It has become customary for prices to be stated one or more pennies or 
dollars lower so as to create the illusion of a much greater price drop.

As an example if you check, on the Apple website, for the prices for an iMac, 
you find $1,199.00, $1,499.00, $1,799.00, and $2,199.00. Why not just say 
$1,200, $1,500, $1,800, and $2,200. 

I would like to think that Apple, as a leader in innovation in the 
marketplace, would initiate a trend away from this pricing idiocy.

My understanding is that the 99 cents began years ago with, I believe, 
Woolworth's so that the clerks would have to open the registers to make 
change.

Just me and my 2 cents--or should that be 1.99 cents!

-- 
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@me.com

In article <0001HW.C63D748900362725B01AD9AF@News.Individual.NET>,
TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> It has become customary for prices to be stated one or more pennies or 
> dollars lower so as to create the illusion of a much greater price drop.
> 
> As an example if you check, on the Apple website, for the prices for an iMac, 
> you find $1,199.00, $1,499.00, $1,799.00, and $2,199.00. Why not just say 
> $1,200, $1,500, $1,800, and $2,200. 
> 
> I would like to think that Apple, as a leader in innovation in the 
> marketplace, would initiate a trend away from this pricing idiocy.
> 
> My understanding is that the 99 cents began years ago with, I believe, 
> Woolworth's so that the clerks would have to open the registers to make 
> change.
> 
> Just me and my 2 cents--or should that be 1.99 cents!

It's just psychology.  $1,499.00 sounds like a lot less than $1,500.00
.... at least to enough people that it makes a difference.  Ask a
psychologist, she probably knows the studies to back this up.

Philo D <doozy@earthling.net.invalid> wrote:

> In article <0001HW.C63D748900362725B01AD9AF@News.Individual.NET>,
> TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> 
> > It has become customary for prices to be stated one or more pennies or
> > dollars lower so as to create the illusion of a much greater price drop.
....
> > My understanding is that the 99 cents began years ago with, I believe,
> > Woolworth's so that the clerks would have to open the registers to make
> > change.

I don't believe that explanation. It doesn't reasonably explain how
pervasive the practice is. And it doesn't add up when sales tax is
considered. It just doesn't add up at all.

> It's just psychology.  $1,499.00 sounds like a lot less than $1,500.00
> ... at least to enough people that it makes a difference.  Ask a
> psychologist, she probably knows the studies to back this up.

Yep. Gasoline is even worse with their .9 cents. I consider that to be
false advertising as I doubt the pumps can be calibrated quite that
accurately. Back in the days when it was 24.9 cents per gallon (yes, I
recall such prices, at least when gas wars were on), the difference
between that and 25 cents would have been 0.4%, which is believable. I'm
not sure how accurate gas pumps tend to be and I'd guess less so than
that, but that's at least believable. With gas at more like $2.499 per
gallon, the difference between that and $2.50 per gallon is 0.04%, which
I simply do not believe for pump accuracy.

Companies get class action suits against them for things a lot sillier
than the false advertising of that .9 cents gas pricing (some of the
suits against Apple have been sillier). But I don't suppose it will
happen, as false advertising seems to be almost a redundant phrase these
days.

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

In article <230520091108147202%doozy@earthling.net.invalid>,
 Philo D <doozy@earthling.net.invalid> wrote:

> In article <0001HW.C63D748900362725B01AD9AF@News.Individual.NET>,
> TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> 
> > It has become customary for prices to be stated one or more pennies or 
> > dollars lower so as to create the illusion of a much greater price drop.
> > 
> > As an example if you check, on the Apple website, for the prices for an 
> > iMac, 
> > you find $1,199.00, $1,499.00, $1,799.00, and $2,199.00. Why not just say 
> > $1,200, $1,500, $1,800, and $2,200. 
> > 
> > I would like to think that Apple, as a leader in innovation in the 
> > marketplace, would initiate a trend away from this pricing idiocy.
> > 
> > My understanding is that the 99 cents began years ago with, I believe, 
> > Woolworth's so that the clerks would have to open the registers to make 
> > change.
> > 
> > Just me and my 2 cents--or should that be 1.99 cents!
> 
> It's just psychology.  $1,499.00 sounds like a lot less than $1,500.00
> ... at least to enough people that it makes a difference.  Ask a
> psychologist, she probably knows the studies to back this up.

I just sent an email to Dan Ariely, the author of "Predictably 
Irrational".  He studies these kinds of psychological anomalies, which 
are called Behavioral Economics.  He has a blog at 
http://www.predictablyirrational.com.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> It has become customary for prices to be stated one or more pennies or
> dollars lower so as to create the illusion of a much greater price drop.
> 
> As an example if you check, on the Apple website, for the prices for an iMac,
> you find $1,199.00, $1,499.00, $1,799.00, and $2,199.00. Why not just say
> $1,200, $1,500, $1,800, and $2,200. 
> 
> I would like to think that Apple, as a leader in innovation in the 
> marketplace, would initiate a trend away from this pricing idiocy.

Gasoline is always xxx.9 cents (or at least was before it got over $2 --
I haven't really noticed lately).  At any rate, I always thought that
0.1 cent "saving" was pretty bogus.

However...

When I was in college at UC Berkeley in 1970, a local co-op gas station
thought as you (and i) do and decided to price things at round numbers.
Across the street, the gas was 24.9 cents (!  yeah, really...), but at
the co-op it was an even 25.0 cents.

That lasted about 6 months, as I remember.  They then went back to 24.9
cents.  I asked the manager about "going back to that nonsense."  He
said their sales volume dropped over 30% during that experiment, as
people started going across the street to get "cheaper gas."

I know a lot of people that will look at a $1199 price and say that i is
$1100 when dicussing the cost. They lop off the last digits rather than
round them off. 

Personally I always quote such prices as $1200, but you would be
surprised the number of times I get corrected with "no, it only $1199."
To which I respond, "no - it is $1300 unless you are paying the sales
tax for me..."

-- 
- Burt Johnson
  MindStorm, Inc.
  http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

Richard Maine wrote:
> I don't believe that explanation. It doesn't reasonably explain how
> pervasive the practice is. And it doesn't add up when sales tax is
> considered. It just doesn't add up at all.

Somewhere, someday, someone thought, "Hey, if we knock off a penny,
we'll get more business because we'll be lower than the guy next door."
So then the guy next door was forced to do the same to compete.
Now, no one's willing to gamble that returning to sensibleness
will be rewarded by the consumer.

> Yep. Gasoline is even worse with their .9 cents. I consider that to be
> false advertising as I doubt the pumps can be calibrated quite that

When it started, probably not.
I suspect that today they are indeed that accurate.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Don’t Keep Dying Languages Alive!
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1436

Burt Johnson wrote:
> That lasted about 6 months, as I remember.  They then went back to 24.9
> cents.  I asked the manager about "going back to that nonsense."  He
> said their sales volume dropped over 30% during that experiment, as
> people started going across the street to get "cheaper gas."

People are math-challenged.  Some folks will drive ten miles
(half a gallon?) to save ten cents.

I remember in 1974 during the alleged gas shortage, seeing
a line of cars a quarter-mile long waiting to buy gas.
Waiting with their engines running.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Armchair Activism: http://www.breakthechain.org/armchair.html

On Sat, 23 May 2009 14:06:33 -0500, Wes Groleau wrote (in article 
<ZOXRl.191$Cc1.40@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>): 

> People are math-challenged.  Some folks will drive ten miles (half a 
> gallon?) to save ten cents. 

You've met my sister?     :-) 

> I remember in 1974 during the alleged gas shortage, seeing a line of cars 
> a quarter-mile long waiting to buy gas. Waiting with their engines 
> running. 

My car, a Scion XB, typically takes ten gallons a fill. If the price were 
upped from that 9/10ths to an even penny it would cost me a whole penny more 
per fill. 

-- 
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@me.com

On 23/05/2009 20:33, in article
0001HW.C63DB9D40043197BB01AD9AF@News.Individual.NET, "TaliesinSoft"
<taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 23 May 2009 14:06:33 -0500, Wes Groleau wrote (in article
> <ZOXRl.191$Cc1.40@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>):
> 
>> People are math-challenged.  Some folks will drive ten miles (half a
>> gallon?) to save ten cents.
> 
> You've met my sister?     :-)
> 
>> I remember in 1974 during the alleged gas shortage, seeing a line of cars
>> a quarter-mile long waiting to buy gas. Waiting with their engines
>> running. 
> 
> My car, a Scion XB, typically takes ten gallons a fill. If the price were
> upped from that 9/10ths to an even penny it would cost me a whole penny more
> per fill. 
In the UK things are often priced �XX.99p.
The reason being the cashier then has to operate the till to give the 1p
change, which the customer is expecting and hence a record is left on the
till roll. Pricing in �'s means a substantial number of purchases would be
paid with the correct money so no till operation and the cash pocketed.
Obviously not every item is priced in this manner and there is the idea to
the customer that �xx.99p is a lot cheaper than �xxx. But this practice does
seem to be disappearing with the increased use of the Card for even small
transactions.

-- 
Welsh Gas
Remove usual to reply direct.

On Sat, 23 May 2009 09:38:17 -0500, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com>
wrote:

>Just me and my 2 cents--or should that be 1.99 cents!

Or if you are selling gasoline, you can be even more ridiculous.

-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

Paul Woodsford wrote:

> In the UK things are often priced �XX.99p.
> The reason being the cashier then has to operate the till to give the 1p
> change, which the customer is expecting and hence a record is left on the
> till roll.

Hardly a valid reason any more, if it were ever true.  Can't remember 
the last time I was in a shop in the UK that didn't have a barcode 
scanner, which records what was bought and who was logged in to the till 
when it was scanned.

In article <C63E17E0.24169%paul.woodsfordNOSPAM@virgin.net>, Paul
Woodsford <paul.woodsfordNOSPAM@virgin.net> wrote:

> In the UK things are often priced £XX.99p.
> The reason being the cashier then has to operate the till to give the 1p
> change, which the customer is expecting and hence a record is left on the
> till roll. Pricing in £'s means a substantial number of purchases would be
> paid with the correct money so no till operation and the cash pocketed.
> Obviously not every item is priced in this manner and there is the idea to
> the customer that £xx.99p is a lot cheaper than £xxx. But this practice does
> seem to be disappearing with the increased use of the Card for even small
> transactions.

Is VAT included in the price, or added at the till? Here in Canada,
taxes are added at the till, so tat explanation would not hold.

-- 
Kiva - Loans that change lives.
http://www.kiva.org/lender/david87375440

In article <230520091439597453%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
 Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

> In article <C63E17E0.24169%paul.woodsfordNOSPAM@virgin.net>, Paul
> Woodsford <paul.woodsfordNOSPAM@virgin.net> wrote:
> 
> > In the UK things are often priced £XX.99p.
> > The reason being the cashier then has to operate the till to give the 1p
> > change, which the customer is expecting and hence a record is left on the
> > till roll. Pricing in £'s means a substantial number of purchases would be
> > paid with the correct money so no till operation and the cash pocketed.
> > Obviously not every item is priced in this manner and there is the idea to
> > the customer that £xx.99p is a lot cheaper than £xxx. But this practice does
> > seem to be disappearing with the increased use of the Card for even small
> > transactions.
> 
> Is VAT included in the price, or added at the till? Here in Canada,
> taxes are added at the till, so tat explanation would not hold.

For retail it's always included. If you look in a catalogue, and VAT is 
not mentioned, then by law it's included. A trade catalogue carefully 
gives the ex-VAT prices, since trade customers can pass it on to their 
customers. Or something, I've never quite figured out how it works.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> > Yep. Gasoline is even worse with their .9 cents. I consider that to be
> > false advertising as I doubt the pumps can be calibrated quite that
> 
> When it started, probably not.
> I suspect that today they are indeed that accurate.

When the pumps even have labels saying that they aren't temperature
compensated? I'd think it hard to get 0.04% that way. And don't forget
my (elided) calculation that a pump today would have to be about 10
times as accurate by volume to get the same accuracy in cents.

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

On 23/05/2009 21:38, in article gv9msq$qh5$1@reader01.news.esat.net, "Calum"
<com.gmail@scottishwildcat.nospam> wrote:

> Paul Woodsford wrote:
> 
>> In the UK things are often priced �XX.99p.
>> The reason being the cashier then has to operate the till to give the 1p
>> change, which the customer is expecting and hence a record is left on the
>> till roll.
> 
> Hardly a valid reason any more, if it were ever true.  Can't remember
> the last time I was in a shop in the UK that didn't have a barcode
> scanner, which records what was bought and who was logged in to the till
> when it was scanned.

Can't have moved far from the big city then. Out of the 27 shops in the
market town where I live only 3 have scanners and computerised tills, and
those 3 shops didn't have them 3 years ago.


-- 
Welsh Gas
Remove usual to reply direct.

In article <C63E17E0.24169%paul.woodsfordNOSPAM@virgin.net>,
 Paul Woodsford <paul.woodsfordNOSPAM@virgin.net> wrote:

> In the UK things are often priced �XX.99p.
> The reason being the cashier then has to operate the till to give the 1p
> change, which the customer is expecting and hence a record is left on the
> till roll. Pricing in �'s means a substantial number of purchases would be
> paid with the correct money so no till operation and the cash pocketed.
> Obviously not every item is priced in this manner and there is the idea to
> the customer that �xx.99p is a lot cheaper than �xxx. But this practice does
> seem to be disappearing with the increased use of the Card for even small
> transactions.

It goes way back. Stuff was priced at (say) 19 shillings and elevenpence 
halfpenny, rather than �1/0/0 (I don't know if that sterling symbol will 
get through your encoding).  I wasn't (quite) old enough for farthings 
so I don't know if it ever got that exact. Pretty coin, the farthing.  

It's more complicated in Canada, where our version of VAT is added at 
the checkout.
-- 
Suddenly he realized that he was alone 
with a giant halfwit on a dark deserted street.
  -- Chester Himes

In article <00489df7$0$26643$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> I wasn't (quite) old enough for farthings 

You youth! In England, they were still around after 1960 though they 
were officially demonetized in that year.

-- 
dorayme

Paul Woodsford <paul.woodsfordNOSPAM@virgin.net> wrote:

> In the UK things are often priced �XX.99p.
> The reason being the cashier then has to operate the till to give the 1p
> change, which the customer is expecting and hence a record is left on the
> till roll. Pricing in �'s means a substantial number of purchases would be
> paid with the correct money so no till operation and the cash pocketed.
> Obviously not every item is priced in this manner and there is the idea to
> the customer that �xx.99p is a lot cheaper than �xxx. But this practice does
> seem to be disappearing with the increased use of the Card for even small
> transactions.

With most states charging sales tax, it doesn't matter much what the
primary price is, since the state then adds 9.75% (in the case of
California) to the final total.

In the case of gas, the majority of people use a credit card at the
pump.  Going into the office to even see a person is a rare excursion
these days.  (I have no firm numbers for this, just an observation of my
own behavior and those around me at the pumpts)

-- 
- Burt Johnson
  MindStorm, Inc.
  http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

In article <doraymeRidThis-72F0D9.09405024052009@news.albasani.net>,
 dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> You youth! In England, they were still around after 1960 though they 
> were officially demonetized in that year.

Umm, no, I lived in England starting around 1955, and they weren't in 
circulation then. People (my mother for instance) still had jars of 
them, but we didn't spend them in the shops. Wikipedia isn't wrong about 
it, the coin wasn't officially withdrawn until 1960, but it stopped 
being used by 1955-56. If I could have spent farthings at that age, I 
would have.
-- 
Suddenly he realized that he was alone 
with a giant halfwit on a dark deserted street.
  -- Chester Himes

In article <00489df7$0$26643$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, Warren Oates
<warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <C63E17E0.24169%paul.woodsfordNOSPAM@virgin.net>,
>  Paul Woodsford <paul.woodsfordNOSPAM@virgin.net> wrote:
> 
> > In the UK things are often priced £XX.99p.
> > The reason being the cashier then has to operate the till to give the 1p
> > change, which the customer is expecting and hence a record is left on the
> > till roll. Pricing in £'s means a substantial number of purchases would be
> > paid with the correct money so no till operation and the cash pocketed.
> > Obviously not every item is priced in this manner and there is the idea to
> > the customer that £xx.99p is a lot cheaper than £xxx. But this practice does
> > seem to be disappearing with the increased use of the Card for even small
> > transactions.
> 
> It goes way back. Stuff was priced at (say) 19 shillings and elevenpence 
> halfpenny, rather than £1/0/0 (I don't know if that sterling symbol will 
> get through your encoding).  I wasn't (quite) old enough for farthings 
> so I don't know if it ever got that exact. Pretty coin, the farthing.  
> 
> It's more complicated in Canada, where our version of VAT is added at 
> the checkout.

In some parts of Canada. Here in Saskatchewan, we have a 5% federal and
5% provincial tax, so calculating the tax in one's head is simple
enough.

-- 
Kiva - Loans that change lives.
http://www.kiva.org/lender/david87375440

In article <005cd19d$0$31252$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> Umm, no, I lived in England starting around 1955, and they weren't in 
> circulation then. People (my mother for instance) still had jars of 
> them, but we didn't spend them in the shops.

You are probably right. I forget when I last actually spent one, I know 
I saw them *around* till 1958 when I left.

-- 
dorayme

In article <C63E17E0.24169%paul.woodsfordNOSPAM@virgin.net>,
 Paul Woodsford <paul.woodsfordNOSPAM@virgin.net> wrote:

> In the UK things are often priced �XX.99p.
> The reason being the cashier then has to operate the till to give the 1p
> change, which the customer is expecting and hence a record is left on the
> till roll. Pricing in �'s means a substantial number of purchases would be
> paid with the correct money so no till operation and the cash pocketed.
> Obviously not every item is priced in this manner and there is the idea to
> the customer that �xx.99p is a lot cheaper than �xxx. But this practice does
> seem to be disappearing with the increased use of the Card for even small
> transactions.

There's another variation here in Switzerland, with the opening of Aldi 
(a German budget supermarket chain) stores.

The smallest denomination coin in everyday use* here is 5 cents, so in 
normal shops, prices are set to multiples of 5 cents.  For items such as 
a tank full of fuel, the price payable is rounded to the nearest 5 cents.

However, Aldi have many items for sale at prices like 1.99.  I suppose 
the idea here is that if you buy several items at once you get the save 
5 cents.

Here's a sample:
<http://www.aldi-suisse.ch/ch/html/offers/angebote_25_05_2009_DEU_HTML.ht
m>

* apparently the last users of the once cent coin were farmers, to do 
with milk prices, long after everyone else had stopped using them.

-- 
Paul Sture

In article <timstreater-C47B82.21531023052009@news.individual.net>,
 Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> wrote:

> In article <230520091439597453%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
>  Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> 

> > Is VAT included in the price, or added at the till? Here in Canada,
> > taxes are added at the till, so tat explanation would not hold.
> 
> For retail it's always included. If you look in a catalogue, and VAT is 
> not mentioned, then by law it's included. A trade catalogue carefully 
> gives the ex-VAT prices, since trade customers can pass it on to their 
> customers. Or something, I've never quite figured out how it works.

What actually happens is that a trade customer will usually be 
registered for VAT, in which case they can claim back the VAT they pay 
on purchases.  In turn they have to charge VAT on the value of sales 
they make (unless selling zero rated/exempt items such as books or food).

To keep the figures simple, say a VAT registered business buys bits of 
wood at 10.00, to turn into a an item they sell at 20.00. With 15% VAT, 
they will actually pay 10.00 + 1.50 = 11.50, and then sell at 20.00 + 
3.00 = 23.00.

They claim the 1.50 back from the VAT man on the purchase, and then pay 
the VAT man the 3.00 from the sale.  In effect they only pay 1.50, which 
represents the value of the work they did to produce the item from 
purchased materials, hence the term Value Added Tax.

There is a turnover threshold above which VAT registration is mandatory, 
though you can register at a lower turnover.  In essence, where you are 
under that turnover and your customers are retail only, you are better 
off not registering for VAT (you are more competitive), but if your 
customers are mainly businesses who can claim their VAT back, you are 
better off registering (if you can't offer them VAT receipts they can't 
claim back the VAT element, and you are less competitive).

-- 
Paul Sture

P. Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:

> In article <C63E17E0.24169%paul.woodsfordNOSPAM@virgin.net>,
>  Paul Woodsford <paul.woodsfordNOSPAM@virgin.net> wrote:
> 
> > In the UK things are often priced �XX.99p.
> > The reason being the cashier then has to operate the till to give the 1p
> > change, which the customer is expecting and hence a record is left on the
> > till roll. Pricing in �'s means a substantial number of purchases would be
> > paid with the correct money so no till operation and the cash pocketed.
> > Obviously not every item is priced in this manner and there is the idea to
> > the customer that �xx.99p is a lot cheaper than �xxx. But this practice does
> > seem to be disappearing with the increased use of the Card for even small
> > transactions.
> 
> There's another variation here in Switzerland, with the opening of Aldi
> (a German budget supermarket chain) stores.
> 
> The smallest denomination coin in everyday use* here is 5 cents, so in
> normal shops, prices are set to multiples of 5 cents.  For items such as
> a tank full of fuel, the price payable is rounded to the nearest 5 cents.
> 
> However, Aldi have many items for sale at prices like 1.99.  I suppose
> the idea here is that if you buy several items at once you get the save
> 5 cents.
> 
> Here's a sample:
> <http://www.aldi-suisse.ch/ch/html/offers/angebote_25_05_2009_DEU_HTML.ht
> m>
> 
> * apparently the last users of the once cent coin were farmers, to do
> with milk prices, long after everyone else had stopped using them.

In New Zealand the smallest coin we have remaining is 10�. Since we
basically use eftpos <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eftpos> to pay for
everything cash is rarely used by people my age. In fact the only time I
ever get out cash is to top up my bus card.

So while the 99� type cent pricing is just as stupid, at least we're not
having to pay more due to prices being rounded up (though I admit the
savings are pitiful).

Speaking of eftpos - I'm always surprised electronic payment direct out
of your bank account is not more popular in countries like the US where
cash or credit seems to be used for nearly everything. Maybe it's just
because NZ is a small country and thus nationwide standards are easier.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

On Sat, 23 May 2009 22:45:25 -0500, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote (in article 
<1j088ly.12xk1jwowxo19N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>): 

> Speaking of eftpos - I'm always surprised electronic payment direct out of 
> your bank account is not more popular in countries like the US where cash 
> or credit seems to be used for nearly everything. Maybe it's just because 
> NZ is a small country and thus nationwide standards are easier. 

How does eftpos differ from what in the United States is called a "debit 
card", which looks like a credit card but which immediately draws the 
papyment from your bank account?

-- 
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@me.com

In article 1j05v81.gi1tl16iptw0N%burt@mindstorm-inc.com, Burt Johnson at
burt@mindstorm-inc.com wrote on 5/23/09 11:58 AM:

> TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> 
>> It has become customary for prices to be stated one or more pennies or
>> dollars lower so as to create the illusion of a much greater price drop.
>> 
>> As an example if you check, on the Apple website, for the prices for an iMac,
>> you find $1,199.00, $1,499.00, $1,799.00, and $2,199.00. Why not just say
>> $1,200, $1,500, $1,800, and $2,200.
>> 
>> I would like to think that Apple, as a leader in innovation in the
>> marketplace, would initiate a trend away from this pricing idiocy.
> 
> Gasoline is always xxx.9 cents (or at least was before it got over $2 --
> I haven't really noticed lately).  At any rate, I always thought that
> 0.1 cent "saving" was pretty bogus.
> 
> However...
> 
> When I was in college at UC Berkeley in 1970, a local co-op gas station
> thought as you (and i) do and decided to price things at round numbers.
> Across the street, the gas was 24.9 cents (!  yeah, really...), but at
> the co-op it was an even 25.0 cents.
> 
> That lasted about 6 months, as I remember.  They then went back to 24.9
> cents.  I asked the manager about "going back to that nonsense."  He
> said their sales volume dropped over 30% during that experiment, as
> people started going across the street to get "cheaper gas."


Based on personal experience, I'm not all that surprised...

I've always found the "x.99" pricing extremely irritating, and grumble under
my breath whenever I see it (which is virtually all of the time). "Why do
they continue with such idiocy?" I say to myself. "Yeah, I know it's a
psychological thing...but in this day and age, everyone knows, and even if
it did make a difference eons ago, by now it's outlived its usefulness!"

A couple of months ago I had lunch with an old business acquaintance at a
restaurant I'd never been to before. I was absolutely amazed to see the
prices on the menu: They all ended in ".00" -- not $9.95, $14.95, $19.95,
....etc., but $10.00, $15.00, $20.00, ...etc. "Well, it's about time!" I
thought. "Finally someone is doing it right -- acting rational, and not
insulting the public's intelligence." I smiled, ordered lunch, and enjoyed
my meal.

Here's the hard-for-me-to-admit kicker: Despite the fact that he food was
first rate and the prices were very reasonable, I left with a residual,
unconscious feeling that the prices were high.

 
> I know a lot of people that will look at a $1199 price and say that i is
> $1100 when dicussing the cost. They lop off the last digits rather than
> round them off. 
> 
> Personally I always quote such prices as $1200, but you would be
> surprised the number of times I get corrected with "no, it only $1199."
> To which I respond, "no - it is $1300 unless you are paying the sales
> tax for me..."

-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.6)

In article <1j05upf.1ssysme37cltsN%nospam@see.signature>,
 nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:

> Yep. Gasoline is even worse with their .9 cents. I consider that to be
> false advertising as I doubt the pumps can be calibrated quite that
> accurately.

What on earth does accuracy of the pumps have to do with it?  It doesn't matter 
whether the pump measure the amount of gas as 7.12, 7.1, or 7 gallons.  Whatever 
amount of gas the pump says you got, the seller can multiply it by a price 
ending in .9 and round the result up or down to a whole number of cents.

At 99 cents/gallon, 7 gallons would cost 693 cents = $6.93
At 100 cents/gallon, 7 gallons would cost 700 cents = $7.00
At 99.9 cents/gallon, 7 gallons would cost 699.3 cents, rounded down to $6.99

See?  That .9 can make a difference even if the pumps were only capable of 
measuring whole gallons.

In article doraymeRidThis-72F0D9.09405024052009@news.albasani.net, dorayme
at doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au wrote on 5/23/09 7:40 PM:

> In article <00489df7$0$26643$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
>  Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I wasn't (quite) old enough for farthings
> 
> You youth! In England, they were still around after 1960 though they
> were officially demonetized in that year.


My first trip there was in the early '70s, soon after "D-Day," when the
country changed to the decimal ("New Pence") system. I was at a distinct
advantage compared to a lot of the citizenry, who seemed to find the
transition a bit confusing (and thus were more than occasionally
short-changed by unscrupulous shopkeepers).

-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.6)

+ TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com>:

> On Sat, 23 May 2009 22:45:25 -0500, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote (in article 
> <1j088ly.12xk1jwowxo19N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>): 
>
>> Speaking of eftpos - I'm always surprised electronic payment direct
>> out of your bank account is not more popular in countries like the US
>> where cash or credit seems to be used for nearly everything. Maybe
>> it's just because NZ is a small country and thus nationwide standards
>> are easier.
>
> How does eftpos differ from what in the United States is called a
> "debit card", which looks like a credit card but which immediately
> draws the papyment from your bank account?

I can't speak for NZ, but we have a similar system in Norway. There is
very little difference in practice, but there are some: The transaction
requires information from the magnetic stripe (or interaction with the
on-board chip, for newer cards) plus pin. You can't use the number that
is printed on the card. Well actually the card often doubles as a debit
card, in which case you can. What happens behind the scenes is different
though: For debit cards, the transaction is handled by the associated
card company (e.g., VISA) while when you use it in the other mode, the
transaction is handled by a special entity set up by all the banks in
Norway together for this purpose (BBS, bankenes betalingssentral).

BBS also handles all sorts of money transfers between accounts at
different banks. It's a very efficient system, with unified account
numbers - 11 digits, of which the first 4 identify the bank (or branch,
actually), so you never need specify the bank, just the account number.
This is how everybody pays their bills these days.

And cheques/checks? I haven't written one this century. I wrote maybe a
handful in the 90s. They used to be the standard way (besides cash) of
paying in stores before that, though.

-- 
* Harald Hanche-Olsen     <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
- It is undesirable to believe a proposition
  when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true.
  -- Bertrand Russell

In article <1j069yw.wehemibhtj0gN%nospam@see.signature>,
 nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:

> Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> 
> > > Yep. Gasoline is even worse with their .9 cents. I consider that to be
> > > false advertising as I doubt the pumps can be calibrated quite that
> > 
> > When it started, probably not.
> > I suspect that today they are indeed that accurate.
> 
> When the pumps even have labels saying that they aren't temperature
> compensated?

One of us needs to take another look at those labels, because I'm positive the 
ones I've seen say that the pumps ARE temperature compensated.

Wayne C. Morris <wayne.morris@this.is.invalid> wrote:

> In article <1j05upf.1ssysme37cltsN%nospam@see.signature>,
>  nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:
> 
> > Yep. Gasoline is even worse with their .9 cents. I consider that to be
> > false advertising as I doubt the pumps can be calibrated quite that
> > accurately.
> 
> What on earth does accuracy of the pumps have to do with it?  It doesn't
> matter whether the pump measure the amount of gas as 7.12, 7.1, or 7
> gallons.  Whatever amount of gas the pump says you got, the seller can
> multiply it by a price ending in .9 and round the result up or down to a
> whole number of cents.

Because the sign doesn't say 249.9 cents times whatever number of
gallons the pump measures. It says 249.9 cents per gallon. If the pump
measures even 1 part 1000 high, then that's really about 251.15 cents
per gallon.

I'd consider that to be false advertising, as citing the price in tenths
of a cent implies accuracy to that level.

Not that I think there is any chance at all of such a claim for false
advertising actually holding up in court. But I still think that's what
it is.

> That .9 can make a difference even if the pumps were only capable of 
> measuring whole gallons.

Of course. That it can make a difference wasn't my point. That it
misrepresents the price per gallon is.

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

> A couple of months ago I had lunch with an old business acquaintance at a
> restaurant I'd never been to before. I was absolutely amazed to see the
> prices on the menu: They all ended in ".00" -- not $9.95, $14.95, $19.95,
> ...etc., but $10.00, $15.00, $20.00, ...etc. "Well, it's about time!" I
> thought. "Finally someone is doing it right -- acting rational, and not
> insulting the public's intelligence." I smiled, ordered lunch, and enjoyed
> my meal.
> 
> Here's the hard-for-me-to-admit kicker: Despite the fact that he food was
> first rate and the prices were very reasonable, I left with a residual,
> unconscious feeling that the prices were high.

Interesting, isn't it?  Even if we know for an absolute mathematical
fact that the price is essentially the same, that .05 does make it look
cheaper.

Emotion trumps logic once again.  Thus the draw for lotteries, even
among many that should know better.  (I haven't bought a ticket in over
20 years, but I remember "tinkering" with them to the tune of a couple
hundred bucks in the early 80's when they first came to California,
despite knowing the odds of winning were lower than getting hit by a car
crossing the road)

-- 
- Burt Johnson
  MindStorm, Inc.
  http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

In article <1j0732i.19dv4461fzgeq9N%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
 burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:

> Emotion trumps logic once again.  Thus the draw for lotteries, even
> among many that should know better.  (I haven't bought a ticket in over
> 20 years, but I remember "tinkering" with them to the tune of a couple
> hundred bucks in the early 80's when they first came to California,
> despite knowing the odds of winning were lower than getting hit by a car
> crossing the road)

Don't worry, even some people whose business is logic and thinking about 
science do not fully comprehend how their ideas do not really separate 
out the reasonable from the unreasonable bet.

-- 
dorayme

On 2009-05-23 21:15:12 +0100, Paul Woodsford 
<paul.woodsfordNOSPAM@virgin.net> said:

> On 23/05/2009 20:33, in article
> 0001HW.C63DB9D40043197BB01AD9AF@News.Individual.NET, "TaliesinSoft"
> <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 23 May 2009 14:06:33 -0500, Wes Groleau wrote (in article
>> <ZOXRl.191$Cc1.40@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>):
>> 
>>> People are math-challenged.  Some folks will drive ten miles (half a
>>> gallon?) to save ten cents.
>> 
>> You've met my sister?     :-)
>> 
>>> I remember in 1974 during the alleged gas shortage, seeing a line of cars
>>> a quarter-mile long waiting to buy gas. Waiting with their engines
>>> running.
>> 
>> My car, a Scion XB, typically takes ten gallons a fill. If the price were
>> upped from that 9/10ths to an even penny it would cost me a whole penny more
>> per fill.
> In the UK things are often priced �XX.99p.

The other pricing curiosity is things being priced xx.97 or xx.98. 
Electronics chains like Currys or PC World tend to do that, and I'm 
told that is done to tell the sales assistant how much commission or 
whatever is made on the item so they can steer the customer towards the 
higher commission products.

-- 
Chris

In article <doraymeRidThis-7A10DE.11580824052009@news.albasani.net>,
 dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article <005cd19d$0$31252$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
>  Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Umm, no, I lived in England starting around 1955, and they weren't in 
> > circulation then. People (my mother for instance) still had jars of 
> > them, but we didn't spend them in the shops.
> 
> You are probably right. I forget when I last actually spent one, I know 
> I saw them *around* till 1958 when I left.

I am sure I did get to use farthings as a nipper (sweetshops had 4 Chews 
for a penny), but we did live in a semi-rural village, which undoubtedly 
moved a little slower than elsewhere.

And many of us kept a few as collectors items long after they ceased to 
be legal tender. I also remember the silver threepenny coin, which I 
believe were phased out because the silver content became worth more 
than the face value.

-- 
Paul Sture

In article <0001HW.C63D748900362725B01AD9AF@News.Individual.NET>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> It has become customary for prices to be stated one or more pennies or 
> dollars lower so as to create the illusion of a much greater price drop.
> 
> As an example if you check, on the Apple website, for the prices for an iMac, 
> you find $1,199.00, $1,499.00, $1,799.00, and $2,199.00. Why not just say 
> $1,200, $1,500, $1,800, and $2,200.

I can't recall when Apple began that practice, but it's certainly not a 
recent change. As such I'm not sure why you feel it's worth comment all 
of a sudden. Apple "joined the bozos" a long time ago. (A quick check at 
LowEndMac suggests that it dates back at least to the Lisa. Other 
sources note similar pricing patterns on the Apple II in 1977.)

Regardless of the original psychological and/or business intents of this 
practice, now it has just become "the way things are done." I don't 
believe any company seriously intends to mislead the consumer into 
believing that a penny or a dollar somehow makes a significant 
difference regardless of the boundary it establishes. However, because 
it *is* "the way things are done" I expect it wouldn't be uncommon for a 
consumer today to look askance at any vendor that didn't follow suit.

I'm curious: At what order of magnitude do you feel single-unit price 
variations indicate bozosity? Obviously you're not thrilled with 
$999.99, or $999.00. But what it if was $990.00? Or even $900.00? At 
what point do you stop saying "Why don't the bastards just admit it's a 
thousand bucks?"

-- 
I saw a truck today that had "AAA Batteries / Delivered and Installed" on the
side. My first thought was: That's a really weird business model. How many
inept people have urgent need of skinny little battery cells?

In article <C63E5DE9.3C0B3%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
 Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

> A couple of months ago I had lunch with an old business acquaintance at a
> restaurant I'd never been to before. I was absolutely amazed to see the
> prices on the menu: They all ended in ".00" -- not $9.95, $14.95, $19.95,
> ...etc., but $10.00, $15.00, $20.00, ...etc. "Well, it's about time!" I
> thought. "Finally someone is doing it right -- acting rational, and not
> insulting the public's intelligence." I smiled, ordered lunch, and enjoyed
> my meal.
> 
> Here's the hard-for-me-to-admit kicker: Despite the fact that he food was
> first rate and the prices were very reasonable, I left with a residual,
> unconscious feeling that the prices were high.

In my experience, the restaurants that uniformly price things in even 
dollars are the restaurants that are high-priced anyway. I was at a 
restaurant not too long ago that had $20 meatloaf and mashed potatoes on 
their menu. That was the cheapest adult entr�e.

-- 
I saw a truck today that had "AAA Batteries / Delivered and Installed" on the
side. My first thought was: That's a really weird business model. How many
inept people have urgent need of skinny little battery cells?

Gregory Weston wrote:
> In article <0001HW.C63D748900362725B01AD9AF@News.Individual.NET>,
>  TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> 
>> It has become customary for prices to be stated one or more pennies or 
>> dollars lower so as to create the illusion of a much greater price drop.
>>
>> As an example if you check, on the Apple website, for the prices for an iMac, 
>> you find $1,199.00, $1,499.00, $1,799.00, and $2,199.00. Why not just say 
>> $1,200, $1,500, $1,800, and $2,200.
> 
> I can't recall when Apple began that practice, but it's certainly not a 
> recent change. As such I'm not sure why you feel it's worth comment all 
> of a sudden. Apple "joined the bozos" a long time ago. (A quick check at 
> LowEndMac suggests that it dates back at least to the Lisa. Other 
> sources note similar pricing patterns on the Apple II in 1977.)
> 
> Regardless of the original psychological and/or business intents of this 
> practice, now it has just become "the way things are done." I don't 
> believe any company seriously intends to mislead the consumer into 
> believing that a penny or a dollar somehow makes a significant 
> difference regardless of the boundary it establishes. However, because 
> it *is* "the way things are done" I expect it wouldn't be uncommon for a 
> consumer today to look askance at any vendor that didn't follow suit.
> 
> I'm curious: At what order of magnitude do you feel single-unit price 
> variations indicate bozosity? Obviously you're not thrilled with 
> $999.99, or $999.00. But what it if was $990.00? Or even $900.00? At 
> what point do you stop saying "Why don't the bastards just admit it's a 
> thousand bucks?"

Well put.

I know some of us translate right back in our minds- so the $199.00 item 
becomes $200.00.


-- 
john mcwilliams

In article <0001HW.C63D748900362725B01AD9AF@news.individual.net>,
	TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> writes:
> It has become customary for prices to be stated one or more pennies or 
> dollars lower so as to create the illusion of a much greater price drop.
> 
> As an example if you check, on the Apple website, for the prices for an iMac, 
> you find $1,199.00, $1,499.00, $1,799.00, and $2,199.00. Why not just say 
> $1,200, $1,500, $1,800, and $2,200. 
> 
> I would like to think that Apple, as a leader in innovation in the 
> marketplace, would initiate a trend away from this pricing idiocy.
> 
> My understanding is that the 99 cents began years ago with, I believe, 
> Woolworth's so that the clerks would have to open the registers to make 
> change.
[...]

50% of the population is below-average intelligence.

Companies take advantage of that.

Nothing really changes.

This one is so routine I'm not sure I'd even call it deceptive or
misleading.  It's almost conventional, and if someone wanted to set
a higher standard of business by avoiding all such dubious conventions,
they'd likely have a hard time of it.

Harald Hanche-Olsen <hanche@math.ntnu.no> wrote:

> + TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com>:
> 
> > On Sat, 23 May 2009 22:45:25 -0500, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote (in article
> > <1j088ly.12xk1jwowxo19N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>): 
> >
> >> Speaking of eftpos - I'm always surprised electronic payment direct
> >> out of your bank account is not more popular in countries like the US
> >> where cash or credit seems to be used for nearly everything. Maybe
> >> it's just because NZ is a small country and thus nationwide standards
> >> are easier.
> >
> > How does eftpos differ from what in the United States is called a
> > "debit card", which looks like a credit card but which immediately
> > draws the papyment from your bank account?

Have those become more popular now? Last time I checked (a while now
come to think of it :-) ) availability of instant electronic payment
from one's bank account at the point of sale was rare in the US.

Here in NZ even taxis and pizza delivery people sometimes have mobile
wireless eftpos terminals, and I know of only one brick and mortar store
in my city without eftpos (my barber as it happens - a rather old
fashioned scottish gentleman). In fact it's something of a shock when
eftpos isn't available, and overloads in the eftpos system at super busy
times like Christmas cause considerable trouble due to the lack of cash
being carried by NZ consumers. Hopefully that'll change as broadband
eftpos terminals replace dialup ones (uptake has been slow due to
security concerns of eftpos transactions over public internet).

> I can't speak for NZ, but we have a similar system in Norway. There is
> very little difference in practice, but there are some: The transaction
> requires information from the magnetic stripe (or interaction with the
> on-board chip, for newer cards) plus pin. You can't use the number that
> is printed on the card. Well actually the card often doubles as a debit
> card, in which case you can. What happens behind the scenes is different
> though: For debit cards, the transaction is handled by the associated
> card company (e.g., VISA) while when you use it in the other mode, the
> transaction is handled by a special entity set up by all the banks in
> Norway together for this purpose (BBS, bankenes betalingssentral).

Same here, though we have two competing eftpos networks in NZ, however
there is total interoperability and no difference in the way they work.

> BBS also handles all sorts of money transfers between accounts at
> different banks. It's a very efficient system, with unified account
> numbers - 11 digits, of which the first 4 identify the bank (or branch,
> actually), so you never need specify the bank, just the account number.
> This is how everybody pays their bills these days.

Likewise (about a unified standard for account numbers and electronic
bill payment).

> And cheques/checks? I haven't written one this century. I wrote maybe a
> handful in the 90s. They used to be the standard way (besides cash) of
> paying in stores before that, though.

I haven't bothered ordering a cheque book from my bank for... seven
years? The last one I had got thrown away when I changed banks a few
years ago and it had hardly been touched. I hate receiving payment via
check and having to wait up to five (used to be ten until recently!)
working days for them to clear. Ugg! Fortunately it's very rare
nowadays.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

In article <1j092hu.cu9x101sswrhbN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
 jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:

> Have those become more popular now? Last time I checked (a while now
> come to think of it :-) ) availability of instant electronic payment
> from one's bank account at the point of sale was rare in the US.

It's very popular in Canada. I use it all the time, although the oul' 
Woman likes to use a credit card that gives her "bonus points" for 
buying stuff, and since we pay that card off in full every month, it's a 
good deal; every now and then we get $100 of bonus groceries just for 
using the card.

The Americans write cheques a lot. The opening scene of The Big 
Lebowski, where he writes a 97-cent cheque for a quart of milk isn't so 
outrageous -- I've seen someone write one for 2.49 in a US grocery 
store. They (the Americans) have very tough and nasty laws about writing 
bad cheques, so more places are willing to take them.
-- 
Suddenly he realized that he was alone 
with a giant halfwit on a dark deserted street.
  -- Chester Himes

Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <1j092hu.cu9x101sswrhbN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
>  jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> 
> > Have those become more popular now? Last time I checked (a while now
> > come to think of it :-) ) availability of instant electronic payment
> > from one's bank account at the point of sale was rare in the US.
> 
> It's very popular in Canada. I use it all the time, although the oul'
> Woman likes to use a credit card that gives her "bonus points" for 
> buying stuff, and since we pay that card off in full every month, it's a
> good deal; every now and then we get $100 of bonus groceries just for
> using the card.

Sounds more useful than most of the reward scemes I've encountered here.
They always seem to be for things I hardly ever use like air travel.

> The Americans write cheques a lot. The opening scene of The Big 
> Lebowski, where he writes a 97-cent cheque for a quart of milk isn't so
> outrageous -- I've seen someone write one for 2.49 in a US grocery 
> store. They (the Americans) have very tough and nasty laws about writing
> bad cheques, so more places are willing to take them.

Love that movie! :-D

Another thing that surprised me about the US (which I may be out of date
with) was, IIRC, like a quater of people there don't even have a bank
account. Is that still the case?
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> writes:




> Regardless of the original psychological and/or business intents of this 
> practice, now it has just become "the way things are done." I don't 
> believe any company seriously intends to mislead the consumer into 
> believing that a penny or a dollar somehow makes a significant 
> difference regardless of the boundary it establishes. However, because 
> it *is* "the way things are done" I expect it wouldn't be uncommon for a 
> consumer today to look askance at any vendor that didn't follow suit.

It's easier this way to find the price on a web page or on a label
(which may have many numbers on it): Just look for a number ending in 99
or so...

> I'm curious: At what order of magnitude do you feel single-unit price 
> variations indicate bozosity? Obviously you're not thrilled with 
> $999.99, or $999.00. But what it if was $990.00? Or even $900.00? At 
> what point do you stop saying "Why don't the bastards just admit it's a 
> thousand bucks?"

Actually any non-random part after the decimal point is suspicious.
Having all products at designed price points probably means that there's
some extra profit in them. 

        Jochem

-- 
 "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no 
 longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
 - Antoine de Saint-Exupery 

On Sun, 24 May 2009 00:38:38 -0700, nospam@see.signature (Richard
Maine) wrote:

>I'd consider that to be false advertising, as citing the price in tenths
>of a cent implies accuracy to that level.

It would be interesting if some state made it illegal.

I'm in favor using our system to its advantages, by trying such laws
state by state instead of federally.

-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

On Sun, 24 May 2009 14:19:23 GMT, rlhamil@smart.net (Richard L.
Hamilton) wrote:

>50% of the population is below-average intelligence.

Not really.   "Average intelligence" has to be defined by standard
deviation if at all.

-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 24 May 2009 14:19:23 GMT, rlhamil@smart.net (Richard L.
> Hamilton) wrote:
> 
> >50% of the population is below-average intelligence.
> 
> Not really.   "Average intelligence" has to be defined by standard
> deviation if at all.

I would have thought that the average would be defined by... um...
average. Also known by several other terms, but "average" is a fine one.
Though in that case, the claim that 50% are below it would be
questionable; that sounds like a claim relating to the median rather
than the average.

On the other hand, I agree with the "if at all" part. I don't place much
stock in intelligence as a numerical quantity.

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

In article <LHcSl.1022$_s1.554@newsfe04.iad>,
 rlhamil@smart.net (Richard L. Hamilton) wrote:

> In article <0001HW.C63D748900362725B01AD9AF@news.individual.net>,
> 	TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> writes:
> > It has become customary for prices to be stated one or more pennies or 
> > dollars lower so as to create the illusion of a much greater price drop.
> > 
> > As an example if you check, on the Apple website, for the prices for an 
> > iMac, 
> > you find $1,199.00, $1,499.00, $1,799.00, and $2,199.00. Why not just say 
> > $1,200, $1,500, $1,800, and $2,200. 
> > 
> > I would like to think that Apple, as a leader in innovation in the 
> > marketplace, would initiate a trend away from this pricing idiocy.
> > 
> > My understanding is that the 99 cents began years ago with, I believe, 
> > Woolworth's so that the clerks would have to open the registers to make 
> > change.
> [...]
> 
> 50% of the population is below-average intelligence.

You are confusing average with median?
> 
> Companies take advantage of that.
> 
> Nothing really changes.
> 
> This one is so routine I'm not sure I'd even call it deceptive or
> misleading.  It's almost conventional, and if someone wanted to set
> a higher standard of business by avoiding all such dubious conventions,
> they'd likely have a hard time of it.

-- 
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint =  5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3  7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF

dorayme wrote:
> You youth! In England, [farthings] were still around after 1960 though they 
> were officially demonetized in that year.

How long before that were they demonized?

Did schoolchildren used to make puns involving flatulence?

-- 
Wes Groleau

   achy breaky grammar
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=229

In article <1j07xfe.1l7tlvk83s078N%nospam@see.signature>,
 nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:

> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 24 May 2009 14:19:23 GMT, rlhamil@smart.net (Richard L.
> > Hamilton) wrote:
> > 
> > >50% of the population is below-average intelligence.
> > 
> > Not really.   "Average intelligence" has to be defined by standard
> > deviation if at all.
> 
> I would have thought that the average would be defined by... um...
> average. Also known by several other terms, but "average" is a fine one.
> Though in that case, the claim that 50% are below it would be
> questionable; that sounds like a claim relating to the median rather
> than the average.

Strickly, yes. But if the distribution is semi-treacle then you're OK.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

In article <%XhSl.448$9L2.176@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
 Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > You youth! In England, [farthings] were still around after 1960 though they 
> > were officially demonetized in that year.
> 
> How long before that were they demonized?
> 
> Did schoolchildren used to make puns involving flatulence?

No we didn't.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

Lots of times I see something offered at Two-for-a-Dollar, which
apparently persuades people to buy two of them when their original
intent was to buy one for a half dollar.

-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

On Sun, 24 May 2009 15:45:25 +1200, jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie
Kahn Genet) wrote:

>Speaking of eftpos - I'm always surprised electronic payment direct out
>of your bank account is not more popular in countries like the US where
>cash or credit seems to be used for nearly everything. Maybe it's just
>because NZ is a small country and thus nationwide standards are easier.

I seem to note different types of discipline. 

Some people should not use cards because they do not track of what
they spend.

Some people can use debit cards (taking the money directly from their
bank accounts), because they write it into their checkbook registers -
but should not use credit cards, because they do not write it into
their checkbooks.

And some people get the best deals, as they use credit cards - marking
it in their checkbook registers, and paying them off each month.

-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

In article <paul.sture.nospam-A67CC1.12532224052009@mac.sture.ch>,
 "P. Sture" <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:

> In article <doraymeRidThis-7A10DE.11580824052009@news.albasani.net>,
>  dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> > In article <005cd19d$0$31252$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
> >  Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Umm, no, I lived in England starting around 1955, and they weren't in 
> > > circulation then. People (my mother for instance) still had jars of 
> > > them, but we didn't spend them in the shops.
> > 
> > You are probably right. I forget when I last actually spent one, I know 
> > I saw them *around* till 1958 when I left.
> 
> I am sure I did get to use farthings as a nipper (sweetshops had 4 Chews 
> for a penny), but we did live in a semi-rural village, which undoubtedly 
> moved a little slower than elsewhere.
> 
> And many of us kept a few as collectors items long after they ceased to 
> be legal tender. I also remember the silver threepenny coin, which I 
> believe were phased out because the silver content became worth more 
> than the face value.

Yes, and being nippers, small things caught our eyes. Also, being 
nippers in England in the 40s or 50s meant being poor and even more 
reason to seek out every opportunity, including raiding grandpa's old 
jars (this latter ensuring the teensiest bit of circulation to 1960!)

About sweets, I noticed a drastic lack of sweetshops on arrival in 
Australia. You could get a small selection of English chocolates and 
things from mainly milkbars at what seemed higher prices. But not much 
like the experience of "I'll have one of these, two of those and five of 
them" from the fabulously colour-filled big jars. Farthings were made 
for English children to buy sweets with!

Two weeks ago I was walking in Glebe (inner suburb of Sydney) and there 
was a "replica" English sweet shop, perhaps a replica of what they look 
like now? For old times sake I bought a packet of peardrops. A small 
packet for $3! I don't want to admit here publicly that I worked out 
what each lolly cost but I can tell you it was daylight robbery, I did 
not call the police only because I knew it was futile. 

Plus they were smaller than I remember and only the coating had the 
strong peardrop flavour. I got better value for a farthing or two a 
lifetime ago. But don't get the wrong idea: I am not bitter. <g>

-- 
dorayme

In article <00607274$0$17650$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> The opening scene of The Big 
> Lebowski, where he writes a 97-cent cheque for a quart of milk isn't so 
> outrageous -- I've seen someone write one for 2.49 in a US grocery 
> store. They (the Americans) have very tough and nasty laws about writing 
> bad cheques, so more places are willing to take them.

In The Million Pound Note, on the other hand, it was a plus that no one 
could or would take it. Gregory Peck got and accomplished much by merely 
having and showing it to shops and folk...

-- 
dorayme

In article <uce-698EA3.07452924052009@news.snet.sbcglobal.net>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <0001HW.C63D748900362725B01AD9AF@News.Individual.NET>,
>  TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> 
> > It has become customary for prices to be stated one or more pennies or 
> > dollars lower so as to create the illusion of a much greater price drop.
> > 
> > As an example if you check, on the Apple website, for the prices for an 
> > iMac, 
> > you find $1,199.00, $1,499.00, $1,799.00, and $2,199.00. Why not just say 
> > $1,200, $1,500, $1,800, and $2,200.
> 
> I can't recall when Apple began that practice, but it's certainly not a 
> recent change. As such I'm not sure why you feel it's worth comment all 
> of a sudden. Apple "joined the bozos" a long time ago. (A quick check at 
> LowEndMac suggests that it dates back at least to the Lisa. Other 
> sources note similar pricing patterns on the Apple II in 1977.)
> 
> Regardless of the original psychological and/or business intents of this 
> practice, now it has just become "the way things are done." I don't 
> believe any company seriously intends to mislead the consumer into 
> believing that a penny or a dollar somehow makes a significant 
> difference regardless of the boundary it establishes. However, because 
> it *is* "the way things are done" I expect it wouldn't be uncommon for a 
> consumer today to look askance at any vendor that didn't follow suit.
> 
> I'm curious: At what order of magnitude do you feel single-unit price 
> variations indicate bozosity? Obviously you're not thrilled with 
> $999.99, or $999.00. But what it if was $990.00? Or even $900.00? At 
> what point do you stop saying "Why don't the bastards just admit it's a 
> thousand bucks?"

Do you all live in states with no sales tax?  It never IS the stated 
price in any state with sales tax anyway.

-- 
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)

You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument is 
that reason doesn't count.     --Isaac Asimov

Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo�

Idiots.

IQ is based on a mean of 100 with a standard deviation of 10.

50% are in fact below the average, but well within the first SD.

"Alpha" <none@none.net> wrote in message 
news:gvcstf$6l6$1@zinnia.noc.ucla.edu...
> Idiots.
>
> IQ is based on a mean of 100 with a standard deviation of 10.
>
> 50% are in fact below the average, but well within the first SD.
>

Clarify:  those within ca. 33% of the mean are within the first SD below.

In article <drache-5374AF.20362724052009@news.airstreamcomm.net>,
erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:

> Do you all live in states with no sales tax?  It never IS the stated 
> price in any state with sales tax anyway.

and some places have 'weird' prices like 6.48, which when sales tax is
added (assume 8%), is a nice even 7.00.  i see this a lot at fast food
places.

In article 1j0732i.19dv4461fzgeq9N%burt@mindstorm-inc.com, Burt Johnson at
burt@mindstorm-inc.com wrote on 5/24/09 3:40 AM:

> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> A couple of months ago I had lunch with an old business acquaintance at a
>> restaurant I'd never been to before. I was absolutely amazed to see the
>> prices on the menu: They all ended in ".00" -- not $9.95, $14.95, $19.95,
>> ...etc., but $10.00, $15.00, $20.00, ...etc. "Well, it's about time!" I
>> thought. "Finally someone is doing it right -- acting rational, and not
>> insulting the public's intelligence." I smiled, ordered lunch, and enjoyed
>> my meal.
>> 
>> Here's the hard-for-me-to-admit kicker: Despite the fact that he food was
>> first rate and the prices were very reasonable, I left with a residual,
>> unconscious feeling that the prices were high.
> 
> Interesting, isn't it?  Even if we know for an absolute mathematical
> fact that the price is essentially the same, that .05 does make it look
> cheaper.

No, it doesn't make it _look_ cheaper...it somehow connects with a primal
part of us (well, apparently me at least ;) ) that makes it _feel_ cheaper.
(Hmmm..."Visceral Doublethink?")


 
> Emotion trumps logic once again.  Thus the draw for lotteries, even
> among many that should know better.  (I haven't bought a ticket in over
> 20 years, but I remember "tinkering" with them to the tune of a couple
> hundred bucks in the early 80's when they first came to California,
> despite knowing the odds of winning were lower than getting hit by a car
> crossing the road)

Hell, betting on a hit-and-run provides _significantly_ better odds than
playing MegaMillions.


-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.6)

In article 00607274$0$17650$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com, Warren Oates at
warren.oates@gmail.com wrote on 5/24/09 11:12 AM:

> In article <1j092hu.cu9x101sswrhbN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
>  jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> 
>> Have those become more popular now? Last time I checked (a while now
>> come to think of it :-) ) availability of instant electronic payment
>> from one's bank account at the point of sale was rare in the US.
> 
> It's very popular in Canada. I use it all the time, although the oul'
> Woman likes to use a credit card that gives her "bonus points" for
> buying stuff, and since we pay that card off in full every month, it's a
> good deal; every now and then we get $100 of bonus groceries just for
> using the card.
> 
> The Americans write cheques a lot.

We do?????? I don't recall seeing anyone writing a check in...hell, I don't
remember when.




The opening scene of The Big
> Lebowski, where he writes a 97-cent cheque for a quart of milk isn't so
> outrageous -- I've seen someone write one for 2.49 in a US grocery
> store. They (the Americans) have very tough and nasty laws about writing
> bad cheques, so more places are willing to take them.

-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.6)

On Sun, 24 May 2009 20:36:27 -0500, erilar wrote (in article 
<drache-5374AF.20362724052009@news.airstreamcomm.net>): 

> Do you all live in states with no sales tax?  It never IS the stated price 
> in any state with sales tax anyway. 

To my knowledge only three of the fifty states our free of sales tax, New 
Hampshire, Delaware, and Oregon. I've lived in New Hampshire and Delaware, 
and at least at those times there was no tax. I'm only going from hearsay as 
far as Oregon.

-- 
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@me.com

In article <0001HW.C63F7B6600015875B01AD9AF@News.Individual.NET>,
TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> To my knowledge only three of the fifty states our free of sales tax, New 
> Hampshire, Delaware, and Oregon. I've lived in New Hampshire and Delaware, 
> and at least at those times there was no tax. I'm only going from hearsay as 
> far as Oregon.

alaska, delaware, montana, new hampshire & oregon have no state sales
tax.

<http://www.taxadmin.org/FTA/rate/sales.html>

On Sun, 24 May 2009 22:37:23 -0500, nospam wrote (in article 
<240520092037236333%nospam@nospam.invalid>): 

> In article <0001HW.C63F7B6600015875B01AD9AF@News.Individual.NET>, 
> TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote: 
> 
>> To my knowledge only three of the fifty states our free of sales tax, New 
>> Hampshire, Delaware, and Oregon. I've lived in New Hampshire and 
>> Delaware, and at least at those times there was no tax. I'm only going 
>> from hearsay as far as Oregon. 
> 
> alaska, delaware, montana, new hampshire & oregon have no state sales tax. 
> 
> <http://www.taxadmin.org/FTA/rate/sales.html> 

The correction is appreciated! 

-- 
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@me.com

In article <drache-5374AF.20362724052009@news.airstreamcomm.net>,
 erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:

> In article <uce-698EA3.07452924052009@news.snet.sbcglobal.net>,
>  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <0001HW.C63D748900362725B01AD9AF@News.Individual.NET>,
> >  TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > It has become customary for prices to be stated one or more pennies or 
> > > dollars lower so as to create the illusion of a much greater price drop.
> > > 
> > > As an example if you check, on the Apple website, for the prices for an 
> > > iMac, 
> > > you find $1,199.00, $1,499.00, $1,799.00, and $2,199.00. Why not just say 
> > > $1,200, $1,500, $1,800, and $2,200.
> > 
> > I can't recall when Apple began that practice, but it's certainly not a 
> > recent change. As such I'm not sure why you feel it's worth comment all 
> > of a sudden. Apple "joined the bozos" a long time ago. (A quick check at 
> > LowEndMac suggests that it dates back at least to the Lisa. Other 
> > sources note similar pricing patterns on the Apple II in 1977.)
> > 
> > Regardless of the original psychological and/or business intents of this 
> > practice, now it has just become "the way things are done." I don't 
> > believe any company seriously intends to mislead the consumer into 
> > believing that a penny or a dollar somehow makes a significant 
> > difference regardless of the boundary it establishes. However, because 
> > it *is* "the way things are done" I expect it wouldn't be uncommon for a 
> > consumer today to look askance at any vendor that didn't follow suit.
> > 
> > I'm curious: At what order of magnitude do you feel single-unit price 
> > variations indicate bozosity? Obviously you're not thrilled with 
> > $999.99, or $999.00. But what it if was $990.00? Or even $900.00? At 
> > what point do you stop saying "Why don't the bastards just admit it's a 
> > thousand bucks?"
> 
> Do you all live in states with no sales tax?  It never IS the stated 
> price in any state with sales tax anyway.

Yes it is. VAT is always included for retail prices.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

In article <timstreater-7C4F54.09274525052009@news.individual.net>,
 Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> wrote:

> In article <drache-5374AF.20362724052009@news.airstreamcomm.net>,
>  erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > Do you all live in states with no sales tax?  It never IS the stated 
> > price in any state with sales tax anyway.
> 
> Yes it is. VAT is always included for retail prices.

GST is always included in retail prices. It is a legal requirement that 
business states the final price, including tax. Maybe the USA system 
(along with tips) is intended to help people practice their mental 
arithmetic?

-- 
http://www.ericlindsay.com

In article 
<NOwebmasterSPAM-5AEC04.19414025052009@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.a
u>,
 Eric Lindsay <NOwebmasterSPAM@ericlindsay.com> wrote:

> In article <timstreater-7C4F54.09274525052009@news.individual.net>,
>  Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <drache-5374AF.20362724052009@news.airstreamcomm.net>,
> >  erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> > > Do you all live in states with no sales tax?  It never IS the stated 
> > > price in any state with sales tax anyway.
> > 
> > Yes it is. VAT is always included for retail prices.
> 
> GST is always included in retail prices. It is a legal requirement that 
> business states the final price, including tax. Maybe the USA system 
> (along with tips) is intended to help people practice their mental 
> arithmetic?

Ah, a man who understands the difference between arithmetic and 
mathematics. Primo!

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

On Sat, 23 May 2009 21:15:12 +0100, Paul Woodsford wrote:
>  In the UK things are often priced �XX.99p.

I thought it was the UK who invented the "�1"-shops :-)

I remember that some countries have a higher precision, but do not
charge the lower decimals. I do not know whether they always do round
down or do round properly, but although there are would be coins that
small, they are not used.

- Martin

In article <eegj15h1uctrj5sctphb6nk80gcrsh4aaf@4ax.com>,
 Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 24 May 2009 15:45:25 +1200, jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie
> Kahn Genet) wrote:
> 
> >Speaking of eftpos - I'm always surprised electronic payment direct out
> >of your bank account is not more popular in countries like the US where
> >cash or credit seems to be used for nearly everything. Maybe it's just
> >because NZ is a small country and thus nationwide standards are easier.

Who uses eftpos? A direct link to your bank balance is not my idea of a 
secure system. A credit card is bank money. You are in a much better 
position if you need to dispute a transaction.
> 
> I seem to note different types of discipline. 
> 
> Some people should not use cards because they do not track of what
> they spend.
> 
> Some people can use debit cards (taking the money directly from their
> bank accounts), because they write it into their checkbook registers -
> but should not use credit cards, because they do not write it into
> their checkbooks.
> 
> And some people get the best deals, as they use credit cards - marking
> it in their checkbook registers, and paying them off each month.

What is a checkbook register? Paper is so ... 20th Century! Last time I 
used a check was last year, for a transaction with someone who did not 
have credit card facilities. Credit card transactions are what my 
computers keep track of. Well, actually a PDA, since all the OS X 
banking applications I have seen suck really badly for entry speed.

-- 
http://www.ericlindsay.com

Eric Lindsay <NOwebmasterSPAM@ericlindsay.com> wrote:

> In article <eegj15h1uctrj5sctphb6nk80gcrsh4aaf@4ax.com>,
>  Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 24 May 2009 15:45:25 +1200, jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie
> > Kahn Genet) wrote:
> > 
> > >Speaking of eftpos - I'm always surprised electronic payment direct out
> > >of your bank account is not more popular in countries like the US where
> > >cash or credit seems to be used for nearly everything. Maybe it's just
> > >because NZ is a small country and thus nationwide standards are easier.
> 
> Who uses eftpos? A direct link to your bank balance is not my idea of a
> secure system. A credit card is bank money. You are in a much better 
> position if you need to dispute a transaction.

Who uses eftpos? Everyone in NZ and Australia. It's quick, easy,
available almost everywhere (my barber is the only brick and mortar
store I know of that doesn't have eftpos), no fees (not even for getting
change - credit cards all charge for cash withdrawals), you're only
using money you actually have, and I'm unaware of any significant
security risks or liability issues. If I wanted to pay with credit I
couldn't shop at half the places I usually go.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

In article <6bgj15hm79p3ggcg0bpqauapd77vu1v9gt@4ax.com>,
 Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> Lots of times I see something offered at Two-for-a-Dollar, which
> apparently persuades people to buy two of them when their original
> intent was to buy one for a half dollar.

Grocery stores in Ontario do a nasty thing, where you get a discount for 
buying more than one of something. 3-for-5 dollars, say, where the 
individual item is 1.89. It's against the consumer laws in Quebec; it's 
felt that it penalizes the poorer shoppers who should get the same deal. 

No, Costco's not affected. They package their stuff into "single items."
-- 
Suddenly he realized that he was alone 
with a giant halfwit on a dark deserted street.
  -- Chester Himes

In article <1j07xfe.1l7tlvk83s078N%nospam@see.signature>,
 nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:

> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 24 May 2009 14:19:23 GMT, rlhamil@smart.net (Richard L.
> > Hamilton) wrote:
> > 
> > >50% of the population is below-average intelligence.
> > 
> > Not really.   "Average intelligence" has to be defined by standard
> > deviation if at all.
> 
> I would have thought that the average would be defined by... um...
> average.

Which average? I can think of 5 different methods of calculating "the" 
average without breaking a sweat. That's one of the reasons you can make 
statistics say anything you want.

> Also known by several other terms, but "average" is a fine one.
> Though in that case, the claim that 50% are below it would be
> questionable; that sounds like a claim relating to the median rather
> than the average.

I'm guessing based on that that you think of average as a synonym for 
arithmetic mean. The first way we all learn it in grade school.

> On the other hand, I agree with the "if at all" part. I don't place much
> stock in intelligence as a numerical quantity.

That's because "intelligence" is an even fuzzier word than "average," 
and you're clearly of above-average intelligence. ;)

-- 
I saw a truck today that had "AAA Batteries / Delivered and Installed" on the
side. My first thought was: That's a really weird business model. How many
inept people have urgent need of skinny little battery cells?

In article <C63F7DB5.3C11C%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
 Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

> We do?????? I don't recall seeing anyone writing a check in...hell, I don't
> remember when.

It's true that I haven't done a lot of shopping in the US in the last 8 
years or so, but I recall our weekly trips for groceries to Richford 
Vt., admittedly a small town, where nearly everyone in line was writing 
a cheque. Or paying with food stamps. Rich French Canadians in black 
Lexuses stopping and buying all the cheap cigarettes and hiding them 
under the seats.
-- 
Suddenly he realized that he was alone 
with a giant halfwit on a dark deserted street.
  -- Chester Himes

In article <slrnh1kqha.btm.t-use@ID-685.user.individual.de>,
 Martin Trautmann <t-use@gmx.net> wrote:

> I remember that some countries have a higher precision, but do not
> charge the lower decimals. I do not know whether they always do round
> down or do round properly, but although there are would be coins that
> small, they are not used.

Hongkong's smallest coin (in the 80's) was ten cents, which was worth, 
well, nothing. But that's what it cost to ride the tram, and you had to 
have some with you for that and other small purchases.

For accounting purposes, though, they issued one-cent notes so that you 
could close a bank account accurately. They also had some 5-cent coins 
for the same purpose. These were of course instant touristy souvenirs.

I don't know what they use now, probably rembambimyuanbi or something 
equally worthless.

As for worthless, we had "shin plasters" in Canada, before my time, 
25-cent notes. I've seen a few in collections. I think that Canadian 
tender is never "demonetized" like in the UK, meaning that a shin 
plaster still has a face value of 25 cents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinplaster

ah, Calabashes!
-- 
Suddenly he realized that he was alone 
with a giant halfwit on a dark deserted street.
  -- Chester Himes

In article 
<NOwebmasterSPAM-5AEC04.19414025052009@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.a
u>,
 Eric Lindsay <NOwebmasterSPAM@ericlindsay.com> wrote:

> GST is always included in retail prices. It is a legal requirement that 
> business states the final price, including tax. Maybe the USA system 
> (along with tips) is intended to help people practice their mental 
> arithmetic?

In Canada the GST and provincial (not Alberta) taxes are added at the 
cash register, so, yeah, you have to be able to add an extra 10-15 
percent to a listed price.

Some stores have "we'll pay the taxes" sales sometimes.
-- 
Suddenly he realized that he was alone 
with a giant halfwit on a dark deserted street.
  -- Chester Himes

On Mon, 25 May 2009 19:53:02 +1000, Eric Lindsay
<NOwebmasterSPAM@ericlindsay.com> wrote:

>> And some people get the best deals, as they use credit cards - marking
>> it in their checkbook registers, and paying them off each month.
>
>What is a checkbook register? Paper is so ... 20th Century! Last time I 
>used a check was last year, for a transaction with someone who did not 
>have credit card facilities. Credit card transactions are what my 
>computers keep track of. Well, actually a PDA, since all the OS X 
>banking applications I have seen suck really badly for entry speed.

The people who get in trouble for spending more money than they have
would benefit greatly by using checkbook registers.    I suppose that
register could be on an iPhone application, provided they are one of
the select that Apple wants as customers.    They want to write down
their application when and where they make their purchase.

-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

On Mon, 25 May 2009 08:19:55 -0400, Warren Oates
<warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

>For accounting purposes, though, they issued one-cent notes so that you 
>could close a bank account accurately. They also had some 5-cent coins 
>for the same purpose. These were of course instant touristy souvenirs.

The U.S. currency was designed with mills, and one time I had a
calculated bill where mills would be needed, so I sent out my check
with mills.   They returned it.   Too bad the people who were
responsible for the calculation were unlikely to have heard about it.

-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 25 May 2009 19:53:02 +1000, Eric Lindsay
> <NOwebmasterSPAM@ericlindsay.com> wrote:
> 
> >> And some people get the best deals, as they use credit cards - marking
> >> it in their checkbook registers, and paying them off each month.
> >
> >What is a checkbook register? Paper is so ... 20th Century! Last time I
> >used a check was last year, for a transaction with someone who did not
> >have credit card facilities. Credit card transactions are what my 
> >computers keep track of. Well, actually a PDA, since all the OS X 
> >banking applications I have seen suck really badly for entry speed.
> 
> The people who get in trouble for spending more money than they have
> would benefit greatly by using checkbook registers.    I suppose that
> register could be on an iPhone application, provided they are one of
> the select that Apple wants as customers.    They want to write down
> their application when and where they make their purchase.

Easier just to use a system like eftpos so you know exactly how much
money you have (easy to check at ATMs, online, phone and TXT banking).
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

In article <240520091856242758%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <drache-5374AF.20362724052009@news.airstreamcomm.net>,
> erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > Do you all live in states with no sales tax?  It never IS the stated 
> > price in any state with sales tax anyway.
> 
> and some places have 'weird' prices like 6.48, which when sales tax is
> added (assume 8%), is a nice even 7.00.  i see this a lot at fast food
> places.

I used to see that a lot when working with accounting systems, and to a 
certain extent payroll.

I've just remembered a comment from my bank manager years ago. If he saw 
a business customer writing a lot of cheques for round numbers, that 
customer was probably not paying their bills in full - i.e had a cash 
flow problem.

-- 
Paul Sture

Gregory Weston wrote:

> That's because "intelligence" is an even fuzzier word than "average," 
> and you're clearly of above-average intelligence. ;)

Indeed, as in Lake Wobegone, we are all above average here.... with some 
very notable exceptions.

:-)

-- 
john mcwilliams

In article <C63E636B.3C0B9%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
 Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

> In article doraymeRidThis-72F0D9.09405024052009@news.albasani.net, dorayme
> at doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au wrote on 5/23/09 7:40 PM:
> 
> > In article <00489df7$0$26643$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
> >  Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> I wasn't (quite) old enough for farthings
> > 
> > You youth! In England, they were still around after 1960 though they
> > were officially demonetized in that year.
> 
> 
> My first trip there was in the early '70s, soon after "D-Day," when the
> country changed to the decimal ("New Pence") system. I was at a distinct
> advantage compared to a lot of the citizenry, who seemed to find the
> transition a bit confusing (and thus were more than occasionally
> short-changed by unscrupulous shopkeepers).

Shortly after decimalisation I asked for a penny stamp in the local post 
office. The woman serving me was totally confused, then "corrected" me 
saying I meant "One New Pence". No I bloody didn't, as "Pence" is surely 
plural.

As ever, it was a gubmint plot to get us to change our language. From
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_Day#After_Decimal_Day>

"The government hoped that in speech the new units would be called "new 
pence",[citation needed] but many decided that it was clearer and 
quicker to pronounce the new coins as "pee". Shortenings such as 
"tuppence" are rarely heard and terms such as "tanner" (the silver 
sixpence), which previously designated amounts of money, are no longer 
used."

AFAIR, "tanner" disappeared with the coin, but "bob" stayed in use a lot 
longer, particularly amongst my parents' generation, and I still hear 
the term "bent as a nine bob note", meaning crooked, open to corruption 
etc.

-- 
Paul Sture

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2009 08:19:55 -0400, Warren Oates
> <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> For accounting purposes, though, they issued one-cent notes so that you 
>> could close a bank account accurately. They also had some 5-cent coins 
>> for the same purpose. These were of course instant touristy souvenirs.
> 
> The U.S. currency was designed with mills, and one time I had a
> calculated bill where mills would be needed, so I sent out my check
> with mills.   They returned it.   Too bad the people who were
> responsible for the calculation were unlikely to have heard about it.
> 


Mills were in circulation during World War II but no longer used 
immediately afterwards. The coins were in one and five mill 
denominations, made of bright red and green plastic. The penny, of 
course, is effectively a ten-mill coin; during that time pennies were 
minted without the copper needed for the war effort. No American coin 
collection is complete without all three.


-- 
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>    ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>   ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/    ||
||    Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso  ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++

Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article 
> <NOwebmasterSPAM-5AEC04.19414025052009@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.a
> u>,
>  Eric Lindsay <NOwebmasterSPAM@ericlindsay.com> wrote:
> 
> > GST is always included in retail prices. It is a legal requirement that
> > business states the final price, including tax. Maybe the USA system
> > (along with tips) is intended to help people practice their mental 
> > arithmetic?
> 
> In Canada the GST and provincial (not Alberta) taxes are added at the
> cash register, so, yeah, you have to be able to add an extra 10-15 
> percent to a listed price.
> 
> Some stores have "we'll pay the taxes" sales sometimes.

In the U.S. (well, I suppose that being a state thing, it might possibly
vary by state), the legalism is that the store - not the buyer - always
pays the sales tax. It is actually a tax on the business. What you as a
buyer pay is a reimbursement to the store for their paying the tax. If
you run a small business that pays such taxes as I have done, this is
pretty evident in the tax forms. The state wants to know how much you
have sold; they compute the tax based on that (and various exemptions).
The tax isn't computed based on how much you collected in "ales tax"
from the customers. Yes, the store can forgo that reimbursement, but
most don't do so most of the time, reserving that for such "we'll pay
the taxes" sales.

I wish we had a requirement like the European one that the posted price
was what you actually paid. Instead, we see to have an ever escalating
circle of extra fees that aren't included in the posted price. Telephone
service is particularly horrible that way; you are lucky if the actual
bill doesn't end up twice the rate mentioned in the ads, even at zero
usage (and it can be real hard to find out ahead of time what the actual
bill will be).

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

In article <timstreater-7C4F54.09274525052009@news.individual.net>,
 Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> wrote:

> In article <drache-5374AF.20362724052009@news.airstreamcomm.net>,
>  erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:


> > Do you all live in states with no sales tax?  It never IS the stated 
> > price in any state with sales tax anyway.
> 
> Yes it is. VAT is always included for retail prices.

Well, I know that's the case in Germany, but I've never noticed it in 
Wisconsin.

-- 
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)

You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument is 
that reason doesn't count.     --Isaac Asimov

Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo�

Eric Lindsay wrote:
> Who uses eftpos? A direct link to your bank balance is not my idea of a 
> secure system. A credit card is bank money. You are in a much better 
> position if you need to dispute a transaction.

The last time I had to dispute a transaction, the person at the bank
told me that as a condition of them putting the name Visa on the card,
they are not allowed to charge me the first fifty dollars of a disputed
charge even though U.S. law otherwise allows it.

(I assume that they can charge me if my dispute turns out to be false.)

So I would say this makes a Visa debit card safer than a non-Visa
credit card.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Thinking It Through
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=476

Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 26 May 2009 00:54:42 +1200, jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie
> Kahn Genet) wrote:
> 
> >Easier just to use a system like eftpos so you know exactly how much
> >money you have (easy to check at ATMs, online, phone and TXT banking).
> 
> So the iPhone will help here.    Do you have to phone to see your
> balance, or can you look at your register without phoning from where
> you are shopping?

Eftpos terminals cannot give out balances or any other account
information beyond accepted/declined for each transaction. That is the
only information transmitted back to the terminal.

So if I want to know how much I still have I either have to keep a
running balance till I pass an ATM, or I can use my phone (TXT or
internet banking if it's a smartphone).

Thus if you make a lot of purchases and don't do the above you can still
not be able to pay for something, but at least you've not already bought
it as with credit.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

P. Sture wrote:
> I've just remembered a comment from my bank manager years ago. If he saw 
> a business customer writing a lot of cheques for round numbers, that 
> customer was probably not paying their bills in full - i.e had a cash 
> flow problem.

A reasonable but wrong assumption.  I pay each creditor approximately
46% of the average monthly bill every other week.  (I'm paid every other 
week.)  I always round up to an integral number of U.S. dollars.

Occasionally, this means I am a little short, but most of the time I'm 
ahead.  Once in a while, I pay less because I'm getting too far ahead.

The benefit of this method is that I know without effort that I can 
afford to spend, save, or invest all the rest--I don't have to plan
how much to keep in the checking account for whatever bills will be
due after the next payday.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Secunia Software to help you update
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1430

erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:

> In article <timstreater-7C4F54.09274525052009@news.individual.net>,
>  Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <drache-5374AF.20362724052009@news.airstreamcomm.net>,
> >  erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
> > > Do you all live in states with no sales tax?  It never IS the stated
> > > price in any state with sales tax anyway.
> > 
> > Yes it is. VAT is always included for retail prices.
> 
> Well, I know that's the case in Germany, but I've never noticed it in
> Wisconsin.

GST is included in all retail prices in NZ. To me it seems very dodgy to
be adding taxes on at the register.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> GST is included in all retail prices in NZ. To me it seems very dodgy to
> be adding taxes on at the register.

Having grown up with it, it doesn't bother me.
Helps that I know it's a government fee and not
arbitrary trickery by the store.

With cell phones and land lines, however, I really
get angry, because the hidden fees (some of them)
are NOT government imposed.  Worse yet, one of them
they call a USF.  It stands for Universal Service Fee,
and is NOT legally required, nor is it a consistent
amount from one provider to the next.  Some of them,
if you question it, will lie and say it's federally
imposed.  Others will tell you the truth but they hope
you'll think it stands for United States Federal and not ask.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Homework Again
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1577

In article 00329a1f$0$9335$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com, Warren Oates at
warren.oates@gmail.com wrote on 5/25/09 8:08 AM:

> In article <C63F7DB5.3C11C%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
>  Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> We do?????? I don't recall seeing anyone writing a check in...hell, I don't
>> remember when.
> 
> It's true that I haven't done a lot of shopping in the US in the last 8
> years or so, but I recall our weekly trips for groceries to Richford
> Vt., admittedly a small town, where nearly everyone in line was writing
> a cheque. Or paying with food stamps. Rich French Canadians in black
> Lexuses stopping and buying all the cheap cigarettes and hiding them
> under the seats.

Well, that may explain it: Once you head north of Portland (Maine), you
enter a time warp (at least in the US) that Twilight-Zone's you back at
least a quarter century.


-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.6)

In article paul.sture.nospam-061577.16430525052009@mac.sture.ch, P. Sture at
paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch wrote on 5/25/09 10:43 AM:

> In article <C63E636B.3C0B9%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
>  Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article doraymeRidThis-72F0D9.09405024052009@news.albasani.net, dorayme
>> at doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au wrote on 5/23/09 7:40 PM:
>> 
>>> In article <00489df7$0$26643$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
>>>  Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I wasn't (quite) old enough for farthings
>>> 
>>> You youth! In England, they were still around after 1960 though they
>>> were officially demonetized in that year.
>> 
>> 
>> My first trip there was in the early '70s, soon after "D-Day," when the
>> country changed to the decimal ("New Pence") system. I was at a distinct
>> advantage compared to a lot of the citizenry, who seemed to find the
>> transition a bit confusing (and thus were more than occasionally
>> short-changed by unscrupulous shopkeepers).
> 
> Shortly after decimalisation I asked for a penny stamp in the local post
> office. The woman serving me was totally confused, then "corrected" me
> saying I meant "One New Pence". No I bloody didn't, as "Pence" is surely
> plural.
> 
> As ever, it was a gubmint plot to get us to change our language. From
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_Day#After_Decimal_Day>
> 
> "The government hoped that in speech the new units would be called "new
> pence",[citation needed] but many decided that it was clearer and
> quicker to pronounce the new coins as "pee". Shortenings such as
> "tuppence" are rarely heard and terms such as "tanner" (the silver
> sixpence), which previously designated amounts of money, are no longer
> used."
> 
> AFAIR, "tanner" disappeared with the coin, but "bob" stayed in use a lot
> longer, particularly amongst my parents' generation, and I still hear
> the term "bent as a nine bob note", meaning crooked, open to corruption
> etc.

Well, though I had prepared myself to (attempt to) deal with the "old"
denominations, I was relieved that I didn't need to...and (on several
occasions) embarrassingly amused when I found myself helping a "native" make
sense out of a transaction when purchasing Underground tokens at Picadilly
Station.



-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.6)

In article <C63F7DB5.3C11C%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym
<nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

> We do?????? I don't recall seeing anyone writing a check in...hell, I don't
> remember when.

Yeah, well don't get in the grocery line with me. I'm always stuck
behind someone with their checkbook buried in their purse and who
doesn't get it out till presented with the total. We all get to wait
while the purse is rooted around it for the checkbook, then the pen,
then unfolded, written, the register updated, then handed to the clerk
who asks for ID, so we wait while the purse is searched for the wallet,
then unsnap the wallet, search for the drivers license, and then all
put back, purse secured and under the arm. Arrrrggggghhhh.

Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> > GST is included in all retail prices in NZ. To me it seems very dodgy to
> > be adding taxes on at the register.
> 
> Having grown up with it, it doesn't bother me.
> Helps that I know it's a government fee and not
> arbitrary trickery by the store.
> 
> With cell phones and land lines, however, I really
> get angry, because the hidden fees (some of them)
> are NOT government imposed.  Worse yet, one of them
> they call a USF.  It stands for Universal Service Fee,
> and is NOT legally required, nor is it a consistent
> amount from one provider to the next.  Some of them,
> if you question it, will lie and say it's federally
> imposed.  Others will tell you the truth but they hope
> you'll think it stands for United States Federal and not ask.

What's your version of the NZ Commerce Commission
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Commission>? It's slipped my
mind... Anyway, I'm surprised dodginess like that is allowed.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

In article <250520091123565008%ralph@whitehouse.gov>,
 Phil Stripling <ralph@whitehouse.gov> wrote:

> Yeah, well don't get in the grocery line with me. I'm always stuck
> behind someone with their checkbook buried in their purse and who
> doesn't get it out till presented with the total. We all get to wait
> while the purse is rooted around it for the checkbook, then the pen,
> then unfolded, written, the register updated, then handed to the clerk
> who asks for ID, so we wait while the purse is searched for the wallet,
> then unsnap the wallet, search for the drivers license, and then all
> put back, purse secured and under the arm. Arrrrggggghhhh.

The worst is "oh, wait a second young lady, I believe I have the correct 
change" spoken in that old person falsetto while the shaking hands 
slowly unzip the change purse ...
-- 
Suddenly he realized that he was alone 
with a giant halfwit on a dark deserted street.
  -- Chester Himes

In article 250520091123565008%ralph@whitehouse.gov, Phil Stripling at
ralph@whitehouse.gov wrote on 5/25/09 2:23 PM:

> In article <C63F7DB5.3C11C%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym
> <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> We do?????? I don't recall seeing anyone writing a check in...hell, I don't
>> remember when.
> 
> Yeah, well don't get in the grocery line with me. I'm always stuck
> behind someone with their checkbook buried in their purse and who
> doesn't get it out till presented with the total. We all get to wait
> while the purse is rooted around it for the checkbook, then the pen,
> then unfolded, written, the register updated, then handed to the clerk
> who asks for ID, so we wait while the purse is searched for the wallet,
> then unsnap the wallet, search for the drivers license, and then all
> put back, purse secured and under the arm. Arrrrggggghhhh.

Note to self: Never carry a purse. ;P





-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.6)

In article 005f1869$0$31286$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com, Warren Oates at
warren.oates@gmail.com wrote on 5/25/09 2:27 PM:

> In article <250520091123565008%ralph@whitehouse.gov>,
>  Phil Stripling <ralph@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
> 
>> Yeah, well don't get in the grocery line with me. I'm always stuck
>> behind someone with their checkbook buried in their purse and who
>> doesn't get it out till presented with the total. We all get to wait
>> while the purse is rooted around it for the checkbook, then the pen,
>> then unfolded, written, the register updated, then handed to the clerk
>> who asks for ID, so we wait while the purse is searched for the wallet,
>> then unsnap the wallet, search for the drivers license, and then all
>> put back, purse secured and under the arm. Arrrrggggghhhh.
> 
> The worst is "oh, wait a second young lady, I believe I have the correct
> change" spoken in that old person falsetto while the shaking hands
> slowly unzip the change purse ...


Note to self: Ditch the old "oh, wait a second young lady,..." pickup line.
:O 


-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.6)

In article <AhASl.462$Cc1.394@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
 Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> With cell phones and land lines, however, I really
> get angry, because the hidden fees (some of them)
> are NOT government imposed.  Worse yet, one of them
> they call a USF.  It stands for Universal Service Fee,
> and is NOT legally required, nor is it a consistent
> amount from one provider to the next.  Some of them,
> if you question it, will lie and say it's federally
> imposed.  Others will tell you the truth but they hope
> you'll think it stands for United States Federal and not ask.

The USF _is_ federally imposed, but it's imposed on telephone companies 
providing interstate service. The telcos are allowed to pass that cost 
to the customer.

From the FCC Web site:

> Universal Connectivity Fee (Universal Service Fund), Federal: 
>
> Because telephones provide a vital link to emergency services,
> to government services and to surrounding communities, it has
> been our nation’s policy to promote telephone service to all
> households since this service began in the 1930s. The USF helps
> to make phone service affordable and available to all
> Americans, including consumers with low incomes, those living
> in areas where the costs of providing telephone service is
> high, schools and libraries and rural health care providers.
> Congress has mandated that all telephone companies providing
> interstate service must contribute to the USF. Although not
> required to do so by the government, many carriers choose to
> pass their contribution costs on to their customers in the form
> of a line item, often called the “Federal Universal Service
> Fee” or “Universal Connectivity Fee”.

<http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/phonebills/samplePhonebill.html>

-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
"When the fate of so many rests in the hands of so few, can the failure
to be accountable ever be forgiven?" - Stephen Hawking

Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> 
>> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>>> GST is included in all retail prices in NZ. To me it seems very dodgy to
>>> be adding taxes on at the register.
>> Having grown up with it, it doesn't bother me.
>> Helps that I know it's a government fee and not
>> arbitrary trickery by the store.
>>
>> With cell phones and land lines, however, I really
>> get angry, because the hidden fees (some of them)
>> are NOT government imposed.  Worse yet, one of them
>> they call a USF.  It stands for Universal Service Fee,
>> and is NOT legally required, nor is it a consistent
>> amount from one provider to the next.  Some of them,
>> if you question it, will lie and say it's federally
>> imposed.  Others will tell you the truth but they hope
>> you'll think it stands for United States Federal and not ask.
> 
> What's your version of the NZ Commerce Commission
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Commission>? It's slipped my
> mind... Anyway, I'm surprised dodginess like that is allowed.


I have no idea of the function of the NZ Commerce Commission, so I can't 
name its equivalent. There is our Interstate Commerce Commission, but I 
suppose the similarity of name is a coincidence. The Internal Revenue 
service is our national tax collector.


The purpose of indicating what is added to the price for sales tax seems 
a legitimate notification to the customer as to his eventual 
responsibility for paying that tax, even if it is the merchant who 
passes that money on to the government. There are numerous fees and 
surtaxes in phone bills, and I think that same principle applies. A 
value-added tax is of a different order, since it is not simply 
calculated on the price of the item in question.


-- 
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>    ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>   ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/    ||
||    Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso  ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++

D.F. Manno wrote:
> The USF _is_ federally imposed, but it's imposed on telephone companies 
> providing interstate service. The telcos are allowed to pass that cost 
> to the customer.

Define "telephone companies."  One of the cellular providers I've had
stated in their fine print that it was _not_ federally imposed.  I've 
never seen any other company, landline or cell, even mention it in print
but I have had more than one tell me orally that the government required 
them to collect it from me.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Small class size and its opponents
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=992

In article <1j088ly.12xk1jwowxo19N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
 jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:

> Speaking of eftpos - I'm always surprised electronic payment direct out
> of your bank account is not more popular in countries like the US where
> cash or credit seems to be used for nearly everything. Maybe it's just
> because NZ is a small country and thus nationwide standards are easier.

My theory on the US is that there are so many banks that getting them 
all co-ordinated is a mammoth task.

Switzerland also has a decent electronic payment system.  Most bills, 
even from small companies, can be read by OCR machines.  You can pay 
them at your bank's ATM, at a post office either with cash or your PO 
account card, by phone, post or internet.  Many shops either don't take 
credit cards or will try to persuade you to pay by other means.  A 
Maestro card (direct debit) or Post Office card can be used in many 
retail outlets.  Cash is still widely used though, even for quite high 
valued items.

It is actually possible to live in Switzerland without a credit card, 
though there is increasing pressure to have one.

-- 
Paul Sture

In article <1j0b3in.1xlh4bnderd93N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
 jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:

> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 26 May 2009 00:54:42 +1200, jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie
> > Kahn Genet) wrote:
> > 
> > >Easier just to use a system like eftpos so you know exactly how much
> > >money you have (easy to check at ATMs, online, phone and TXT banking).
> > 
> > So the iPhone will help here.    Do you have to phone to see your
> > balance, or can you look at your register without phoning from where
> > you are shopping?
> 
> Eftpos terminals cannot give out balances or any other account
> information beyond accepted/declined for each transaction. That is the
> only information transmitted back to the terminal.
> 
> So if I want to know how much I still have I either have to keep a
> running balance till I pass an ATM, or I can use my phone (TXT or
> internet banking if it's a smartphone).
> 
> Thus if you make a lot of purchases and don't do the above you can still
> not be able to pay for something, but at least you've not already bought
> it as with credit.

But surely you always get a transaction slip?

-- 
Paul Sture

In article <S2ASl.459$Cc1.390@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
 Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> P. Sture wrote:
> > I've just remembered a comment from my bank manager years ago. If he saw 
> > a business customer writing a lot of cheques for round numbers, that 
> > customer was probably not paying their bills in full - i.e had a cash 
> > flow problem.
> 
> A reasonable but wrong assumption.  I pay each creditor approximately
> 46% of the average monthly bill every other week.  (I'm paid every other 
> week.)  I always round up to an integral number of U.S. dollars.
> 
> Occasionally, this means I am a little short, but most of the time I'm 
> ahead.  Once in a while, I pay less because I'm getting too far ahead.
> 
> The benefit of this method is that I know without effort that I can 
> afford to spend, save, or invest all the rest--I don't have to plan
> how much to keep in the checking account for whatever bills will be
> due after the next payday.

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough.  By "round numbers" I meant to the nearest 
hundred or thousand, or maybe even ten thousand etc.

Yes, I've done similar to yourself.

-- 
Paul Sture

In article <paul.sture.nospam-9412DC.05340926052009@mac.sture.ch>, P.
Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:

> In article <1j088ly.12xk1jwowxo19N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
>  jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> 
> > Speaking of eftpos -

Oh no, Jamie is a very naughty Kiwi.

"eftpos" is a fucking ridiculous acronym that unfortunately entered the
everyday language in Australia and New Zealand as a "real" word and is
now entrenched but is surely best kept away from all other
civilizations. Any attempt to spread it further afield should be
strongly resisted. "Debit card" is what it's all about for the rest of
the world.

Kiwis are also attempting to introduce another fucking moronic
neologism, a shortened version of "WWW". I'll avoid national
embarrassment by not mentioning it here. Far better for people to stop
including WWW altogether when quoting URLs.

I listen to Riviera Radio <http://www.rivieraradio.mc/> most of the day
while i work, because they play cool music that I like. But they
annoyingly include WWW (gulp nine unnecessary syllables!) whenever
mentioning a URL.

BBC also has an annoying habit of saying "forward slash" thus
immediately giving away their internet illiteracy (or their DOS roots)

In article <260520091045342569%HP@snotmail.com>,
 High Priest <HP@snotmail.com> wrote:

> BBC also has an annoying habit of saying "forward slash" thus
> immediately giving away their internet illiteracy (or their DOS roots)

The ABC in Australia and the BBC have the very annoying habit of 
promoting their websites throughout every program. It makes one hesitate 
to reach for the iPod to listen to podcasts, the service announcements 
at the beginning being particularly annoying because that is the bit one 
often needs to listen to to see which program one is at. Not all iPods 
have screens and info. Thank God for my stumbling on how to fast forward 
my silly iPod shuffle. 

There should be a program to strip the service announcements from 
podcasts. Ideally the stations themselves should put the podcast in a 
form that the program on an iPod (and other listening things) can strip 
them off and go straight to the announcement "A lecture by Professor 
Fish on Endangered sharks". 

When I become ruler of the world, even hired DVDs will be required to 
actually start the movie right at the beginning of them and not torture 
the viewer with every kind of bullshit.

-- 
dorayme

Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> D.F. Manno wrote:
> > The USF _is_ federally imposed, but it's imposed on telephone companies
> > providing interstate service. The telcos are allowed to pass that cost
> > to the customer.
> 
> Define "telephone companies."  One of the cellular providers I've had
> stated in their fine print that it was _not_ federally imposed.  I've
> never seen any other company, landline or cell, even mention it in print
> but I have had more than one tell me orally that the government required
> them to collect it from me.

If they said that, then they lied, pure and simple. As D.F. wrote, it is
a charge imposed on them and they are allowed to collect something for
it from you. There is a world of difference between "allowed" and
"required". (That's a difference I have observed being exploited to make
most consumers misunderstand legal BS if they happen to try to read it.
Ever notice how most "privacy" policies tend to have a clause that says
the company can also use your data for other things as allowed by law?
People probably read it and think that refers to things that they are
"required" to do by law, but that's not what it says. What it says is
that they reserve the right to do anything they feel like to the extent
that the law allows.)

Furthermore, there is no particular requirement on them that the money
collected from you bear any resemblance to what they actually pay. They
basically have the freedom to add darn near any arbitrary amount to your
bill and say that it is to reimburse them for the USF. There is no
requirement that they document to you, the government, or anyone else,
any relationship between the amount they collect and the amount they
pay.

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

In article <260520091045342569%HP@snotmail.com>,
 High Priest <HP@snotmail.com> wrote:

> "eftpos" is a fucking ridiculous acronym that unfortunately entered the
> everyday language in Australia and New Zealand as a "real" word and is
> now entrenched but is surely best kept away from all other
> civilizations. Any attempt to spread it further afield should be
> strongly resisted. "Debit card" is what it's all about for the rest of
> the world.

In Canada people still ask "do you have Interac?" because that was (is) 
the name of the company that made it popular. Increasingly it's just "do 
you take debit?" We've got these touch-and-go credit cards now too.
-- 
Suddenly he realized that he was alone 
with a giant halfwit on a dark deserted street.
  -- Chester Himes

In article <1j09lug.15xutny1432tpkN%nospam@see.signature>,
 nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:

> Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article 
> > <NOwebmasterSPAM-5AEC04.19414025052009@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.a
> > u>,
> >  Eric Lindsay <NOwebmasterSPAM@ericlindsay.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > GST is always included in retail prices. It is a legal requirement that
> > > business states the final price, including tax. Maybe the USA system
> > > (along with tips) is intended to help people practice their mental 
> > > arithmetic?
> > 
> > In Canada the GST and provincial (not Alberta) taxes are added at the
> > cash register, so, yeah, you have to be able to add an extra 10-15 
> > percent to a listed price.
> > 
> > Some stores have "we'll pay the taxes" sales sometimes.
> 
> In the U.S. (well, I suppose that being a state thing, it might possibly
> vary by state), the legalism is that the store - not the buyer - always
> pays the sales tax. It is actually a tax on the business. What you as a
> buyer pay is a reimbursement to the store for their paying the tax. If
> you run a small business that pays such taxes as I have done, this is
> pretty evident in the tax forms.

This is not correct in my state, and I don't believe it is in any US 
state that levies a sales tax. It's a tax on consumption, and on the 
consumer, and the business is essentially pressed into service as an 
agent of the state for collecting it. I don't know about the wording of 
the forms you deal with, but I consider the application evident based on 
the relationship that exists uniformly between sales tax and use tax in 
every state that has them. It's also explicit in the codes. If you look 
into the actual tax codes, rather than the forms, you will typically see 
phrasing like this:

Colorado: 'The sales tax is imposed/collected by the "retailer or 
lessor" upon the selling price of the property, and it is 
then remitted to the City.'

Ohio: 'Sales tax is a "trust" tax that is collected by all retailers 
when they make taxable retail sales. It is called a "trust" tax because 
the consumer has entrusted this tax to retailers with the understanding 
that it will be reported and paid to the State of Ohio in a timely 
manner.'

Connecticut: 'If you sell goods or taxable services in Connecticut, you 
are required by law to charge and collect Connecticut sales tax. 
You must also file timely returns and pay the sales tax to the 
Department of Revenue Services (DRS) whether or not you 
collected the tax as required from your customers.'

Actually, CT's is odd, because that paragraph seems to be in direct 
contradiction to this in the prior paragraph: 'The sales tax is a tax 
imposed on the retailer for the privilege of doing business in the 
state.'

A tax on the retailer for the privilege of doing business, *but* it's 
also mandatory to collect it from the consumer.

-- 
I saw a truck today that had "AAA Batteries / Delivered and Installed" on the
side. My first thought was: That's a really weird business model. How many
inept people have urgent need of skinny little battery cells?

In article <1j0att6.1x42njc8p2u44N%nospam@see.signature>,
 nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:

> Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> 
> > D.F. Manno wrote:
> > > The USF _is_ federally imposed, but it's imposed on telephone companies
> > > providing interstate service. The telcos are allowed to pass that cost
> > > to the customer.
> > 
> > Define "telephone companies."  One of the cellular providers I've had
> > stated in their fine print that it was _not_ federally imposed.  I've
> > never seen any other company, landline or cell, even mention it in print
> > but I have had more than one tell me orally that the government required
> > them to collect it from me.
> 
> If they said that, then they lied, pure and simple. As D.F. wrote, it is
> a charge imposed on them and they are allowed to collect something for
> it from you. There is a world of difference between "allowed" and
> "required".

True, but you have to consider that there may be interaction with 
*other* requirements that essentially make collection mandatory. For 
instance the SEC requirement on publicly-traded companies that they act 
in good faith to protect and increase shareholder value. A cranky 
investor can make a case that you might not be doing that if you're the 
only company in your industry that's not getting reimbursement to which 
you're entitled.

G

-- 
I saw a truck today that had "AAA Batteries / Delivered and Installed" on the
side. My first thought was: That's a really weird business model. How many
inept people have urgent need of skinny little battery cells?

In article <doraymeRidThis-00DD44.17233026052009@news.albasani.net>,
dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:


> 
> When I become ruler of the world, even hired DVDs will be required to 
> actually start the movie right at the beginning of them and not torture 
> the viewer with every kind of bullshit.

Hey, I'll vote for you.

(But Rudd will have a cunning plan to stop ya)

P. Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:

> In article <1j0b3in.1xlh4bnderd93N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
>  jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> 
> > Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, 26 May 2009 00:54:42 +1200, jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie
> > > Kahn Genet) wrote:
> > > 
> > > >Easier just to use a system like eftpos so you know exactly how much
> > > >money you have (easy to check at ATMs, online, phone and TXT banking).
> > > 
> > > So the iPhone will help here.    Do you have to phone to see your
> > > balance, or can you look at your register without phoning from where
> > > you are shopping?
> > 
> > Eftpos terminals cannot give out balances or any other account
> > information beyond accepted/declined for each transaction. That is the
> > only information transmitted back to the terminal.
> > 
> > So if I want to know how much I still have I either have to keep a
> > running balance till I pass an ATM, or I can use my phone (TXT or
> > internet banking if it's a smartphone).
> > 
> > Thus if you make a lot of purchases and don't do the above you can still
> > not be able to pay for something, but at least you've not already bought
> > it as with credit.
> 
> But surely you always get a transaction slip?

Yes, but with Eftpos it only shows how much the purchase and/or change
was. No account balance or other sentsitive account information is
printed (not that the terminal would be able to anyway, since it's never
sent that info).
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

P. Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:

> In article <1j088ly.12xk1jwowxo19N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
>  jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> 
> > Speaking of eftpos - I'm always surprised electronic payment direct out
> > of your bank account is not more popular in countries like the US where
> > cash or credit seems to be used for nearly everything. Maybe it's just
> > because NZ is a small country and thus nationwide standards are easier.
> 
> My theory on the US is that there are so many banks that getting them
> all co-ordinated is a mammoth task.
> 
> Switzerland also has a decent electronic payment system.  Most bills,
> even from small companies, can be read by OCR machines.  You can pay 
> them at your bank's ATM, at a post office either with cash or your PO
> account card, by phone, post or internet.  Many shops either don't take
> credit cards or will try to persuade you to pay by other means.  A 
> Maestro card (direct debit) or Post Office card can be used in many 
> retail outlets.  Cash is still widely used though, even for quite high
> valued items.

Likewise, and even online with local companies I'm often given the
option to pay direct out of my bank account rather than use a credit or
debit card. Many companies even offer a discount for paying this way -
usually 1% less.

> It is actually possible to live in Switzerland without a credit card,
> though there is increasing pressure to have one.

I used to have a credit card, but now I use a debit card instead which
is tied to my regular bank account. All the advantage of a credit card
for online purchases, and no danger of spending money I don't have.

IMHO too many people live their whole lives in debt (and subsequently
pay a lot more in interest). Unless I someday decide to buy a house, I
don't ever plan on buying anything I cannot immediately afford without
using credit.

While you can of course pay your debt in full each month to avoid
interest, it's just too easy to buy on credit rather than save up - for
me anyway :-) If you've a stronger will it may not be a problem, heh.

Regards,
 Jamie Kahn Genet
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

High Priest <HP@snotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <paul.sture.nospam-9412DC.05340926052009@mac.sture.ch>, P.
> Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1j088ly.12xk1jwowxo19N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
> >  jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> > 
> > > Speaking of eftpos -
> 
> Oh no, Jamie is a very naughty Kiwi.
> 
> "eftpos" is a fucking ridiculous acronym that unfortunately entered the
> everyday language in Australia and New Zealand as a "real" word and is
> now entrenched but is surely best kept away from all other
> civilizations. Any attempt to spread it further afield should be
> strongly resisted. "Debit card" is what it's all about for the rest of
> the world.

Eftpos <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eftpos> IS the system here in NZ
and Australia you rude little child. It is a not a case of a past or
other brand name being used. In addition an Eftpos card is NOT the same
as a debit card. For one thing an Eftpos card can only be used with
Eftpos and ATM machines. NOT online. Eftpos is real world point of sale
only.

Though in fact I do have a combo Eftpos/Debit card, however they're
still relatively uncommon. Most people here in NZ still have separate
Eftpos and Credit or Debit cards. Plus my Debit card facility costs me
more as it must go through the credit card company's processing system.
Eftpos costs me nothing so I'd never use the Debit facility unless I had
to (e.g. online purchases or taxis without mobile Eftpos).

> Kiwis are also attempting to introduce another fucking moronic
> neologism, a shortened version of "WWW". I'll avoid national
> embarrassment by not mentioning it here. Far better for people to stop
> including WWW altogether when quoting URLs.

WTF are are you rambling on about? :-D

> I listen to Riviera Radio <http://www.rivieraradio.mc/> most of the day
> while i work, because they play cool music that I like. But they
> annoyingly include WWW (gulp nine unnecessary syllables!) whenever
> mentioning a URL.
> 
> BBC also has an annoying habit of saying "forward slash" thus
> immediately giving away their internet illiteracy (or their DOS roots)

And what would one say other than the correct 'forward slash'? Boy are
you ever a little child. Ignorant and not afraid to show it :-D
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> > Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> >>> GST is included in all retail prices in NZ. To me it seems very dodgy to
> >>> be adding taxes on at the register.
> >> Having grown up with it, it doesn't bother me.
> >> Helps that I know it's a government fee and not
> >> arbitrary trickery by the store.
> >>
> >> With cell phones and land lines, however, I really
> >> get angry, because the hidden fees (some of them)
> >> are NOT government imposed.  Worse yet, one of them
> >> they call a USF.  It stands for Universal Service Fee,
> >> and is NOT legally required, nor is it a consistent
> >> amount from one provider to the next.  Some of them,
> >> if you question it, will lie and say it's federally
> >> imposed.  Others will tell you the truth but they hope
> >> you'll think it stands for United States Federal and not ask.
> > 
> > What's your version of the NZ Commerce Commission
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Commission>? It's slipped my
> > mind... Anyway, I'm surprised dodginess like that is allowed.
> 
> 
> I have no idea of the function of the NZ Commerce Commission, so I can't
> name its equivalent. There is our Interstate Commerce Commission, but I
> suppose the similarity of name is a coincidence. The Internal Revenue
> service is our national tax collector.
> 
> 
> The purpose of indicating what is added to the price for sales tax seems
> a legitimate notification to the customer as to his eventual 
> responsibility for paying that tax, even if it is the merchant who 
> passes that money on to the government. There are numerous fees and 
> surtaxes in phone bills, and I think that same principle applies. A 
> value-added tax is of a different order, since it is not simply 
> calculated on the price of the item in question.

Well I included the wikipedia link for a reason.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

In article 1j0cuk3.1i98a9alek4r2N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz, Jamie Kahn
Genet at jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz wrote on 5/26/09 11:34 AM:

> P. Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> 
>> In article <1j088ly.12xk1jwowxo19N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
>>  jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
>> 
>>> Speaking of eftpos - I'm always surprised electronic payment direct out
>>> of your bank account is not more popular in countries like the US where
>>> cash or credit seems to be used for nearly everything. Maybe it's just
>>> because NZ is a small country and thus nationwide standards are easier.
>> 
>> My theory on the US is that there are so many banks that getting them
>> all co-ordinated is a mammoth task.
>> 
>> Switzerland also has a decent electronic payment system.  Most bills,
>> even from small companies, can be read by OCR machines.  You can pay
>> them at your bank's ATM, at a post office either with cash or your PO
>> account card, by phone, post or internet.  Many shops either don't take
>> credit cards or will try to persuade you to pay by other means.  A
>> Maestro card (direct debit) or Post Office card can be used in many
>> retail outlets.  Cash is still widely used though, even for quite high
>> valued items.
> 
> Likewise, and even online with local companies I'm often given the
> option to pay direct out of my bank account rather than use a credit or
> debit card. Many companies even offer a discount for paying this way -
> usually 1% less.
> 
>> It is actually possible to live in Switzerland without a credit card,
>> though there is increasing pressure to have one.
> 
> I used to have a credit card, but now I use a debit card instead which
> is tied to my regular bank account. All the advantage of a credit card
> for online purchases, and no danger of spending money I don't have.
> 
> IMHO too many people live their whole lives in debt (and subsequently
> pay a lot more in interest). Unless I someday decide to buy a house, I
> don't ever plan on buying anything I cannot immediately afford without
> using credit.
> 
> While you can of course pay your debt in full each month to avoid
> interest, it's just too easy to buy on credit rather than save up - for
> me anyway :-) If you've a stronger will it may not be a problem, heh.
> 
> Regards,
>  Jamie Kahn Genet



Most folks I know have a dozen or more credit cards, and US$5,000-10,000 in
ongoing, outstanding credit card debt. There is much to be said in favor of
avoiding the potential "danger" of using them altogether.

I have a handful of cards that I use, relying mostly on one, but rotating
regularly through the others, simply to be sure that I show activity on them
all (even if that activity consists of no more than purchasing a loaf of
bread). In all cases, I pay off the balances in full each month (i.e., I use
them as I would cash or checks...I don't spend that which I don't have).

However, you might want to get a credit card simply to use as a means of
establishing a credit record (useful should you someday decide to buy that
house, or otherwise need to take out a bank loan). Also, some retail
establishments won't do business with you if you don't have a credit card
(they use it as "collateral" -- for example, car rental agencies).



-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.6)

Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <1j0att6.1x42njc8p2u44N%nospam@see.signature>,
>  nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:
> 
> > Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > D.F. Manno wrote:

> > > but I have had more than one tell me orally that the government required
> > > them to collect it from me.
> > 
> > If they said that, then they lied, pure and simple.
> 
> True, but you have to consider that there may be interaction with 
> *other* requirements that essentially make collection mandatory. For 
> instance the SEC requirement on publicly-traded companies that they act
> in good faith to protect and increase shareholder value. A cranky 
> investor can make a case that you might not be doing that if you're the
> only company in your industry that's not getting reimbursement to which
> you're entitled.

This is getting a bit too speculative to argue usefully about, as this
was just speculation about what someone else's argument might be. I do
find it unfortunately plausible that a company might come up with a line
like that. But it is one of these "argue that black is white" kind of
arguments. You can use that same kind of line to argue pretty much
anything you want. One might as well use the same reasoning to say that
the government requires them to bribe public officials. Hmm, that one is
too close to true; let me try one less plausible: the government
requires them to assassinate people who publicly criticize them.

I'm afraid those all would still fit my definition of just plain lying.
That doesn't mean some lawyer wouldn't try to make the arguments, but
then the method of telling when a lawyer is lying is well known. (The
"classic" answer is that his lips are moving, but that seems to omit the
cases of lying in print.)

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

On Tue, 26 May 2009 10:34:33 -0500, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote (in article 
<1j0cubj.f98eh41rf0af0N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>): 

> Yes, but with Eftpos it only shows how much the purchase and/or change 
> was. No account balance or other sentsitive account information is printed 
> (not that the terminal would be able to anyway, since it's never sent that 
> info). 

Here in the United States almost all stores are now equipped to let you pay 
with either a credit or debit card. After the card is scanned one is asked to 
enter your PIN (Personal Identification Number) which does not appear on the 
card. The device used, sometimes connected directly to the register, allows 
one to select that the payment shall be either by debit or credit, and often 
allows one to also receive some cash back. The device will approve or reject 
the transaction, but does not display such as the available balance. A 
similar method exists at virtually all gasoline pumps (attendant service is 
now only required, if I am correct, in two states, New Jersey and Oregon) and 
one again validates with their pin, or occasionally, their ZIP code. 

-- 
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@me.com

In article <1j0bhqf.10yc5bdulhecaN%nospam@see.signature>,
 nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:

> Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1j0att6.1x42njc8p2u44N%nospam@see.signature>,
> >  nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:
> > 
> > > Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > D.F. Manno wrote:
> 
> > > > but I have had more than one tell me orally that the government required
> > > > them to collect it from me.
> > > 
> > > If they said that, then they lied, pure and simple.
> > 
> > True, but you have to consider that there may be interaction with 
> > *other* requirements that essentially make collection mandatory. For 
> > instance the SEC requirement on publicly-traded companies that they act
> > in good faith to protect and increase shareholder value. A cranky 
> > investor can make a case that you might not be doing that if you're the
> > only company in your industry that's not getting reimbursement to which
> > you're entitled.
> 
> This is getting a bit too speculative to argue usefully about, as this
> was just speculation about what someone else's argument might be.

Nothing speculative about it. Find me an institutional investor who 
*wouldn't* complain if a company they owned was voluntarily and 
routinely giving away millions of dollars with no conceivable return and 
no competitor was doing likewise.


> I do
> find it unfortunately plausible that a company might come up with a line
> like that. But it is one of these "argue that black is white" kind of
> arguments. You can use that same kind of line to argue pretty much
> anything you want. One might as well use the same reasoning to say that
> the government requires them to bribe public officials. Hmm, that one is
> too close to true; let me try one less plausible: the government
> requires them to assassinate people who publicly criticize them.

You've taken the argument a bit too far when you start equating 
compliance with diverse and subtly interacting legal requirements with 
fairly blatant illegal activity.

G

-- 
I saw a truck today that had "AAA Batteries / Delivered and Installed" on the
side. My first thought was: That's a really weird business model. How many
inept people have urgent need of skinny little battery cells?

TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 26 May 2009 10:34:33 -0500, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote (in article
> <1j0cubj.f98eh41rf0af0N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>): 
> 
> > Yes, but with Eftpos it only shows how much the purchase and/or change
> > was. No account balance or other sentsitive account information is printed
> > (not that the terminal would be able to anyway, since it's never sent that
> > info). 
> 
> Here in the United States almost all stores are now equipped to let you pay
> with either a credit or debit card. After the card is scanned one is asked to
> enter your PIN (Personal Identification Number) which does not appear on the
> card. The device used, sometimes connected directly to the register, allows
> one to select that the payment shall be either by debit or credit, and often
> allows one to also receive some cash back. The device will approve or reject
> the transaction, but does not display such as the available balance. A
> similar method exists at virtually all gasoline pumps (attendant service is
> now only required, if I am correct, in two states, New Jersey and Oregon) and
> one again validates with their pin, or occasionally, their ZIP code. 

Sounds very similar to our Eftpos (which are swiped and require a PIN),
though of course most debit cards can be used in the same way as credit
cards which is not the case with the standard Eftpos/ATM card issued by
banks here.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

In article <gvfhh5$8b7$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
 AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:

> There is our Interstate Commerce Commission, but I 
> suppose the similarity of name is a coincidence.

There _was_ the Interstate Commerce Commission. It was abolished in 1995.

-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
"When the fate of so many rests in the hands of so few, can the failure
to be accountable ever be forgiven?" - Stephen Hawking

Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>>> Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>>>>> GST is included in all retail prices in NZ. To me it seems very dodgy to
>>>>> be adding taxes on at the register.
>>>> Having grown up with it, it doesn't bother me.
>>>> Helps that I know it's a government fee and not
>>>> arbitrary trickery by the store.
>>>>
>>>> With cell phones and land lines, however, I really
>>>> get angry, because the hidden fees (some of them)
>>>> are NOT government imposed.  Worse yet, one of them
>>>> they call a USF.  It stands for Universal Service Fee,
>>>> and is NOT legally required, nor is it a consistent
>>>> amount from one provider to the next.  Some of them,
>>>> if you question it, will lie and say it's federally
>>>> imposed.  Others will tell you the truth but they hope
>>>> you'll think it stands for United States Federal and not ask.
>>> What's your version of the NZ Commerce Commission
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Commission>? It's slipped my
>>> mind... Anyway, I'm surprised dodginess like that is allowed.
>>
>> I have no idea of the function of the NZ Commerce Commission, so I can't
>> name its equivalent. There is our Interstate Commerce Commission, but I
>> suppose the similarity of name is a coincidence. The Internal Revenue
>> service is our national tax collector.
>>
>>
>> The purpose of indicating what is added to the price for sales tax seems
>> a legitimate notification to the customer as to his eventual 
>> responsibility for paying that tax, even if it is the merchant who 
>> passes that money on to the government. There are numerous fees and 
>> surtaxes in phone bills, and I think that same principle applies. A 
>> value-added tax is of a different order, since it is not simply 
>> calculated on the price of the item in question.
> 
> Well I included the wikipedia link for a reason.


Not a good enough reason to overcome my ignorance. My feeling is that 
our enforcement is separated from rule-making. I think enforcement 
probably belongs in the Justice Department, but it is a matter so far 
from my interests and from the topics of this newsgroup, that I don't 
feel like searching it.


But I do think those who provide the money to pay a tax should get the 
benefit of claiming that tax payment on their income tax, e. g., renters 
should get the benefit of real estate tax payment paid out of their rent 
payment. I think payment of sales tax gets purchasers some credit on 
income tax payment in some states.


-- 
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>    ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>   ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/    ||
||    Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso  ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++

AV3 wrote:
> But I do think those who provide the money to pay a tax should get the 
> benefit of claiming that tax payment on their income tax, e. g., renters 
> should get the benefit of real estate tax payment paid out of their rent 
> payment. I think payment of sales tax gets purchasers some credit on 
> income tax payment in some states.

(USA) Feds allow a deduction for state income tax paid OR for sales tax.

Indiana has a part of one form where renters estimate real estate tax
as a deduction.


-- 
Wes Groleau

    "If it wasn't for that blasted back-hoe,
     a hundred of us could be working with shovels"
    "Yeah, and if it weren't for our shovels,
     a thousand of us could be working with spoons."

Richard Maine wrote:
> If they said that, then they lied, pure and simple. ....
> Furthermore, there is no particular requirement on them that the money
> collected from you bear any resemblance to what they actually pay. They
> basically have the freedom to add darn near any arbitrary amount to your
> bill and say that it is to reimburse them for the USF. 

Which is all pretty much what I said a few posts back.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Race Doesn't Matter
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=876

People do dumb things.   We enable those who charge 2.209 per gallon.
When we buy a new car, we walk away feeling filthy and defiled.   The
car dealers know what they're doing, but claim that's what the people
want.   And I the evidence is that they are right.

Almost as bad as the process of buying a new car is the process of
making laws.

-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

On Wed, 27 May 2009 03:34:34 +1200, jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie
Kahn Genet) wrote:

>I used to have a credit card, but now I use a debit card instead which
>is tied to my regular bank account. All the advantage of a credit card
>for online purchases, and no danger of spending money I don't have.

If I didn't track my purchases, I could get a debit card and make sure
it didn't have overdraft protection.   But then I wouldn't get the
financial savings I get for using a credit card.

It's easier to track my purchases, so there's no danger of spending
money I don't have.

-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

On Sun, 24 May 2009 11:16:12 +0100, Chris Ridd <chrisridd@mac.com>
wrote:

>The other pricing curiosity is things being priced xx.97 or xx.98. 
>Electronics chains like Currys or PC World tend to do that, and I'm 
>told that is done to tell the sales assistant how much commission or 
>whatever is made on the item so they can steer the customer towards the 
>higher commission products.

My siblings and I all contribute virtually the same amount to my
Mother - with a different penny amount to make it easy to see whose
check got deposited when.

-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

Sometimes raising the price does nothing.   If I pay $20 for a haircut
and a tip, and the haircut goes from $16 to $17, I would still pay $20
for a haircut and a tip.


-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

On Mon, 25 May 2009 09:33:24 -0700, nospam@see.signature (Richard
Maine) wrote:

>In the U.S. (well, I suppose that being a state thing, it might possibly
>vary by state), the legalism is that the store - not the buyer - always
>pays the sales tax. It is actually a tax on the business.

I have never seen that argument before.   In fact, I use the opposite
argument, that corporate income tax is a tax on the consumer.   The
consumer always pays.   The business just collects what the consumer
pays.

-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

On Tue, 26 May 2009 04:55:47 +1200, jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie
Kahn Genet) wrote:

>GST is included in all retail prices in NZ. To me it seems very dodgy to
>be adding taxes on at the register.

To me it's dishonest to hide the tax in the price.   I'm glad we don't
have VAT.

-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

In article <s7iq15p3638qs10lfg099mr86g1sqv6njo@4ax.com>,
 Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> People do dumb things.   We enable those who charge 2.209 per gallon.
> When we buy a new car, we walk away feeling filthy and defiled.   The
> car dealers know what they're doing, but claim that's what the people
> want.   And I the evidence is that they are right.

I think that has more to do with the kind of greasy sub-human that 
becomes a salesman; real-estate "agents" are just as scuzzy, and don't 
get me started about the little douche-wipes who come around selling gas 
contracts. Or jesus, for that matter.
-- 
Suddenly he realized that he was alone 
with a giant halfwit on a dark deserted street.
  -- Chester Himes

In article <5viq15l4sk9254ncj8usi5vrl0m0rqf6cq@4ax.com>,
 Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> Sometimes raising the price does nothing.   If I pay $20 for a haircut
> and a tip, and the haircut goes from $16 to $17, I would still pay $20
> for a haircut and a tip.

That's a lot of money for a haircut! These parts, it's $8 before the 
tip. And that's Canuck-bucks.

I will admit, it's more expensive in Montreal, where my good old Italian 
barber was charging $9 twenty-some years ago.
-- 
Suddenly he realized that he was alone 
with a giant halfwit on a dark deserted street.
  -- Chester Himes

Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 26 May 2009 04:55:47 +1200, jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie
> Kahn Genet) wrote:
> 
> >GST is included in all retail prices in NZ. To me it seems very dodgy to
> >be adding taxes on at the register.
> 
> To me it's dishonest to hide the tax in the price.   I'm glad we don't
> have VAT.

GST <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods_and_Services_Tax_(New_Zealand)>
is a fixed rate - 12.5% - in all retail goods (unlike other VAT regimes,
NZ GST has virtually no exceptions), so there's nothing hidden about it.
Plus it's illegal to display a prominent GST-exclusive price unless
you're primarily a wholesaler - so no confusion for customers.

So I'm not sure what you find dishonest about NZ GST.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <5viq15l4sk9254ncj8usi5vrl0m0rqf6cq@4ax.com>,
>  Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> 
> > Sometimes raising the price does nothing.   If I pay $20 for a haircut
> > and a tip, and the haircut goes from $16 to $17, I would still pay $20
> > for a haircut and a tip.
> 
> That's a lot of money for a haircut! These parts, it's $8 before the 
> tip. And that's Canuck-bucks.
> 
> I will admit, it's more expensive in Montreal, where my good old Italian
> barber was charging $9 twenty-some years ago.

Yesterday I paid NZD$20 (USD$12.46) - no tipping here - for a simple
haircut and to have my beard and moustache clippered. The GF approves
and my barber (a rather witty scottish gentleman) said I no longer
looked like a bum afterwards :-D Beforehand I had the whole wildman look
going :-) *sigh* Everyone's a critic...
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

In article <1j0enn5.1mgmkm7239klN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
 jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:

> Yesterday I paid NZD$20 (USD$12.46) - no tipping here - for a simple
> haircut and to have my beard and moustache clippered. The GF approves
> and my barber (a rather witty scottish gentleman) said I no longer
> looked like a bum afterwards :-D Beforehand I had the whole wildman look
> going :-) *sigh* Everyone's a critic...

You're lucky you've still got men doing the barbering. When I first 
moved to this little town, the barbers were all women and I used to wait 
until I went to Montreal to get a haircut. Now we've got a pretty good 
guy doing it, tatoos, ex-biker, ex-trucker, good guy. Not like my old 
Tommy in Montreal, though, but way cheaper.
-- 
Suddenly he realized that he was alone 
with a giant halfwit on a dark deserted street.
  -- Chester Himes

In article <1j0cuk3.1i98a9alek4r2N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
 jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:

> I used to have a credit card, but now I use a debit card instead which
> is tied to my regular bank account. All the advantage of a credit card
> for online purchases, and no danger of spending money I don't have.

Actually, that danger exists, because I've done it (unintentionally, of 
course). I've had checks clear after making a debit-card purchase, only 
to see the debit-card transaction clear, leaving me with a negative 
balance. Apparently some merchants either don't put a hold on the 
account after a purchase, or delay presenting the transactions to their 
bank.

-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
"When the fate of so many rests in the hands of so few, can the failure
to be accountable ever be forgiven?" - Stephen Hawking

In article <5viq15l4sk9254ncj8usi5vrl0m0rqf6cq@4ax.com>,
 Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> Sometimes raising the price does nothing.   If I pay $20 for a haircut
> and a tip, and the haircut goes from $16 to $17, I would still pay $20
> for a haircut and a tip.

Why would you stiff the worker just because the price went up, something 
that is beyond her control and that she probably does not share in?

-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
"When the fate of so many rests in the hands of so few, can the failure
to be accountable ever be forgiven?" - Stephen Hawking

In article <dfmanno-6930D7.14160027052009@news.motzarella.org>,
 "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:

> Actually, that danger exists, because I've done it (unintentionally, of 
> course). I've had checks clear after making a debit-card purchase, only 
> to see the debit-card transaction clear, leaving me with a negative 
> balance. Apparently some merchants either don't put a hold on the 
> account after a purchase, or delay presenting the transactions to their 
> bank.

Huh? I've _never_ seen anything like that. My debit transactions are 
instantaneous, that's how the system is supposed to work -- card hooks 
up to the bank and transfers the money to the merchant then and there. I 
don't think the merchant has any control over it.
-- 
Suddenly he realized that he was alone 
with a giant halfwit on a dark deserted street.
  -- Chester Himes

Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 25 May 2009 09:33:24 -0700, nospam@see.signature (Richard
> Maine) wrote:
> 
> >In the U.S. (well, I suppose that being a state thing, it might possibly
> >vary by state), the legalism is that the store - not the buyer - always
> >pays the sales tax. It is actually a tax on the business.
> 
> I have never seen that argument before.   In fact, I use the opposite
> argument, that corporate income tax is a tax on the consumer.   The
> consumer always pays.   The business just collects what the consumer
> pays.

At least in principle, I agree. The business doesn't print its own money
(well, not a legitimate business :-)). All the money comes from the
consumer in the end. In that sense, all taxes can be said to be consumer
ones. An employee's income tax can be said to be paid by the customer of
the business that employee works for because that business has to pay
higher wages to give the same after-tax income to the employee, and
those higher wages have to come from money paid by the customers.

But the difference is in the bookkeeping and reponsibilities. No, the
business does not just pass on what the customer pays in that it isn't
accounted for that way. The state doesn't care whether the customer paid
it or not. The state just wants the business to pay it regardless. There
are some funny special cases for things like out-of-state purchases, but
for the most part, if the state doesn't get its money, they are going
after the business rather than the customer, and the amount owed is
determined by how much the business sold rather than by what the
customer paid.

Contrast that with income tax withholding. There, the business pays to
the government exactly what it withheld from the employee's paycheck. It
is of no (direct) concern to the business what amount of income tax is
owed - only how much was withheld from the employee's wages.

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> You're lucky you've still got men doing the barbering.

My wife does mine, and I like it that way. Makes it easy to avoid
getting hair clippings all over my clothes. :-)

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <1j0enn5.1mgmkm7239klN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
>  jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> 
> > Yesterday I paid NZD$20 (USD$12.46) - no tipping here - for a simple
> > haircut and to have my beard and moustache clippered. The GF approves
> > and my barber (a rather witty scottish gentleman) said I no longer
> > looked like a bum afterwards :-D Beforehand I had the whole wildman look
> > going :-) *sigh* Everyone's a critic...
> 
> You're lucky you've still got men doing the barbering. When I first 
> moved to this little town, the barbers were all women and I used to wait
> until I went to Montreal to get a haircut. Now we've got a pretty good
> guy doing it, tatoos, ex-biker, ex-trucker, good guy. Not like my old
> Tommy in Montreal, though, but way cheaper.

Heh, dunno what I'll do after John - my barber - retires. I'll never get
an 'exciting' haircut from him which is exactly how I like it :-) I want
a haircut that looks fine with zero fuss required. The younger male and
female hairdressers I've gone to all seem to want to do something with
my hair that requires me to fuss around with it - no thanks.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

In article <s7iq15p3638qs10lfg099mr86g1sqv6njo@4ax.com>,
 Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> People do dumb things.   We enable those who charge 2.209 per gallon.
> When we buy a new car, we walk away feeling filthy and defiled.   The
> car dealers know what they're doing, but claim that's what the people
> want.   And I the evidence is that they are right.
> 
> Almost as bad as the process of buying a new car is the process of
> making laws.

But not as bad as electing George Bush...

-- 
dorayme

In article <5viq15l4sk9254ncj8usi5vrl0m0rqf6cq@4ax.com>,
 Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> Sometimes raising the price does nothing.   If I pay $20 for a haircut
> and a tip, and the haircut goes from $16 to $17, I would still pay $20
> for a haircut and a tip.

You meanie to take advantage of the price rise to lower your tip!

-- 
dorayme

On Wed, 27 May 2009 09:09:08 -0500, Howard Brazee wrote (in article 
<s7iq15p3638qs10lfg099mr86g1sqv6njo@4ax.com>): 

> People do dumb things.   We enable those who charge 2.209 per gallon. When 
> we buy a new car, we walk away feeling filthy and defiled.   The car 
> dealers know what they're doing, but claim that's what the people want.   
> And I the evidence is that they are right. 

I'm always somewhat boggled at the frequent car ads that offer such as "0% 
Financing or $5,000 Cash Back!" And how much will that "0% Financing" cost 
you?

And the there is "MSRP (Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price) a virtually 
fictitious price that nobody is really expected to pay but which allows the 
dealers to give a "generous" markdown.

-- 
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@me.com

In article <1j0dkq0.1s2w1mmbg7uiwN%nospam@see.signature>,
 nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:

> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 25 May 2009 09:33:24 -0700, nospam@see.signature (Richard
> > Maine) wrote:
> > 
> > >In the U.S. (well, I suppose that being a state thing, it might possibly
> > >vary by state), the legalism is that the store - not the buyer - always
> > >pays the sales tax. It is actually a tax on the business.
> > 
> > I have never seen that argument before.   In fact, I use the opposite
> > argument, that corporate income tax is a tax on the consumer.   The
> > consumer always pays.   The business just collects what the consumer
> > pays.
> 
> At least in principle, I agree. The business doesn't print its own money
> (well, not a legitimate business :-)). All the money comes from the
> consumer in the end. In that sense, all taxes can be said to be consumer
> ones. An employee's income tax can be said to be paid by the customer of
> the business that employee works for because that business has to pay
> higher wages to give the same after-tax income to the employee, and
> those higher wages have to come from money paid by the customers.
> 
> But the difference is in the bookkeeping and reponsibilities. No, the
> business does not just pass on what the customer pays in that it isn't
> accounted for that way. The state doesn't care whether the customer paid
> it or not. The state just wants the business to pay it regardless. There
> are some funny special cases for things like out-of-state purchases, but
> for the most part, if the state doesn't get its money, they are going
> after the business rather than the customer, and the amount owed is
> determined by how much the business sold rather than by what the
> customer paid.

Because the business failed to fulfill its mandatory responsibilities as 
a collector *or* because it acted in bad faith by collecting the payment 
and not passing it along to the state.

Aside from the citations I offered previously that indicate fairly 
explicitly that it's a consumer tax, you'll note that in all those 
states that have sales tax, the consumer is ultimately held responsible 
for paying a usage tax in the same amount, less the amount of sales tax 
they've paid to any authority.

G

-- 
I saw a truck today that had "AAA Batteries / Delivered and Installed" on the
side. My first thought was: That's a really weird business model. How many
inept people have urgent need of skinny little battery cells?

Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> Aside from the citations I offered previously that indicate fairly 
> explicitly that it's a consumer tax, you'll note that in all those 
> states that have sales tax, the consumer is ultimately held responsible
> for paying a usage tax in the same amount, less the amount of sales tax
> they've paid to any authority.

See <http://www.originalintent.org/edu/salestax.php>, which has
citations that seem to say the opposite, though their citations are from
different states. Notably for me at least, their citations particularly
emphasize California, which might be why my impression is different from
yours, as I've never run a business in any of the states that you
mentioned.

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

In article <0001HW.C64335D5000732ECB01AD9AF@News.Individual.NET>,
TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 27 May 2009 09:09:08 -0500, Howard Brazee wrote (in article 
> <s7iq15p3638qs10lfg099mr86g1sqv6njo@4ax.com>): 
> 
> > People do dumb things.   We enable those who charge 2.209 per gallon. When 
> > we buy a new car, we walk away feeling filthy and defiled.   The car 
> > dealers know what they're doing, but claim that's what the people want.   
> > And I the evidence is that they are right. 
> 
> I'm always somewhat boggled at the frequent car ads that offer such as "0% 
> Financing or $5,000 Cash Back!" And how much will that "0% Financing" cost 
> you?
> 
> And the there is "MSRP (Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price) a virtually 
> fictitious price that nobody is really expected to pay but which allows the 
> dealers to give a "generous" markdown.

Some car dealers add a "second sticker" to bump up the cost so it can
be bargained away, just so the car can be sold at or even above MSRP. 
This is brazenly listed as ADP, which stands for "Additional Dealer
Profit," or ADM, "Additional Dealer Markup."  If you ask the salesman,
he will even tell you it's pure profit!

-- 
Jerry Kindall, Bellevue, Washington, USA  <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

In article <doraymeRidThis-48FC34.08112028052009@news.albasani.net>,
dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article <5viq15l4sk9254ncj8usi5vrl0m0rqf6cq@4ax.com>,
>  Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> 
> > Sometimes raising the price does nothing.   If I pay $20 for a haircut
> > and a tip, and the haircut goes from $16 to $17, I would still pay $20
> > for a haircut and a tip.
> 
> You meanie to take advantage of the price rise to lower your tip!

$4 (25% on $16) is a damned generous tip to begin with.  $3 is still
17% on $17 and perfectly acceptable.

-- 
Jerry Kindall, Bellevue, Washington, USA  <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

In article <270520091918010623%jerrykindall@nospam.invalid>,
 Jerry Kindall <jerrykindall@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <doraymeRidThis-48FC34.08112028052009@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> > In article <5viq15l4sk9254ncj8usi5vrl0m0rqf6cq@4ax.com>,
> >  Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > Sometimes raising the price does nothing.   If I pay $20 for a haircut
> > > and a tip, and the haircut goes from $16 to $17, I would still pay $20
> > > for a haircut and a tip.
> > 
> > You meanie to take advantage of the price rise to lower your tip!
> 
> $4 (25% on $16) is a damned generous tip to begin with.  $3 is still
> 17% on $17 and perfectly acceptable.

In that case, it was far too generous to begin with. This is a moral 
fault because there would be others more deserving of the excess in tip. 
I am constantly amazed by the moral blindness of the subscribers on this 
usenet group. It is time to enrol in my online Thurs Evening Ethics 
classes. Please send $US23 for 4 week course. No tips accepted.

-- 
dorayme

Howard Brazee wrote:
> Almost as bad as the process of buying a new car is the process of
> making laws.

If you'll excuse me, I have to go sit on the throne and pass a few laws.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   What if not everyone uses an expression? What then?
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1552

In article <wynTl.1149$9L2.651@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
 Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> Howard Brazee wrote:
> > Almost as bad as the process of buying a new car is the process of
> > making laws.
> 
> If you'll excuse me, I have to go sit on the throne and pass a few laws.

You are always needing to do something or other, the last time it was 
your laundry if I recall...

-- 
dorayme

Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> Sometimes raising the price does nothing.   If I pay $20 for a haircut
> and a tip, and the haircut goes from $16 to $17, I would still pay $20
> for a haircut and a tip.

Unless your barber owns the shop, you have just reduced what he gets
paid for your hair.  He will typically pay 40% - 50% of his revenue to
the owner of the place, so in your scenario, you just cut his pay by 50
cents.  Was it his fault that the shop owner raised the prices?

In my case, I have gotten my hair cut by the same woman for the past 21
years.  She owns her shop now, though she rented a space when I first
went to her.  She charges $25, but I usually give her $60.  She needs
the money a lot more than I do...

-- 
- Burt Johnson
  MindStorm, Inc.
  http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

In article <1j0ec1p.bruohrc22krfN%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
 burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:

> She charges $25, but I usually give her $60. 

Yeah? Is there anything I can sell you mate? I would love to do business 
with you. Or, hang on, maybe you live in Zimbabwe?

-- 
dorayme

In article <1j0ec1p.bruohrc22krfN%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
 burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:

> She charges $25, but I usually give her $60.  She needs
> the money a lot more than I do...

Geez, Brut, so do I. Send me $60 -- I'll promise not to cut your hair 
and I'll split it with dorayme.
-- 
Suddenly he realized that he was alone 
with a giant halfwit on a dark deserted street.
  -- Chester Himes

In article <1j0dyh0.7kszsaknjzk0N%nospam@see.signature>,
 nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:

> Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > Aside from the citations I offered previously that indicate fairly 
> > explicitly that it's a consumer tax, you'll note that in all those 
> > states that have sales tax, the consumer is ultimately held responsible
> > for paying a usage tax in the same amount, less the amount of sales tax
> > they've paid to any authority.
> 
> See <http://www.originalintent.org/edu/salestax.php>, which has
> citations that seem to say the opposite, though their citations are from
> different states. Notably for me at least, their citations particularly
> emphasize California, which might be why my impression is different from
> yours, as I've never run a business in any of the states that you
> mentioned.

Fair enough. California has structured things a little differently. The 
business is responsible for paying the sales tax. But the consumer is 
required to pay use tax to the business.

<http://www.boe.ca.gov/pdf/reg1685.pdf>

"Purchasers and lessees of tangible personal property, the storage, use, 
or other consumption of which is subject to the use tax, must pay the 
tax: 
(1) To the person from whom such property is purchased or leased, if 
such person holds a seller's permit ...."


And who has a seller's permit?

<http://www.boe.ca.gov/pdf/boe400spa.pdf>

"You are generally required to obtain a California seller's permit if 
you sell or lease merchandise, vehicles, or other tangible personal 
property in California. A seller's permit allows you to sell items at 
the wholesale or retail level."

Since the sales tax and use tax are by code charged at the same rate on 
the same items, the practical result is that the consumer is paying the 
sales tax. And, further in the first link I've provided, if for any 
reason the consumer doesn't pay the use tax at the time of purchase they 
have to pay the amount to the state directly.


I consider the link you provided to be disingenuous at best. Not that 
I'm accusing *you* of any deception, but I consider the owners of that 
site to be either ignorant or - more likely - intentionally omitting 
salient facts. Lots of little truths, underneath a big lie.

Every state that has a sales tax has a use tax imposed at the same rate 
on the same items. The are almost always listed as a single item "sales 
and use tax." Every state that has a sales tax requires the business to 
pay it on in-state purchases *and* to collect the tax - under either 
name - on in-state sales from the customer. The customer who lives in a 
state with sales and use tax is required to pay, to the state, the 
balance of the full tax imposed on the purchase minus sales tax already 
paid to any authority (including indirectly, through collection by the 
business).

In light of that, the claim that the sales tax is anything other than a 
tax on consumption is frankly delusional.

-- 
I saw a truck today that had "AAA Batteries / Delivered and Installed" on the
side. My first thought was: That's a really weird business model. How many
inept people have urgent need of skinny little battery cells?

In article <0066ef37$0$14688$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <1j0ec1p.bruohrc22krfN%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
>  burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:
> 
> > She charges $25, but I usually give her $60.  She needs
> > the money a lot more than I do...
> 
> Geez, Brut, so do I. Send me $60 -- I'll promise not to cut your hair 
> and I'll split it with dorayme.

Well, that is quite fine by me. I mean, bloody hell, there's enough to 
go around. If Burt's hair grows reasonably fast, he could keep us all 
happy at the percentage tips he is prepared to give.

-- 
dorayme

dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article <0066ef37$0$14688$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
>  Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1j0ec1p.bruohrc22krfN%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
> >  burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:
> > 
> > > She charges $25, but I usually give her $60.  She needs
> > > the money a lot more than I do...
> > 
> > Geez, Brut, so do I. Send me $60 -- I'll promise not to cut your hair
> > and I'll split it with dorayme.
> 
> Well, that is quite fine by me. I mean, bloody hell, there's enough to
> go around. If Burt's hair grows reasonably fast, he could keep us all
> happy at the percentage tips he is prepared to give.

sorry, but it takes a few years to work up to that level of tip...

About 10 years after she had been cutting my hair, she was talking about
wanting to buy her own place.  After talking about it for a year, I
asked how much she needed.  Turns out she was only short $20K, so I
loaned it to her.  She paid me back ahead of time (with an interest rate
lower than her bank, but high enough to beat a CD), and I have since
been going to her own new shop.

She struggles to get by. We have shared our ups and downs for 21 years
now.  My investments alone grow (well, except for this past year...) on
their own more than she makes each year.

I do not like beggers, but when I know someone that is working hard and
barely getting by, I do what I can without insulting them.  I also tend
to be a pretty heavy tipper in restaurants when the food and service are
good -- and I have been known to leave a 1 cent tip when they are not...

-- 
- Burt Johnson
  MindStorm, Inc.
  http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article <1j0ec1p.bruohrc22krfN%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
>  burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:
> 
> > She charges $25, but I usually give her $60. 
> 
> Yeah? Is there anything I can sell you mate? I would love to do business
> with you. Or, hang on, maybe you live in Zimbabwe?

Naw, just Berzerkeley, CA. :-)

I made my money writing Mac software in the 90's, and now work (writing
kid's game software for LeapFrog) because it is more fun that watching
TV.

-- 
- Burt Johnson
  MindStorm, Inc.
  http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

In article <1j0fwxy.1sj9u3nle60sqN%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
 burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> 
....
> > 
> > ...If Burt's hair grows reasonably fast, he could keep us all
> > happy at the percentage tips he is prepared to give.
> 
> sorry, but it takes a few years to work up to that level of tip...
> 
> About 10 years after she had been cutting my hair, she was talking about
> wanting to buy her own place.  After talking about it for a year, I
> asked how much she needed.  Turns out she was only short $20K, so I
> loaned it to her.  

You are a good man and she is lucky to know you. My hair service person 
(its kind of different for ETs like me) knows not to expect a tip from 
me and probably feels guilty not giving me one on the basis of the car I 
have driven past the joint for the last 20 years. It's a losing strategy 
to dress well and drive good cars. <g>

-- 
dorayme

In article <1j0fwxy.1sj9u3nle60sqN%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>, Burt
Johnson <burt@mindstorm-inc.com> wrote:

> I do not like beggers, but when I know someone that is working hard and
> barely getting by, I do what I can without insulting them.  I also tend
> to be a pretty heavy tipper in restaurants when the food and service are
> good -- and I have been known to leave a 1 cent tip when they are not...

Good on you, Burt. I agree with your philosophy, except that when I
receive bad food or service I first speak to the server and that's
unsatisfacory, ask to speak to the manager (without raising my voice or
making a fuss).

With your willingness to support people working hard, have you
considered Kiva.org? It's a group that makes micro loans ($25 and up)
to small business people in the developing world who are working to
better themselves and their families. The current default rate is 1.7%
on $34,451,110 of loans with completed loan terms.
<http://www.kiva.org/about/risk/overview>

Check it out. You can click on the link in my sig to view my activity
there (it's not a referral link, I get absolutely no benefit) or just
go directly to the site <http://www.kiva.org>.

-- 
Kiva - Loans that change lives.
http://www.kiva.org/lender/david87375440

dorayme wrote:
>  Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
>> Howard Brazee wrote:
>>> Almost as bad as the process of buying a new car is the process of
>>> making laws.
>> If you'll excuse me, I have to go sit on the throne and pass a few laws.
> 
> You are always needing to do something or other, the last time it was 
> your laundry if I recall...

Please accept my apologies for omitting the smiley.
I failed to consider the language barrier might obscure the joke.

:-)

-- 
Wes Groleau

   He that complies against his will is of the same opinion still.
                   -- Samuel Butler, 1612-1680

In article <thJTl.1462$9L2.694@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
 Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> >  Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> >> Howard Brazee wrote:
> >>> Almost as bad as the process of buying a new car is the process of
> >>> making laws.
> >> If you'll excuse me, I have to go sit on the throne and pass a few laws.
> > 
> > You are always needing to do something or other, the last time it was 
> > your laundry if I recall...
> 
> Please accept my apologies for omitting the smiley.
> I failed to consider the language barrier might obscure the joke.

I looked carefully at my words and still cannot work out what there was 
in them that made you think I did not know you were being light hearted 
or what the reference to your words were. I finally realised that you 
read into what I did *not* say, something. That is an odd thing to do 
Wes. I thought I was the weirdo around here! <g>

-- 
dorayme

Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

> In article <1j0fwxy.1sj9u3nle60sqN%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>, Burt
> Johnson <burt@mindstorm-inc.com> wrote:
> 
> > I do not like beggers, but when I know someone that is working hard and
> > barely getting by, I do what I can without insulting them.  I also tend
> > to be a pretty heavy tipper in restaurants when the food and service are
> > good -- and I have been known to leave a 1 cent tip when they are not...
> 
> Good on you, Burt. I agree with your philosophy, except that when I
> receive bad food or service I first speak to the server and that's
> unsatisfacory, ask to speak to the manager (without raising my voice or
> making a fuss).

I sometimes do that, but it depends on who I am with.  When I was
younger, I did that as a standard practice, but found others in my group
were often embarassed and wished to crawl under a rock.  Now I only do
it if alone or with only my wife, and if the evening has enough
unplanned time to not cause too much inconvenience.  

Basically, I consider that I am doing them a favor by taking the extra
effort, and I have been disappointed by how seldom it has made any
difference.

> 
> With your willingness to support people working hard, have you
> considered Kiva.org? It's a group that makes micro loans ($25 and up)
> to small business people in the developing world who are working to
> better themselves and their families. The current default rate is 1.7%
> on $34,451,110 of loans with completed loan terms.
> <http://www.kiva.org/about/risk/overview>
> 
> Check it out. You can click on the link in my sig to view my activity
> there (it's not a referral link, I get absolutely no benefit) or just
> go directly to the site <http://www.kiva.org>.

Actually I just heard about them from an NPR podcast last week.  I've
talked to my wife, and we've agreed to put in $10,000, but I haven't
gotten around to actually doing it yet.  Thanks for the reminder... I
now have a postit on my monitor to remind me for this weekend.

-- 
- Burt Johnson
  MindStorm, Inc.
  http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

In article <0029ebab$0$29239$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <dfmanno-6930D7.14160027052009@news.motzarella.org>,
>  "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Actually, that danger exists, because I've done it (unintentionally, of 
> > course). I've had checks clear after making a debit-card purchase, only 
> > to see the debit-card transaction clear, leaving me with a negative 
> > balance. Apparently some merchants either don't put a hold on the 
> > account after a purchase, or delay presenting the transactions to their 
> > bank.
> 
> Huh? I've _never_ seen anything like that. My debit transactions are 
> instantaneous, that's how the system is supposed to work -- card hooks 
> up to the bank and transfers the money to the merchant then and there. I 
> don't think the merchant has any control over it.

With the bank I was using until a few years ago, I could use my direct 
debit card in a shop and by the time I reached the ATM 10 yards away it 
had been taken out of my account.  However, the Post Office appears to 
process direct debit transactions overnight, at least for purchases made 
late on a Saturday afternoon.

-- 
Paul Sture

In article <paul.sture.nospam-4E778C.16270129052009@mac.sture.ch>,
 "P. Sture" <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:

> With the bank I was using until a few years ago, I could use my direct 
> debit card in a shop and by the time I reached the ATM 10 yards away it 
> had been taken out of my account.  However, the Post Office appears to 
> process direct debit transactions overnight, at least for purchases made 
> late on a Saturday afternoon.

Hmm. That means you could spend money that's not in your account, and 
unless you have some kind of overdraft arrangement with your bank, 
that's not really how debit cards are meant to work.
-- 
Suddenly he realized that he was alone 
with a giant halfwit on a dark deserted street.
  -- Chester Himes

Just a quick "second" to the recommendation for Kiva. I've been
supporting businesses through Kiva for about a year and a half
now, and in addition to knowing that I'm making a real difference
in someone's life, it's just plain FUN! I love finding businesses
in countries I've visited, or people who are doing some sort of
work that particularly interests me. (For example, I used to be
a broadcast engineer, so I've had fun supporting a couple of
people who run electronics shops.) Do check it out!


Patty

In article <5viq15l4sk9254ncj8usi5vrl0m0rqf6cq@4ax.com>,
 Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> Sometimes raising the price does nothing.   If I pay $20 for a haircut
> and a tip, and the haircut goes from $16 to $17, I would still pay $20
> for a haircut and a tip.

When I was in Holland circa 1982 a tax rise took the price of a beer in 
a bar from 1.70 to 1.90 (approximate figures and Dutch Guilders then).

Rounding up to 2.00 as a tip was common practice, so the bar staff lost 
out quite substantially.  They ended up being awarded a pay rise to 
compensate.

-- 
Paul Sture

In article <1j0ec1p.bruohrc22krfN%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
 burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:

>  She charges $25, but I usually give her $60.

Please don't try to do that if you are in parts of the world where large 
tips are not the norm.  The lady might think you are trying to buy more 
than the haircut!

-- 
Paul Sture

In article <0055cd86$0$9492$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <1j0enn5.1mgmkm7239klN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
>  jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> 
> > Yesterday I paid NZD$20 (USD$12.46) - no tipping here - for a simple
> > haircut and to have my beard and moustache clippered. The GF approves
> > and my barber (a rather witty scottish gentleman) said I no longer
> > looked like a bum afterwards :-D Beforehand I had the whole wildman look
> > going :-) *sigh* Everyone's a critic...
> 
> You're lucky you've still got men doing the barbering. When I first 
> moved to this little town, the barbers were all women and I used to wait 
> until I went to Montreal to get a haircut. Now we've got a pretty good 
> guy doing it, tatoos, ex-biker, ex-trucker, good guy. Not like my old 
> Tommy in Montreal, though, but way cheaper.

Unfortunately, it's about 50 Swiss Francs here for a _decent_ haircut, 
although that does include the full works. It didn't seem so bad when it 
was 1.8 Francs to the USD, but now the Swiss Franc and USD are nearing 
parity (1 USD = 1.06750 Swiss Francs at the mo'), I am up close to 
Burt's expenditure.

Of course when I am going to the UK anyway, I'll get my hair cut there 
:-)

-- 
Paul Sture

In article <s7iq15p3638qs10lfg099mr86g1sqv6njo@4ax.com>,
 Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> People do dumb things.   We enable those who charge 2.209 per gallon.
> When we buy a new car, we walk away feeling filthy and defiled.   The
> car dealers know what they're doing, but claim that's what the people
> want.   And I the evidence is that they are right.
> 
> Almost as bad as the process of buying a new car is the process of
> making laws.

I think it was Napoleon who said that you don't want to know how 
sausages or laws are made.

-- 
Paul Sture

In article <0001HW.C64335D5000732ECB01AD9AF@News.Individual.NET>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> I'm always somewhat boggled at the frequent car ads that offer such as "0% 
> Financing or $5,000 Cash Back!" And how much will that "0% Financing" cost 
> you?

I'll give you an example of that, which I experienced when buying my 
first wide-screen TV.

Sale price - down from 750 UK pounds to 650, with 6 months zero interest 
credit.  When I opted to pay cash (well to be correct, a direct debit 
card), the price came down to 550, and that was without trying too hard.

-- 
Paul Sture

In article <1j0cuk3.1i98a9alek4r2N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
 jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:

> I used to have a credit card, but now I use a debit card instead which
> is tied to my regular bank account. All the advantage of a credit card
> for online purchases, and no danger of spending money I don't have.

My problems with credit cards started with the UK recession in the early 
1990s.  In effect, customers (several whom didn't pay) were using my 
credit cards to bolster their cash flow.

> IMHO too many people live their whole lives in debt (and subsequently
> pay a lot more in interest). Unless I someday decide to buy a house, I
> don't ever plan on buying anything I cannot immediately afford without
> using credit.

I was brought up the old fashioned way.  The only serious loan I ever 
wanted was a mortgage, and even then, I know people who managed to pay 
cash for houses.

> While you can of course pay your debt in full each month to avoid
> interest, it's just too easy to buy on credit rather than save up - for
> me anyway :-) If you've a stronger will it may not be a problem, heh.

I had a problem when I was Africa.  It took 3 weeks for my credit card 
statement to reach me, then another 3 weeks for my cheque to reach them, 
so even paying in full ended up with interest charges.  I finally sent 
them a cheque for about double the amount and they actually sent me a 
letter saying:

DO NOT SEND US ANY MORE MONEY.

That one got framed and put on the office wall :-)

-- 
Paul Sture

In article <000130eb$0$5807$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <paul.sture.nospam-4E778C.16270129052009@mac.sture.ch>,
>  "P. Sture" <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> 
> > With the bank I was using until a few years ago, I could use my direct 
> > debit card in a shop and by the time I reached the ATM 10 yards away it 
> > had been taken out of my account.  However, the Post Office appears to 
> > process direct debit transactions overnight, at least for purchases made 
> > late on a Saturday afternoon.
> 
> Hmm. That means you could spend money that's not in your account, and 
> unless you have some kind of overdraft arrangement with your bank, 
> that's not really how debit cards are meant to work.

In that case I was surprised to find that I had a 200 overdraft facility 
that they hadn't told me about.  It didn't stop me feeling upset that I 
had gone negative without realising it (stealth credit IMHO).

-- 
Paul Sture

In article <v6jq15tire6gbuqje2mm2ccdt380d380rn@4ax.com>,
 Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 26 May 2009 04:55:47 +1200, jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie
> Kahn Genet) wrote:
> 
> >GST is included in all retail prices in NZ. To me it seems very dodgy to
> >be adding taxes on at the register.
> 
> To me it's dishonest to hide the tax in the price.   I'm glad we don't
> have VAT.

From this side of the pond, I think the other way around.  If I only 
have 1.95 in my pocket I can buy goods for 1.95 and that's it.

-- 
Paul Sture

In article <uce-AB1A43.09284326052009@news.snet.sbcglobal.net>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> It's a tax on consumption, and on the 
> consumer, and the business is essentially pressed into service as an 
> agent of the state for collecting it. 

The phrase "unpaid tax collector" comes to mind here, and what hit me 
many years ago in the UK was bad debtors.  I had raised taxable invoices 
which never got paid, but the tax authorities would not allow me to 
write them off for a year.  In effect, not only had I lost the income, 
but the government wanted me to lodge 17.5% of the invoice value with 
them for a year.  This was painful, to say the least.

-- 
Paul Sture

In article <paul.sture.nospam-24FFB6.21381129052009@mac.sture.ch>, P.
Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:

> In article <0001HW.C64335D5000732ECB01AD9AF@News.Individual.NET>,
>  TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> 
> > I'm always somewhat boggled at the frequent car ads that offer such as "0% 
> > Financing or $5,000 Cash Back!" And how much will that "0% Financing" cost 
> > you?
> 
> I'll give you an example of that, which I experienced when buying my 
> first wide-screen TV.
> 
> Sale price - down from 750 UK pounds to 650, with 6 months zero interest 
> credit.  When I opted to pay cash (well to be correct, a direct debit 
> card), the price came down to 550, and that was without trying too hard.

Here in Canada, our federal government implemented a 15% tax credit
against home improvement projects. The price of doors, windows, lumber,
appliances, etc., promptly rose ~15%.

-- 
Kiva - Loans that change lives.
http://www.kiva.org/lender/david87375440

P. Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:

> In article <1j0ec1p.bruohrc22krfN%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
>  burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:
> 
> >  She charges $25, but I usually give her $60.
> 
> Please don't try to do that if you are in parts of the world where large
> tips are not the norm.  The lady might think you are trying to buy more
> than the haircut!

This is in Berkeley, CA, and I have known (and had my hair cut by her)
for 21 years.  I think expectations are understood on all sides.

In that time she has married and divorced twice, while I have stayed
married to the same woman for the past 36 years (in fact she was only
the second girl I ever dated)

-- 
- Burt Johnson
  MindStorm, Inc.
  http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

Burt Johnson <burt@mindstorm-inc.com> wrote:

> P. Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1j0ec1p.bruohrc22krfN%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
> >  burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:
> > 
> > >  She charges $25, but I usually give her $60.
> > 
> > Please don't try to do that if you are in parts of the world where large
> > tips are not the norm.  The lady might think you are trying to buy more
> > than the haircut!
> 
> This is in Berkeley, CA, and I have known (and had my hair cut by her)
> for 21 years.  I think expectations are understood on all sides.
> 
> In that time she has married and divorced twice, while I have stayed
> married to the same woman for the past 36 years (in fact she was only
> the second girl I ever dated)

Romantic :-) How old were you two?
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

+ "P. Sture" <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch>:

> I think it was Napoleon who said that you don't want to know how
> sausages or laws are made.

Not likely. It has more commonly been attributed to Otto von Bismarck,
but even that seems to be in doubt.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Otto_von_Bismarck

-- 
* Harald Hanche-Olsen     <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
- It is undesirable to believe a proposition
  when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true.
  -- Bertrand Russell

In article <paul.sture.nospam-F9310F.21525729052009@mac.sture.ch>,
 "P. Sture" <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:

> In that case I was surprised to find that I had a 200 overdraft facility 
> that they hadn't told me about.  It didn't stop me feeling upset that I 
> had gone negative without realising it (stealth credit IMHO).

We have "overdraft protection" and I love it. I sometimes make mistakes, 
and don't transfer enough money into the chequing/online account to pay 
the bills, cover the mortgage, etc., and instead of huge fees or 
embarrassment and inconvenience, I pay something like 3 cents in 
"interest" at the end of the month against whatever the bank has had to 
"lend" me to cover stuff. Doesn't happen often, but it's there. It's 
free too, except for the interest.
-- 
Suddenly he realized that he was alone 
with a giant halfwit on a dark deserted street.
  -- Chester Himes

Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:

> Burt Johnson <burt@mindstorm-inc.com> wrote:
> 
> > P. Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <1j0ec1p.bruohrc22krfN%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
> > >  burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:
> > > 
> > > >  She charges $25, but I usually give her $60.
> > > 
> > > Please don't try to do that if you are in parts of the world where large
> > > tips are not the norm.  The lady might think you are trying to buy more
> > > than the haircut!
> > 
> > This is in Berkeley, CA, and I have known (and had my hair cut by her)
> > for 21 years.  I think expectations are understood on all sides.
> > 
> > In that time she has married and divorced twice, while I have stayed
> > married to the same woman for the past 36 years (in fact she was only
> > the second girl I ever dated)
> 
> Romantic :-) How old were you two?

22 when we married.  We skipped college graduation and got married on
skiis that day instead.

Her parents had disowned her for marrying 'white trash' (anyone other
than pure Chinese would have had that result), so rather than have a big
wedding with just my side of the family, we eloped.

We had learned to ski together in college, and decided that would be a
fun way to get married, so we got my boss to marry us (we both worked
our way through school).  He used "The French Way of Skiing" as our
bible for the vows, and a cow bell to assemble the half dozen friends
that were invited.

No photographer. No fuss.  Or so we planned...

We had gone to a new ski slope that we had not been to before.  Turned
out it was their official Grand Opening and had newspaper and TV crews
there for the event.  They got wind of our wedding and we were on the
evening news.  My mother saved copies of the newspaper article, which
turned out to be the only photographs we have of the wedding.

That was 1972 -- long before such "adventure weddings" were commonplace.

-- 
- Burt Johnson
  MindStorm, Inc.
  http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

Burt Johnson <burt@mindstorm-inc.com> wrote:

> Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> 
> > Burt Johnson <burt@mindstorm-inc.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > P. Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <1j0ec1p.bruohrc22krfN%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
> > > >  burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > >  She charges $25, but I usually give her $60.
> > > > 
> > > > Please don't try to do that if you are in parts of the world where large
> > > > tips are not the norm.  The lady might think you are trying to buy more
> > > > than the haircut!
> > > 
> > > This is in Berkeley, CA, and I have known (and had my hair cut by her)
> > > for 21 years.  I think expectations are understood on all sides.
> > > 
> > > In that time she has married and divorced twice, while I have stayed
> > > married to the same woman for the past 36 years (in fact she was only
> > > the second girl I ever dated)
> > 
> > Romantic :-) How old were you two?
> 
> 22 when we married.  We skipped college graduation and got married on
> skiis that day instead.
> 
> Her parents had disowned her for marrying 'white trash' (anyone other
> than pure Chinese would have had that result), so rather than have a big
> wedding with just my side of the family, we eloped.
> 
> We had learned to ski together in college, and decided that would be a
> fun way to get married, so we got my boss to marry us (we both worked
> our way through school).  He used "The French Way of Skiing" as our
> bible for the vows, and a cow bell to assemble the half dozen friends
> that were invited.
> 
> No photographer. No fuss.  Or so we planned...
> 
> We had gone to a new ski slope that we had not been to before.  Turned
> out it was their official Grand Opening and had newspaper and TV crews
> there for the event.  They got wind of our wedding and we were on the
> evening news.  My mother saved copies of the newspaper article, which
> turned out to be the only photographs we have of the wedding.
> 
> That was 1972 -- long before such "adventure weddings" were commonplace.

Wow, that's very cool and funny about ending up on the news. While I'm
36 years late, I feel like cheering 'Way to go Burt!' :-D
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

In article 1j0iv8m.13iobvpla2687N%burt@mindstorm-inc.com, Burt Johnson at
burt@mindstorm-inc.com wrote on 5/30/09 12:28 PM:

> Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> 
....
....
> 
> Her parents had disowned her for marrying 'white trash' (anyone other
> than pure Chinese would have had that result),

I've _always_ been attracted to Asian women. (CS is Thai.)

> so rather than have a big
> wedding with just my side of the family, we eloped.
> 
> We had learned to ski together in college, and decided that would be a
> fun way to get married, so we got my boss to marry us (we both worked
> our way through school).  He used "The French Way of Skiing" as our
> bible for the vows, and a cow bell to assemble the half dozen friends
> that were invited.
....
....
> 
> That was 1972 -- long before such "adventure weddings" were commonplace.

Made more "adventurous" if your boss wasn't a Justice of the Peace (or
equivalent).

-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.6)

Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

> > We had learned to ski together in college, and decided that would be a
> > fun way to get married, so we got my boss to marry us (we both worked
> > our way through school).  He used "The French Way of Skiing" as our
> > bible for the vows, and a cow bell to assemble the half dozen friends
> > that were invited.
> ...
> ...
> > 
> > That was 1972 -- long before such "adventure weddings" were commonplace.
> 
> Made more "adventurous" if your boss wasn't a Justice of the Peace (or
> equivalent).

He paid $10 for a Universal Life Minister license.  

Under the California laws at the time, the marriage was legal if nobody
contested it within one year (no idea if they may have changed since
then).

-- 
- Burt Johnson
  MindStorm, Inc.
  http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

Burt Johnson <burt@mindstorm-inc.com> wrote:

> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > > ...so we got my boss to marry us

> > Made more "adventurous" if your boss wasn't a Justice of the Peace (or
> > equivalent).
> 
> He paid $10 for a Universal Life Minister license.  

My son got married by a friend with one of those licenses last year.

Mine was a "Society of Friends" (aka Quaker) wedding about 35 years ago.
They used to have trouble getting the state to accept those weddings
because they don't have a minister per se. The meeting clerk ends up
satisfying the state, although he isn't considered anything like a
minister - much more like a... well... clerk. Basically, the notion is
that the couple are the ones who wed themselves; the ceremony is
essentially just their public announcement of it, with the congregation
there to witness it and offer support, etc. I don't really consider
myself a Quaker, but that notion well matched mine (and my wife's).

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

In article <0001HW.C64189ED004881C1B01AD9AF@News.Individual.NET>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 26 May 2009 10:34:33 -0500, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote (in article 
> <1j0cubj.f98eh41rf0af0N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>): 
> 
> > Yes, but with Eftpos it only shows how much the purchase and/or change 
> > was. No account balance or other sentsitive account information is printed 
> > (not that the terminal would be able to anyway, since it's never sent that 
> > info). 
> 
> Here in the United States almost all stores are now equipped to let you pay 
> with either a credit or debit card. After the card is scanned one is asked to 
> enter your PIN (Personal Identification Number) which does not appear on the 
> card. The device used, sometimes connected directly to the register, allows 
> one to select that the payment shall be either by debit or credit, and often 
> allows one to also receive some cash back. The device will approve or reject 
> the transaction, but does not display such as the available balance. A 
> similar method exists at virtually all gasoline pumps (attendant service is 
> now only required, if I am correct, in two states, New Jersey and Oregon) and 
> one again validates with their pin, or occasionally, their ZIP code.

What happens if you do not have a PIN? I always sign for card 
transactions, because anyone can use a PIN, but a signature needs to be 
forged.

-- 
http://www.ericlindsay.com

In article 
<NOwebmasterSPAM-20E745.19474931052009@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.a
u>,
 Eric Lindsay <NOwebmasterSPAM@ericlindsay.com> wrote:

> I always sign for card 
> transactions, because anyone can use a PIN, but a signature needs to be 
> forged.

Is it harder to copy the sig that is on the back of a card than to 
divine the secret pin number? I don't think so. And in any case, no one 
checks sigs in shops. And who can blame a lone person serving in a 
service station?

-- 
dorayme

In article <1j0iv8m.13iobvpla2687N%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
 burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:

> Her parents had disowned her for marrying 'white trash' (anyone other
> than pure Chinese would have had that result), so rather than have a big
> wedding with just my side of the family, we eloped.
> 
> 
> That was 1972 -- long before such "adventure weddings" were commonplace.

So, in the many years since, have they gotten over their prejudices, or 
is she still "out" with them?

jt

In article <00682cae$0$17654$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <paul.sture.nospam-F9310F.21525729052009@mac.sture.ch>,
>  "P. Sture" <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> 
> > In that case I was surprised to find that I had a 200 overdraft facility 
> > that they hadn't told me about.  It didn't stop me feeling upset that I 
> > had gone negative without realising it (stealth credit IMHO).
> 
> We have "overdraft protection" and I love it. I sometimes make mistakes, 
> and don't transfer enough money into the chequing/online account to pay 
> the bills, cover the mortgage, etc., and instead of huge fees or 
> embarrassment and inconvenience, I pay something like 3 cents in 
> "interest" at the end of the month against whatever the bank has had to 
> "lend" me to cover stuff. Doesn't happen often, but it's there. It's 
> free too, except for the interest.

Now that _is_ a good idea.

-- 
Paul Sture

In article <pcows7zhxfq.fsf@math.ntnu.no>,
 Harald Hanche-Olsen <hanche@math.ntnu.no> wrote:

> + "P. Sture" <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch>:
> 
> > I think it was Napoleon who said that you don't want to know how
> > sausages or laws are made.
> 
> Not likely. It has more commonly been attributed to Otto von Bismarck,
> but even that seems to be in doubt.
> 
> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Otto_von_Bismarck

Thanks for the correction. I'm now wondering where I got the idea of 
Napoleon from; I'll put it down to another misattribution.

-- 
Paul Sture

In article <1j0hoy4.1cv57ve1icif7dN%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
 burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:

> P. Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1j0ec1p.bruohrc22krfN%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
> >  burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:
> > 
> > >  She charges $25, but I usually give her $60.
> > 
> > Please don't try to do that if you are in parts of the world where large
> > tips are not the norm.  The lady might think you are trying to buy more
> > than the haircut!
> 
> This is in Berkeley, CA, and I have known (and had my hair cut by her)
> for 21 years.  I think expectations are understood on all sides.
> 
> In that time she has married and divorced twice, while I have stayed
> married to the same woman for the past 36 years (in fact she was only
> the second girl I ever dated)

Thanks for putting it into context.

-- 
Paul Sture

In article <1j0iv8m.13iobvpla2687N%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
 burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:

> Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> 
> > Burt Johnson <burt@mindstorm-inc.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > P. Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <1j0ec1p.bruohrc22krfN%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
> > > >  burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > >  She charges $25, but I usually give her $60.
> > > > 
> > > > Please don't try to do that if you are in parts of the world where large
> > > > tips are not the norm.  The lady might think you are trying to buy more
> > > > than the haircut!
> > > 
> > > This is in Berkeley, CA, and I have known (and had my hair cut by her)
> > > for 21 years.  I think expectations are understood on all sides.
> > > 
> > > In that time she has married and divorced twice, while I have stayed
> > > married to the same woman for the past 36 years (in fact she was only
> > > the second girl I ever dated)
> > 
> > Romantic :-) How old were you two?
> 
> 22 when we married.  We skipped college graduation and got married on
> skiis that day instead.
> 
> Her parents had disowned her for marrying 'white trash' (anyone other
> than pure Chinese would have had that result), so rather than have a big
> wedding with just my side of the family, we eloped.
> 
> We had learned to ski together in college, and decided that would be a
> fun way to get married, so we got my boss to marry us (we both worked
> our way through school).  He used "The French Way of Skiing" as our
> bible for the vows, and a cow bell to assemble the half dozen friends
> that were invited.
> 
> No photographer. No fuss.  Or so we planned...
> 
> We had gone to a new ski slope that we had not been to before.  Turned
> out it was their official Grand Opening and had newspaper and TV crews
> there for the event.  They got wind of our wedding and we were on the
> evening news.  My mother saved copies of the newspaper article, which
> turned out to be the only photographs we have of the wedding.
> 
> That was 1972 -- long before such "adventure weddings" were commonplace.

LOL! That is great story.

-- 
Paul Sture

In article 
<NOwebmasterSPAM-20E745.19474931052009@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.a
u>,
 Eric Lindsay <NOwebmasterSPAM@ericlindsay.com> wrote:

> In article <0001HW.C64189ED004881C1B01AD9AF@News.Individual.NET>,
>  TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 26 May 2009 10:34:33 -0500, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote (in article 
> > <1j0cubj.f98eh41rf0af0N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>): 
> > 
> > > Yes, but with Eftpos it only shows how much the purchase and/or change 
> > > was. No account balance or other sentsitive account information is 
> > > printed 
> > > (not that the terminal would be able to anyway, since it's never sent 
> > > that 
> > > info). 
> > 
> > Here in the United States almost all stores are now equipped to let you pay 
> > with either a credit or debit card. After the card is scanned one is asked 
> > to 
> > enter your PIN (Personal Identification Number) which does not appear on 
> > the 
> > card. The device used, sometimes connected directly to the register, allows 
> > one to select that the payment shall be either by debit or credit, and 
> > often 
> > allows one to also receive some cash back. The device will approve or 
> > reject 
> > the transaction, but does not display such as the available balance. A 
> > similar method exists at virtually all gasoline pumps (attendant service is 
> > now only required, if I am correct, in two states, New Jersey and Oregon) 
> > and 
> > one again validates with their pin, or occasionally, their ZIP code.
> 
> What happens if you do not have a PIN? I always sign for card 
> transactions, because anyone can use a PIN, but a signature needs to be 
> forged.

You always sign *what* ??

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

In article 1j0jyrv.1r8f7a4jqcd2wN%burt@mindstorm-inc.com, Burt Johnson at
burt@mindstorm-inc.com wrote on 5/31/09 2:36 AM:

> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> We had learned to ski together in college, and decided that would be a
>>> fun way to get married, so we got my boss to marry us (we both worked
>>> our way through school).  He used "The French Way of Skiing" as our
>>> bible for the vows, and a cow bell to assemble the half dozen friends
>>> that were invited.
>> ...
>> ...
>>> 
>>> That was 1972 -- long before such "adventure weddings" were commonplace.
>> 
>> Made more "adventurous" if your boss wasn't a Justice of the Peace (or
>> equivalent).
> 
> He paid $10 for a Universal Life Minister license.
>

California is a strange state. :o

> Under the California laws at the time, the marriage was legal if nobody
> contested it within one year (no idea if they may have changed since
> then).

You might want to find out if the law still is on the books...and, if not,
whether you're still married. ;)



-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.6)

In article 1j0k1eo.1id49wq1nefjcwN%nospam@see.signature, Richard Maine at
nospam@see.signature wrote on 5/31/09 3:41 AM:

> Burt Johnson <burt@mindstorm-inc.com> wrote:
> 
>> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> ...so we got my boss to marry us
> 
>>> Made more "adventurous" if your boss wasn't a Justice of the Peace (or
>>> equivalent).
>> 
>> He paid $10 for a Universal Life Minister license.
> 
> My son got married by a friend with one of those licenses last year.
> 
> Mine was a "Society of Friends" (aka Quaker) wedding about 35 years ago.
> They used to have trouble getting the state to accept those weddings
> because they don't have a minister per se. The meeting clerk ends up
> satisfying the state, although he isn't considered anything like a
> minister - much more like a... well... clerk. Basically, the notion is
> that the couple are the ones who wed themselves; the ceremony is
> essentially just their public announcement of it, with the congregation
> there to witness it and offer support, etc. I don't really consider
> myself a Quaker, but that notion well matched mine (and my wife's).

Makes one wonder: "What's the point of it all?"

-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.6)

Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

> In article 1j0k1eo.1id49wq1nefjcwN%nospam@see.signature, Richard Maine at
> nospam@see.signature wrote on 5/31/09 3:41 AM:
> 
> > Burt Johnson <burt@mindstorm-inc.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >>>> ...so we got my boss to marry us
> > 
> >>> Made more "adventurous" if your boss wasn't a Justice of the Peace (or
> >>> equivalent).
> >> 
> >> He paid $10 for a Universal Life Minister license.
> > 
> > My son got married by a friend with one of those licenses last year.
> > 
> > Mine was a "Society of Friends" (aka Quaker) wedding about 35 years ago.
> > They used to have trouble getting the state to accept those weddings
> > because they don't have a minister per se. The meeting clerk ends up
> > satisfying the state, although he isn't considered anything like a
> > minister - much more like a... well... clerk. Basically, the notion is
> > that the couple are the ones who wed themselves; the ceremony is
> > essentially just their public announcement of it, with the congregation
> > there to witness it and offer support, etc. I don't really consider
> > myself a Quaker, but that notion well matched mine (and my wife's).
> 
> Makes one wonder: "What's the point of it all?"

That's exactly what I just described in the last half of that paragraph.
If my description of the point makes you wonder what the point is,
then... well, I guess that the important thing was for my wife and I to
get the point.

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

In article <1j0kpnh.1tiryp4g5jcwN%nospam@see.signature>,
 nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:

> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article 1j0k1eo.1id49wq1nefjcwN%nospam@see.signature, Richard Maine at
> > nospam@see.signature wrote on 5/31/09 3:41 AM:
> > 
> > > Burt Johnson <burt@mindstorm-inc.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > >> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> 
> > >>>> ...so we got my boss to marry us
> > > 
> > >>> Made more "adventurous" if your boss wasn't a Justice of the Peace (or
> > >>> equivalent).
> > >> 
> > >> He paid $10 for a Universal Life Minister license.
> > > 
> > > My son got married by a friend with one of those licenses last year.
> > > 
> > > Mine was a "Society of Friends" (aka Quaker) wedding about 35 years ago.
> > > They used to have trouble getting the state to accept those weddings
> > > because they don't have a minister per se. The meeting clerk ends up
> > > satisfying the state, although he isn't considered anything like a
> > > minister - much more like a... well... clerk. Basically, the notion is
> > > that the couple are the ones who wed themselves; the ceremony is
> > > essentially just their public announcement of it, with the congregation
> > > there to witness it and offer support, etc. I don't really consider
> > > myself a Quaker, but that notion well matched mine (and my wife's).
> > 
> > Makes one wonder: "What's the point of it all?"
> 
> That's exactly what I just described in the last half of that paragraph.
> If my description of the point makes you wonder what the point is,
> then... well, I guess that the important thing was for my wife and I to
> get the point.

<pedant>

That should be "... my wife and me ..."

</pedant>

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> wrote:

> In article <1j0kpnh.1tiryp4g5jcwN%nospam@see.signature>,
>  nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:

> >... well, I guess that the important thing was for my wife and I to
> > get the point.
> 
> <pedant>
> 
> That should be "... my wife and me ..."
> 
> </pedant>

True.

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

> In article 1j0k1eo.1id49wq1nefjcwN%nospam@see.signature, Richard Maine at
> nospam@see.signature wrote on 5/31/09 3:41 AM:
> 
> > Burt Johnson <burt@mindstorm-inc.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >>>> ...so we got my boss to marry us
> > 
> >>> Made more "adventurous" if your boss wasn't a Justice of the Peace (or
> >>> equivalent).
> >> 
> >> He paid $10 for a Universal Life Minister license.

> 
> Makes one wonder: "What's the point of it all?"

The point is largely to satisfy the state requirements to achevie the
benefits of marriage -- improved death benefits, improved health
insurance benefits, etc.

It also provides one extra sticking point to make breaking up just a
little bit harder.  Instead of just saying "I'm moving out," you then
have to go through a formal process.  Yes, I know that 50% of all
weddings end in divorce, but how many cohabitats end up not living
together for life?  I have no hard statistics, but I'll bet it that a
much higher percentage of those break up.

In my case, my mother married and divorced 3 times.  I was married to
her first husband, whom she divorced when I was 1 y/o.  Given the
statistics of marriages of those raised in broken homes, I honestly did
not expect to wed for life.  

In fact, our wedding vows was not "till death do us part."  Instead, we
said "as long as we both keep working at it."

Looking back, that first 10 years had a lot of tough patches.  I do
think that had we not been married, we probably would have split up.
That license put just enough extra friction in the situation to make us
go back and try one more time.  Lo and behold, we have now been married
36 years (we lived together 2 years before that -- again, rather unusual
back in 1970, and made it hard to rent an apartment since landlords
wanted to see marriage certificates back then).

-- 
- Burt Johnson
  MindStorm, Inc.
  http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

jt august <starsabre@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> In article <1j0iv8m.13iobvpla2687N%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
>  burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:
> 
> > Her parents had disowned her for marrying 'white trash' (anyone other
> > than pure Chinese would have had that result), so rather than have a big
> > wedding with just my side of the family, we eloped.
> > 
> > 
> > That was 1972 -- long before such "adventure weddings" were commonplace.
> 
> So, in the many years since, have they gotten over their prejudices, or
> is she still "out" with them?

Her sister married "a white guy" about 10 years later.  None of her 5
brothers ever married (until last year when the youngest married at the
age of 45), so the parents finally gave up.

So... the first time I even met her parents was at my wife's sisters
first wedding, after we had already been married 10 years.  

Her mother has been in this country 63 years, and still does not speak a
word of English.  As such, we have never talked.  Her father speaks
perfect English, and was in the US Army in WWII. (they had an arranged
marriage where the mother was brought over just after the war).

I get along fine with the father, though we don't have a lot to talk
about.  He is hen-pecked by the mother, who has pretty much isolated the
family by refusing any contact with non-Chinese.

In fact, my wife tells of being grounded for a month when she brought
home a Japanese boy in high school.  She never dated again until
college, when she was free from them.


-- 
- Burt Johnson
  MindStorm, Inc.
  http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> wrote:
> > That's exactly what I just described in the last half of that paragraph.
> > If my description of the point makes you wonder what the point is,
> > then... well, I guess that the important thing was for my wife and I to
> > get the point.
> 
> <pedant>
> 
> That should be "... my wife and me ..."
> 
> </pedant>

If you want to get pedantic, at least get it right.  He is correct with
"my wife and I" in this case.

The easiest way to remember is to remove the other person and see how it
sounds.  You would not say "me get the point."  Rather, "I get the
point" is correct, thus so is "my wife and I get the point."

-- 
- Burt Johnson
  MindStorm, Inc.
  http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

In article 1j0kqxn.21dji0nn9scwN%burt@mindstorm-inc.com, Burt Johnson at
burt@mindstorm-inc.com wrote on 5/31/09 1:22 PM:

> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article 1j0k1eo.1id49wq1nefjcwN%nospam@see.signature, Richard Maine at
>> nospam@see.signature wrote on 5/31/09 3:41 AM:
>> 
>>> Burt Johnson <burt@mindstorm-inc.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>> ...so we got my boss to marry us
>>> 
>>>>> Made more "adventurous" if your boss wasn't a Justice of the Peace (or
>>>>> equivalent).
>>>> 
>>>> He paid $10 for a Universal Life Minister license.
> 
>> 
>> Makes one wonder: "What's the point of it all?"
> 
> The point is largely to satisfy the state requirements to achevie the
> benefits of marriage -- improved death benefits, improved health
> insurance benefits, etc.

Don't forget the right to pay alimony. ;)

 
> It also provides one extra sticking point to make breaking up just a
> little bit harder.  Instead of just saying "I'm moving out," you then
> have to go through a formal process.  Yes, I know that 50% of all
> weddings end in divorce, but how many cohabitats end up not living
> together for life?  I have no hard statistics, but I'll bet it that a
> much higher percentage of those break up.

I'd agree. Legal entanglements are rather...ummm..."entangling."

 
> In my case, my mother married and divorced 3 times.

The attorneys and low life (excuse me for repeating myself ;) ) must've
loved her.

>I was married to
> her first husband,

Now _that's_ weird...even for California. ;P

> whom she divorced when I was 1 y/o.  Given the
> statistics of marriages of those raised in broken homes, I honestly did
> not expect to wed for life.
> 
> In fact, our wedding vows was not "till death do us part."  Instead, we
> said "as long as we both keep working at it."
> 
> Looking back, that first 10 years had a lot of tough patches.  I do
> think that had we not been married, we probably would have split up.
> That license put just enough extra friction in the situation to make us
> go back and try one more time.  Lo and behold, we have now been married
> 36 years (we lived together 2 years before that -- again, rather unusual
> back in 1970, and made it hard to rent an apartment since landlords
> wanted to see marriage certificates back then).

My first marriage lasted 10 years, much of the time spent in counseling
trying to save it. We tried because we genuinely cared -- the legality of
the marriage never was a factor for us (back then, as you know, a lot of us
didn't pay much attention to social norms -- whether they were codified or
not).

-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.6)

In article <1j0ksty.816uiyu0ldlwN%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
Burt Johnson <do-not-email@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> wrote:
>> > That's exactly what I just described in the last half of that paragraph.
>> > If my description of the point makes you wonder what the point is,
>> > then... well, I guess that the important thing was for my wife and I to
>> > get the point.
>> 
>> <pedant>
>> 
>> That should be "... my wife and me ..."
>> 
>> </pedant>
>
>If you want to get pedantic, at least get it right.  He is correct with
>"my wife and I" in this case.

Sorry, no, Tim's change was correct.

>The easiest way to remember is to remove the other person and see how it
>sounds.  

Absolutely! I wish that more people would realize how easy that
trick makes it to determine the correct word!

>You would not say "me get the point."  Rather, "I get the
>point" is correct, thus so is "my wife and I get the point."

Indeed, if Burt's sentence had been, "My wife and I got the point,"
then "I" would have been the correct first-person pronoun. But his
sentence was, "The important thing was FOR [emphasis added] my wife
and me to get the point." You wouldn't say, "The important thing
was for I to get the point." At least, I hope you wouldn't. :-) :-)

Anyway, Burt, that's a lovely story. Oftentimes such rebellious
marriages have nothing else going for them *except* rebellion,
so they don't last. Clearly, you and your wife have much more
going for you than that. It's sad that her mom has chosen not
to accept the situation, but good on the two of you for getting
on with your lives.


Patty

Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >I was married to
> > her first husband,
> 
> Now _that's_ weird...even for California. ;P

now that's what comes from not proof-reading what I write... even in
California! :-)

Actually I blame that typo on my wife.  She is at her desk fretting over
Photoshop and having me come over every few minutes to show her how to
do something else. Seems I'm not as good at multi-tasking as I was 30
years ago.

-- 
- Burt Johnson
  MindStorm, Inc.
  http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> wrote:

> In article <1j0ksty.816uiyu0ldlwN%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
> Burt Johnson <do-not-email@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> wrote:
> >> > That's exactly what I just described in the last half of that paragraph.
> >> > If my description of the point makes you wonder what the point is,
> >> > then... well, I guess that the important thing was for my wife and I to
> >> > get the point.
> >> 
> >> <pedant>
> >> 
> >> That should be "... my wife and me ..."
> >> 
> >> </pedant>
> >
> >If you want to get pedantic, at least get it right.  He is correct with
> >"my wife and I" in this case.
> 
> Sorry, no, Tim's change was correct.
> 
> >The easiest way to remember is to remove the other person and see how it
> >sounds.  
> 
> Absolutely! I wish that more people would realize how easy that
> trick makes it to determine the correct word!
> 
> >You would not say "me get the point."  Rather, "I get the
> >point" is correct, thus so is "my wife and I get the point."
> 
> Indeed, if Burt's sentence had been, "My wife and I got the point,"
> then "I" would have been the correct first-person pronoun. But his
> sentence was, "The important thing was FOR [emphasis added] my wife
> and me to get the point." You wouldn't say, "The important thing
> was for I to get the point." At least, I hope you wouldn't. :-) :-)

Oops. I didn't read the initial sentence carefully enough.  you are
correct... :-)

-- 
- Burt Johnson
  MindStorm, Inc.
  http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 31 May 2009 13:51:27 -0400, Nick Naym
> <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >> If a church or whomever marries you then that's sufficient.
> >
> >Sufficient for _what_?
> 
> For everything.    As long as the state doesn't have requirements that
> only apply to "married" people (such as spousal benefits for social
> security), you can use your definition or your church's definition, or
> the definition of whatever organization marries you.  You're married.
> 
> And if I am taking care of my sick brother - let me choose *him* to be
> the beneficiary of my social security insurance.   Why should the
> state require that it be someone that fits its definition of
> "married"?

Because your approach would balloon the social security payments beyond
the current approach.  Suddenly _everyone_ would get SS because someone
would choose them.  As now, the benefits end with the death of the
person and spouse.

SS is already heading for bankruptcy and needs to be drastically cut
back.  Expanding it like that would be financially foolish in the
extreme.

-- 
- Burt Johnson
  MindStorm, Inc.
  http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 31 May 2009 13:53:56 -0400, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >> If a church or whomever marries you then that's sufficient.  Why
> >> should the state care what you do in your bedroom?
> >
> >  It should and (largely) doesn't in the bedroom. But the state has 
> >every reason to care about how gets benefits it bestows such as tax 
> >deductions, and how (intestate) estates are divvied up.
> 
> Why should I get a deduction for meeting the state's definition of
> married, while a bachelor or an unmarried couple don't get this
> special deduction?
> 
> We have unmarried people leaving estates all the time.   Should the
> state be in charge of making assumptions based upon its definition of
> married?    

Uhhh... Do you read the papers at all... or watch the news...?  You DO
know something of the financial problems of the government, right?  And
you want to introduce new loopholes that deepen the debt?  Wow...

I can see the point of spouse getting an estate tax free.  It was a team
that created the assets, and it would be rather cruel to make half that
team lose it just as they lose their partner.  Beyond that, it is hard
for me to understand anyone claiming ownership of something they did
nothing to earn.

I am not a lover of Big Government, but most people would agree that we
do need Some Government.  Do you want universal education?  Fire
protection?  Police protection?  Care for elderly and infirm?  On and
on, and choose your own favorites (people are screaming now because
state parks are being closed in California).  All that takes money.

In my mind, taking that money from dead people is better than taking it
from living people, so I support heavy estate taxes, but leaving it all
tax free to spouses.

Which brings us full circle to why the state has a hand in determining
who is "married."

-- 
- Burt Johnson
  MindStorm, Inc.
  http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

In article 1j0kxc8.1gz4v9g1tqwmnbN%burt@mindstorm-inc.com, Burt Johnson at
burt@mindstorm-inc.com wrote on 5/31/09 3:03 PM:

> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I was married to
>>> her first husband,
>> 
>> Now _that's_ weird...even for California. ;P
> 
> now that's what comes from not proof-reading what I write... even in
> California! :-)
> 
> Actually I blame that typo on my wife.


R-O-T-F-L-M-A-O ! ! ! !



> She is at her desk fretting over
> Photoshop and having me come over every few minutes to show her how to
> do something else.

Yada-yada-yada ;) ;)


> Seems I'm not as good at multi-tasking as I was 30
> years ago.

Remind me to tell you the story of the three old guys chatting about
their...errr..."elimination" problems at their weekly pinochle game.

-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.6)

In article <1j0kqxn.21dji0nn9scwN%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
 burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:

> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article 1j0k1eo.1id49wq1nefjcwN%nospam@see.signature, Richard Maine at
> > nospam@see.signature wrote on 5/31/09 3:41 AM:
> > 
> > > Burt Johnson <burt@mindstorm-inc.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > >> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> 
> > >>>> ...so we got my boss to marry us
> > > 
> > >>> Made more "adventurous" if your boss wasn't a Justice of the Peace (or
> > >>> equivalent).
> > >> 
> > >> He paid $10 for a Universal Life Minister license.
> 
> > 
> > Makes one wonder: "What's the point of it all?"
> 
> The point is largely to satisfy the state requirements to achevie the
> benefits of marriage -- improved death benefits, improved health
> insurance benefits, etc.
> 
> It also provides one extra sticking point to make breaking up just a
> little bit harder.  Instead of just saying "I'm moving out," you then
> have to go through a formal process.  Yes, I know that 50% of all
> weddings end in divorce, but how many cohabitats end up not living
> together for life?  I have no hard statistics, but I'll bet it that a
> much higher percentage of those break up.

My niece, on the point of giving birth, discovered that the baby's 
father would have no parental rights if she died (they weren't married 
at the time). So they went to a lawyer to set up some agreements, and 
after a time, he said: "I'm not trying to push anything on you, but why 
not just get married? That gives you exactly all the things you're 
trying to get without being married!"

So that's one reason for the state to set up the institution of 
marriage. Another is protection for the partners. Since there's no such 
thing in law as "common law wife", a woman can contribute for years to 
the mortgage in the man's name and, if they break up, have no rights to 
any of it.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

In article <1j0ksty.816uiyu0ldlwN%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
 burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:

> Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> wrote:
> > > That's exactly what I just described in the last half of that paragraph.
> > > If my description of the point makes you wonder what the point is,
> > > then... well, I guess that the important thing was for my wife and I to
> > > get the point.
> > 
> > <pedant>
> > 
> > That should be "... my wife and me ..."
> > 
> > </pedant>
> 
> If you want to get pedantic, at least get it right.  He is correct with
> "my wife and I" in this case.
> 
> The easiest way to remember is to remove the other person and see how it
> sounds.

Yes.

> You would not say "me get the point."  Rather, "I get the
> point" is correct, thus so is "my wife and I get the point."

No, because by removing "my wife" in the original, you are left with 
"... important thing was for I to get the point." which is clearly wrong.

In your mini-examples ("I get the point" and "my wife and I get the 
point."), the "I" is the verb's subject rather than its object, so 
obviously you use "I". After "for" in the original you use the object 
rather than subject form of the pronoun.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

In article <timstreater-1123AC.14382031052009@news.individual.net>,
 Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> wrote:

>  Eric Lindsay <NOwebmasterSPAM@ericlindsay.com> wrote:

> > 
> > What happens if you do not have a PIN? I always sign for card 
> > transactions, because anyone can use a PIN, but a signature needs to be 
> > forged.
> 
> You always sign *what* ??

In Australia for quite some time, most people signed a slip at the 
checkout to authorise credit card transactions. No machinery was needed 
(even if available) for paying via *credit* as distinct from the 
*savings account* via a card. Now, where the checkout has a machine to 
swipe the card, users have the option to use a PIN instead for credit 
too. Sounds much more secure to me. 

As a sideline to top up my income, I used to mug people and rob them of 
their cards. Now I have to go to the pesky extra trouble of torturing 
them to obtain their pin numbers. This development almost forced me out 
of business.

-- 
dorayme

In article <1j0krb6.1ulalt6jmxzw2N%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
 burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:

> Her mother has been in this country 63 years, and still does not speak a
> word of English.

Sad for the mother, but I am glad for you and your wife.  I'm pushing 18 
years with the WifeBeast (TM), and I always applaud those who are 
beating me at that game.

jt

In article starsabre-883630.18534131052009@inetnews.worldnet.att.net, jt
august at starsabre@sbcglobal.net wrote on 5/31/09 7:53 PM:

> In article <1j0krb6.1ulalt6jmxzw2N%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
>  burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:
> 
>> Her mother has been in this country 63 years, and still does not speak a
>> word of English.
> 
> Sad for the mother, but I am glad for you and your wife.  I'm pushing 18
> years with the WifeBeast (TM), and I always applaud those who are
> beating me at that game.
> 
> jt

"WifeBeast (TM)?" Oh yeah...with such an endearing pet name, I'm sure you'll
"win the game." ;>


-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.6)

Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

> People sign leases when they rent an apartment/house; sign loan agreements
> when thy buy a car; etc. Let them sign a "social contract" when they decide
> to cohabit. And keep it practical: without invoking the Supernatural, spell
> out the obligations and considerations, and include a well-defined exit
> clause.

they have that. They call it a Justice of the Peace.  Anyone can go down
to the local courthouse and get married that way.  All they do is sign a
contract.

So what is your objection?  (other than the requirement that they be
different sexes in most states -- that is a different question.  Valid
question but different...)

-- 
- Burt Johnson
  MindStorm, Inc.
  http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 31 May 2009 12:07:10 -0700, burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt
> Johnson) wrote:
> 
> >> And if I am taking care of my sick brother - let me choose *him* to be
> >> the beneficiary of my social security insurance.   Why should the
> >> state require that it be someone that fits its definition of
> >> "married"?
> >
> >Because your approach would balloon the social security payments beyond
> >the current approach.  Suddenly _everyone_ would get SS because someone
> >would choose them.  As now, the benefits end with the death of the
> >person and spouse.
> >
> >SS is already heading for bankruptcy and needs to be drastically cut
> >back.  Expanding it like that would be financially foolish in the
> >extreme.
> 
> It's insurance.  Treat it as insurance.  Don't give me benefits and
> deny someone else who's paying the same rates benefits - because he
> doesn't have a recognized spouse.    

Then you miss the point.  NO, IT IS NOT INSURANCE.  it was intended as a
last stop protection from living on the streets for old people who
worked their entire lives.  It is the government giving that fallback.

And remember, 65 was chosen as the age to start collecting because at
the time the expected lifespan of a male was 61 (women didn't work and
therefore would not collect when the bill was created).

You probably want COLA increases, right> Then you should be willing for
expected-lifespan adjustments too, which means it should be kciking in
now around age 90, since males now live an average of 85 years.

SS is an unsustainable program, and anyone with just a marginal math
ability and a couple hours with Google should be able to see that pretty
clearly.  We will soon have too few young people paying fo too many old
people, and SS taxes will have to go through the roof to keep it going.

There is no money being set aside with your money.  It is more like  a
ponzi scheme where the current payees' money is going to the current
retirees.  With the populatiion aging, it will collapse on itself before
too long.

And yes, I am one of those expecting to collect full benefits in just 7
years.  I don't expect SS will survive as long as I do. :-(

-- 
- Burt Johnson
  MindStorm, Inc.
  http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

In article 1j0lc5u.b61y8uorhmqfN%burt@mindstorm-inc.com, Burt Johnson at
burt@mindstorm-inc.com wrote on 5/31/09 8:25 PM:

> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> People sign leases when they rent an apartment/house; sign loan agreements
>> when thy buy a car; etc. Let them sign a "social contract" when they decide
>> to cohabit. And keep it practical: without invoking the Supernatural, spell
>> out the obligations and considerations, and include a well-defined exit
>> clause.
> 
> they have that. They call it a Justice of the Peace.  Anyone can go down
> to the local courthouse and get married that way.  All they do is sign a
> contract.

With the exception of the "exit clause."

 
> So what is your objection?  (other than the requirement that they be
> different sexes in most states -- that is a different question.  Valid
> question but different...)

Huh? I don't have an "objection" per se...I just have a problem with people
elevating "marriage" to an a unnecessary level of importance. I was simply
arguing for doing whatever really was "sufficient":

-----------

Brazee: 

>>> If a church or whomever marries you then that's sufficient.


Me:     

>> Sufficient for _what_?
 

Brazee: 

> For everything.


Me:

Or for _nothing_ (same thing, isn't it?)

There is no point to having an officially "condoned" marriage if
it serves no "need."

-----------

-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.6)

dorayme wrote:
> Is it harder to copy the sig that is on the back of a card than to 
> divine the secret pin number? I don't think so. And in any case, no one 
> checks sigs in shops. And who can blame a lone person serving in a 
> service station?

Instead of a signature, I wrote "PHOTO ID" on my card.
It's a joke.  Visa does not even require signature if
under $25, and even when more than that, 50% swipe
the card without looking at back or front.

The scary thing is that 25% look at the back and still
do not ask for ID.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Amigos Falsos
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=108

Nick Naym wrote:
> Remind me to tell you the story of the three old guys chatting about
> their...errr..."elimination" problems at their weekly pinochle game.

An "organ recital" like you hear from so many of us old folks?


-- 
Wes Groleau

    Nobody believes a theoretical analysis -- except the guy who did it.
    Everybody believes an experimental analysis -- except the guy who 
did it.
                                  -- Unknown

In article 1j0lboi.1b936o713khxaaN%burt@mindstorm-inc.com, Burt Johnson at
burt@mindstorm-inc.com wrote on 5/31/09 8:25 PM:

....
....
....

> It is more like  a
> ponzi scheme where the current payees' money is going to the current
> retirees.  With the populatiion aging, it will collapse on itself before
> too long.

It is not "like" a Ponzi scheme...it _is_ a Ponzi scheme, which, as a
stopgap program, made sense at the time (in the sense that folks needed
protection AND the projected old/young population ratio was small enough for
it to work for quite some time). But once in place and seemingly working, no
politician ever wanted to revisit it, for fear of touching the political
"third rail."

-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.6)

Burt Johnson wrote:
> Then you miss the point.  NO, IT IS NOT INSURANCE.  it was intended as a
> last stop protection from living on the streets for old people who
> worked their entire lives.  It is the government giving that fallback.

Let's be accurate.  It is the government forcing the young folks
to give that fallback.  Sometimes I think the best thing for the
long run would be to let it collapse.  If non-government charities
failed to step in quickly enough, one generation would indeed have
a hard time, but ....  Other times, I remember _I_ am in that generation.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Miss Universe had “lots of fun” in Guantanamo
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1537

In article e9GUl.1824$Cc1.1499@nwrddc01.gnilink.net, Wes Groleau at
groleau+news@freeshell.org wrote on 5/31/09 9:28 PM:

> Nick Naym wrote:
>> Remind me to tell you the story of the three old guys chatting about
>> their...errr..."elimination" problems at their weekly pinochle game.
> 
> An "organ recital" like you hear from so many of us old folks?
> 

Quite likely. ;)


-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.6)

In article <1j0kxa0.hsou7i1xkqbvpN%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
Burt Johnson <do-not-email@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> wrote:

[extraneous quotage removed]

>> Indeed, if Burt's sentence had been, "My wife and I got the point,"
>> then "I" would have been the correct first-person pronoun. But his
>> sentence was, "The important thing was FOR [emphasis added] my wife
>> and me to get the point." You wouldn't say, "The important thing
>> was for I to get the point." At least, I hope you wouldn't. :-) :-)
>
>Oops. I didn't read the initial sentence carefully enough.  you are
>correct... :-)

Not about who said it, though. :-) I got lost in the attributions;
it was actually "Richard's sentence." 

At least I was correct in referring to your marriage in the subsequent 
paragraph. :-)


Patty

In article <doraymeRidThis-0E2C8F.08451501062009@news.albasani.net>,
 dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> 
> In Australia for quite some time, most people signed a slip at the 
> checkout to authorise credit card transactions. No machinery was needed 
> (even if available) for paying via *credit* as distinct from the 
> *savings account* via a card. Now, where the checkout has a machine to 
> swipe the card, users have the option to use a PIN instead for credit 
> too. Sounds much more secure to me. 

It's annoying, but true. Annoying simply because it's another number to 
remember. I record my pin(s) as some of the digits of a phone number in 
my wallet (not necessarily the last 4 digits). 

Some people in North America would not put a signature on the back of 
their credit cards, they'd write "ask for ID" which of course nobody 
ever did, and the credit card companies really really don't like this 
for some reason. (Not one of my idiot-synchros, though).
-- 
Suddenly he realized that he was alone 
with a giant halfwit on a dark deserted street.
  -- Chester Himes

Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> Nick Naym wrote:
> > Remind me to tell you the story of the three old guys chatting about
> > their...errr..."elimination" problems at their weekly pinochle game.
> 
> An "organ recital" like you hear from so many of us old folks?

Right before I was married, I bought a small organ (the musical kind)
for our living room. At a family dinner not long afterwards, my
fiancee's youngest sister, who was about 9 or 10 at the time, brought
the room to silence by loudly announcing that she thought her sister was
just marrying me for my organ. :-)

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

In article <C64897A6.3C955%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
 Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

> In article starsabre-883630.18534131052009@inetnews.worldnet.att.net, jt
> august at starsabre@sbcglobal.net wrote on 5/31/09 7:53 PM:
> 
> > In article <1j0krb6.1ulalt6jmxzw2N%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
> >  burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:
> > 
> >> Her mother has been in this country 63 years, and still does not speak a
> >> word of English.
> > 
> > Sad for the mother, but I am glad for you and your wife.  I'm pushing 18
> > years with the WifeBeast (TM), and I always applaud those who are
> > beating me at that game.
> > 
> > jt
> 
> "WifeBeast (TM)?" Oh yeah...with such an endearing pet name, I'm sure you'll
> "win the game." ;>

OK, here's the history on that nickname.  We had been married for less 
than a week back in 91.  We were watching Disney's Beauty and the Beast, 
when Jean turned to me and said, "I love this movie.  It reminds me of 
us."

I looked at her and said, "Yeah, and I'm the beauty."

With a huff, she retorted, "And what does that make me?  The Wife Beast?"

The name stuck, and I have used that in reference to her since.

AND, if you think that she is put off by it, e-mail her at:

mailto:wifebeast@sbcglobal.net

It's been her e-mail addy for over 8 years now.

jt

In article 1j0lhdu.2tq5q0w6fljoN%nospam@see.signature, Richard Maine at
nospam@see.signature wrote on 5/31/09 10:17 PM:

> Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> 
>> Nick Naym wrote:
>>> Remind me to tell you the story of the three old guys chatting about
>>> their...errr..."elimination" problems at their weekly pinochle game.
>> 
>> An "organ recital" like you hear from so many of us old folks?
> 
> Right before I was married, I bought a small organ (the musical kind)
> for our living room. At a family dinner not long afterwards, my
> fiancee's youngest sister, who was about 9 or 10 at the time, brought
> the room to silence by loudly announcing that she thought her sister was
> just marrying me for my organ. :-)


"Out of the mouths of babes?" <ROTFLOL> That is indeed a "gem."

Have you ever reminded her of the incident?


-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.6)

Nick Naym wrote:
> "Out of the mouths of babes?" <ROTFLOL> That is indeed a "gem."

  "Mommy, why are some of your hairs white?"

  "Well, sweetie, every time you are naughty, one of them turns white."

  "Poor Grandma!  You must have been really awful."

-- 
Wes Groleau

Always listen to experts.  They'll tell you
what can't be done and why.  Then do it.
                     -- Robert A. Heinlein

jt august wrote:
> AND, if you think that she is put off by it, e-mail her at:
> 
> mailto:[deleted to protect the innocent]

You must really love her to try to make sure she
doesn't miss out on any spam.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Methods meddling by amateurs
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=889

In article <0053508e$0$26615$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <doraymeRidThis-0E2C8F.08451501062009@news.albasani.net>,
>  dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > In Australia for quite some time, most people signed a slip at the 
> > checkout to authorise credit card transactions. No machinery was needed 
> > (even if available) for paying via *credit* as distinct from the 
> > *savings account* via a card. Now, where the checkout has a machine to 
> > swipe the card, users have the option to use a PIN instead for credit 
> > too. Sounds much more secure to me. 
> 
> It's annoying, but true. Annoying simply because it's another number to 
> remember. I record my pin(s) as some of the digits of a phone number in 
> my wallet (not necessarily the last 4 digits). 

Well, many people here have a "credit" card (VISA is on the front and 
like that) that is linked to other accounts they have, cheque, 
savings... and the card can be used for EFPOS paying thru your savings, 
machine (wall mounted) banking (including depositing). So you have to 
have a number, it is not some extra nuisance. 

But I suppose you are talking a pure credit card that is in addition to 
other cards you have? Look, why don't you send me all your bank details 
passwords etc so we can sort all this out. Your signature too please, a 
good JPG will do, no need for fancy pants TIFFs. Or better still, just 
for analysis mind you, if you could get your hands on Big Tipping Burt's 
card and details.

> 
> Some people in North America would not put a signature on the back of 
> their credit cards, they'd write "ask for ID" which of course nobody 
> ever did, and the credit card companies really really don't like this 
> for some reason. (Not one of my idiot-synchros, though).

I have always felt dumbfounded signing my cards! Perhaps the reason is 
more than that it helps the shopkeeper see if you sign the same way 
(duh!) and is more for legal reasons later if the handwriting expert 
hired by the bank's lawyers say it is a genuine sig and that you must be 
a crook... or to be able to prosecute the forger?

-- 
dorayme

In article starsabre-2D916E.21260831052009@inetnews.worldnet.att.net, jt
august at starsabre@sbcglobal.net wrote on 5/31/09 10:26 PM:

> In article <C64897A6.3C955%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
>  Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article starsabre-883630.18534131052009@inetnews.worldnet.att.net, jt
>> august at starsabre@sbcglobal.net wrote on 5/31/09 7:53 PM:
>> 
>>> In article <1j0krb6.1ulalt6jmxzw2N%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
>>>  burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Her mother has been in this country 63 years, and still does not speak a
>>>> word of English.
>>> 
>>> Sad for the mother, but I am glad for you and your wife.  I'm pushing 18
>>> years with the WifeBeast (TM), and I always applaud those who are
>>> beating me at that game.
>>> 
>>> jt
>> 
>> "WifeBeast (TM)?" Oh yeah...with such an endearing pet name, I'm sure you'll
>> "win the game." ;>
> 
> OK, here's the history on that nickname.  We had been married for less
> than a week back in 91.  We were watching Disney's Beauty and the Beast,
> when Jean turned to me and said, "I love this movie.  It reminds me of
> us."
> 
> I looked at her and said, "Yeah, and I'm the beauty."
> 
> With a huff, she retorted, "And what does that make me?  The Wife Beast?"
> 
> The name stuck, and I have used that in reference to her since.
> 
> AND, if you think that she is put off by it, e-mail her at:
> 
> mailto:wifebeast@sbcglobal.net
> 
> It's been her e-mail addy for over 8 years now.
> 
> jt

1. A humorous, yet touchingly sweet story. :)
2. I wet my pants. :O
3. I shall _not_ be e-mailing your lovely beastly wife. ;)
4. Why have you put her at risk for receiving spam? :(



-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.6)

jt august <starsabre@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> In article <C64897A6.3C955%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
>  Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article starsabre-883630.18534131052009@inetnews.worldnet.att.net, jt
> > august at starsabre@sbcglobal.net wrote on 5/31/09 7:53 PM:
> > 
> > > In article <1j0krb6.1ulalt6jmxzw2N%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
> > >  burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:
> > > 
> > >> Her mother has been in this country 63 years, and still does not speak a
> > >> word of English.
> > > 
> > > Sad for the mother, but I am glad for you and your wife.  I'm pushing 18
> > > years with the WifeBeast (TM), and I always applaud those who are
> > > beating me at that game.
> > > 
> > > jt
> > 
> > "WifeBeast (TM)?" Oh yeah...with such an endearing pet name, I'm sure you'll
> > "win the game." ;>
> 
> OK, here's the history on that nickname.  We had been married for less
> than a week back in 91.  We were watching Disney's Beauty and the Beast,
> when Jean turned to me and said, "I love this movie.  It reminds me of
> us."
> 
> I looked at her and said, "Yeah, and I'm the beauty."
> 
> With a huff, she retorted, "And what does that make me?  The Wife Beast?"
> 
> The name stuck, and I have used that in reference to her since.
> 
> AND, if you think that she is put off by it, e-mail her at:
> 
> mailto:wifebeast@sbcglobal.net
> 
> It's been her e-mail addy for over 8 years now.
> 
> jt

*laughs* Reminds me somewhat of my girlfriend and myself - her family
always called her Monkey (there have been a few generations of Monkeys
in her family, starting with her great-grandfather who acted like a
monkey to make his kids laugh), which I immediately took a liking to and
quickly adapted it - MonkeyGirl, MonkeyBabe, and so on.

Anyway at first my Monkey had a low opinion of me and called me Stupid
Baboon :-D Later when she warmed up to me she shortened that to Baboon,
and it stuck.

So we're Monkey and Baboon together :-)
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

> In article starsabre-2D916E.21260831052009@inetnews.worldnet.att.net, jt
> august at starsabre@sbcglobal.net wrote on 5/31/09 10:26 PM:
> 
> > In article <C64897A6.3C955%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
> >  Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> In article starsabre-883630.18534131052009@inetnews.worldnet.att.net, jt
> >> august at starsabre@sbcglobal.net wrote on 5/31/09 7:53 PM:
> >> 
> >>> In article <1j0krb6.1ulalt6jmxzw2N%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
> >>>  burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> Her mother has been in this country 63 years, and still does not speak a
> >>>> word of English.
> >>> 
> >>> Sad for the mother, but I am glad for you and your wife.  I'm pushing 18
> >>> years with the WifeBeast (TM), and I always applaud those who are
> >>> beating me at that game.
> >>> 
> >>> jt
> >> 
> >> "WifeBeast (TM)?" Oh yeah...with such an endearing pet name, I'm sure
> >> "you'll win the game." ;>
> > 
> > OK, here's the history on that nickname.  We had been married for less
> > than a week back in 91.  We were watching Disney's Beauty and the Beast,
> > when Jean turned to me and said, "I love this movie.  It reminds me of
> > us."
> > 
> > I looked at her and said, "Yeah, and I'm the beauty."
> > 
> > With a huff, she retorted, "And what does that make me?  The Wife Beast?"
> > 
> > The name stuck, and I have used that in reference to her since.
> > 
> > AND, if you think that she is put off by it, e-mail her at:
> > 
> > mailto:wifebeast@sbcglobal.net
> > 
> > It's been her e-mail addy for over 8 years now.
> > 
> > jt
> 
> 1. A humorous, yet touchingly sweet story. :)
> 2. I wet my pants. :O
> 3. I shall _not_ be e-mailing your lovely beastly wife. ;)
> 4. Why have you put her at risk for receiving spam? :(

Probably they both have a similar level of spam filtering to mine which
results in very few false negatives (and hardly ever any false
positives). Who's afraid of the big bad spammer? Not I! :-) My email
address above is valid and has been for years.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

In article 1j0n2r6.sdd89112qby76N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz, Jamie Kahn
Genet at jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz wrote on 6/1/09 12:01 AM:

....
....

> 
> *laughs* Reminds me somewhat of my girlfriend and myself - her family
> always called her Monkey (there have been a few generations of Monkeys
> in her family, starting with her great-grandfather who acted like a
> monkey to make his kids laugh), which I immediately took a liking to and
> quickly adapted it - MonkeyGirl, MonkeyBabe, and so on.
> 
> Anyway at first my Monkey had a low opinion of me and called me Stupid
> Baboon :-D Later when she warmed up to me she shortened that to Baboon,
> and it stuck.
> 
> So we're Monkey and Baboon together :-)

A bottle of wine, a loaf of bread, and...a bunch of bananas? (Ah! Simian
love...how touching. ;P )


-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.6)

In article 1j0n36v.5xy8611iswcucN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz, Jamie Kahn
Genet at jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz wrote on 6/1/09 12:06 AM:

> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article starsabre-2D916E.21260831052009@inetnews.worldnet.att.net, jt
>> august at starsabre@sbcglobal.net wrote on 5/31/09 10:26 PM:
>> 
>>> In article <C64897A6.3C955%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
>>>  Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In article starsabre-883630.18534131052009@inetnews.worldnet.att.net, jt
>>>> august at starsabre@sbcglobal.net wrote on 5/31/09 7:53 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> In article <1j0krb6.1ulalt6jmxzw2N%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
>>>>>  burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Her mother has been in this country 63 years, and still does not speak a
>>>>>> word of English.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sad for the mother, but I am glad for you and your wife.  I'm pushing 18
>>>>> years with the WifeBeast (TM), and I always applaud those who are
>>>>> beating me at that game.
>>>>> 
>>>>> jt
>>>> 
>>>> "WifeBeast (TM)?" Oh yeah...with such an endearing pet name, I'm sure
>>>> "you'll win the game." ;>
>>> 
>>> OK, here's the history on that nickname.  We had been married for less
>>> than a week back in 91.  We were watching Disney's Beauty and the Beast,
>>> when Jean turned to me and said, "I love this movie.  It reminds me of
>>> us."
>>> 
>>> I looked at her and said, "Yeah, and I'm the beauty."
>>> 
>>> With a huff, she retorted, "And what does that make me?  The Wife Beast?"
>>> 
>>> The name stuck, and I have used that in reference to her since.
>>> 
>>> AND, if you think that she is put off by it, e-mail her at:
>>> 
>>> mailto:wifebeast@sbcglobal.net
>>> 
>>> It's been her e-mail addy for over 8 years now.
>>> 
>>> jt
>> 
>> 1. A humorous, yet touchingly sweet story. :)
>> 2. I wet my pants. :O
>> 3. I shall _not_ be e-mailing your lovely beastly wife. ;)
>> 4. Why have you put her at risk for receiving spam? :(
> 
> Probably they both have a similar level of spam filtering to mine which
> results in very few false negatives (and hardly ever any false
> positives). Who's afraid of the big bad spammer? Not I! :-) My email
> address above is valid and has been for years.

No spammer would dare "monkey" with you, eh? ;)


-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.6)

Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

> In article 1j0n36v.5xy8611iswcucN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz, Jamie Kahn
> Genet at jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz wrote on 6/1/09 12:06 AM:
> 
> > Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> In article starsabre-2D916E.21260831052009@inetnews.worldnet.att.net, jt
> >> august at starsabre@sbcglobal.net wrote on 5/31/09 10:26 PM:
> >> 
> >>> In article <C64897A6.3C955%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
> >>>  Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> In article starsabre-883630.18534131052009@inetnews.worldnet.att.net, jt
> >>>> august at starsabre@sbcglobal.net wrote on 5/31/09 7:53 PM:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> In article <1j0krb6.1ulalt6jmxzw2N%burt@mindstorm-inc.com>,
> >>>>>  burt@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Her mother has been in this country 63 years, and still does not
> >>>>>> speak a word of English.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Sad for the mother, but I am glad for you and your wife.  I'm pushing 18
> >>>>> years with the WifeBeast (TM), and I always applaud those who are
> >>>>> beating me at that game.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> jt
> >>>> 
> >>>> "WifeBeast (TM)?" Oh yeah...with such an endearing pet name, I'm sure
> >>>> "you'll win the game." ;>
> >>> 
> >>> OK, here's the history on that nickname.  We had been married for less
> >>> than a week back in 91.  We were watching Disney's Beauty and the Beast,
> >>> when Jean turned to me and said, "I love this movie.  It reminds me of
> >>> us."
> >>> 
> >>> I looked at her and said, "Yeah, and I'm the beauty."
> >>> 
> >>> With a huff, she retorted, "And what does that make me?  The Wife Beast?"
> >>> 
> >>> The name stuck, and I have used that in reference to her since.
> >>> 
> >>> AND, if you think that she is put off by it, e-mail her at:
> >>> 
> >>> mailto:wifebeast@sbcglobal.net
> >>> 
> >>> It's been her e-mail addy for over 8 years now.
> >>> 
> >>> jt
> >> 
> >> 1. A humorous, yet touchingly sweet story. :)
> >> 2. I wet my pants. :O
> >> 3. I shall _not_ be e-mailing your lovely beastly wife. ;)
> >> 4. Why have you put her at risk for receiving spam? :(
> > 
> > Probably they both have a similar level of spam filtering to mine which
> > results in very few false negatives (and hardly ever any false
> > positives). Who's afraid of the big bad spammer? Not I! :-) My email
> > address above is valid and has been for years.
> 
> No spammer would dare "monkey" with you, eh? ;)

Darn straight - or I'll set my Monkey on them - MONKEYRAGE!!!
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

> In article 1j0n2r6.sdd89112qby76N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz, Jamie Kahn
> Genet at jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz wrote on 6/1/09 12:01 AM:
> 
> ...
> ...
> 
> > 
> > *laughs* Reminds me somewhat of my girlfriend and myself - her family
> > always called her Monkey (there have been a few generations of Monkeys
> > in her family, starting with her great-grandfather who acted like a
> > monkey to make his kids laugh), which I immediately took a liking to and
> > quickly adapted it - MonkeyGirl, MonkeyBabe, and so on.
> > 
> > Anyway at first my Monkey had a low opinion of me and called me Stupid
> > Baboon :-D Later when she warmed up to me she shortened that to Baboon,
> > and it stuck.
> > 
> > So we're Monkey and Baboon together :-)
> 
> A bottle of wine, a loaf of bread, and...a bunch of bananas? (Ah! Simian
> love...how touching. ;P )

Funnily enough she doesn't like the taste of Bananas :-D Me - I love a
banana thickshake!
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

In article <doraymeRidThis-0E2C8F.08451501062009@news.albasani.net>,
 dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article <timstreater-1123AC.14382031052009@news.individual.net>,
>  Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> wrote:
> 
> >  Eric Lindsay <NOwebmasterSPAM@ericlindsay.com> wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > > What happens if you do not have a PIN? I always sign for card 
> > > transactions, because anyone can use a PIN, but a signature needs to be 
> > > forged.
> > 
> > You always sign *what* ??
> 
> In Australia for quite some time, most people signed a slip at the 
> checkout to authorise credit card transactions. No machinery was needed 
> (even if available) for paying via *credit* as distinct from the 
> *savings account* via a card. Now, where the checkout has a machine to 
> swipe the card, users have the option to use a PIN instead for credit 
> too. Sounds much more secure to me. 

It's the *only* option here. I haven't signed a credit card slip for 
several years now.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

jt august <starsabre@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> OK, here's the history on that nickname.  We had been married for less
> than a week back in 91.  We were watching Disney's Beauty and the Beast,
> when Jean turned to me and said, "I love this movie.  It reminds me of
> us."
> 
> I looked at her and said, "Yeah, and I'm the beauty."
> 
> With a huff, she retorted, "And what does that make me?  The Wife Beast?"
> 
> The name stuck, and I have used that in reference to her since.

LOL ! :-)

Shortly after we were married, we visited New York and went to Broadway
musical.  We chose The Man of Lamancha, and had 3rd row seats (we have
since learned that around row 10 is actually better)

Coming out of the play, I referred to my wife as "my lady" (you have to
know the play or movie to understand the reference), and the nickname
has stuck ever since.

For 35 years since that play, she has been "My Lady" 

Kinda wish we had seen Beauty and Beast first though, given your
story.... :-)

-- 
- Burt Johnson
  MindStorm, Inc.
  http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

In article <doraymeRidThis-D560E4.20105331052009@news.albasani.net>,
 dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article 
> <NOwebmasterSPAM-20E745.19474931052009@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.a
> u>,
>  Eric Lindsay <NOwebmasterSPAM@ericlindsay.com> wrote:
> 
> > I always sign for card 
> > transactions, because anyone can use a PIN, but a signature needs to be 
> > forged.
> 
> Is it harder to copy the sig that is on the back of a card than to 
> divine the secret pin number? I don't think so. And in any case, no one 
> checks sigs in shops. And who can blame a lone person serving in a 
> service station?

Good forgers are in relatively scarce supply. This means a charge made 
to a credit card can be easily challenged if a signature is involved. If 
your card statements do not match your own records, then you dispute the 
transaction. the bank will need to produce the charge slip. If the 
signature is not yours, you have a good case. I do not expect shops to 
always get it right. I am interested in being able to challenge before 
my account is charged. That is why I use credit cards instead of debit 
cards. I am playing with the bank's money, not with mine.

If the card issuers stop allowing signatures, I will stop using cards. 
Sounds like a great deal for small business. Driving customers away. And 
I will want a discount for paying cash.

-- 
http://www.ericlindsay.com

In article 
<NOwebmasterSPAM-2ACB58.20140901062009@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.a
u>,
 Eric Lindsay <NOwebmasterSPAM@ericlindsay.com> wrote:

> In article <doraymeRidThis-D560E4.20105331052009@news.albasani.net>,
>  dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> > In article 
> > <NOwebmasterSPAM-20E745.19474931052009@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.a
> > u>,
> >  Eric Lindsay <NOwebmasterSPAM@ericlindsay.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > I always sign for card 
> > > transactions, because anyone can use a PIN, but a signature needs to be 
> > > forged.
> > 
> > Is it harder to copy the sig that is on the back of a card than to 
> > divine the secret pin number? I don't think so. And in any case, no one 
> > checks sigs in shops. And who can blame a lone person serving in a 
> > service station?
> 
> Good forgers are in relatively scarce supply. This means a charge made 
> to a credit card can be easily challenged if a signature is involved. If 
> your card statements do not match your own records, then you dispute the 
> transaction. the bank will need to produce the charge slip. If the 
> signature is not yours, you have a good case. I do not expect shops to 
> always get it right. I am interested in being able to challenge before 
> my account is charged. That is why I use credit cards instead of debit 
> cards. I am playing with the bank's money, not with mine.
> 
> If the card issuers stop allowing signatures, I will stop using cards. 
> Sounds like a great deal for small business. Driving customers away. And 
> I will want a discount for paying cash.

Fair enough in a way. But does it not come down to the chances of 
someone being able to get your card (or a copy) and have the right PIN 
as against someone being able to forge a sig well enough to cause 
trouble? I have personally had money stolen with a forged sig and the 
thief was convicted but the bank claimed the forgery was so good as to 
free them of liability. I was in court when the signature was passed 
around to everyone but me. I never really understood why?

I had to sign a doc saying I understood that the bank did not actually 
*have* to refund my money. It was humiliating but I was young and 
sensible and needed my money more than pride. Now I value other things 
more than money. 

But I still want to get my hands on Burt's Billions. I have a secret 
plan to dress up as his hairdresser. <g>

-- 
dorayme

In article <C648A351.3C963%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
 Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

> In article 1j0lc5u.b61y8uorhmqfN%burt@mindstorm-inc.com, Burt Johnson at
> burt@mindstorm-inc.com wrote on 5/31/09 8:25 PM:
> 
> > Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> People sign leases when they rent an apartment/house; sign loan agreements
> >> when thy buy a car; etc. Let them sign a "social contract" when they decide
> >> to cohabit. And keep it practical: without invoking the Supernatural, spell
> >> out the obligations and considerations, and include a well-defined exit
> >> clause.
> > 
> > they have that. They call it a Justice of the Peace.  Anyone can go down
> > to the local courthouse and get married that way.  All they do is sign a
> > contract.
> 
> With the exception of the "exit clause."
> 
    I could argue that the exit clause is written in the divorce 
statutes. I would also suggest the exit methods from other types of 
contracts are often found outside the original agreement. Marriage, in 
this manner, isn't really all that different from other forms of 
contractural law.

-- 
 The inevitable Godwinization of Usenet threads is a principle
as immutable as Newton's Third Law meaning that, for every action 
there is an equally disproportionate overreaction.

In article <C648A713.3C965%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
 Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

>
> It is not "like" a Ponzi scheme...it _is_ a Ponzi scheme, 
     I think likening SS to a Ponzi scheme is an insult to Ponzi. At 
least he only fleeced willing participants.  Ponzi never sent around 
guys with guns or emptied bank accounts to enforce participation.

-- 
 The inevitable Godwinization of Usenet threads is a principle
as immutable as Newton's Third Law meaning that, for every action 
there is an equally disproportionate overreaction.

In article <weGUl.1826$Cc1.885@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
 Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> Let's be accurate.  It is the government forcing the young folks
> to give that fallback.  Sometimes I think the best thing for the
> long run would be to let it collapse.  If non-government charities
> failed to step in quickly enough, one generation would indeed have
> a hard time, but ....  Other times, I remember _I_ am in that generation.

  Of course with the way things are going, you will be a member of that 
generation anyway. At least with some warning, some might be able to 
prepare a little.

-- 
 The inevitable Godwinization of Usenet threads is a principle
as immutable as Newton's Third Law meaning that, for every action 
there is an equally disproportionate overreaction.

In article 
<kurtullman-68BE91.08315601062009@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
 Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <weGUl.1826$Cc1.885@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
>  Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> 
> > Let's be accurate.  It is the government forcing the young folks
> > to give that fallback.  Sometimes I think the best thing for the
> > long run would be to let it collapse.  If non-government charities
> > failed to step in quickly enough, one generation would indeed have
> > a hard time, but ....  Other times, I remember _I_ am in that generation.
> 
>   Of course with the way things are going, you will be a member of that 
> generation anyway. At least with some warning, some might be able to 
> prepare a little.

It is hard for the younger crowd to make good investments these days to 
prepare themselves for their future.  Where do you invest that is 
reasonably safe and yet has a return greater than inflation?

It sure isn't the stock or bond market.

In article <lloydparsons-35A4FD.09104101062009@news.individual.net>,
 Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:

> In art
> It is hard for the younger crowd to make good investments these days to 
> prepare themselves for their future.  Where do you invest that is 
> reasonably safe and yet has a return greater than inflation?
> 
> It sure isn't the stock or bond market.

  Of course it is. You aren't talking tomorrow for the younger set but 
30 or more years out. There has never been a 20 year period since the 
end of WWII, even the Dow 30 (hardly what one would call a properly 
diversified portfolio) where it did not make at least 8% compounded over 
the period (including 1988-2008 at the trough of the current brouhaha). 
Although the big leg up for kids is the compounding of interest over the 
course of 30-40 years. That is where I lost out on my own stuff.
      Even after this debacle, I still have over 5 times more in IRA 
than I put in in cash. About the only suggestions I have to my kids is 
to maybe diversify to a greater extent outside the US and look for 
dividend paying stocks or mutual funds for their IRAs (you don't lose 
already paid dividends if the stock tanks). It is both wealth 
preservation and the best way to take advantage of compounding of 
interest thingy.

-- 
 The inevitable Godwinization of Usenet threads is a principle
as immutable as Newton's Third Law meaning that, for every action 
there is an equally disproportionate overreaction.

In article 
<kurtullman-346462.10221901062009@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
 Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <lloydparsons-35A4FD.09104101062009@news.individual.net>,
>  Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> 
> > In art
> > It is hard for the younger crowd to make good investments these days to 
> > prepare themselves for their future.  Where do you invest that is 
> > reasonably safe and yet has a return greater than inflation?
> > 
> > It sure isn't the stock or bond market.
> 
>   Of course it is. You aren't talking tomorrow for the younger set but 
> 30 or more years out. There has never been a 20 year period since the 
> end of WWII, even the Dow 30 (hardly what one would call a properly 
> diversified portfolio) where it did not make at least 8% compounded over 
> the period (including 1988-2008 at the trough of the current brouhaha). 
> Although the big leg up for kids is the compounding of interest over the 
> course of 30-40 years. That is where I lost out on my own stuff.
>       Even after this debacle, I still have over 5 times more in IRA 
> than I put in in cash. About the only suggestions I have to my kids is 
> to maybe diversify to a greater extent outside the US and look for 
> dividend paying stocks or mutual funds for their IRAs (you don't lose 
> already paid dividends if the stock tanks). It is both wealth 
> preservation and the best way to take advantage of compounding of 
> interest thingy.

I guess we'll disagree then.  If I were younger right now, I wouldn't be 
touching the stock or bond market right now.  I don't think we are 
anywhere near the bottom of it yet.  And really, until the SEC or gov't 
does some more about the crap table that is wall street, it isn't going 
to get better, imo.

As to your advice for your kids, that seems like good advice to me.  I 
would add a caveat which is wait a bit before jumping in.  Time 
certainly works on favor of the younger set in this, but there is no 
good reason to take a lot of lumps at the start.  I would say that right 
now, extremely low-risk, low-paying investments are a smarter choice.  
They wouldn't protect for inflation, but you also wouldn't have the 
chance of losing your shirt.  

For me, being of a certain age, it is all about protecting the capital 
and getting something out of it.  I don't have enough time left on the 
face of this world to ride out the wild fluctuations that are coming.

In article <lloydparsons-35A4FD.09104101062009@news.individual.net>,
 Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:

> In article 
> <kurtullman-68BE91.08315601062009@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
>  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <weGUl.1826$Cc1.885@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
> >  Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Let's be accurate.  It is the government forcing the young folks
> > > to give that fallback.  Sometimes I think the best thing for the
> > > long run would be to let it collapse.  If non-government charities
> > > failed to step in quickly enough, one generation would indeed have
> > > a hard time, but ....  Other times, I remember _I_ am in that generation.
> > 
> >   Of course with the way things are going, you will be a member of that 
> > generation anyway. At least with some warning, some might be able to 
> > prepare a little.
> 
> It is hard for the younger crowd to make good investments these days to 
> prepare themselves for their future.  Where do you invest that is 
> reasonably safe and yet has a return greater than inflation?
> 
> It sure isn't the stock or bond market.

....AAPL seems to be a terrific investment...

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

Jolly Roger wrote:
> In article <lloydparsons-35A4FD.09104101062009@news.individual.net>,
>  Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article 
>> <kurtullman-68BE91.08315601062009@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
>>  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <weGUl.1826$Cc1.885@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
>>>  Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let's be accurate.  It is the government forcing the young folks
>>>> to give that fallback.  Sometimes I think the best thing for the
>>>> long run would be to let it collapse.  If non-government charities
>>>> failed to step in quickly enough, one generation would indeed have
>>>> a hard time, but ....  Other times, I remember _I_ am in that generation.
>>>   Of course with the way things are going, you will be a member of that 
>>> generation anyway. At least with some warning, some might be able to 
>>> prepare a little.
>> It is hard for the younger crowd to make good investments these days to 
>> prepare themselves for their future.  Where do you invest that is 
>> reasonably safe and yet has a return greater than inflation?
>>
>> It sure isn't the stock or bond market.
> 
> ....AAPL seems to be a terrific investment...
> 


Not really. If you bought it at its high, @$180 and sold at its low, 
@$80, you lost over half your money. Today you would still be at @ 30% 
loss. About 1990 a tech stock expert recommended Apple, Microsoft, and 
Intel. By 2000 Microsoft and Intel yielded spectacular returns, while 
Apple was still in the doldrums. Only the last few years have been good 
for Apple. It is too risky a stock for long-term investment. It is 
dangerously tied to Steve Jobs's state of health. His successor may or 
may not be as creative and market-savvy. Remember Gilbert Damelio?


Back in the 1960's there was a list of fashionably promising growth 
stocks called the "Nifty Fifty." Only one of them is still traded. You 
can make decent returns from conservative investments over a 
sufficiently long period of time, but today's difficulties show that 
there is considerable risk for someone who needs to cash out in a bad 
market period.


-- 
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>    ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>   ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/    ||
||    Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso  ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++

In article <lloydparsons-9C5331.09293201062009@news.individual.net>,
 Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:

>
> good reason to take a lot of lumps at the start.  I would say that right 
> now, extremely low-risk, low-paying investments are a smarter choice.  
> They wouldn't protect for inflation, but you also wouldn't have the 
> chance of losing your shirt.  
> 

  You can lose your shirt from inflation. Just look at those who were in 
safe investments like CDs, etc. in the late 70s and early 80s. In 
purchasing power, they probably had as bad an impact as the recent 
brouhaha. It was just better hidden. The chances of major inflation are 
pretty good. 

> For me, being of a certain age, it is all about protecting the capital 
> and getting something out of it.  I don't have enough time left on the 
> face of this world to ride out the wild fluctuations that are coming.
 I am moving a little more than before to protecting of capital. But at 
55, the acturarial tables (and my own lineage) suggest I have another 
25-30 years to hang around. We have the added risk of running out of 
money before we run out of life.

-- 
 The inevitable Godwinization of Usenet threads is a principle
as immutable as Newton's Third Law meaning that, for every action 
there is an equally disproportionate overreaction.

In article <h00r4f$3dd$1@news.albasani.net>,
 AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
> > In article <lloydparsons-35A4FD.09104101062009@news.individual.net>,
> >  Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> In article 
> >> <kurtullman-68BE91.08315601062009@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> >>  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <weGUl.1826$Cc1.885@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
> >>>  Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Let's be accurate.  It is the government forcing the young folks
> >>>> to give that fallback.  Sometimes I think the best thing for the
> >>>> long run would be to let it collapse.  If non-government charities
> >>>> failed to step in quickly enough, one generation would indeed have
> >>>> a hard time, but ....  Other times, I remember _I_ am in that generation.
> >>>   Of course with the way things are going, you will be a member of that 
> >>> generation anyway. At least with some warning, some might be able to 
> >>> prepare a little.
> >> It is hard for the younger crowd to make good investments these days to 
> >> prepare themselves for their future.  Where do you invest that is 
> >> reasonably safe and yet has a return greater than inflation?
> >>
> >> It sure isn't the stock or bond market.
> > 
> > ....AAPL seems to be a terrific investment...
> 
> Not really. 

Yes, really. I'm making money with mine.

> If you bought it at its high, @$180 and sold at its low, 
> @$80, you lost over half your money. Today you would still be at @ 30% 
> loss. 

....and if you were stupid enough to do that, you deserve to reap the 
results...

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

Jolly Roger wrote:
> In article <h00r4f$3dd$1@news.albasani.net>,
>  AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>> Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> In article <lloydparsons-35A4FD.09104101062009@news.individual.net>,
>>>  Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article 
>>>> <kurtullman-68BE91.08315601062009@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
>>>>  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <weGUl.1826$Cc1.885@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
>>>>>  Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's be accurate.  It is the government forcing the young folks
>>>>>> to give that fallback.  Sometimes I think the best thing for the
>>>>>> long run would be to let it collapse.  If non-government charities
>>>>>> failed to step in quickly enough, one generation would indeed have
>>>>>> a hard time, but ....  Other times, I remember _I_ am in that generation.
>>>>>   Of course with the way things are going, you will be a member of that 
>>>>> generation anyway. At least with some warning, some might be able to 
>>>>> prepare a little.
>>>> It is hard for the younger crowd to make good investments these days to 
>>>> prepare themselves for their future.  Where do you invest that is 
>>>> reasonably safe and yet has a return greater than inflation?
>>>>
>>>> It sure isn't the stock or bond market.
>>> ....AAPL seems to be a terrific investment...
>> Not really. 
> 
> Yes, really. I'm making money with mine.
> 


That means your timing was very fortunate.


>> If you bought it at its high, @$180 and sold at its low, 
>> @$80, you lost over half your money. Today you would still be at @ 30% 
>> loss. 
> 
> ....and if you were stupid enough to do that, you deserve to reap the 
> results...
> 


At that time knowledgeable market experts were predicting it would reach 
$225. But the bottom fell out of the market instead. I have a portfolio 
of diverse, relatively conservative, dividend-paying investments, in 
which neither Apple nor Microsoft was a part until relatively recently. 
Microsoft would have been a more rewarding investment than Apple, if 
bought any time from the 1980's up to the late 1990's. The real 
disadvantage of buying Apple in the early 1990's and holding it until 
2000 is that such investors missed out on a considerable wave of 
increasing value while Apple actually lost value. And it paid crummy 
dividends. Anyone holding it through that period should count the losses 
of that time against gains during this century and compare it with 
Microsoft over the whole period.


-- 
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>    ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>   ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/    ||
||    Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso  ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++

In article <h01hi1$3qa$1@news.albasani.net>,
 AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
> > In article <h00r4f$3dd$1@news.albasani.net>,
> >  AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> Jolly Roger wrote:
> >>> In article <lloydparsons-35A4FD.09104101062009@news.individual.net>,
> >>>  Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In article 
> >>>> <kurtullman-68BE91.08315601062009@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> >>>>  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <weGUl.1826$Cc1.885@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
> >>>>>  Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Let's be accurate.  It is the government forcing the young folks
> >>>>>> to give that fallback.  Sometimes I think the best thing for the
> >>>>>> long run would be to let it collapse.  If non-government charities
> >>>>>> failed to step in quickly enough, one generation would indeed have
> >>>>>> a hard time, but ....  Other times, I remember _I_ am in that 
> >>>>>> generation.
> >>>>>   Of course with the way things are going, you will be a member of that 
> >>>>> generation anyway. At least with some warning, some might be able to 
> >>>>> prepare a little.
> >>>> It is hard for the younger crowd to make good investments these days to 
> >>>> prepare themselves for their future.  Where do you invest that is 
> >>>> reasonably safe and yet has a return greater than inflation?
> >>>>
> >>>> It sure isn't the stock or bond market.
> >>> ....AAPL seems to be a terrific investment...
> >> Not really. 
> > 
> > Yes, really. I'm making money with mine.
> 
> That means your timing was very fortunate.

I suppose. I didn't buy until the latest market crash this year when it 
was down in the 80s. I really wish I had bought even just a few shares 
way back at $20 so long ago, though!

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

In article <C648BB35.3C980%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
 Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

> 3. I shall _not_ be e-mailing your lovely beastly wife. ;)

Over the years, only three people have ever taken me up on contacting 
her to verify the story.

> 4. Why have you put her at risk for receiving spam? :(

Because we both use the same e-mail app (Eudora for mac) and thus the 
same spam filters, and have no problems resultantly.  her e-mail addy 
has been put out before, so there is no real risk now.

And besides, spammers have plenty of other ways to draw up lists, I 
don't see much indication they farm the newsgroups anymore.  Too small a 
percentage of net users even know about newsgroups.

jt

Jolly Roger wrote:
> In article <h01hi1$3qa$1@news.albasani.net>,
>  AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>> Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> In article <h00r4f$3dd$1@news.albasani.net>,
>>>  AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>> In article <lloydparsons-35A4FD.09104101062009@news.individual.net>,
>>>>>  Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article 
>>>>>> <kurtullman-68BE91.08315601062009@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
>>>>>>  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <weGUl.1826$Cc1.885@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
>>>>>>>  Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let's be accurate.  It is the government forcing the young folks
>>>>>>>> to give that fallback.  Sometimes I think the best thing for the
>>>>>>>> long run would be to let it collapse.  If non-government charities
>>>>>>>> failed to step in quickly enough, one generation would indeed have
>>>>>>>> a hard time, but ....  Other times, I remember _I_ am in that 
>>>>>>>> generation.
>>>>>>>   Of course with the way things are going, you will be a member of that 
>>>>>>> generation anyway. At least with some warning, some might be able to 
>>>>>>> prepare a little.
>>>>>> It is hard for the younger crowd to make good investments these days to 
>>>>>> prepare themselves for their future.  Where do you invest that is 
>>>>>> reasonably safe and yet has a return greater than inflation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It sure isn't the stock or bond market.
>>>>> ....AAPL seems to be a terrific investment...
>>>> Not really. 
>>> Yes, really. I'm making money with mine.
>> That means your timing was very fortunate.
> 
> I suppose. I didn't buy until the latest market crash this year when it 
> was down in the 80s. 


Yes, that was a smart move, good timing. Have you a plan for taking your 
profit? What if Steve Jobs's medical condition worsens? Your call.


> I really wish I had bought even just a few shares 
> way back at $20 so long ago, though!
> 

No, you don't. It started at $20 in about 1990 and drifted down to $12 
by 2000, while many other tech stocks rocketed ahead during that time. 
You doubtless got far better returns on your money investing in other 
stocks.


-- 
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>    ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>   ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/    ||
||    Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso  ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++

jt august wrote:
> And besides, spammers have plenty of other ways to draw up lists, I 
> don't see much indication they farm the newsgroups anymore.  Too small a 
> percentage of net users even know about newsgroups.

I see plenty of it any time I peek into my filter logs.
My filters greatly benefit my "user experience" but they
don't help the load on the server.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   The Inca: Yesterday and Today
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1487

In article <1j0dbxh.xnsndu19bbavtN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie
Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:

> TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> 


> > Here in the United States almost all stores are now equipped to let you pay
> > with either a credit or debit card.

> Sounds very similar to our Eftpos (which are swiped and require a PIN),
> though of course most debit cards can be used in the same way as credit
> cards which is not the case with the standard Eftpos/ATM card issued by
> banks here.

Huh? Yes it is. What do you mean, Jamie?

All debit and credit cards issued in New Zealand behave the same way in
an ATM or at any check-out.

Visa-branded debit cards are superior to regular debit cards only in
that they  can be used to make online purchases, or for ATM or
check-out use overseas.

In article
<NOwebmasterSPAM-20E745.19474931052009@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.a
u>, Eric Lindsay <NOwebmasterSPAM@ericlindsay.com> wrote:

> 
> What happens if you do not have a PIN? I always sign for card 
> transactions, because anyone can use a PIN, but a signature needs to be 
> forged.

In, for example, Russia, one is never asked for a PIN. Only a signature
will do, accompanied by production of a passport.

But, in New Zealand, a sales assistant might offer you the option. If
not, a PIN is almost universal.

I'm more-comfortable with a PIN. Yes a signature can be forged but (a)
that's easy to do; and (b) how often does the sales clerk look anyway?
A PIN that only you know is as secure as things need to be or can be,
in today's world.

In article <h01u96$k2r$1@news.albasani.net>,
 AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
> > In article <h01hi1$3qa$1@news.albasani.net>,
> >  AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> Jolly Roger wrote:
> >>> In article <h00r4f$3dd$1@news.albasani.net>,
> >>>  AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Jolly Roger wrote:
> >>>>> In article <lloydparsons-35A4FD.09104101062009@news.individual.net>,
> >>>>>  Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> In article 
> >>>>>> <kurtullman-68BE91.08315601062009@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> >>>>>>  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In article <weGUl.1826$Cc1.885@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
> >>>>>>>  Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Let's be accurate.  It is the government forcing the young folks
> >>>>>>>> to give that fallback.  Sometimes I think the best thing for the
> >>>>>>>> long run would be to let it collapse.  If non-government charities
> >>>>>>>> failed to step in quickly enough, one generation would indeed have
> >>>>>>>> a hard time, but ....  Other times, I remember _I_ am in that 
> >>>>>>>> generation.
> >>>>>>>   Of course with the way things are going, you will be a member of 
> >>>>>>>   that 
> >>>>>>> generation anyway. At least with some warning, some might be able to 
> >>>>>>> prepare a little.
> >>>>>> It is hard for the younger crowd to make good investments these days 
> >>>>>> to 
> >>>>>> prepare themselves for their future.  Where do you invest that is 
> >>>>>> reasonably safe and yet has a return greater than inflation?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It sure isn't the stock or bond market.
> >>>>> ....AAPL seems to be a terrific investment...
> >>>> Not really. 
> >>> Yes, really. I'm making money with mine.
> >> That means your timing was very fortunate.
> > 
> > I suppose. I didn't buy until the latest market crash this year when it 
> > was down in the 80s. 
> 
> Yes, that was a smart move, good timing. Have you a plan for taking your 
> profit? What if Steve Jobs's medical condition worsens? Your call.

Apple isn't a one-man company. And anyone saying so is doing a huge 
discredit to all the smart people who work to make Apple's products 
great. The company is chock full of innovators.

At any rate, I'm in Apple until they run out of ideas, which I don't 
expect will happen for quite some time. 

> > I really wish I had bought even just a few shares 
> > way back at $20 so long ago, though!
> 
> No, you don't. It started at $20 in about 1990 and drifted down to $12 
> by 2000, while many other tech stocks rocketed ahead during that time. 

....and then split several times since then. I'd have hundreds of 
thousands more than i have right now.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

In article <jollyroger-3249E4.08250002062009@news.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:


> Apple isn't a one-man company. And anyone saying so is doing a huge 
> discredit to all the smart people who work to make Apple's products 
> great. The company is chock full of innovators.

Which of course, especially short-term, has little or nothing to do with 
the perception of the Herd. Wall St has convinced itself that Apple 
rises and falls with Steve. As such, Apple WILL fall and probably rather 
dramatically when something happens to Mr. J.  The decision will then be 
whether you believe in the Jobsian personality cult or think Apple is 
"chock full of innovators". I am betting you would be looking at any 
fall as a buying opportunity.

-- 
 The inevitable Godwinization of Usenet threads is a principle
as immutable as Newton's Third Law meaning that, for every action 
there is an equally disproportionate overreaction.

In article 
<kurtullman-B2B56A.09310002062009@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
 Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-3249E4.08250002062009@news.individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > Apple isn't a one-man company. And anyone saying so is doing a huge 
> > discredit to all the smart people who work to make Apple's products 
> > great. The company is chock full of innovators.
> 
> Which of course, especially short-term, has little or nothing to do with 
> the perception of the Herd. Wall St has convinced itself that Apple 
> rises and falls with Steve. As such, Apple WILL fall and probably rather 
> dramatically when something happens to Mr. J.  The decision will then be 
> whether you believe in the Jobsian personality cult or think Apple is 
> "chock full of innovators". I am betting you would be looking at any 
> fall as a buying opportunity.

Well you certainly won't find me running off the edge of the cliff with 
the rest of the herd... ; )

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

Jolly Roger wrote:
> In article <h01u96$k2r$1@news.albasani.net>,
>  AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>> Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> In article <h01hi1$3qa$1@news.albasani.net>,
>>>  AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>> In article <h00r4f$3dd$1@news.albasani.net>,
>>>>>  AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <lloydparsons-35A4FD.09104101062009@news.individual.net>,
>>>>>>>  Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article 
>>>>>>>> <kurtullman-68BE91.08315601062009@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
>>>>>>>>  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article <weGUl.1826$Cc1.885@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
>>>>>>>>>  Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> ....AAPL seems to be a terrific investment...
>>>>>> Not really. 
>>>>> Yes, really. I'm making money with mine.
>>>> That means your timing was very fortunate.
>>> I suppose. I didn't buy until the latest market crash this year when it 
>>> was down in the 80s. 
>> Yes, that was a smart move, good timing. Have you a plan for taking your 
>> profit? What if Steve Jobs's medical condition worsens? Your call.
> 
> Apple isn't a one-man company. And anyone saying so is doing a huge 
> discredit to all the smart people who work to make Apple's products 
> great. The company is chock full of innovators.
> 
> At any rate, I'm in Apple until they run out of ideas, which I don't 
> expect will happen for quite some time. 
> 
>>> I really wish I had bought even just a few shares 
>>> way back at $20 so long ago, though!
>> No, you don't. It started at $20 in about 1990 and drifted down to $12 
>> by 2000, while many other tech stocks rocketed ahead during that time. 
> 
> ....and then split several times since then. I'd have hundreds of 
> thousands more than i have right now.
> 


Yes, Apple has split only once, and relatively recently; Microsoft was 
the spirit of the tech boom and split five or six times. However 
admirable the Apple team is, Apple's OS lost market share during the 
1990's and its team came up with the Newton (a great invention but badly 
and expensively timed). Apple's ace in the hole is its ability to 
stimulate fanatical customer loyalty, unlike any other company this side 
of Rolls Royce. Only after Jobs returned and the i-products started to 
appear, did the stock price start climbing from $12.


My original point is that Apple's stock price over the last twenty years 
or more has not performed evenly or as well as other tech stocks, until 
its recent prosperity. Partly due to the dispute with Jobs, it missed 
out on the tech boom entirely. Jobs's market savvy was evident during 
his exile at Pixar as well as when he ran Apple. Other than adding some 
Kindle-like feature to iPods and/or iPhones, I have no idea what major 
innovations are in the works.


-- 
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>    ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>   ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/    ||
||    Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso  ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++

In article <h03g8c$i4o$1@news.albasani.net>,
 AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
> > In article <h01u96$k2r$1@news.albasani.net>,
> >  AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> Jolly Roger wrote:
> >>> In article <h01hi1$3qa$1@news.albasani.net>,
> >>>  AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Jolly Roger wrote:
> >>>>> In article <h00r4f$3dd$1@news.albasani.net>,
> >>>>>  AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Jolly Roger wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <lloydparsons-35A4FD.09104101062009@news.individual.net>,
> >>>>>>>  Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In article 
> >>>>>>>> <kurtullman-68BE91.08315601062009@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> >>>>>>>>  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In article <weGUl.1826$Cc1.885@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
> >>>>>>>>>  Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>> ....AAPL seems to be a terrific investment...
> >>>>>> Not really. 
> >>>>> Yes, really. I'm making money with mine.
> >>>> That means your timing was very fortunate.
> >>> I suppose. I didn't buy until the latest market crash this year when it 
> >>> was down in the 80s. 
> >> Yes, that was a smart move, good timing. Have you a plan for taking your 
> >> profit? What if Steve Jobs's medical condition worsens? Your call.
> > 
> > Apple isn't a one-man company. And anyone saying so is doing a huge 
> > discredit to all the smart people who work to make Apple's products 
> > great. The company is chock full of innovators.
> > 
> > At any rate, I'm in Apple until they run out of ideas, which I don't 
> > expect will happen for quite some time. 
> > 
> >>> I really wish I had bought even just a few shares 
> >>> way back at $20 so long ago, though!
> >> No, you don't. It started at $20 in about 1990 and drifted down to $12 
> >> by 2000, while many other tech stocks rocketed ahead during that time. 
> > 
> > ....and then split several times since then. I'd have hundreds of 
> > thousands more than i have right now.
> 
> Yes, Apple has split only once, and relatively recently;

Oh only once? I was sure I remembered hearing about it splitting more 
than once. Hmm... 

Not that it matters all that much. I'd still have hundreds of thousands 
more than I do now had I purchased back at 20.

> Microsoft was 
> the spirit of the tech boom and split five or six times. However 
> admirable the Apple team is, Apple's OS lost market share during the 
> 1990's and its team came up with the Newton (a great invention but badly 
> and expensively timed). Apple's ace in the hole is its ability to 
> stimulate fanatical customer loyalty, unlike any other company this side 
> of Rolls Royce. Only after Jobs returned and the i-products started to 
> appear, did the stock price start climbing from $12.
> 
> My original point is that Apple's stock price over the last twenty years 
> or more has not performed evenly or as well as other tech stocks, until 
> its recent prosperity. Partly due to the dispute with Jobs, it missed 
> out on the tech boom entirely. Jobs's market savvy was evident during 
> his exile at Pixar as well as when he ran Apple. Other than adding some 
> Kindle-like feature to iPods and/or iPhones, I have no idea what major 
> innovations are in the works.

Well, my point is the iPhone is a major innovation, before that there 
were plenty others, and I have little worry there won't be more to come.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

In article <jollyroger-59DE40.10563602062009@news.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> Oh only once? I was sure I remembered hearing about it splitting more 
> than once. Hmm... 

Jun 21, 2000 2 for 1.
Feb 28, 2005 2 for 1.

-- 
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint =  5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3  7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF

In article leHUl.1842$Cc1.110@nwrddc01.gnilink.net, Wes Groleau at
groleau+news@freeshell.org wrote on 5/31/09 10:42 PM:

> Nick Naym wrote:
>> "Out of the mouths of babes?" <ROTFLOL> That is indeed a "gem."
> 
>   "Mommy, why are some of your hairs white?"
> 
>   "Well, sweetie, every time you are naughty, one of them turns white."
> 
>   "Poor Grandma!  You must have been really awful."


That conjures up a whole slew of "Out of the mouths of babe-isms."

-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.6)

In article kurtullman-320B90.08301101062009@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net,
Kurt Ullman at kurtullman@yahoo.com wrote on 6/1/09 8:30 AM:

> In article <C648A713.3C965%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
>  Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> It is not "like" a Ponzi scheme...it _is_ a Ponzi scheme,
>      I think likening SS to a Ponzi scheme is an insult to Ponzi. At
> least he only fleeced willing participants.  Ponzi never sent around
> guys with guns or emptied bank accounts to enforce participation.

The IRS has been doing that forever...and it's not restricted to SS dollars.

I've always been struck by the fact that citizens seem to lose much of their
rights when it comes to dealing with the IRS or the military (ever read the
UCMJ?).

-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.6)

In article <C64AF8B3.3CA75%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
 Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

> In article kurtullman-320B90.08301101062009@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net,
> Kurt Ullman at kurtullman@yahoo.com wrote on 6/1/09 8:30 AM:
> 
> > In article <C648A713.3C965%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
> >  Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> 
> >> It is not "like" a Ponzi scheme...it _is_ a Ponzi scheme,
> >      I think likening SS to a Ponzi scheme is an insult to Ponzi. At
> > least he only fleeced willing participants.  Ponzi never sent around
> > guys with guns or emptied bank accounts to enforce participation.
> 
> The IRS has been doing that forever...and it's not restricted to SS dollars.
The rest of the taxes is merely confiscation, this is fraud. Either way, 
Ponzi dealt with willing rubes whereas the SS does it by gun. So I still 
think anyone who calls SS a Ponzi scheme owes Ponzi an apology.

-- 
 The inevitable Godwinization of Usenet threads is a principle
as immutable as Newton's Third Law meaning that, for every action 
there is an equally disproportionate overreaction.

In article kurtullman-A92891.15464802062009@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net,
Kurt Ullman at kurtullman@yahoo.com wrote on 6/2/09 3:46 PM:

> In article <C64AF8B3.3CA75%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
>  Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article kurtullman-320B90.08301101062009@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net,
>> Kurt Ullman at kurtullman@yahoo.com wrote on 6/1/09 8:30 AM:
>> 
>>> In article <C648A713.3C965%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
>>>  Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> It is not "like" a Ponzi scheme...it _is_ a Ponzi scheme,
>>>      I think likening SS to a Ponzi scheme is an insult to Ponzi. At
>>> least he only fleeced willing participants.  Ponzi never sent around
>>> guys with guns or emptied bank accounts to enforce participation.
>> 
>> The IRS has been doing that forever...and it's not restricted to SS dollars.
> The rest of the taxes is merely confiscation, this is fraud. Either way,
> Ponzi dealt with willing rubes whereas the SS does it by gun. So I still
> think anyone who calls SS a Ponzi scheme owes Ponzi an apology.


I'll pass that along to him the next time we chat (which usually occurs when
I run out of lithium. ;P )
-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.6)

In article <h03g8c$i4o$1@news.albasani.net>,
 AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
> 
> > ....and then split several times since then. I'd have hundreds of 
> > thousands more than i have right now.
> 
> Yes, Apple has split only once, and relatively recently;

1987, 2001, 2005

> Microsoft was the spirit of the tech boom ...

That's a laugh. Have you ever read "The Road Ahead?" Have you not 
noticed that Microsoft spent most of the 90s late to the party for 
almost ever new technical innovation from desktop networking onward?


> However 
> admirable the Apple team is, Apple's OS lost market share during the 
> 1990's and its team came up with the Newton (a great invention but badly 
> and expensively timed). Apple's ace in the hole is its ability to 
> stimulate fanatical customer loyalty, unlike any other company this side 
> of Rolls Royce. Only after Jobs returned and the i-products started to 
> appear, did the stock price start climbing from $12.

You've neglected a fairly significant factor. If I had to pick one 
representative reason Apple had as bad a time as  they did of the 1990s, 
I would offer the name John Sculley. While not widely recognized for his 
impact, he made some seriously bad, and seriously badly timed, business 
decisions from which the company took nearly a decade to recover. 
Steve's return wasn't completely coincidental with the resurgence, but 
neither is it completely responsible for it.

> My original point is that Apple's stock price over the last twenty years 
> or more has not performed evenly or as well as other tech stocks, until 
> its recent prosperity. Partly due to the dispute with Jobs, it missed 
> out on the tech boom entirely.

Um. What? When did they miss out on the tech boom? When they became the 
first consumer system vendor to push large capacity optical media and 
the content that legitimized it? The first mainstream platform to have 
an HTTP client? Created HyperCard, which helped inspire HTTP and 
JavaScript? Created QuickTime? Created TrueType? Create FireWire? 
Created ADB (which inspired USB, which didn't itself really take off 
until Apple adopted it in 1998)?

I submit that Apple was among those companies whose contributions were 
critical to the tech boom.

G

-- 
I saw a truck today that had "AAA Batteries / Delivered and Installed" on the
side. My first thought was: That's a really weird business model. How many
inept people have urgent need of skinny little battery cells?

Gregory Weston wrote:
> In article <h03g8c$i4o$1@news.albasani.net>,
>  AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>> Jolly Roger wrote:
>>
>>> ....and then split several times since then. I'd have hundreds of 
>>> thousands more than i have right now.
>> Yes, Apple has split only once, and relatively recently;
> 
> 1987, 2001, 2005


Sorry, I missed the first two of those. Nevertheless, Microsoft split 
more, and an investment in their 1987 shares is still more profitable 
today than an equivalent investment in Apple shares, even more if you 
reinvest dividends.


> 
>> Microsoft was the spirit of the tech boom ...
> 
> That's a laugh. Have you ever read "The Road Ahead?" Have you not 
> noticed that Microsoft spent most of the 90s late to the party for 
> almost ever new technical innovation from desktop networking onward?
> 


Coming late to this discussion, you may haved missed that the point is 
whether hanging on to Apple stock all the way from the 1980's was a good 
idea.


> 
>> However 
>> admirable the Apple team is, Apple's OS lost market share during the 
>> 1990's and its team came up with the Newton (a great invention but badly 
>> and expensively timed). Apple's ace in the hole is its ability to 
>> stimulate fanatical customer loyalty, unlike any other company this side 
>> of Rolls Royce. Only after Jobs returned and the i-products started to 
>> appear, did the stock price start climbing from $12.
> 
> You've neglected a fairly significant factor. If I had to pick one 
> representative reason Apple had as bad a time as  they did of the 1990s, 
> I would offer the name John Sculley. While not widely recognized for his 
> impact, he made some seriously bad, and seriously badly timed, business 
> decisions from which the company took nearly a decade to recover. 
> Steve's return wasn't completely coincidental with the resurgence, but 
> neither is it completely responsible for it.
> 


I mentioned Gilbert Damelio, but the fact is that Apple's stock froze in 
place and drifted lower from the beginning of the movement to oust Steve 
Jobs and didn't start to recover until it was obvious that Apple had 
gained a dominant share in the music player market. No doubt the success 
of the iMac and Apple stores were part of Apple's turnaround, but it 
wasn't reflected in the stock price until the iPod grabbed impressive 
market share. And our topic here is profitable investment in Apple stock.


I don't doubt that we all admire Apple's technical know-how, but only 
Steve Jobs orchestrated the release of new models to hordes of customers 
waiting in line at midnight. The iPhone's rapid jump from zero market 
share to a respectable share further confirmed Apple's marketing power. 
As did the change of name from Apple Computer to Apple (the media 
company). But this is business, so after yesterday's success, what next? 
What if without Jobs?


>> My original point is that Apple's stock price over the last twenty years 
>> or more has not performed evenly or as well as other tech stocks, until 
>> its recent prosperity. Partly due to the dispute with Jobs, it missed 
>> out on the tech boom entirely.
> 
> Um. What? When did they miss out on the tech boom? When they became the 
> first consumer system vendor to push large capacity optical media and 
> the content that legitimized it? The first mainstream platform to have 
> an HTTP client? Created HyperCard, which helped inspire HTTP and 
> JavaScript? Created QuickTime? Created TrueType? Create FireWire? 
> Created ADB (which inspired USB, which didn't itself really take off 
> until Apple adopted it in 1998)?
> 


None of these admirable accomplishments were reflected in the stock 
price at that time. Apple had no debt and good profit on the products it 
made, so the company was unassailable to takeover, but it was just a 
niche company, well serving a fanatically loyal niche customer base.


> I submit that Apple was among those companies whose contributions were 
> critical to the tech boom.
> 


But not to their stock price, until after the bust. You would have made 
a lot more money investing in Microsoft from 1987-2000, which you could 
have reinvested for more profit. Bill Gates also had incredible 
marketing insight, to give credit where credit is due. I'm talking 
marketing and market share, which is what affected stock price, not 
technology or competence.


-- 
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>    ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>   ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/    ||
||    Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso  ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++

High Priest <HP@snotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <1j0dbxh.xnsndu19bbavtN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie
> Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> 
> > TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> > 
> 
> 
> > > Here in the United States almost all stores are now equipped to let
> > > you pay with either a credit or debit card.
> 
> > Sounds very similar to our Eftpos (which are swiped and require a PIN),
> > though of course most debit cards can be used in the same way as credit
> > cards which is not the case with the standard Eftpos/ATM card issued by
> > banks here.
> 
> Huh? Yes it is. What do you mean, Jamie?
> 
> All debit and credit cards issued in New Zealand behave the same way in
> an ATM or at any check-out.
> 
> Visa-branded debit cards are superior to regular debit cards only in
> that they  can be used to make online purchases, or for ATM or
> check-out use overseas.

No. Eftpos cards are point of sale (the POS in eftpos) only. That is
they can only be used at an eftpos terminal in RL. No buying stuff
online. You MUST select an account and enter a pin at a real checkout.

However with a debit card I can buy online or over the phone credit card
style.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Jolly Roger wrote:
> Apple isn't a one-man company. And anyone saying so is doing a huge 
> discredit to all the smart people who work to make Apple's products 
> great. The company is chock full of innovators.

Indeed, one man/woman/chimp/whatever alone could not possibly accomplish
one percent of what Apple has accomplished.

Nevertheless, there's only one person who can affect AAPL price
by checking into a hospital.  It may not be reasonable, but
people in general aren't reasonable.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Daily lessons & activities & their assessment
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1413

In article <uce-55AD0B.19162002062009@news.snet.sbcglobal.net>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <h03g8c$i4o$1@news.albasani.net>,
>  AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> > Jolly Roger wrote:
> > 
> > > ....and then split several times since then. I'd have hundreds of 
> > > thousands more than i have right now.
> > 
> > Yes, Apple has split only once, and relatively recently;
> 
> 1987, 2001, 2005

Ah - I thought so!  Thanks for confirming.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

In article <h04llr$650$1@news.albasani.net>,
 AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:

> > You've neglected a fairly significant factor. If I had to pick one 
> > representative reason Apple had as bad a time as  they did of the 1990s, 
> > I would offer the name John Sculley. While not widely recognized for his 
> > impact, he made some seriously bad, and seriously badly timed, business 
> > decisions from which the company took nearly a decade to recover. 
> > Steve's return wasn't completely coincidental with the resurgence, but 
> > neither is it completely responsible for it.
> > 
> 
> 
> I mentioned Gilbert Damelio, but the fact is that Apple's stock froze in 
> place and drifted lower from the beginning of the movement to oust Steve 
> Jobs and didn't start to recover until it was obvious that Apple had 
> gained a dominant share in the music player market.

That, I will say, *is* primarily coincidental. If you look carefully, 
you should be seeing a steady improvement in their position from roughly 
the release of the iMac. And that's when the last vestiges of Sculley's 
gravest errors were finally fading away.

> No doubt the success 
> of the iMac and Apple stores were part of Apple's turnaround, but it 
> wasn't reflected in the stock price until the iPod grabbed impressive 
> market share. And our topic here is profitable investment in Apple stock.

Then you should be paying attention to the point in time when developers 
at large started to re-consider the possibility that the Mac was a 
serious and viable target platform.

G

-- 
I saw a truck today that had "AAA Batteries / Delivered and Installed" on the
side. My first thought was: That's a really weird business model. How many
inept people have urgent need of skinny little battery cells?

In article <h04llr$650$1@news.albasani.net>,
 AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Sorry, I missed the first two of those. Nevertheless, Microsoft split 
> more, and an investment in their 1987 shares is still more profitable 
> today than an equivalent investment in Apple shares, even more if you 
> reinvest dividends.

   I was with you to here. As far as I can tell, MSFT only started 
paying div in '03 and then 8 cents a year. Balancing that with APPL's 
bump in the interim and dividends play no effective role in the 
profitability of an investment in MSFT stock, especially over the 20+ 
year time frame you are focussing on. 

>

-- 
 The inevitable Godwinization of Usenet threads is a principle
as immutable as Newton's Third Law meaning that, for every action 
there is an equally disproportionate overreaction.

Gregory Weston wrote:
> In article <h04llr$650$1@news.albasani.net>,
>  AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>>> You've neglected a fairly significant factor. If I had to pick one 
>>> representative reason Apple had as bad a time as  they did of the 1990s, 
>>> I would offer the name John Sculley. While not widely recognized for his 
>>> impact, he made some seriously bad, and seriously badly timed, business 
>>> decisions from which the company took nearly a decade to recover. 
>>> Steve's return wasn't completely coincidental with the resurgence, but 
>>> neither is it completely responsible for it.
>>>
>>
>> I mentioned Gilbert Damelio, but the fact is that Apple's stock froze in 
>> place and drifted lower from the beginning of the movement to oust Steve 
>> Jobs and didn't start to recover until it was obvious that Apple had 
>> gained a dominant share in the music player market.
> 
> That, I will say, *is* primarily coincidental. If you look carefully, 
> you should be seeing a steady improvement in their position from roughly 
> the release of the iMac. And that's when the last vestiges of Sculley's 
> gravest errors were finally fading away.
> 


I should have said "take off" instead of "recover." The iMac and the 
success of the first Apple stores brought the stock price up from its 
all-time low to a level at the beginning of the tech boom commensurate 
with inflation. I. e., it stayed in place without any significant gain, 
while other companies' stock prices multiplied during that time. I 
attribute this bare recovery to Jobs's marketing skills.


Sculley was no computer man, and I attribute his failures to the board 
of directors that hired him. What did they expect from a soft drinks 
expert other than marketing skills? They got what they hired and didn't 
surround him with effective enough computer experts to exploit what he 
brought to the company. Whoever let him make computer decisions got what 
they paid for.


>> No doubt the success 
>> of the iMac and Apple stores were part of Apple's turnaround, but it 
>> wasn't reflected in the stock price until the iPod grabbed impressive 
>> market share. And our topic here is profitable investment in Apple stock.
> 
> Then you should be paying attention to the point in time when developers 
> at large started to re-consider the possibility that the Mac was a 
> serious and viable target platform.
> 


I agree we disagree. I think the rise in Apple's stock price is mainly 
attributable to the success of the iPod and iPhone in the full public 
marketplace. The Mac OS's role in the stock price is negligible. Mac OS 
is still a niche product and arguably hasn't regained the market share 
it held in 1990, even after ten years of the iMac. I think the removal 
of "Computer" from the company name is an acknowledgement of how the 
company now sees itself.


I am describing a situation as I see it, not as I want it to be. Every 
time I enter a Starbucks-type establishment I count the proportion of 
Macs to PC's. I live in an affluent university area, and my most 
frequently visited Starbucks is only a block from our newest and largest 
Apple store, so to my relief Macs seem to be doing well here (25-30%), 
but I know that is far off the national average.


> 


-- 
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>    ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>   ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/    ||
||    Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso  ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++

In article h0646v$4kf$1@news.albasani.net, AV3 at arvimide@earthlink.net
wrote on 6/3/09 11:17 AM:

....
....


> I live in an affluent university area, and my most
> frequently visited Starbucks is only a block from our newest and largest
> Apple store, so to my relief Macs seem to be doing well here (25-30%),
> but I know that is far off the national average.
> 

Where might that be?

-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.6)

In article <1j0qobv.1fx3nqr1c2e17hN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie
Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:

> High Priest <HP@snotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1j0dbxh.xnsndu19bbavtN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie
> > Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:


> > 
> > > Sounds very similar to our Eftpos (which are swiped and require a PIN),
> > > though of course most debit cards can be used in the same way as credit
> > > cards which is not the case with the standard Eftpos/ATM card issued by
> > > banks here.
> > 
> > Huh? Yes it is. What do you mean, Jamie?
> > 
> > All debit and credit cards issued in New Zealand behave the same way in
> > an ATM or at any check-out.
> > 
> > Visa-branded debit cards are superior to regular debit cards only in
> > that they  can be used to make online purchases, or for ATM or
> > check-out use overseas.
> 
> No. Eftpos cards are point of sale (the POS in eftpos) only.

Jamie, please don't give Kiwis a bad name. Please think before you type.

Debit cards (what many morons in New Zealand and Australia want to call
an eftpos card � god i hate that fucking stupid acronym and that might
be the very first time I've typed it) are NOT only usable at the
checkout counter. Don't tell me you've never used one in an ATM
(bankomat, autoteller, geldomat etc)



> That is
> they can only be used at an eftpos terminal in RL.

What is RL?

> No buying stuff
> online.

I said that. If you're going to disagree with me, please first read
what i type.



> You MUST select an account and enter a pin at a real checkout.
> 
> However with a debit card I can buy online or over the phone credit card
> style.

No, you can't.

Now I see the mistake you're making. "debit card" is what the rest of
the world calls your "eftpos card." You are incorrectly using the term
as a synonym for what I've called here a Visa-branded debit card.

There is, as yet no universally-used term for a debit card with Visa on
its face. Westpac Bank calls it a "debit plus" card. i have one and
regularly use it for online purchases and more.

Debit cards that do not have a Visa brand are plain, simple debit
cards. i have one from Bank of New Zealand and i sure as hell CANNOT
use it for online purchases.

In reprise, there are three types of card � credit card, debit card and
Visa-branded debit card. Forget eftpos, it's a fucking moronic
expression that tells the world you come from New Zealand or Australia.
No one anywhere else uses the word and, what's more, they laugh at
those who do. Call your eftpos card a debit card and everyone will be
singing the same song. Your only argument then will be with
unenlightened checkout operators who won't understand what you're
talking about and surely you don't mind low-IQ losers missing your
point.

In article <h0646v$4kf$1@news.albasani.net>,
 AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:

> >> No doubt the success 
> >> of the iMac and Apple stores were part of Apple's turnaround, but it 
> >> wasn't reflected in the stock price until the iPod grabbed impressive 
> >> market share. And our topic here is profitable investment in Apple stock.
> > 
> > Then you should be paying attention to the point in time when developers 
> > at large started to re-consider the possibility that the Mac was a 
> > serious and viable target platform.
> 
> I agree we disagree.

I also agree on that. But, to be blunt, I consider your position to be 
ignorant. Not as a pejorative, mind you, but in the very literal sense 
that you're ignoring and quite possibly unaware of what was actually 
going on with, in and around the company about which you're speaking.

> I think the rise in Apple's stock price is mainly 
> attributable to the success of the iPod and iPhone in the full public 
> marketplace. The Mac OS's role in the stock price is negligible.

The Mac OS is critical to the iPhone, last time I checked. If the iPhone 
- whose introduction came well after the stock rebound began - is 
somehow fundamental to that rise, the OS it runs which differentiates it 
from everything that came before also is. Speculators may not recognize 
that. Investors do.

But I'll reiterate that as a practical matter the resurgence in the 
company's perceived viability in the mainstream was more related to the 
resurgence in developer interest - a phenomenon that caught 
institutional investors' attention a couple of years before the iPod 
shipped.

> Mac OS 
> is still a niche product and arguably hasn't regained the market share 
> it held in 1990, even after ten years of the iMac.

Market share is a fool's game. It's inherently stacked against a durable 
goods when they compete with commodities, and that distinction has 
historically a very real and important one between Apple and the 
companies that build boxes to host Windows.


> I am describing a situation as I see it, not as I want it to be.

I have no problem with that. I'm simply suggesting that your vision is 
limited and imperfect. As evidenced not only by the arguable points on 
which we disagree but the verifiable errors I've seen you make during 
this discussion.

> Every 
> time I enter a Starbucks-type establishment I count the proportion of 
> Macs to PC's. I live in an affluent university area, and my most 
> frequently visited Starbucks is only a block from our newest and largest 
> Apple store, so to my relief Macs seem to be doing well here (25-30%), 
> but I know that is far off the national average.

You do realize, though, that what you're looking at there isn't 
analogous to the idea of market share. Right? Whether it's 
*representative* of market share therefore doesn't even enter into it.

-- 
I saw a truck today that had "AAA Batteries / Delivered and Installed" on the
side. My first thought was: That's a really weird business model. How many
inept people have urgent need of skinny little battery cells?

Nick Naym wrote:
> In article h0646v$4kf$1@news.albasani.net, AV3 at arvimide@earthlink.net
> wrote on 6/3/09 11:17 AM:
> 
> ....
> ....
> 
> 
>> I live in an affluent university area, and my most
>> frequently visited Starbucks is only a block from our newest and largest
>> Apple store, so to my relief Macs seem to be doing well here (25-30%),
>> but I know that is far off the national average.
>>
> 
> Where might that be?
> 


Where my signature says it is. The Starbucks is at West 15th St. and 9th 
Ave.


-- 
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>    ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>   ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/    ||
||    Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso  ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++

In article <030620092036200122%HP@snotmail.com>,
 High Priest <HP@snotmail.com> wrote:

> Forget eftpos, it's a fucking moronic
> expression that tells the world you come from New Zealand or Australia.

So that is good then surely, they would know to show respect? They have 
seen our rugby and cricket boys and our tall indomitable soldiers.  

> No one anywhere else uses the word and, what's more, they laugh at
> those who do.

But not out loud and not to their faces. I hope you are not one of those 
Australasian culturally cringing types? Better that you would be a Pom 
looking down a long nose at us. <g>

-- 
dorayme

In article h06p8s$3ir$1@news.albasani.net, AV3 at arvimide@earthlink.net
wrote on 6/3/09 5:17 PM:

> Nick Naym wrote:
>> In article h0646v$4kf$1@news.albasani.net, AV3 at arvimide@earthlink.net
>> wrote on 6/3/09 11:17 AM:
>> 
>> ....
>> ....
>> 
>> 
>>> I live in an affluent university area, and my most
>>> frequently visited Starbucks is only a block from our newest and largest
>>> Apple store, so to my relief Macs seem to be doing well here (25-30%),
>>> but I know that is far off the national average.
>>> 
>> 
>> Where might that be?
>> 
> 
> 
> Where my signature says it is.

Your signature is somewhat confusing.

> The Starbucks is at West 15th St. and 9th
> Ave.
> 

I used to spend research time at the Courant Institute (many, many years
ago). 



-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.6)

Gregory Weston wrote:
> That's a laugh. Have you ever read "The Road Ahead?" Have you not 
> noticed that Microsoft spent most of the 90s late to the party for 
> almost ever new technical innovation from desktop networking onward?

In spite of their technical incompetence and lack of innovation,
have you noticed the name Microsoft in any of the media lamentations
about bankruptcies?

Dedication to excellence has to be its own reward, because
most consumers flat out don't care or don't know (usually both)

-- 
Wes Groleau

   A bureaucrat is someone who cuts red tape lengthwise.

Nick Naym wrote:
> In article h06p8s$3ir$1@news.albasani.net, AV3 at arvimide@earthlink.net
> wrote on 6/3/09 5:17 PM:
> 
>> Nick Naym wrote:
>>> In article h0646v$4kf$1@news.albasani.net, AV3 at arvimide@earthlink.net
>>> wrote on 6/3/09 11:17 AM:
>>>
>>> ....
>>> ....
>>>
>>>
>>>> I live in an affluent university area, and my most
>>>> frequently visited Starbucks is only a block from our newest and largest
>>>> Apple store, so to my relief Macs seem to be doing well here (25-30%),
>>>> but I know that is far off the national average.
>>>>
>>> Where might that be?
>>>
>>
>> Where my signature says it is.
> 
> Your signature is somewhat confusing.
> 
>> The Starbucks is at West 15th St. and 9th
>> Ave.
>>
> 
> I used to spend research time at the Courant Institute (many, many years
> ago). 
> 


When I started teaching, Courant's son was a very helpful senior faculty 
member. I still have a painting his sister Beatrice gave me.


> 
> 


-- 
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>    ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>   ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/    ||
||    Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso  ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++

Gregory Weston wrote:
> In article <h0646v$4kf$1@news.albasani.net>,
>  AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>>>> ...
> 
>> I think the rise in Apple's stock price is mainly 
>> attributable to the success of the iPod and iPhone in the full public 
>> marketplace. The Mac OS's role in the stock price is negligible.
> 
> The Mac OS is critical to the iPhone, last time I checked. If the iPhone 
> - whose introduction came well after the stock rebound began - is 
> somehow fundamental to that rise, the OS it runs which differentiates it 
> from everything that came before also is. Speculators may not recognize 
> that. Investors do.
> 


The smart phone's OS is incidental. The iPhone has only part of a 
market, whose other prominent phones are based on other OS's (the new 
Palm smart phone promises to take a chunk of that market, too). What 
distinguishes the iPhone is its seamless interoperability with Windows. 
It doesn't serve Linux. Interoperability with MacOS is less important to 
Blackberry, which serves MacOS as a seeming afterthought. I have no 
experience with other smart phones, but my Helio Samsung is a pain to 
use with MacOS; I can load music onto it only by means of Bluetooth. The 
iPhone and iPod need to be interoperable to serve a mass market, and 
they do it brilliantly, so that is the major factor in their success, 
not the underlying MacOS. It has so far only attracted a trickle of new 
users to the MacOS on computers.


> ...
> 


-- 
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>    ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>   ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/    ||
||    Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso  ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++

In article <h08nrc$kes$1@news.albasani.net>,
 AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Gregory Weston wrote:
> > In article <h0646v$4kf$1@news.albasani.net>,
> >  AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > 
> >>>> ...
> > 
> >> I think the rise in Apple's stock price is mainly 
> >> attributable to the success of the iPod and iPhone in the full public 
> >> marketplace. The Mac OS's role in the stock price is negligible.
> > 
> > The Mac OS is critical to the iPhone, last time I checked. If the iPhone 
> > - whose introduction came well after the stock rebound began - is 
> > somehow fundamental to that rise, the OS it runs which differentiates it 
> > from everything that came before also is. Speculators may not recognize 
> > that. Investors do.
> 
> The smart phone's OS is incidental. The iPhone has only part of a 
> market, whose other prominent phones are based on other OS's (the new 
> Palm smart phone promises to take a chunk of that market, too). What 
> distinguishes the iPhone is its seamless interoperability with Windows. 
> It doesn't serve Linux. Interoperability with MacOS is less important to 
> Blackberry, which serves MacOS as a seeming afterthought. I have no 
> experience with other smart phones, but my Helio Samsung is a pain to 
> use with MacOS; I can load music onto it only by means of Bluetooth. The 
> iPhone and iPod need to be interoperable to serve a mass market, and 
> they do it brilliantly, so that is the major factor in their success, 
> not the underlying MacOS. It has so far only attracted a trickle of new 
> users to the MacOS on computers.

I read the above 3 times trying to figure out where you were going with 
it. As far as I can tell, all this basically boils down to is you saying 
you know better than anyone else what matters to everyone. Oddly, your 
claim of what's important doesn't seem to line up with anyone I actually 
observe. They use the iPhone because of what it offers as a phone, and 
as a mobile computing device, in its own right. And it's the OS that 
makes that happen. The fact that it hasn't brought people to the Mac as 
a desktop platform really isn't meaningful.

-- 
I saw a truck today that had "AAA Batteries / Delivered and Installed" on the
side. My first thought was: That's a really weird business model. How many
inept people have urgent need of skinny little battery cells?

In article <h08nrc$kes$1@news.albasani.net>,
 AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Gregory Weston wrote:
> > In article <h0646v$4kf$1@news.albasani.net>,
> >  AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > 
> >>>> ...
> > 
> >> I think the rise in Apple's stock price is mainly 
> >> attributable to the success of the iPod and iPhone in the full public 
> >> marketplace. The Mac OS's role in the stock price is negligible.
> > 
> > The Mac OS is critical to the iPhone, last time I checked. If the iPhone 
> > - whose introduction came well after the stock rebound began - is 
> > somehow fundamental to that rise, the OS it runs which differentiates it 
> > from everything that came before also is. Speculators may not recognize 
> > that. Investors do.
> 
> The smart phone's OS is incidental. 

No, no, not really. It's what makes the iPhone better than the majority 
of smart phones out there in many, many ways, and it's based on the same 
core OS as Mac OS X, so both operating systems share innovations as a 
result.

> The iPhone has only part of a 
> market, whose other prominent phones are based on other OS's (the new 
> Palm smart phone promises to take a chunk of that market, too). 

None of the other competing operating systems can hold a candle to the 
iPhone OS in terms of features, efficiency, and usability, though.

> What 
> distinguishes the iPhone is its seamless interoperability with Windows. 

No, what distinguishes the iPhone from others is (a) usability, the 
enabler for which is the software running on it, and (b) Apple's 
excellently executed App Store, which beats the pants off all the 
competition.

> It doesn't serve Linux. 

I suggest it's the other way around: Linux doesn't deserve iPhone.

> Interoperability with MacOS is less important to 
> Blackberry, which serves MacOS as a seeming afterthought. I have no 
> experience with other smart phones, but my Helio Samsung is a pain to 
> use with MacOS; I can load music onto it only by means of Bluetooth. 

Agreed - interoperability with Mac OS (and even Windows in some cases) 
is an after-thought for most smart phone companies, to their own 
detriment. 

> The 
> iPhone and iPod need to be interoperable to serve a mass market, and 
> they do it brilliantly, so that is the major factor in their success, 
> not the underlying MacOS. 

You conveniently ignore the fact that it is the underlying operating 
system that *enables* that interoperability. If iPhone ran WinCE, do you 
really think we'd be having this conversation to begin with? I think not.

> It has so far only attracted a trickle of new 
> users to the MacOS on computers.

Really? I'd like to see some real data to back up that assertion, please.

I have read plenty of articles stating the opposite is true - that the 
iPod and iPhone have been increasing Mac sales dramatically for years on 
end:

<http://preview.tinyurl.com/92aqd>
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/qfpr5a>
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/4q9lov>
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/ods6od>
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/q5wm2l>

...and so on

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

Jolly Roger wrote:
> In article <h08nrc$kes$1@news.albasani.net>,
>  AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>> Gregory Weston wrote:
>>> In article <h0646v$4kf$1@news.albasani.net>,
>>>  AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>> I think the rise in Apple's stock price is mainly 
>>>> attributable to the success of the iPod and iPhone in the full public 
>>>> marketplace. The Mac OS's role in the stock price is negligible.
>>> The Mac OS is critical to the iPhone, last time I checked. If the iPhone 
>>> - whose introduction came well after the stock rebound began - is 
>>> somehow fundamental to that rise, the OS it runs which differentiates it 
>>> from everything that came before also is. Speculators may not recognize 
>>> that. Investors do.
>> The smart phone's OS is incidental. 
> 
> No, no, not really. It's what makes the iPhone better than the majority 
> of smart phones out there in many, many ways, and it's based on the same 
> core OS as Mac OS X, so both operating systems share innovations as a 
> result.
> 
>> The iPhone has only part of a 
>> market, whose other prominent phones are based on other OS's (the new 
>> Palm smart phone promises to take a chunk of that market, too). 
> 
> None of the other competing operating systems can hold a candle to the 
> iPhone OS in terms of features, efficiency, and usability, though.
> 
>> What 
>> distinguishes the iPhone is its seamless interoperability with Windows. 
> 
> No, what distinguishes the iPhone from others is (a) usability, the 
> enabler for which is the software running on it, 


My point is that iPhone is usable with Windows. I agree it is smart of 
Apple to provide that interoperability, but Apple knows that is the only 
way to grab a share of the smart phone market, so they did. Other smart 
phones run on other OS's, so the underlying OS can be whatever works for 
the mass public. But the other phones are not nearly so easily 
interoperable with MacOS. They must calculate that it is not worth the 
cost and trouble of making their phones more easily interoperable and 
maintaining an Apple-savvy support staff.


> and (b) Apple's 
> excellently executed App Store, which beats the pants off all the 
> competition.
> 


No question. And with the iPod and the iTunes Store Apple invented an 
effective and profitable way to sell digital music.


>> It doesn't serve Linux. 
> 
> I suggest it's the other way around: Linux doesn't deserve iPhone.
> 


No. It probably isn't worth the time and trouble to provide 
interoperability for such small, niche OS's. Linux users think this is a 
plot to suppress their systems, but it is just a reflection of the same 
snubbing of MacOS by various programs and hardware devices. It's 
economics, not politics.


>> Interoperability with MacOS is less important to 
>> Blackberry, which serves MacOS as a seeming afterthought. I have no 
>> experience with other smart phones, but my Helio Samsung is a pain to 
>> use with MacOS; I can load music onto it only by means of Bluetooth. 
> 
> Agreed - interoperability with Mac OS (and even Windows in some cases) 
> is an after-thought for most smart phone companies, to their own 
> detriment. 
> 
>> The 
>> iPhone and iPod need to be interoperable to serve a mass market, and 
>> they do it brilliantly, so that is the major factor in their success, 
>> not the underlying MacOS. 
> 
> You conveniently ignore the fact that it is the underlying operating 
> system that *enables* that interoperability. If iPhone ran WinCE, do you 
> really think we'd be having this conversation to begin with? I think not.
> 


It is a given that Apple would use its proprietary OS. But a device 
based on MacOS would be a niche device without interoperability. Many 
phones and devices based on Windows get by without much 
interoperability. We have no quarrel that Apple is good at operablility 
and interoperability. My point is that interoperability is the secret of 
Apple's mass market success, and Apple needs it, as does Palm. Nokia and 
Blackberry don't, and they disdain it while hanging onto appreciable 
shares of the market.


Note that with a new iPod you have a choice of formatting it Windows or 
Mac. I have no statistics, but I would bet that a large majority of 
iPods are formatted Windows. Apple was smart to provide that 
possibility. Can you format a Zune for Mac?


>> It has so far only attracted a trickle of new 
>> users to the MacOS on computers.
> 
> Really? I'd like to see some real data to back up that assertion, please.


I am no scholar of this. I base my statement on casual reading, which 
reports MacOS usage under 10%. I remember an impressive billboard and 
magazine ad campaign urging crossover from Windows to Mac, but since 
then I don't see a big change in casually reported usage.


> 
> I have read plenty of articles stating the opposite is true - that the 
> iPod and iPhone have been increasing Mac sales dramatically for years on 
> end:
> 
> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/92aqd>
> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/qfpr5a>
> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/4q9lov>
> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/ods6od>
> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/q5wm2l>
> 
> ...and so on
> 


I have no doubt that there is some increase, but I think "trickle" is 
the word for it, at least until MacOS gains more of the market share 
than it had in the late 1980's.


-- 
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>    ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>   ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/    ||
||    Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso  ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++