

It's a racket because, well, it's become a racket:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_college_admissions_bribery_scandal

these were just the people who got caught. The racket is pay-for-play.
All things are available for the right price. "education goals"?

  Money, you can take two families give them $60k a year, one will
live paycheck to paycheck, in debt and be broke at retirement the
other will live more frugally, buy used cars, a smaller house and have
$1M in 30 years and $2M at retirement. Both families can be happy, but
the one with a retirement fund will be very content.

                                       Mikek


You can pretty much always find a way to live beyond your means no
matter how much income you have.

But it's a stupid way to live.

Even rock stars making $10 mil/year can
manage to blow through 50 in the same year. Even presidents can find a
way to be $150 million in debt to the Germans.

Just because your rich, doesn't mean your not stupid.

That people who try to
live within their means tend to do better, on average, than the outcomes
of those who don't is rather tautological.

So many people live paycheck to paycheck, that it should be said in a
dozen ways in the same sentence as an effort to get through to people.
It seems it would be stressful to have debt and know that a single
car repair is going to make you late on a payment.

The notion that needs to be put down is that there is some foolproof way
to do everything "right" and always come out ahead. it's wrong. There
are no such guarantees. America is full of people in poverty who did
everything "right"

There are a few reasons that will put you in an economic rat hole, and
medical expenses would be high on the list. Being mentally slow and not
being able to develop a valuable skill will also hold you back. A poor
choice of spouse is another. I'm sure being ugly makes it much more
difficult.
Just getting ahead $10k or $100k would make such a difference in a
families life. The big plus is once you have saved your way to $100k,
it's something you want to protect, this makes it easier to say no to
stupid purchases.

As far as the original topic is concerned - hey. It may be a great deal
for the person in question. But as a guy who came up from a state of
mostly nothing at age 25 to much more than nothing at age 40 I've
learned a few things about business and life in general. When someone
offers you what seems like easy money, at least take a moment and
consider - why am I being offered this at this particular juncture and
not my neighbor whose land is probably perfectly adequate place to put a
cell tower, too.

The OP is trying to figure out his options, but the tower needs to go
somewhere, so if he can profit by it, good for him.
Positives - Negatives = Profit

If an attractive woman approaches you in a bar and says "I like you a
lot" do you marvel at your good fortune or at least take a moment to
wonder why she approached you as opposed to all the other single men
sitting around like you are? Actually it's not a bad idea at all to just
ask her that directly and see what she says. At the very least if her
intentions are vaguely honest it will make you stand out as compared to
all the other men she's recently told that to.

My chances now are slim, so no concern.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 09:53:16 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

As you pointed out, 915 MHz band is only available in ITU Region 2
(Americas) but not in Region 1 (Europe). For this reason the 1.2 GHz
band was used by microwave ovens in 1960/70's in Europe.

Are you sure? The bottom end of the 1.2GHz ham band (1215-1240) was
removed from amateur radio service at about the same time in order to
make room for GPS (Navstar). The ham band is currently from 1240 to
1300MHz. Block 1 satellites were launched starting in 1978 and used
the 1215-1240 frequencies for the L2 frequencies:
<https://cdn.everythingrf.com/live/GNSS-frequency-bands_636261876169937853.png>
I don't see how the US military would tolerate a system that used
frequencies occupied by microwave ovens. I was marginally involved in
early GPS and I never heard of any mention of European microwave oven
interference.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 13:43:18 -0700 (PDT), makolber@yahoo.com wrote:

Existing walls are probably
sufficient to block anything at mmWave frequencies.

OK then you actually agree with me
m

Ok, agree with what? You previous stated:

yes, but these are installed INSIDE the chamber.
And the OUTSIDE is copper screen or other conductive
REFLECTIVE surface.
m

Yes, I agree that RF test chambers are made with copper (or brass)
screen material. I would half way agree that some "other conductive
reflective surface" might be an appropriate substitute for building a
screen room. Much depends on the selected material. You didn't
mention it, but I consider an RF absorptive material to be a more
economical and in some ways better choice if one is interested in
shielding one's home from the evil mmWave RF.

If that doesn't work, one could always distribute some Organite around
the property to neutralize the evil RF waves:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=orgonite+cell+tower>


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 08:08:58 -0000 (UTC), gregz <zekor@comcast.net>
wrote:

I am always reading about 5G opposition groups. I have been trying to find
comparative data of towers vs hand held and ear position cell phones on
signal levels. These people seem OK using cell phones but fear towers.

Greg

That's probably because there aren't going to be very many 5G
microwave handsets. That's because 5G is really made for IoT
(Internet of Things) which are likely to resemble modular RF modems
and wireless hot spots. Initially, there will probably be some
promotional handheld devices offered to see if the GUM (great unwashed
masses) are interested, but most of the money will be in IoT,
driverless cars, and an alternative to cable and DSL connectivity. If
the RF paranoids want to destroy 5G, assaulting the "towers" would be
more effective.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

makolber@yahoo.com wrote in
news:b37712f0-d79d-4b53-a9e1-95c65046393d@googlegroups.com:

Another way to look at that, is after 100 years on this Earth
everyone has a dose that causes symptoms.

By then none of your cells are reproducing anyway.

God did it. We get 120 years. Noah got 950.

Stir up the Galaxy a bit and particle bombardment limits us.

We are lucky he let us have one last chance at all.

Most of you/us will roast. Even the purple shoe crew did not nor
will not escape.

 

Re the dBSv scale...

it is interesting that there is ONLY a 20 dB difference between normal background and the short term dose that causes symptoms.

In the US, a radiation worker is allowed 10x background.

And 10x above that causes symptom.

I never realized how close to the edge our natural environment is.

Natural background pr year = -24 dBSv
Max dose per year for US radiation worker = -13 dBSv
Short term dose to cause symptoms -4 dBSv


Another way to look at that, is after 100 years on this Earth everyone has a dose that causes symptoms.

Maybe background radiation causes aging.


m

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2019-06-11 19:03, makolber@yahoo.com wrote:

Re the dBSv scale...

it is interesting that there is ONLY a 20 dB difference between
normal background and the short term dose that causes symptoms.

In the US, a radiation worker is allowed 10x background.

And 10x above that causes symptom.

I never realized how close to the edge our natural environment is.

Natural background pr year = -24 dBSv Max dose per year for US
radiation worker = -13 dBSv Short term dose to cause symptoms -4
dBSv

Well, that's the purpose of log scales, isn't it?

Another way to look at that, is after 100 years on this Earth
everyone has a dose that causes symptoms.

Maybe background radiation causes aging.

It's interesting to reflect on the way our hereditary
material is kept intact from generation to generation.
Defective copies get eradicated early.

Jeroen Belleman

 

[amdx]

On 6/9/2019 7:16 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 19:07:15 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 09 Jun 2019 11:03:19 -0700) it happened Jeff Liebermann
jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in <5egqfe9fgafskipcuitla36vb4e3qhcusp@4ax.com>:

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 16:38:47 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

Would not you be just as worried if a 24 GHz antenna was on a street light
next to your bedroom window?

Nope. I've posted the incidence of various cancers versus year and
age several times in this newsgroups. If there was a connection
between cell phone exposure and cancer, it would have appeared in the
graph in about 1990, when cell phone use increased dramatically.
Instead, the graphs by year are flat showing no correlation.

Is that not a simplification?

No, I don't think its a simplification. I think it's the best test
data we have available. If there were some kind of brain cancer
epidemic with increased cell phone use starting in 1990, it would
appear in the graphs. I see none.
https://seer.cancer.gov/explorer/application.php?site=76&data_type=1&graph_type=1&compareBy=sex&chk_sex_1=1&chk_race_1=1&chk_age_range_1=1&chk_data_type_1=1&advopt_precision=1&advopt_display=2&showDataFor=race_1_and_age_range_1_and_data_type_1
Besides, I prefer simplicity over complexity.

I mean it is not only cancers, I could imagine brain damage like what's it called
Adult onset diabetes.
Arthritis.
Kidney and bladder problems.
Dementia.
Parkinson's disease.
Glaucoma.
Lung disease.
Cataracts.
(cut and paste from google 'old age illnesses')
have those been checked against RF exposure?

Probably not. However, it's easy enough to do on a large scale. Just
organize a survey of cell phone users and non-users and see what
maladies they accumulate. Finding someone who doesn't use a cell
phone might be a problem. The problem with such a survey is that,
except for diabetes, every malady you listed is far more common as we
get older than with the young. For example, brain cancer incidence
almost totally follows age:
https://seer.cancer.gov/explorer/application.php?site=76&data_type=1&graph_type=3&compareBy=sex&chk_sex_1=1&chk_race_1=1&chk_data_type_1=1&advopt_precision=1&showDataFor=race_1_and_data_type_1
For that matter, all cancers follow age:
https://seer.cancer.gov/explorer/application.php?site=1&data_type=1&graph_type=3&compareBy=sex&chk_sex_1=1&chk_race_1=1&chk_data_type_1=1&advopt_precision=1&showDataFor=race_1_and_data_type_1
Oddly, the highest incidence of brain cancer is among those who use
cell phones the least. Unfortunately, I don't have access to such
detailed incidence data for each of your itemized diseases. However,
if I did, I suspect I would see much the same curve.

Another problem with correlating cell phone use with almost any malady
is that many of them are somewhat hereditary. While I can't say that
inherit our diseases from our ancestors, we are genetically disposed
to inheriting their ailments. My family has a history of
cardiovascular problems and I'm following in their footsteps. Yet
neither of my parents every used a cell phone in their life and had
the same problems that I've inherited. If RF exposure were to be
blamed for causing some malady, there would need to be a drastic
increase in incidence because few of our ancestors used cell phones.

One could reason those appear in the same time frame?

Correlation does not imply causation. Here's a web site full of
spurious correlations:
https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

Personally I would expect the neural system to be a sensitive spot.

Judging by the logic used by proponents of that suggestions, I would
agree. There are also those who claim that various body parts and
organs are resonant at various frequencies. I don't care. Show me a
malady that shows an increased incidence after about 1990 and follows
cell phone usage patterns and I might begin to pay attention.

Google changed our way of learning in a fantastic positive way, so does wikipedia, and so does Usenet.
They should not fine google, IMHO.
It is one of the best things we have.

Here we agree. I can't even remember what I did to get up to date
information prior to Google. If Google can't find it, it doesn't
exist.

Satellite?
I stream HD movies from sat, we have hundreds of FTA sat channels here, so that is the download.
Maybe if SpaceX provides a service...

Some of my customers have Hughes Net or Exede satellite internet
service. I would consider that a last resort due to download limits,
high latency, and high costs. Also, it's rather difficult for me to
find a hole in the trees suitable for satellite service. This is the
"hole" in the trees that works for the slot at 101 degrees:
http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/DBS/slides/101a.html
If I want to see another satellite, I need to use another dish, and
chain saw more branches.

There is this thing, I think it was discussed recently.
there was a NEED foe cellphones, when I heard about those I wanted one,
so much better than going to a phone booth... Be reachable anywhere..

Video phone never really took of as it was about 'contact' not about the picture so much.
email was cool (SMS) because you could read it when you wanted, later you could add pictures,
also very useful.

But the trend to ever higher resolution is coupled to ever more bandwidth, and is not so much needed,
What IS needed is sunlight readable non reflective screens.
But many people do not ever know what that is.

You forgot a major step along the way. Internet music and video were
at one time considered by the ISP's to be abuse and excessive
bandwidth use. At that time, we were on dialup modems, ISDN, and
maybe some DSL. It took a long time to download (stolen) music and
movies, but people did it anyway. It didn't take much effort for the
ISP's to realize that it was easier to meet the demand than to play
enforcer. They could also charge for the increased bandwidth.

We're now in the process of doing that backwards for 5G. If the ISP's
give us almost unlimited bandwidth, would we pay to use and abuse it?
Probably yes, as newer and better ways to violate laws, contracts, and
common sense are contrived.

Whenever something happens that I don't understand, I first ask myself
"What problem are they trying to solve"? In this case, the cell phone
companies have a big problem. They have successfully saturated the
market for cellular. What they need is another service they can
offer, such as 5G. It doesn't matter much (at this time) how it's
used, whether anyone needs or even wants it, or what it might cost.
They have to do something, or they will be forced to compete in the
cellular data business on the basis of price, which nobody wants.

This consumer would like to see companies "forced to compete in the
cellular data business on the basis of price".
I once changed companies because one came out with a $36.99 plan vs
$39.99 plan, I wanted to reward them. It didn't work it was a scam
from Sprint, I don't recall the exact numbers, but I was paying about
$51, the new lower plan was $54! The charged $36.99, but then had some
addition $2.xx and $3.xx charges that actually increased the bill.
Down the road my complaining helped remove some charge I got, but I
was pissed off and bad mouthed them for a while.
Mikek

 

[bitrex]

On 6/11/19 3:47 PM, bitrex wrote:

On 6/11/19 9:01 AM, amdx wrote:
On 6/9/2019 9:09 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/9/19 9:31 PM, amdx wrote:
On 6/9/2019 8:06 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/9/19 8:43 PM, amdx wrote:
On 6/8/2019 8:14 PM, amdx wrote:
On 6/8/2019 7:19 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/8/19 7:12 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
Banders <snap@mailchute.com> wrote in
news:qdgo8r$d9p$1@gioia.aioe.org:

AT&T wants to install a new tower in this area, offered me
$800/month
for a spot to put it.


   That's good money.  You can start a CD and get taxed very
little on
it and send your kides or grandkids to school with it.

   Tell them you want $1400 and then take their next offer of
$1150.


   Yeah...  that'll do it.


You could send _one_ kid to a mid-tier out-of-state four year
college for $200,000....like if you had the money _now_, that is.

  Do you have a lot of money saved?
                                    Mikek

  You seem very negative about corporations, college tuition, and
money.

I don't believe in magic or that "positive thinking" or a "wealth
mentality" has much of any bearing on one's success or lack
thereof, no. I leave magic to the magicians and the gullible.

   I never said anything about magic, I just think--- know, we have
it very good in America. If you have a net worth of $30,000 you are
in the top 1% in the world. We have every need we have easily met
with just a little output. With more output, we have a surplus of
time to do great or silly things. You can hate on corporations, but
if we didn't have a
desire to purchase their products they wouldn't survive. Universities
have education goals that you must meet or you are not excepted, there
are more people with the finances to go than actually get in, so
apparently people can afford it, one way or another.

The Right is justifiably skeptical of the university system but for
the wrong reasons, IMO. The university system is a racket not because
it teaches all those "snowflake subjects" that aren't engineering.
There are many many worthy subjects that are taught in the university
system, yes even "gender studies."

A population well-educated in what are historically called the
"liberal arts and sciences" is in large part what Western
Civilization is about. y'know. the classics.

It's a racket because, well, it's become a racket:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_college_admissions_bribery_scandal

these were just the people who got caught. The racket is
pay-for-play. All things are available for the right price.
"education goals"?

  Money, you can take two families give them $60k a year, one will
live paycheck to paycheck, in debt and be broke at retirement the
other will live more frugally, buy used cars, a smaller house and
have $1M in 30 years and $2M at retirement. Both families can be
happy, but the one with a retirement fund will be very content.

                                       Mikek


You can pretty much always find a way to live beyond your means no
matter how much income you have.

   But it's a stupid way to live.


Even rock stars making $10 mil/year can manage to blow through 50 in
the same year. Even presidents can find a way to be $150 million in
debt to the Germans.

   Just because your rich, doesn't mean your not stupid.

That people who try to live within their means tend to do better, on
average, than the outcomes of those who don't is rather tautological.


   So many people live paycheck to paycheck, that it should be said in
a dozen ways in the same sentence as an effort to get through to people.
   It seems it would be stressful to have debt and know that a single
car repair is going to make you late on a payment.

Yes, of course it's stressful. So many people live paycheck to paycheck
because - that's what they can afford. That's what their job at Wal-Mart
or the supermarket pays. There is literally nothing to spare after your
daily living expenses and housing and car insurance and food budget
and...and perhaps $30 a week to do something in the vein of
"entertainment."

A lot of people receive welfare or SNAP benefits or some form of public
assistance to make up the slack on the food or the housing, and
optimistically that allows them to save something and also have a little
money left over for non-critical expenses like going out to eat once in
a while.

And I do not "blame" them one bit for doing something enjoyable in life
from time to time on, as some would care to do the accounting, the
taxpayer dollar.

Part of the reason is that near every one of the guys I hear griping
about stuff like that were BORN RICH. or at the very least the
motherfuckers were _not_ born poor.

That is to say I don't put a lot of stock in financial advice for the
poor that they have, as they have never actually experienced the real
risks that the poor face, with Mom & Dad's wealth always available to
fall back on in case of emergency. They were always operating with a net.

 

[bitrex]

On 6/11/19 9:01 AM, amdx wrote:

On 6/9/2019 9:09 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/9/19 9:31 PM, amdx wrote:
On 6/9/2019 8:06 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/9/19 8:43 PM, amdx wrote:
On 6/8/2019 8:14 PM, amdx wrote:
On 6/8/2019 7:19 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/8/19 7:12 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
Banders <snap@mailchute.com> wrote in
news:qdgo8r$d9p$1@gioia.aioe.org:

AT&T wants to install a new tower in this area, offered me
$800/month
for a spot to put it.


   That's good money.  You can start a CD and get taxed very
little on
it and send your kides or grandkids to school with it.

   Tell them you want $1400 and then take their next offer of
$1150.


   Yeah...  that'll do it.


You could send _one_ kid to a mid-tier out-of-state four year
college for $200,000....like if you had the money _now_, that is.

  Do you have a lot of money saved?
                                    Mikek

  You seem very negative about corporations, college tuition, and
money.

I don't believe in magic or that "positive thinking" or a "wealth
mentality" has much of any bearing on one's success or lack thereof,
no. I leave magic to the magicians and the gullible.

   I never said anything about magic, I just think--- know, we have
it very good in America. If you have a net worth of $30,000 you are
in the top 1% in the world. We have every need we have easily met
with just a little output. With more output, we have a surplus of
time to do great or silly things. You can hate on corporations, but
if we didn't have a
desire to purchase their products they wouldn't survive. Universities
have education goals that you must meet or you are not excepted, there
are more people with the finances to go than actually get in, so
apparently people can afford it, one way or another.

The Right is justifiably skeptical of the university system but for
the wrong reasons, IMO. The university system is a racket not because
it teaches all those "snowflake subjects" that aren't engineering.
There are many many worthy subjects that are taught in the university
system, yes even "gender studies."

A population well-educated in what are historically called the
"liberal arts and sciences" is in large part what Western Civilization
is about. y'know. the classics.

It's a racket because, well, it's become a racket:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_college_admissions_bribery_scandal

these were just the people who got caught. The racket is pay-for-play.
All things are available for the right price. "education goals"?

  Money, you can take two families give them $60k a year, one will
live paycheck to paycheck, in debt and be broke at retirement the
other will live more frugally, buy used cars, a smaller house and
have $1M in 30 years and $2M at retirement. Both families can be
happy, but the one with a retirement fund will be very content.

                                       Mikek


You can pretty much always find a way to live beyond your means no
matter how much income you have.

  But it's a stupid way to live.


Even rock stars making $10 mil/year can manage to blow through 50 in
the same year. Even presidents can find a way to be $150 million in
debt to the Germans.

  Just because your rich, doesn't mean your not stupid.

That people who try to live within their means tend to do better, on
average, than the outcomes of those who don't is rather tautological.


  So many people live paycheck to paycheck, that it should be said in a
dozen ways in the same sentence as an effort to get through to people.
  It seems it would be stressful to have debt and know that a single
car repair is going to make you late on a payment.

Yes, of course it's stressful. So many people live paycheck to paycheck
because - that's what they can afford. That's what their job at Wal-Mart
or the supermarket pays. There is literally nothing to spare after your
daily living expenses and housing and car insurance and food budget
and...and perhaps $30 a week to do something in the vein of "entertainment."

A lot of people receive welfare or SNAP benefits or some form of public
assistance to make up the slack on the food or the housing, and
optimistically that allows them to save something and also have a little
money left over for non-critical expenses like going out to eat once in
a while.

And I do not "blame" them one bit for doing something enjoyable in life
from time to time on, as some would care to do the accounting, the
taxpayer dollar.

Part of the reason is that near every one of the guys I hear griping
about stuff like that were BORN RICH. or at the very least the
motherfuckers were _not_ born poor.

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 12/6/19 4:04 am, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

On 2019-06-11 19:03, makolber@yahoo.com wrote:
Re the dBSv scale...

it is interesting that there is ONLY a 20 dB difference between
normal background and the short term dose that causes symptoms.

In the US, a radiation worker is allowed 10x background.

And 10x above that causes symptom.

I never realized how close to the edge our natural environment is.

Natural background pr year  = -24 dBSv Max dose per year for US
radiation worker = -13 dBSv Short term dose to cause symptoms -4
dBSv


Well, that's the purpose of log scales, isn't it?


Another way to look at that, is after 100 years on this Earth
everyone has a dose that causes symptoms.

Maybe background radiation causes aging.

It's interesting to reflect on the way our hereditary
material is kept intact from generation to generation.
Defective copies get eradicated early.

Another way to look at it is to say that our coping and repair
mechanisms have developed to deal with the background radiation, without
being excessive. I.e. it's no coincidence that we run close to the limit.

 

[amdx]

On 6/11/2019 2:54 PM, bitrex wrote:

On 6/11/19 3:47 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/11/19 9:01 AM, amdx wrote:
On 6/9/2019 9:09 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/9/19 9:31 PM, amdx wrote:
On 6/9/2019 8:06 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/9/19 8:43 PM, amdx wrote:
On 6/8/2019 8:14 PM, amdx wrote:
On 6/8/2019 7:19 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/8/19 7:12 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
Banders <snap@mailchute.com> wrote in
news:qdgo8r$d9p$1@gioia.aioe.org:

AT&T wants to install a new tower in this area, offered me
$800/month
for a spot to put it.


   That's good money.  You can start a CD and get taxed very
little on
it and send your kides or grandkids to school with it.

   Tell them you want $1400 and then take their next offer of
$1150.


   Yeah...  that'll do it.


You could send _one_ kid to a mid-tier out-of-state four year
college for $200,000....like if you had the money _now_, that is.

  Do you have a lot of money saved?
                                    Mikek

  You seem very negative about corporations, college tuition, and
money.

I don't believe in magic or that "positive thinking" or a "wealth
mentality" has much of any bearing on one's success or lack
thereof, no. I leave magic to the magicians and the gullible.

   I never said anything about magic, I just think--- know, we have
it very good in America. If you have a net worth of $30,000 you are
in the top 1% in the world. We have every need we have easily met
with just a little output. With more output, we have a surplus of
time to do great or silly things. You can hate on corporations, but
if we didn't have a
desire to purchase their products they wouldn't survive. Universities
have education goals that you must meet or you are not excepted, there
are more people with the finances to go than actually get in, so
apparently people can afford it, one way or another.

The Right is justifiably skeptical of the university system but for
the wrong reasons, IMO. The university system is a racket not
because it teaches all those "snowflake subjects" that aren't
engineering. There are many many worthy subjects that are taught in
the university system, yes even "gender studies."

A population well-educated in what are historically called the
"liberal arts and sciences" is in large part what Western
Civilization is about. y'know. the classics.

It's a racket because, well, it's become a racket:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_college_admissions_bribery_scandal

these were just the people who got caught. The racket is
pay-for-play. All things are available for the right price.
"education goals"?

  Money, you can take two families give them $60k a year, one will
live paycheck to paycheck, in debt and be broke at retirement the
other will live more frugally, buy used cars, a smaller house and
have $1M in 30 years and $2M at retirement. Both families can be
happy, but the one with a retirement fund will be very content.

                                       Mikek


You can pretty much always find a way to live beyond your means no
matter how much income you have.

   But it's a stupid way to live.


Even rock stars making $10 mil/year can manage to blow through 50 in
the same year. Even presidents can find a way to be $150 million in
debt to the Germans.

   Just because your rich, doesn't mean your not stupid.

That people who try to live within their means tend to do better, on
average, than the outcomes of those who don't is rather tautological.


   So many people live paycheck to paycheck, that it should be said
in a dozen ways in the same sentence as an effort to get through to
people.
   It seems it would be stressful to have debt and know that a single
car repair is going to make you late on a payment.

Yes, of course it's stressful. So many people live paycheck to
paycheck because - that's what they can afford. That's what their job
at Wal-Mart or the supermarket pays. There is literally nothing to
spare after your daily living expenses and housing and car insurance
and food budget and...and perhaps $30 a week to do something in the
vein of "entertainment."

A lot of people receive welfare or SNAP benefits or some form of
public assistance to make up the slack on the food or the housing, and
optimistically that allows them to save something and also have a
little money left over for non-critical expenses like going out to eat
once in a while.

And I do not "blame" them one bit for doing something enjoyable in
life from time to time on, as some would care to do the accounting,
the taxpayer dollar.

Part of the reason is that near every one of the guys I hear griping
about stuff like that were BORN RICH. or at the very least the
motherfuckers were _not_ born poor.

Not sure why you consider them "motherfuckers" just because they born
rich or at least not poor. Just seems you have a hate for those that
have more than enough money.

That is to say I don't put a lot of stock in financial advice for the
poor that they have, as they have never actually experienced the real
risks that the poor face, with Mom & Dad's wealth always available to
fall back on in case of emergency. They were always operating with a net.

Well, if you make a decision to live on welfare your whole life, then
I can't hope for much for you, but most people do move out of poverty.
If they didn't allow lifestyle inflation, (thus live paycheck to
paycheck) once the they start working with a better wage, that would be
the start of a different way of life.
My stock advice to the poor is not so much financial, it is to develop
a skill that someone will pay you to do.
My reference are the people on > https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/
admittedly, there are some good earners there, but many posters are
digging themselves out of a debt hole a little each week. Then there are
many earning a modest income, but saving and investing good percentages
of their income. The group has great advice on how to live on less, and
how to forget about keeping up with the Jones's.
Some of this may have been pointed at me, I was not born rich, dad was
a laborer until he got into the carpenters union, then things got
better, but this was in Michigan and construction slowed in winter, also
when a job finished, he would be laid off until the next one started. So
he earned more per hr, but didn't get to work 40hrs/50 weeks. Then he
had a bad heart attack at 43yrs old, so that was about it, some of my
teen income was used to help the family.
After I moved out, I did spend most of my money and never acquired
much, was able to buy some stock in my early 20's, but never had much
net worth.
When I got married, my wife was very frugal and I noticed after 3
months we had $1500, this is when I thought WOW, if we keep this up, we
could really have something. By the end of our first year we had $6,000.
We actually saved $5,370 of the $18,000 we earned, add that to the $630
we got in wedding gifts and we had $6,000, this was in 1982 That
first year stuck with me, and we continued to save and invest. The stock
market has been good to us, even though we had some large losses in 2000
and 2008.
We have never bought a new car, always bought used, $4k to $8k
vehicles, I did pay $11k for the truck I drive, I have now owned it 19
years, still runs great. We live in a modest home for our area.
I'm certainly nothing special, not a high earner, but never lived in
debt, others can do it to with just a little tweak to their spending habits.

 

[bitrex]

On 6/11/19 7:01 PM, amdx wrote:

On 6/11/2019 2:54 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/11/19 3:47 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/11/19 9:01 AM, amdx wrote:
On 6/9/2019 9:09 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/9/19 9:31 PM, amdx wrote:
On 6/9/2019 8:06 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/9/19 8:43 PM, amdx wrote:
On 6/8/2019 8:14 PM, amdx wrote:
On 6/8/2019 7:19 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/8/19 7:12 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org
wrote:
Banders <snap@mailchute.com> wrote in
news:qdgo8r$d9p$1@gioia.aioe.org:

AT&T wants to install a new tower in this area, offered me
$800/month
for a spot to put it.


   That's good money.  You can start a CD and get taxed very
little on
it and send your kides or grandkids to school with it.

   Tell them you want $1400 and then take their next offer of
$1150.


   Yeah...  that'll do it.


You could send _one_ kid to a mid-tier out-of-state four year
college for $200,000....like if you had the money _now_, that is.

  Do you have a lot of money saved?
                                    Mikek

  You seem very negative about corporations, college tuition,
and money.

I don't believe in magic or that "positive thinking" or a "wealth
mentality" has much of any bearing on one's success or lack
thereof, no. I leave magic to the magicians and the gullible.

   I never said anything about magic, I just think--- know, we
have it very good in America. If you have a net worth of $30,000
you are in the top 1% in the world. We have every need we have
easily met with just a little output. With more output, we have a
surplus of time to do great or silly things. You can hate on
corporations, but if we didn't have a
desire to purchase their products they wouldn't survive. Universities
have education goals that you must meet or you are not excepted,
there
are more people with the finances to go than actually get in, so
apparently people can afford it, one way or another.

The Right is justifiably skeptical of the university system but for
the wrong reasons, IMO. The university system is a racket not
because it teaches all those "snowflake subjects" that aren't
engineering. There are many many worthy subjects that are taught in
the university system, yes even "gender studies."

A population well-educated in what are historically called the
"liberal arts and sciences" is in large part what Western
Civilization is about. y'know. the classics.

It's a racket because, well, it's become a racket:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_college_admissions_bribery_scandal


these were just the people who got caught. The racket is
pay-for-play. All things are available for the right price.
"education goals"?

  Money, you can take two families give them $60k a year, one will
live paycheck to paycheck, in debt and be broke at retirement the
other will live more frugally, buy used cars, a smaller house and
have $1M in 30 years and $2M at retirement. Both families can be
happy, but the one with a retirement fund will be very content.

                                       Mikek


You can pretty much always find a way to live beyond your means no
matter how much income you have.

   But it's a stupid way to live.


Even rock stars making $10 mil/year can manage to blow through 50
in the same year. Even presidents can find a way to be $150 million
in debt to the Germans.

   Just because your rich, doesn't mean your not stupid.

That people who try to live within their means tend to do better,
on average, than the outcomes of those who don't is rather
tautological.


   So many people live paycheck to paycheck, that it should be said
in a dozen ways in the same sentence as an effort to get through to
people.
   It seems it would be stressful to have debt and know that a
single car repair is going to make you late on a payment.

Yes, of course it's stressful. So many people live paycheck to
paycheck because - that's what they can afford. That's what their job
at Wal-Mart or the supermarket pays. There is literally nothing to
spare after your daily living expenses and housing and car insurance
and food budget and...and perhaps $30 a week to do something in the
vein of "entertainment."

A lot of people receive welfare or SNAP benefits or some form of
public assistance to make up the slack on the food or the housing,
and optimistically that allows them to save something and also have a
little money left over for non-critical expenses like going out to
eat once in a while.

And I do not "blame" them one bit for doing something enjoyable in
life from time to time on, as some would care to do the accounting,
the taxpayer dollar.

Part of the reason is that near every one of the guys I hear griping
about stuff like that were BORN RICH. or at the very least the
motherfuckers were _not_ born poor.

 Not sure why you consider them "motherfuckers" just because they born
rich or at least not poor. Just seems you have a hate for those that
have more than enough money.

Nonsense. I begrudge what I see as ignorant attitudes about the ease of
success from those who should know better, not anyone's bank account
figures intrinsically. I do plenty well for myself too - is engineering
a low-paid skill? It's what I do here at age 40, I'm not retired! and
probably never will if I can avoid it!

That is to say I don't put a lot of stock in financial advice for the
poor that they have, as they have never actually experienced the real
risks that the poor face, with Mom & Dad's wealth always available to
fall back on in case of emergency. They were always operating with a net.

 Well, if you make a decision to live on welfare your whole life, then
I can't hope for much for you, but most people do move out of poverty.
If they didn't allow lifestyle inflation, (thus live paycheck to
paycheck) once the they start working with a better wage, that would be
the start of a different way of life.
 My stock advice to the poor is not so much financial, it is to develop
a skill that someone will pay you to do.
 My reference are the people on > https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/
admittedly, there are some good earners there, but many posters are
digging themselves out of a debt hole a little each week. Then there are
many earning a modest income, but saving and investing good percentages
of their income. The group has great advice on how to live on less, and
how to forget about keeping up with the Jones's.
 Some of this may have been pointed at me, I was not born rich, dad was
a laborer until he got into the carpenters union, then things got
better, but this was in Michigan and construction slowed in winter, also
when a job finished, he would be laid off until the next one started. So
he earned more per hr, but didn't get to work 40hrs/50 weeks. Then he
had a bad heart attack at 43yrs old, so that was about it, some of my
teen income was used to help the family.
  After I moved out, I did spend most of my money and never acquired
much, was able to buy some stock in my early 20's, but never had much
net worth.
 When I got married, my wife was very frugal and I noticed after 3
months we had $1500, this is when I thought WOW, if we keep this up, we
could really have something. By the end of our first year we had $6,000.
 We actually saved $5,370 of the $18,000 we earned, add that to the $630
we got in wedding gifts and we had $6,000, this was in 1982 That
first year stuck with me, and we continued to save and invest. The stock
market has been good to us, even though we had some large losses in 2000
and 2008.
 We have never bought a new car, always bought used, $4k to $8k
vehicles, I did pay $11k for the truck I drive, I have now owned it 19
years, still runs great. We live in a modest home for our area.
 I'm certainly nothing special, not a high earner, but never lived in
debt, others can do it to with just a little tweak to their spending
habits.

You were fortunate to come of age in a different time. Or less
fortunate, depending on how you look at it. Many of the old "rules"
other than the most general of platitudes e.g. try not to live beyond
your means are no longer applicable.

A college degree in a white-collar field is no longer a sure bet ticket
to success, sometimes not even to being employed.

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 3:54:41 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

On 6/11/19 3:47 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/11/19 9:01 AM, amdx wrote:
On 6/9/2019 9:09 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/9/19 9:31 PM, amdx wrote:
On 6/9/2019 8:06 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/9/19 8:43 PM, amdx wrote:
On 6/8/2019 8:14 PM, amdx wrote:
On 6/8/2019 7:19 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/8/19 7:12 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
Banders <snap@mailchute.com> wrote in
news:qdgo8r$d9p$1@gioia.aioe.org:

AT&T wants to install a new tower in this area, offered me
$800/month
for a spot to put it.


   That's good money.  You can start a CD and get taxed very
little on
it and send your kides or grandkids to school with it.

   Tell them you want $1400 and then take their next offer of
$1150.


   Yeah...  that'll do it.


You could send _one_ kid to a mid-tier out-of-state four year
college for $200,000....like if you had the money _now_, that is..

  Do you have a lot of money saved?
                                    Mikek

  You seem very negative about corporations, college tuition, and
money.

I don't believe in magic or that "positive thinking" or a "wealth
mentality" has much of any bearing on one's success or lack
thereof, no. I leave magic to the magicians and the gullible.

   I never said anything about magic, I just think--- know, we have
it very good in America. If you have a net worth of $30,000 you are
in the top 1% in the world. We have every need we have easily met
with just a little output. With more output, we have a surplus of
time to do great or silly things. You can hate on corporations, but
if we didn't have a
desire to purchase their products they wouldn't survive. Universities
have education goals that you must meet or you are not excepted, there
are more people with the finances to go than actually get in, so
apparently people can afford it, one way or another.

The Right is justifiably skeptical of the university system but for
the wrong reasons, IMO. The university system is a racket not because
it teaches all those "snowflake subjects" that aren't engineering.
There are many many worthy subjects that are taught in the university
system, yes even "gender studies."

A population well-educated in what are historically called the
"liberal arts and sciences" is in large part what Western
Civilization is about. y'know. the classics.

It's a racket because, well, it's become a racket:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_college_admissions_bribery_scandal

these were just the people who got caught. The racket is
pay-for-play. All things are available for the right price.
"education goals"?

  Money, you can take two families give them $60k a year, one will
live paycheck to paycheck, in debt and be broke at retirement the
other will live more frugally, buy used cars, a smaller house and
have $1M in 30 years and $2M at retirement. Both families can be
happy, but the one with a retirement fund will be very content.

                                       Mikek


You can pretty much always find a way to live beyond your means no
matter how much income you have.

   But it's a stupid way to live.


Even rock stars making $10 mil/year can manage to blow through 50 in
the same year. Even presidents can find a way to be $150 million in
debt to the Germans.

   Just because your rich, doesn't mean your not stupid.

That people who try to live within their means tend to do better, on
average, than the outcomes of those who don't is rather tautological.


   So many people live paycheck to paycheck, that it should be said in
a dozen ways in the same sentence as an effort to get through to people.
   It seems it would be stressful to have debt and know that a single
car repair is going to make you late on a payment.

Yes, of course it's stressful. So many people live paycheck to paycheck
because - that's what they can afford. That's what their job at Wal-Mart
or the supermarket pays. There is literally nothing to spare after your
daily living expenses and housing and car insurance and food budget
and...and perhaps $30 a week to do something in the vein of
"entertainment."

A lot of people receive welfare or SNAP benefits or some form of public
assistance to make up the slack on the food or the housing, and
optimistically that allows them to save something and also have a little
money left over for non-critical expenses like going out to eat once in
a while.

And I do not "blame" them one bit for doing something enjoyable in life
from time to time on, as some would care to do the accounting, the
taxpayer dollar.

Part of the reason is that near every one of the guys I hear griping
about stuff like that were BORN RICH. or at the very least the
motherfuckers were _not_ born poor.

That is to say I don't put a lot of stock in financial advice for the
poor that they have, as they have never actually experienced the real
risks that the poor face, with Mom & Dad's wealth always available to
fall back on in case of emergency. They were always operating with a net.

I think one of the reasons why I have done well is the lack of much fear of failure. Not that I am from a well to do family. I just always did well in school and never had a lack of confidence in that area. I did sometimes not have the guts to risk a lot. I just didn't have the fear of simply trying that so many people have.

I think fear often holds us back, but maybe that's not a bad thing...

"A man who is not afraid of the sea will soon be drowned, he said, for he will be going out on a day he shouldn't. But we do be afraid of the sea, and we do only be drownded now and again."

--

Rick C.

-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[bitrex]

On 6/11/19 11:11 PM, Rick C wrote:

On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 3:54:41 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/11/19 3:47 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/11/19 9:01 AM, amdx wrote:
On 6/9/2019 9:09 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/9/19 9:31 PM, amdx wrote:
On 6/9/2019 8:06 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/9/19 8:43 PM, amdx wrote:
On 6/8/2019 8:14 PM, amdx wrote:
On 6/8/2019 7:19 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/8/19 7:12 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
Banders <snap@mailchute.com> wrote in
news:qdgo8r$d9p$1@gioia.aioe.org:

AT&T wants to install a new tower in this area, offered me
$800/month
for a spot to put it.


   That's good money.  You can start a CD and get taxed very
little on
it and send your kides or grandkids to school with it.

   Tell them you want $1400 and then take their next offer of
$1150.


   Yeah...  that'll do it.


You could send _one_ kid to a mid-tier out-of-state four year
college for $200,000....like if you had the money _now_, that is.

  Do you have a lot of money saved?
                                    Mikek

  You seem very negative about corporations, college tuition, and
money.

I don't believe in magic or that "positive thinking" or a "wealth
mentality" has much of any bearing on one's success or lack
thereof, no. I leave magic to the magicians and the gullible.

   I never said anything about magic, I just think--- know, we have
it very good in America. If you have a net worth of $30,000 you are
in the top 1% in the world. We have every need we have easily met
with just a little output. With more output, we have a surplus of
time to do great or silly things. You can hate on corporations, but
if we didn't have a
desire to purchase their products they wouldn't survive. Universities
have education goals that you must meet or you are not excepted, there
are more people with the finances to go than actually get in, so
apparently people can afford it, one way or another.

The Right is justifiably skeptical of the university system but for
the wrong reasons, IMO. The university system is a racket not because
it teaches all those "snowflake subjects" that aren't engineering.
There are many many worthy subjects that are taught in the university
system, yes even "gender studies."

A population well-educated in what are historically called the
"liberal arts and sciences" is in large part what Western
Civilization is about. y'know. the classics.

It's a racket because, well, it's become a racket:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_college_admissions_bribery_scandal

these were just the people who got caught. The racket is
pay-for-play. All things are available for the right price.
"education goals"?

  Money, you can take two families give them $60k a year, one will
live paycheck to paycheck, in debt and be broke at retirement the
other will live more frugally, buy used cars, a smaller house and
have $1M in 30 years and $2M at retirement. Both families can be
happy, but the one with a retirement fund will be very content.

                                       Mikek


You can pretty much always find a way to live beyond your means no
matter how much income you have.

   But it's a stupid way to live.


Even rock stars making $10 mil/year can manage to blow through 50 in
the same year. Even presidents can find a way to be $150 million in
debt to the Germans.

   Just because your rich, doesn't mean your not stupid.

That people who try to live within their means tend to do better, on
average, than the outcomes of those who don't is rather tautological.


   So many people live paycheck to paycheck, that it should be said in
a dozen ways in the same sentence as an effort to get through to people.
   It seems it would be stressful to have debt and know that a single
car repair is going to make you late on a payment.

Yes, of course it's stressful. So many people live paycheck to paycheck
because - that's what they can afford. That's what their job at Wal-Mart
or the supermarket pays. There is literally nothing to spare after your
daily living expenses and housing and car insurance and food budget
and...and perhaps $30 a week to do something in the vein of
"entertainment."

A lot of people receive welfare or SNAP benefits or some form of public
assistance to make up the slack on the food or the housing, and
optimistically that allows them to save something and also have a little
money left over for non-critical expenses like going out to eat once in
a while.

And I do not "blame" them one bit for doing something enjoyable in life
from time to time on, as some would care to do the accounting, the
taxpayer dollar.

Part of the reason is that near every one of the guys I hear griping
about stuff like that were BORN RICH. or at the very least the
motherfuckers were _not_ born poor.

That is to say I don't put a lot of stock in financial advice for the
poor that they have, as they have never actually experienced the real
risks that the poor face, with Mom & Dad's wealth always available to
fall back on in case of emergency. They were always operating with a net.

I think one of the reasons why I have done well is the lack of much fear of failure. Not that I am from a well to do family. I just always did well in school and never had a lack of confidence in that area. I did sometimes not have the guts to risk a lot. I just didn't have the fear of simply trying that so many people have.

There's no such thing as courage without fear. Only madmen, fools, and
liars aren't afraid, sometimes. Or at the very least it means you
haven't ventured into "the woods" (metaphor for...whatever) far enough.
For most people it's never required and that's excellent. like Yoda said
in the menacing voice to Luke in that Star Wars picture: "you...will be."

I think fear often holds us back, but maybe that's not a bad thing...

"A man who is not afraid of the sea will soon be drowned, he said, for he will be going out on a day he shouldn't. But we do be afraid of the sea, and we do only be drownded now and again."

"Tyranny is just what one can develop a taste for, since it so happens
that man prefers to wallow in fear rather than to face the anguish of
being himself." - Emil Cioran

"My name is George. I have no job and I live with my parents":

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6c17WxIcCw>

George had a lotta guts sometimes, well the character at least. About
one in a thousand men I've met would have the courage to do something
like that in real life, they'd rather have a root canal. Too bad for
them, it often works surprisingly well. Women do appreciate honesty.