Enough BP and other shenanigans... Onto the Post Office.
-
josda1000 wrote:
2. Absolutely necessary? Are you living in the dark ages or something? Bills are paid online now. Letters are sent through email. Cell Phones are still getting better. Faxes are even going by the way side. I'd say it's become a lot less necessary. Remember, we're only talking about first class mail.
We cannot pay certain bills online. The companies refuse to take it. We cut them a check and send it via the mail. Heck, the biggest offender is my gas company. Should all companies be required to take online bill pay? I think that would sound like a private business being forced to do something at that point. Next, you are forgetting that a large portion of the US is sitting on dial up, doesn't have a computer, and people aren't required to have e-mail accounts. E-mail is not all inclusive.
josda1000 wrote:
The internet works. I've never seen that millennium bug pop up. The phones work. We've got to move on from this "we fear change!" thing. Stop being so fearful.
Stop thinking everyone uses the internet. My mom has no e-mail account, has not used electronic banking once, and thinks the internet is a series of nets. She should be forced to try and figure this stuff out when her biggest goal right now is to hold her newest grandchildren before another heart attack takes her from us? She could care less about computers, she just wants to enjoy the few years she has left without hassles and letters to and from my aunts and uncles make her smile. Of the 13 of them, My aunt Josephine is the only one that uses e-mail. But she's like 15 at heart.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
You're right about all of this... some people have not got out of the snail mail thing. But that's precisely my point. We should be out of it. We don't need a monopoly on snail mail just because some people do rely on it.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
You ignored my point on collusion, them not sending stuff and the fact that to be profitable a private company would either stop offering a servicve or charge so much that it would stop being used (and so they drop it) and you latch on to me screwing up. Bravo. Now answer the point on how companies no longer compete for business but instead just all put a united front up and charge as much as they like.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
I think you gave me a total of twenty minutes, and I am at work. Thanks. Sorry I didn't answer the whole thing, but I've got a lot more crap from you than you me.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.I use sarcasm and expect you to get it. You have almost every time. I will look at your points and see where we differ and where we are in agreement, as you do. I may give you crap, but I do so because you are one of the more fun people to debate with on here and it is a peer thing. You are rational (even if I don't agree with your rationale, it makes sense and is internally consistant) and intelligent. When you go to CSS debate techniques I get angry though. I expect more from you Josh. You ignored 3 points, focused on a mistake, that was admitted to, and latched on. That's the stuff of other folks, you normally go point for point and don't hold back. I admire that. Keep it up. You may not convert me to yoru view, but you will still get my respect and my willingness to defend your right to have that view. Even if you don't need it.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
I use sarcasm and expect you to get it. You have almost every time. I will look at your points and see where we differ and where we are in agreement, as you do. I may give you crap, but I do so because you are one of the more fun people to debate with on here and it is a peer thing. You are rational (even if I don't agree with your rationale, it makes sense and is internally consistant) and intelligent. When you go to CSS debate techniques I get angry though. I expect more from you Josh. You ignored 3 points, focused on a mistake, that was admitted to, and latched on. That's the stuff of other folks, you normally go point for point and don't hold back. I admire that. Keep it up. You may not convert me to yoru view, but you will still get my respect and my willingness to defend your right to have that view. Even if you don't need it.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
You may not convert me to yoru view, but you will still get my respect and my willingness to defend your right to have that view. Even if you don't need it.
Thanks. Likewise.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I use sarcasm and expect you to get it. You have almost every time.
I do hear you, however sometimes it's hard when typing it. It's not like it's a real voice, you know what I mean?
ragnaroknrol wrote:
When you go to CSS debate techniques I get angry though. I expect more from you Josh.
The problem is, I've seen you, Christian, and Josh do the same thing. Knowing the number of people that actually come here, there are probably more. I appreciate the compliments, but just watch out. We all do it. CSS may do it more often than anyone here, but the thing is, we all do. As to the fact that I missed your other points, I'm sorry, I'll try to follow through next time.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
You're right about all of this... some people have not got out of the snail mail thing. But that's precisely my point. We should be out of it. We don't need a monopoly on snail mail just because some people do rely on it.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.And how do we fix that? It would take a radical change to the system OR some time. With the first you have all the problems associated with forcing people to adopt to something they may not be able to. With the second you let the change happen and the market/tech/ability will eventually catch up and then the USPS is no longer needed. But until that point, we need to keep that safety net in place. It may not bug you or me, but some folks out there would be majorly screwed by losing the USPS. And we should try to think of them before scrapping something just because it is not making money. Sometimes people need to be put ahead of profits.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
You may not convert me to yoru view, but you will still get my respect and my willingness to defend your right to have that view. Even if you don't need it.
Thanks. Likewise.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I use sarcasm and expect you to get it. You have almost every time.
I do hear you, however sometimes it's hard when typing it. It's not like it's a real voice, you know what I mean?
ragnaroknrol wrote:
When you go to CSS debate techniques I get angry though. I expect more from you Josh.
The problem is, I've seen you, Christian, and Josh do the same thing. Knowing the number of people that actually come here, there are probably more. I appreciate the compliments, but just watch out. We all do it. CSS may do it more often than anyone here, but the thing is, we all do. As to the fact that I missed your other points, I'm sorry, I'll try to follow through next time.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.You and Ian are very good about going point for point. And even though we all do that sometimes, we don't do it in an insulting manner most times. We latch on and show how wrong the point is, but even then, we usually acknowledge the other stuff. And that other stuff was the actual point of it. Truth is, I am almost to the point of trying 1 or 2 things when it comes to CSS. Just to see how they work.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
And how do we fix that? It would take a radical change to the system OR some time. With the first you have all the problems associated with forcing people to adopt to something they may not be able to. With the second you let the change happen and the market/tech/ability will eventually catch up and then the USPS is no longer needed. But until that point, we need to keep that safety net in place. It may not bug you or me, but some folks out there would be majorly screwed by losing the USPS. And we should try to think of them before scrapping something just because it is not making money. Sometimes people need to be put ahead of profits.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
And we should try to think of them before scrapping something just because it is not making money.
The thing is, because it's not making money, you know it's mostly NOT helping people. Agreed, at the moment, people still use snail mail. But think of it: if we got rid of the Post Office, then yes it would force people to make choices for themselves! It's not that they're forced to do something, except that they have to figure out a way to do something else! Holy crap, they have to use their brains and do something. Now I understand that this means either A) they'd have to pay for the internet, B) they'd need a phone (which they probably already have), C) they'd need a car (which they probably already have, it's been near a century since we invented it), or D) they'd have to use the new business side model of the Post Office (which I'm leaning towards). So, IF the USPS were privatized, and the FedEx and UPS versions of the post office didn't work out, then what you'd see is a failure in the market to accept an old idea. If it did work, then the market (people) would still want it, and the business would probably work out a lot better than it does now. But yes, you're right, it is a matter of time before the whole system will end up on the net, I believe. We're already into Windows 7 for goodness sake! lol
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
ragnaroknrol wrote:
And we should try to think of them before scrapping something just because it is not making money.
The thing is, because it's not making money, you know it's mostly NOT helping people. Agreed, at the moment, people still use snail mail. But think of it: if we got rid of the Post Office, then yes it would force people to make choices for themselves! It's not that they're forced to do something, except that they have to figure out a way to do something else! Holy crap, they have to use their brains and do something. Now I understand that this means either A) they'd have to pay for the internet, B) they'd need a phone (which they probably already have), C) they'd need a car (which they probably already have, it's been near a century since we invented it), or D) they'd have to use the new business side model of the Post Office (which I'm leaning towards). So, IF the USPS were privatized, and the FedEx and UPS versions of the post office didn't work out, then what you'd see is a failure in the market to accept an old idea. If it did work, then the market (people) would still want it, and the business would probably work out a lot better than it does now. But yes, you're right, it is a matter of time before the whole system will end up on the net, I believe. We're already into Windows 7 for goodness sake! lol
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.I'm just worried that we have people change and they can't through no fault of their own. Right now I have 2 choices for TV and 2 for Internet. I am lucky. Problem is, one of those choices is inferior in pretty much every catagory and they refuse to upgrade their systems because there isn't enough demand. Everyone I know complains because if the system was upgraded, they would switch, but since the company refuses to, they won't. catch 22. A private company is too scared of not making a profit to try and go into a market. That's fine and dandy for optional things, but when you can lose your house to a bunch of jerks over a bill that you could not get because they refuse to give you service? (and I disagree with this scenario on so many levels, but it is happening already)
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
I'm just worried that we have people change and they can't through no fault of their own. Right now I have 2 choices for TV and 2 for Internet. I am lucky. Problem is, one of those choices is inferior in pretty much every catagory and they refuse to upgrade their systems because there isn't enough demand. Everyone I know complains because if the system was upgraded, they would switch, but since the company refuses to, they won't. catch 22. A private company is too scared of not making a profit to try and go into a market. That's fine and dandy for optional things, but when you can lose your house to a bunch of jerks over a bill that you could not get because they refuse to give you service? (and I disagree with this scenario on so many levels, but it is happening already)
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
I believe the essential problem is the fact that you live in the middle of nowhere. The market is small, therefore they really do believe that it is not worth expanding their horizons because, like you said, the demand is small. So I don't know what to say, except that I can understand it. However, this doesn't mean that each market demand would be the same. Mail is still vital to our economy, as you and Ian have said. This is why I do believe that if the market opened up to mail, as opposed to having it run by the central government out in DC for a nation of 300 million people, it would last longer and thrive, and honestly I believe that a couple new companies would try to get into the mail business and compete with UPS and FedEx.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
I believe the essential problem is the fact that you live in the middle of nowhere. The market is small, therefore they really do believe that it is not worth expanding their horizons because, like you said, the demand is small. So I don't know what to say, except that I can understand it. However, this doesn't mean that each market demand would be the same. Mail is still vital to our economy, as you and Ian have said. This is why I do believe that if the market opened up to mail, as opposed to having it run by the central government out in DC for a nation of 300 million people, it would last longer and thrive, and honestly I believe that a couple new companies would try to get into the mail business and compete with UPS and FedEx.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.50K population in "the middle of no where." Now imagine the choice of people in Idaho. DHS re-imagined their dying company and is now a player against UPS and the USPS. I know other companies could show, but I don't have faith that prices would go down. :(
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
50K population in "the middle of no where." Now imagine the choice of people in Idaho. DHS re-imagined their dying company and is now a player against UPS and the USPS. I know other companies could show, but I don't have faith that prices would go down. :(
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
I was getting mixed up... the way I understood it you were 25 miles from somewhere, but that was in a convo with Ian. Sorry about that.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I know other companies could show, but I don't have faith that prices would go down.
I know. But think about it, we are a strong economy for a reason. We are the number 6 economy in the world, according to a report shown on Stossel's show last Thursday. Honestly I think a lot of the pricing right now has to do with the constant war in Afghanistan as well, but that's speculation.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
I was getting mixed up... the way I understood it you were 25 miles from somewhere, but that was in a convo with Ian. Sorry about that.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I know other companies could show, but I don't have faith that prices would go down.
I know. But think about it, we are a strong economy for a reason. We are the number 6 economy in the world, according to a report shown on Stossel's show last Thursday. Honestly I think a lot of the pricing right now has to do with the constant war in Afghanistan as well, but that's speculation.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.no, Ian's in NY City proper, I am in a small town in the middle of America. And this is still 50K. If I was closer to the university here I could use a T1 connection and I was used to having a T3 (talk about being a low ping Mother Effer in Team Fortress)
josda1000 wrote:
I know. But think about it, we are a strong economy for a reason. We are the number 6 economy in the world, according to a report shown on Stossel's show last Thursday.
That doesn't change the fact that unless you are Walmart, you can do better just calling your competitor up and making a deal or just setting your prices to be the same and letting the loss due to competition be made up for by the margins of what you do get.
josda1000 wrote:
Honestly I think a lot of the pricing right now has to do with the constant war in Afghanistan as well, but that's speculation
Don't get me started on that. Let's say I am of the same mind of a lot of former military in that "it's killing a lot of our boys, chewing up the rest and not healping enough to justify the first two"
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
no, Ian's in NY City proper, I am in a small town in the middle of America. And this is still 50K. If I was closer to the university here I could use a T1 connection and I was used to having a T3 (talk about being a low ping Mother Effer in Team Fortress)
josda1000 wrote:
I know. But think about it, we are a strong economy for a reason. We are the number 6 economy in the world, according to a report shown on Stossel's show last Thursday.
That doesn't change the fact that unless you are Walmart, you can do better just calling your competitor up and making a deal or just setting your prices to be the same and letting the loss due to competition be made up for by the margins of what you do get.
josda1000 wrote:
Honestly I think a lot of the pricing right now has to do with the constant war in Afghanistan as well, but that's speculation
Don't get me started on that. Let's say I am of the same mind of a lot of former military in that "it's killing a lot of our boys, chewing up the rest and not healping enough to justify the first two"
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Don't get me started on that. Let's say I am of the same mind of a lot of former military in that "it's killing a lot of our boys, chewing up the rest and not healping enough to justify the first two"
Just by this statement, in the end, we're on the same team. Good.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
josda1000 wrote:
Free trade means that you're NOT at war.
Well, sure. But free trade doesn't mean there can't be war. It's more that trade will stop as you move towards war.
josda1000 wrote:
AND one other thing. If this kind of fight DID break out, then wouldn't you want the citizenry armed?! That's what militias are all about. Just food for thought.
No, that would be stupid. I doubt the people working for AT&T will all suddenly be found to have guns and be ready to fight for the enemy on US soil. Any guns the citizens could have at home, won't help them much there. I am astounded that anyone can equate modern warfare to warfare 200 years ago, to think that this makes sense.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Any guns the citizens could have at home, won't help them much there
Because the Afghans are having no effect with their small arms?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
Well, there's all sorts of reasons that situation is different. Of course small arms can kill people, but there's no way that they represent a viable military option against the might of the US army. If you were in your own country, looking for rebels and criminals ( by their definition ), they would have no trouble winning that war, even if a few die along the way. The biggest issue is not the guns, but the men. You won't get US soldiers to fire on US citizens en masse. It's not going to happen. That's the biggest invalidator of the whole 'militia' idea.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Well, there's all sorts of reasons that situation is different. Of course small arms can kill people, but there's no way that they represent a viable military option against the might of the US army. If you were in your own country, looking for rebels and criminals ( by their definition ), they would have no trouble winning that war, even if a few die along the way. The biggest issue is not the guns, but the men. You won't get US soldiers to fire on US citizens en masse. It's not going to happen. That's the biggest invalidator of the whole 'militia' idea.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Of course small arms can kill people, but there's no way that they represent a viable military option against the might of the US army.
Tell that to the troops in Afghanistan.
Christian Graus wrote:
You won't get US soldiers to fire on US citizens en masse. It's not going to happen.
Huh. Tell that to Kent State. Could be I'm stupid, But the difference is just not obvious to me. Plus, you argue against yourself: Wouldn't be a 'viable military option' says ineffective, but 'Won't get US soldiers to fire' says the militias will be as effective as they want to be.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Of course small arms can kill people, but there's no way that they represent a viable military option against the might of the US army.
Tell that to the troops in Afghanistan.
Christian Graus wrote:
You won't get US soldiers to fire on US citizens en masse. It's not going to happen.
Huh. Tell that to Kent State. Could be I'm stupid, But the difference is just not obvious to me. Plus, you argue against yourself: Wouldn't be a 'viable military option' says ineffective, but 'Won't get US soldiers to fire' says the militias will be as effective as they want to be.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Could be I'm stupid
Could be :P
RichardM1 wrote:
Plus, you argue against yourself: Wouldn't be a 'viable military option' says ineffective, but 'Won't get US soldiers to fire' says the militias will be as effective as they want to be.
At the core, if I have a gun, I can shoot someone. If I enter a battle with a pop gun against a tank, I won't live long. Sure, Kent State happened, in a time of unrest and uncertainty, and certainly in a time where the soldiers were people who were more likely to blindly follow orders, than anyone alive today. At a minimum, the amendment in question does expect that your gun at home makes you able to fight a soldier from your country, or an invading country, in an open battlefield, and that is plain not true today.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Could be I'm stupid
Could be :P
RichardM1 wrote:
Plus, you argue against yourself: Wouldn't be a 'viable military option' says ineffective, but 'Won't get US soldiers to fire' says the militias will be as effective as they want to be.
At the core, if I have a gun, I can shoot someone. If I enter a battle with a pop gun against a tank, I won't live long. Sure, Kent State happened, in a time of unrest and uncertainty, and certainly in a time where the soldiers were people who were more likely to blindly follow orders, than anyone alive today. At a minimum, the amendment in question does expect that your gun at home makes you able to fight a soldier from your country, or an invading country, in an open battlefield, and that is plain not true today.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
At a minimum, the amendment in question does expect that your gun at home makes you able to fight a soldier from your country, or an invading country, in an open battlefield, and that is plain not true today.
What are the insurgents in the middle east using that is so much better? How are they keeping us from just sweeping the country free of them? What weapons do they have that would not be available to me, if I tried?
Opacity, the new Transparency.