Lost Boy
-
Posts
755 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Lost Boy
-
-
12 hours ago, Grunt said:
I have a fondness for this forum as it played a big part in building my testimony. However, the more I learn about the faith, the more frustrating this forum can be.
Having been on this forum for a short while I've noticed several types of posters:
We have some VERY faithful and intelligent posters here. Some know the doctrine inside and out. Others just do their best to follow Christ. While they debate opposite sides of some pretty interesting topics, they don't seem to be important to progression, just interesting topics.
We have intelligent and thoughtful non-members who add opposing insight or confirming testimony. They're respectful of our beliefs and I love reading their posts.
We have trolls, which I discount and ignore.
We have investigators and drivebys seeking answers to specific questions.
Then we have members of the Church who aren't active, challenge doctrine, are openly vocal in their opposition of church leaders at times, yet post as though they are authorities on topics of doctrine, often with misleading information. At times they dance around what I consider apostasy.
This last group is what frustrates me. I have a hard enough time as a new member absorbing doctrine and culture. Some of my original understandings, that I received from this type of poster, has turned out to be quite false. It's concerning and detracts from my spiritual growth. Sadly, I'm sure that makes some of them happy.
There's my semi-annual whining.
I can see why this would be frustrating. But here is the thing. We are all children of God. That doesn't mean we are all going to be on the same page. Our Heavenly Father did not make us all the same. We are on the journey together, but we are all at different places in the journey. Some of us wander and and some of us don't. And some of us don't appear to wander, but in our hearts we are. And some may appear to wander, but really aren't and you are not perceiving them correctly.
Be happy you have found the path and others that will walk it with you. Be slow to judge. We all have our unique demons in life and some are easy to see and some are not, but we all have them. And just because a poster here appears to be rock solid, doesn't mean they don't have an issue with porn or anger or any number of things.
And yes, some of us have a hard time with things like Noah. That doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it. If you don't talk about them, how do you you ever resolve them?
-
1 minute ago, anatess2 said:
Or you just don't know how to use it... like how to put music into your iOS device without iTunes.
perhaps. I just am not a fan of how apple tries to control stuff on the phone.
-
9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:
The difference between iOS and Android is the comparatively lack of freedom in iOS due to iOS "lock downs". Now, iOS does this because of the Jobs paradigm of treating the computer as an appliance (I call it that because I have a feeling that now that Jobs is gone, Apple is going to abandon that paradigm and end up failing like they did before... there's plenty of evidence for that in iPhone X).
MicroSoft doesn't have that same paradigm and it became a sideshow to expect Windows to fail at something during unveiling and it became the MicroSoft norm to release a buggy product then fix the bugs as an "upgrade". But they're trying to change that now because of all the security problems they've been having that cost them a lot of money. So they're trying to "backdoor" their own version of a Jobs paradigm where instead of locking down the OS, they Big Brother your enterprise and vacuum info for their analysis then force an upgrade into the OS into your Enterprise. It's stupid. And, of course, they locked down the OS in as much as, you can't modify certain aspects of the OS itself.
The beauty of Linux is the freedom to develop anything without having Big Brother watch over you. And, if you don't like the way the OS handles certain things, you can always surgically modify the OS itself.
Most of us are either incapable of modifying it or just not interested in putting in the additional work. I prefer something that just works. Windows has been that. But it also allows for the freedom of updating your hardware with many different options..
I personally think the iphone is great hardware, but I hate using them. I feel road blocked with many different aspects of it. I can't just transfer music to it.. have to go through itunes.. android... can put music on it from any source and any computer. Same with videos. I love the UI I have on my android. Then the apps. IOS probably has a bit better apps, but so many of the free ones are extremely heavy on the ads. Most of my free android apps have little or no ads.
But my wife loves her phone so that is what she gets.
-
On 11/29/2018 at 4:40 PM, Still_Small_Voice said:
In my research I discovered you do not really control most Windows 10 computers. Windows 10 does four annoying things.
First, it's a telemetry gathering platform for Microsoft. Microsoft slurps up huge amounts of data direct from within the operating system core. It helps them make an accurate picture of the user allowing them to monetize them in various ways.
Second, it's designed as a portal to push the user into Microsoft services. Many things within Windows 10 (OneDrive, Groove, Microsoft Store et cetera) all nudge users into these services.
Third, Windows 10 is an ad platform. Advertisements are injected into various parts of the system in order to extract money from the user.
Fourth, most versions of Windows 10 push automatic software updates to your computer. This cannot be shut off short of doing hacks or making modifications to the operating system. The software updates may do the following:
* Twice per year you may need to re-install software deemed not required by Microsoft that they may remove
* Your preferences (including privacy settings) may be be reset to default, so you'll need to go through them regularly to change them again.
* Some Metro applications may be re-installed if you deleted them previously.
* Expect your group policy settings and tweaks to be completely removed or changed and the only way to get them back is to change to Windows 10 Enterprise.I don't really care about telemetry much as long as they don't steal passwords and personal data
I have never had an app need to be reinstalled. No complaints, nothing.
Have no idea what a metro app is
I have no group policy settings and tweaks.
I see zero ads coming through the OS. Zero.
My computer is 10 years old. runs a core 2 duo processor. I upgraded to an SSD and a newer graphics card. And with that, the computer runs just as snappy as my work computer with an I7 processor. It can't do video editing as fast, but for internet browsing, office type stuff, etc.. it is smooth as butter.
I have tried linux and didn't have an issue with it, but it can be a pain in the butt to get some programs loaded and running when compared to windows.
-
I finally got mine cleared to the point that I can fit two cars in. Have not done that for over a decade.
-
7 minutes ago, Vort said:
Do you think she meant she would have done it all herself? When Werner Von Braun claimed he could get the US to Mars by the mid-1970s, do you think he meant that he was going to build the rockets himself, with his own hands?
I understood Anatess to say that if you had handed her a million dollars, she could have had the site built and reliable and still made a healthy profit. Hyperbole? Probably not. But even if it were hyperbole, her point stands. Two billion dollars for a web site consisting pretty much of your vanilla front end UI and business logic that references an abstracted database set, is built every day all over the world. Even adding in security hardening requirements, this is not anything approaching a two billion dollar job.
LB, are you seriously trying to argue that the Obamacare web site was not a vast boondoggle that shamelessly overspent its need by a hundred times if not a thousand?
Of course I am not going to say healthcare.gov was completely overly spent. Obamacare sucks and is a complete waste of money including the website.
But to get it up and running and running smoothly would have taken at least a year and many people working on it. I don't think it could have been done for a million. Probably closer to a hundred million after you included all that was included included in the 2.1 billion dollars.
And yes, government has a hard time governing itself. That doesn't mean a single payer system wouldn't work. Government isn't the only thing that doesn't manage itself well... GM, Chrysler, Big banks, etc. All needed bail outs.
I would much rather see a good market solution for health care, but that is not being considered as far as I know. As such the only solution on the table right now for Obama care is single payer. Anybody with half a brain can see what direction we are headed.
So unless the Republicans pull their heads out, we are going to get a leftist version of Single payer that you nor I want. It would be far better for the republicans to set it up, but there opportunity has been squandered.
-
59 minutes ago, Vort said:
LB, did you read your own link? What more damning evidence do you need? anatess said nothing about "programming the website". Putting up a website has other (ostensible) expenses beyond paying someone to produce the HTML.
...ironic...
She said it cost 2.1 billion to make it and she could have done it for less than a million by herself. I know the 2.1 billion was for much more than programming. But she said she could have done it for less than a million. But whatever.
-
17 hours ago, anatess2 said:
Yes, you are wrong here.
The government spent $2.1 BILLION just to build ONE WEBSITE for Obamacare. ONE WEBSITE. Do you know how many websites I've built that are more data and functionally complex than Obamacare? Hundreds. Do you know how many of those had a Project Cost that exceed $1 Million? ZILCH. NADA. Yet you have a government that can spend way more than 200 times the amount on a website that... FAILED ON OPENING DAY.
So here you are saying that you.. not your company.... you... have built websites far more complex than healthcare.org.... Not only that, you have built hundreds of them that are more complex than healthcare.org. Not your company... you.
And this is what I am calling you out on. Total rubbish. It took a team of programs two year to program and test it. I don't believe for a second that you could do it by yourself. And you said you have done hundreds. So I figure you have probably been doing this for 15-20 years... 200 project / 20 years... means 10 per year... means you are claiming it would take you a little over a month to build healthcare.org, have it all tested and working... connecting up to all the government agencies, insurance companies etc. Provide all the training. And do it all for less than a million dollars.
And then you basically call me a liar when I call you out on it.. Whatever.. At least what you wrote is out there for all to see.
-
29 minutes ago, anatess2 said:
The government spent $2.1 billion ON THE WEBSITE. You got google. You can look it up yourself.
And I will forgive you your silly understanding that complex transactional websites are built by individual developers with firmware falling from trees as it is my impression that you don't know much about building websites.
But the fact still remains. You are in no position to decide what to do with my tax money.
Yeah, the government didn't pay 2.1 billion for programming the website.
And I never said I was in a position to decide where your tax money goes. Why you brought that up is beyond me. Do you have a habit of putting words in other people's mouths?
And it was you that made it sound that you could do Healthcare. Gov by yourself. I know quite well what goes into websites and that is why I called you out on your boasting.
-
3 hours ago, anatess2 said:
You think I build websites by my lonesome. How cute.
I happen to work for an international corporation. And no, we're not in the gaming industry. I wish I work for one but, alas, I work for a more stiff-shirt data management endeavor.
And see... that's why you think government is very efficient. You think spending $2.1 billion on a government transactional website is reasonable. And that's why I can never trust you with my tax money.
The way you put it, you claimed to be able to do it yourself.
And again the government didn't spend 2.1 billion on the website itself. I couldn't care less about obamacare. it sucks. but at least I am willing to dig into what is being spent on what and not just taking numbers off of some right wing website.
-
2 minutes ago, clbent04 said:
I think you're right to say we need to do something better for those who can't afford to pay for health care. But Obamacare is not the answer. From it's inception, my own monthly medical premium went up from $200 to $500. And I know many low-income and middle-class families who got hit even harder than that.
I fully agree with you that obama care is not the answer. My premium also went up. On this we certainly agree. I had high hopes the Republicans would actually get off their full of hot air butts and do something about the situation. They didn't. My health care costs are higher than ever and the current Republican party sucks and deserved to lose the house. That said, I am not happy the Democrats have it either.
- JohnsonJones and clbent04
-
2
-
For all you decrying socialism....
Universal health care is no more socialism than the military is. No more than public education is. No more than your public roads are.
Socialism -- a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Universal healthcare is not a production of healthcare. it would be a distribution of funds, but not services nor of an exchange of goods. That would all be still in the private sector. It isn't socialized medicine, it is socialized insurance... which we already have anyway.. medicare... and by most measures it is run well as it only does one thing... distribute money. Entities such as the VA are aimed at far more... providing products, distribution, etc. The VA is true social medicine. Should we get rid of the VA?
And for those who are opposed to universal health care. What do you do for those out of no fault of their own not be able to pay for health care? Do you just let them die? What is your plan?
-
1 minute ago, anatess2 said:
Yes, you are wrong here.
The government spent $2.1 BILLION just to build ONE WEBSITE for Obamacare. ONE WEBSITE. Do you know how many websites I've built that are more data and functionally complex than Obamacare? Hundreds. Do you know how many of those had a Project Cost that exceed $1 Million? ZILCH. NADA. Yet you have a government that can spend way more than 200 times the amount on a website that... FAILED ON OPENING DAY.
Really? you want me to believe your statement above? Not happening. While I'll agree that the website had issues and probably cost more than it should, I don't believe for a minute that you could have done the obamacare website all by your little lonesome. And just because something is not as "data complex" doesn't mean that it was expensive to create.
And nor do I believe for a second that the government spent $2.1 billion on coding the website. Perhaps you could dig a little and see where that $2.1 billion went. I personally think Obama care is awful. But at least I have some understanding of why the website cost $2.1 billion.... It wasn't for the computer programmers. There was a lot more that went into it than that and there isn't a chance on this planet that you could have done the obama care website by yourself even if you had a lifetime to do it.
-
26 minutes ago, clbent04 said:
You asked for examples of what the government has taken over and run poorly. The government took over our general mailing system from the get go as outlined in the US Constitution. What’s the difference if they took it over at a later point in time versus from the get go? It’s operated poorly either way.
How do you not see this as a relevant comparison? You don’t need a set of identical twins to make a comparison. Even if UPS and FedEx starting offering the exact same services as USPS, do you think UPS’s and FedEx’s income statements would suddenly flop? When it comes to making money, our business sector has always outperformed the government across the board.
They didn't take anything over. There was no private mail service to take over. It was just created.
You are right, you don't need a set of identical twins, but you at least should be somewhat similar. The USPS is mandated to do much more. Did you know that the USPS does not receive tax money? If the USPS only offered the same services as UPS and FedEx, chances are they would be similarly as profitable. Also, the USPS is not a for profit institute. If you want to pay more for mail, I am sure we the people could set them up as a for profit entity.
When it comes to making money our business sector has not outperformed government across the board as the two don't compete. The only place they have really competed is in the healthcare insurance market... medicare... in in that they have performed quite well.
-
18 minutes ago, clbent04 said:
2017 Net Profit
United States Postal Service
-$2,700,000,000 (NEGATIVE amount)
UPS
$3,400,000,000 (POSITIVE amount)
FedEx
$3,000,000,000 (POSITIVE amount)
First, the US postal service was not a take over. It has basically been with us since day one.
Second, UPS and FedEx do not provide the same service as the post office. There is some overlap, but they stick to packages and priority mail and don't offer bulk/first class type mail.
So I would not consider these fair comparison.
-
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:
Can you name one single time our government took something over and stuff got cheaper?
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20110920.013390/full/
Honestly, how many things has government taken over? Very few things and mostly what they did take over were things that essentially needed bailing out like rail roads, particularly amtrak. Am I wrong here? Please provide examples of things the government took over and ran more poorly.
-
4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:
Ok, you have jumped the shark now.
If we're going to use that metric for CAN CHANGE... then sure. USA can change to either be Enoch or Venezuela tomorrow. I will bet you my last Lucky Charms your universal healthcare proposition or abolishing the US Constitution will be closer to changing you to Venezuela than Enoch.
Or maybe doing a universal health care will just get everyone covered and decrease the cost for most americans.
I would love to go to a market system, but clearly the stupid republicans don't want that because in the two years they were in power they did zilch to fix health care. So either do a market driven system, or do a government managed one, but the in between sucks.
That said. Even if we go market driven, I would still want everyone to have basic coverage.
-
1 minute ago, anatess2 said:
Yes, it can be amended. That's not what you are saying. You are saying "There's no cosmic definition from on high". THERE IS. It's called the US Constitution. You can amend it if you want. It doesn't get rid of the "cosmic definition". Some things cannot be changed without abolishing the entire document.
I am saying that the constitution is not the word of God. It may have inspiration in it, but it is not scripture. And therefore can change. That is what I am saying.
-
Just now, anatess2 said:
Yes, it can be abolished by getting rid of the United States of America and making independent nations out of each State. Good luck. You'll be a Republic of Texas in short order.
Or it can just be amended and still I have not suggest that we get rid of the military so chill a bit.
-
1 minute ago, anatess2 said:
Actually there is. It is SPECIFICALLY DEFINED in the US Constitution. You can't vote out a US Military. But yes, you can vote in handing over your healthcare to the government. The US Constitution can only limit government as much as the people want it limited. You can vote housing, food, clothing, everything to be handled by your government. The wisdom of such endeavor is questionable because the reason the US became as successful as it is within its short lifespan is because the US Constitution limits the government from taking such power for itself.
Actually there isn't. The constitution is a man made construct. It can be abolished. It can be amended and it has been amended many times. And yes, you can vote out the military through amendment. But I never said I don't want the military. I want a smaller cheaper military.
-
1 hour ago, Vort said:
Government should take care of government-related areas like military protection, which is practically the definition of what a government is for, and not non-government-related areas like health care.
I am speechless at your naivete.
Government related items is whatever you specify them to be whether it be military, health care, education, etc. There is no cosmic definition from on high what it is to do. It should be what the people want from it. Clearly you want it for military. I do as well, but I also believe it would be beneficial in administering health care costs.
And calling me naive does not help your case. It is what people do that do have the intellectual capacity to make their case. Let's leave out the insults and stick to making an actual case or not. Or you can stick with insults. I guess it really doesn't matter.
-
21 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:
Strange how the Repubs lost the House here then.
Ok. it is king in presidential elections. The house is a bit of a different animal. As is the senate.
-
16 hours ago, anatess2 said:
This is political naivete, if I may be so bold as to say so. Any money that the government manages becomes government money. The private sector treats it as government money (inexhaustible with guaranteed payment... government doesn't default on anything because government can print money) therefore, not subject to capitalist risks. This is exactly the same issue that plagued higher education and the same issue that caused the housing market bubble. When the government decided to give loans to students so they can go to college, colleges treated it as guaranteed income, accepting any student without much regard for whether the student has the aptitude for the core competency, and even not caring about competitive edge through program quality. They don't have to. Money is guaranteed by the government. Demand for higher education increased - a lot of which is due to kids not having marketable skills after graduating from high school so they take college as an extension of high school with the added benefit of college dorm parties. Cost of college skyrocketed (increased demand, higher price... capitalism in action) and students graduate the same way they entered... without marketable skills. So now, the government is deciding to solve the problem it created by offering free college. It's insane.
Now, about healthcare... government paying for healthcare doesn't mean a healthier population... (see, college graduates without marketable skills). It simply means government insertion into the capitalist health market impeding the market's ability to self-correct without regard for the quality of service rendered. Now, as the cost of healthcare increases due to more sick people, then it becomes necessary for government to regulate health... so then you'll have government dictate how many ounces of soda you can drink a day or how many pizzas you are allowed to consume or what extreme sports you can engage in... or it simply dictates what kind of healthcare you are allowed such as, an age cap on knee replacement surgeries, etc. etc.
And saying "any government service doesn't have to be a huge entity" is out of your control once you authorize the government to manage it. Putting the government in charge of a service makes that service a campaign issue. It is pretty difficult for any political candidate to run on a platform of.... (@zil, what's the word I'm looking for??? Starts with an S, I think. Means "tighten the belt"), whereas it is very easy for a political candidate to run on a platform of... "Free spa massages, free botox, free sex change operations" effectively expanding the meaning of "basic healthcare".
So, really, there are 3 options - 1.) small government, private healthcare, 2.) medium government, healthcare safety net in much the same way as food stamps, 3.) big government, universal healthcare.
I prefer 1.
High School is not a must. Literacy is a must for a functioning governable society. The only reason a high school diploma becomes a requirement is either to raise one's self out of the blue collar to the white collar or to eliminate competition for a job. A plumber, for example, does not need a High School Diploma to perform the job. Nor a store manager, a firefighter, a police officer, etc. etc. But, to be able to communicate and become governable, one must at least be literate. Therefore, more important than a High School diploma for economic success is the availability of labor opportunities. Because, if there are 3 plumbers available to work 1 plumber's job, a high school diploma becomes a way to eliminate the competition. Whereas, if there was 1 plumber available to work 3 plumber's jobs, then a high school diploma becomes irrelevant.
In places like India or the Philippines where there are a whole lot more people than there are jobs, a Master's Degree gets you a job managing McDonald's, a High School Degree gets you a job selling cigarettes at the street corner.
Dude, if you don't consider your College Degree a vocation, you're wasting your time and your money.
Government expenditure is a waste when it cannot raise economic outlook. The purpose of spending money on education is so that you can put people to work. The justification for education spending is it is going to be paid for by the taxes of productive workers that became possible through the free education. But, if your vocation produces a lower probability of tax revenues compared to another vocation, the government has the authority - as the provider of such education - to push its citizenry out of such vocational opportunity thereby controlling the labor force giving low-tax-revenue jobs to... say, foreign workers that don't receive such educational benefits.
QuoteI don't think it is bigger than it needs to be. But that's a matter of opinion laced with bias because, as a Filipino, a super strong USA means peace to the Philippines.
That said, I believe the only people that can clearly determine how big it needs to be is the military. Therefore, putting good, non-political, mission-oriented people in charge of the military with a clear combat-readiness mission is a better position than ordinary people deciding that the military is too big/too small.
It amazes me that in one breath you say we can't trust government with our money "health care & education" and in the same breath you say we need to trust government with our money "military."
Letting the military decide how big they need to be is ridiculous. We don't need to be world cops any more. No one is looking to invade the Philippines. The world is a very different place than it was 70 years ago.
And universal health care would mean a healthier population. You are afraid of a much more expensive system. The world disagrees with you. The U.S. health care cost per capita is double that of most modern countries. And those countries cover their entire population. Also, today's system if very much not a market system. I don't just get to go out and decide what health insurance I want. I get what is given to me by my employer. And then I am limited to the doctors and hospitals in the plan. This is not a market system in the least. It is stupid and broken. A universal system would open up choice to all doctors. This would mean that doctors that want to succeed have to be the best in their field. They are not guaranteed an income. They still have to get patients and bad doctors would not get patients.
Go to any country with universal health care. They are not getting free botox, face lifts, boob jobs, etc. They cover necessary treatments. That is all. The current system sucks. It is expensive and slow and gives me less choice of doctors and hospitals.
As for government subsidized education... your are putting your fears in just one possibility of a system. There are many ways to set it up to ensure government doesn't coerce its population into one degree or another.
And I completely disagree with the need for a high school education. Just because a plumber can turn a wrench without a high school degree does not mean he shouldn't have one. The more knowledge a population has, the better chance they have at making better choices. Maybe we wouldn't have the screwed up election that gave us choice of Hillary and Donald.
-
7 minutes ago, anatess2 said:
I'm going to challenge your ideological positions, ok? You can just say "I don't want to debate this" if you didn't intend for it to be a topic of discussion.
A military is useless when it is limited by non-combat rules. The size of a military is a non-combat consideration. A military should be the size it needs to be to defend one's country from enemies both foreign and domestic. If it needs a big military to do so, then you need a big military. If you can effectively defend one's country with a small military then that's what you need. This is one of only 3 reasons the Feds exist.
These are mutually exclusive. "Basic" is a moving target. You can't run a Small Government that controls 1/3 of your economy.
Another conflict. "Higher education" is unnecessary. Grammar school is necessary. High School is a luxury. Making "higher education" a function of government puts your government directly in control of it's citizen's labor qualifications which is not much different from the Chinese government having the authority to dictate to its citizenry where they are assigned for labor. In addition, a vocation requires conviction. If you don't put your own resources into your vocation, you allow people who have no such convictions to go into such vocation just because they can to which they graduate with money spent on some skill they have no wish to use.
QuoteA military is useless when it is limited by non-combat rules. The size of a military is a non-combat consideration. A military should be the size it needs to be to defend one's country from enemies both foreign and domestic. If it needs a big military to do so, then you need a big military. If you can effectively defend one's country with a small military then that's what you need. This is one of only 3 reasons the Feds exist.
I agree. That said I certainly think it is way bigger than it needs to be and we waste more money on it that we need to.
QuoteThese are mutually exclusive. "Basic" is a moving target. You can't run a Small Government that controls 1/3 of your economy.
Universal basic health care does not have to be a huge entity. Yes, there would be a lot of money that flows through it, but that money goes straight to the private sector and provides a service that benefits all. I am no bleeding heart. I really don't care about the sick. What I care about is the affect the sick have on me. A healthier population is better for all.
The Republicans had the chance to define what universal health care would be. They squandered that chance and the next time Democrats have a shot at it, they will define it in a way we won't like.
QuoteAnother conflict. "Higher education" is unnecessary. Grammar school is necessary. High School is a luxury. Making "higher education" a function of government puts your government directly in control of it's citizen's labor qualifications which is not much different from the Chinese government having the authority to dictate to its citizenry where they are assigned for labor. In addition, a vocation requires conviction. If you don't put your own resources into your vocation, you allow people who have no such convictions to go into such vocation just because they can to which they graduate with money spent on some skill they have no wish to use.
First, High school is really a must. Can you make due without? yeah, but generally not very well.
Please explain how government subsidized tuition is government dictating its labor force. As for vocation, the amount may be adjusted so that you are still responsible for a certain portion. For University, I would not have it so college is completely covered.
What is your philosophy on garages?
in General Discussion
Posted
My dad's new truck is 3 inches too long to close the garage door. Apparently there are going to be some modifications to the garage to rectify this.