Lovely but uneducated chat & forums.

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Show ALL Forums

Author

Thread: Lovely but uneducated

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 63 (view)

Lovely but uneducated Posted: 2/26/2009 6:09:49 AM
It is highly unlikely that geniuses marry people with whom they cannot converse on a stimulating level, with whom they don't feel both intellectually and emotionally matched. It may not be likely a genius marries another genius; however, I would be very surprised to learn that geniuses marry people with whom they do not feel intellectually matched. Actually, you're dead wrong. If you are exceptionally educated, knowledgeable in a specific area, or a "genius", you just learn to accept that it is highly unlikely you will meet anyone who is your "intellectual equal". Though I hate using the "IQ" to define genius (I tend to think of Einstein, Descartes, Voltaire and Beethoven when I think of Genius)... as has been pointed out before, there is more to the mind than what can be determined through the IQ test, that it is statistically curved tends to be useful for demonstrating this point. Let's say you have an IQ of 150... that would place you at the 99.9 percentile. In otherwords, only 1/1000 people you meet will have a an equal or higher level of intellect. Now let's say you were flexible and didn't exclusively look for those with a 150 IQ or higher and but were looking for someone who is somewhat close to your intellect (let's use 135... the measure for Gifted as the cutoff). 135 would place a person at the 98th percentile.... now let's add it all up. Chance of meeting a person with the following attributes... 135+ IQ ... 2% Single - 40% Percentage of women between the ages of 30 and 39 - 7.9% (2001 canadian census) Physically Attractive to YOU - Let's say 1/3 (assume you're flexible) or 33% Emotionally Compatible - Let's say 1/5 (you may be more or less picky) or 20% Let's add it all up... 2% x 40% x 7.9% x 33% x 20% = .041712% or 1/23,973.... If you didn't factor in IQ at all, your chance would be more like 0.2% or 1/500. If you met 50 random people every week, it should on average take you about a year. If you went to events where you only met single women between the ages of 30 and 39 (eliminating the problem of them being single and female) your odds increase to about 6.6%, or 1/15 women if you don't consider IQ, or 0.0013% or 1/735 if you do factor in IQ. This isn't to say that IQ is a relevant measure, what I'm saying is that the more criteria you introduce into your dating, the less chance you have of meeting someone that you will find acceptable. Similarly, the more narrow the criteria (like in the cases of those seeking partners who are exceptionally successful, wealthy, smart, attractive, talented, etc), the more likely you will learn to either compromise those criteria or learn to live with being single. Sure, maybe you believe that "fate" will provide that person... but nobody ever said that Fate would give you want you "want"... maybe Fate will only give you what you Need. From what I understand, only 20% of Canadians have completed a college/university level education. That of course implies that 80% of Canadians or 4/5 have not. If you choose to reduce your dating pool by a factor of 5... I suppose that's your prerogative. In the end, each person makes their choices... just be aware that all choices have a price... in your case, a prospectively smaller dating pool of people that just might make you happy anyway. I have personally made that choice that intellectually stimulating conversation is nice to have, but not critical. I have enough friends and business associates with whom I can have great conversations on philosophy, history, economics, politics, science, technology, etc that I don't feel that my partner needs to be particularly well versed or intellectually gifted. It would be like being a professional tennis player and only dating other tennis pro's... might be nice, but if that's how you limit yourself, you'll find yourself most likely alone. Just my 2 cents. Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 12 (view)

ARGHHHHH! Why are women so damn confusing. Posted: 1/23/2009 8:47:51 AM
Clue. Get one. She gave you lots of signals... and you were busy reading the manual. Next time something like that happens (she sidles up to you, cuddles, and is in close contact), lean your face forward towards here (to about a distance of 3 to 4 inches), and if she begins to lean in, kiss her. Moral of the story, she expected you to respond to her very overt signals... you didn't, and now she's confused as to what your intentions are. So, either make em clear, or give up the ghost and get the heck out of dodge. Either way, stop leaving her hanging. Reminds me of the saying... "Opportunity is often wasted on the wrong people..." Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 164 (view)

Why do men dislike intelligent women Posted: 1/23/2009 8:40:43 AM
Why should this be a mutually exclusive choice? Personally, I like witty, intelligent women who know HOW to be a sexpot. In other words, someone who is witty and intelligent makes a great.... FRIEND! If a woman wants to be more than that, she had best know how to get my sensual side motivated as well. So, be witty and intelligent. It's never a minus. But if a women doesn't know how to intrigue a man's interest and libido, she's pretty much a lost cause. This doesn't mean a women needs to be a nymphomaniac (let's not confuse sex with sensuality), but it is nice if a woman knows how to overtly be feminine. And before this stokes too much controversy let's consider that many women like intelligence and wit... but also like men who know how to be "masculine". Whether that's through confidence, ambition, accomplishment, the ability to flirt, being good with power tools, athletically inclined, etc, etc. Otherwise, why would women often say that want men who are considerate, but not "doormats". However a women gauges "manly" qualities, they want men to be men. Just as men want women to be women... whatever the heck that means. ^_^ Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 47 (view)

Most men are too picky Posted: 1/23/2009 8:33:00 AM
Well, aside from each person's individual tastes, my observations on how men choose women and women choose men tends to center around the following... Men tend to go after the "best" women that they think they can get. Women tend to go after the "best" men that they think they can keep. Of the women friends that I have had over the years, once in a while you'll hear them talk about a guy that they think are hot, but then they'll go into a discussion of whether the guy is "too hot", "too successful", etc and they worry about how they can maintain and keep such a man's attention. Meanwhile, the guys that I know will sometimes talk about "that women is hot, but she wouldn't be interested in someone like me....". It's a worry about whether the woman would even be slightly interested in them in the first place. This isn't universal of course, though my suspicion is that the bulk of people make rational calculations about their likelihood of success... whether it's defined as initial interest (in the case of men), or ability to retain interest (in the case of women). This of course gives people with a high level of self-confidence a significant advantage. I've run into more than a few "model gorgeous" women who complain that men rarely approach them (intimidation factor), and the ones that do approach them are usually creeps who only want to sleep with them. Meanwhile, I know more than a few handsome, accomplished and intelligent men who complain that many of the women they date are too insecure. They are not confident in their own attractiveness and worth and are looking for frequent re-affirmation. In this case as well, a woman who is self-confident (not the same as arrogant) has a significant advantage. Just my 2 cents... Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 107 (view)

Do people really spend hundreds on a date? Posted: 1/6/2009 2:39:58 PM
It depends ALOT on where you live, and the expectations in terms of both yourself and your date. Here's a range of costs for Dinner in Toronto... Cheap... 2 x 2 beers (including tip) = $25 Dinner x 2 at Wendy's = $25 Total = $50 Medium... Dinner for 2 at The Keg = $50 2 x 2****ails = $30 Total = $80 Upper Middle... Dinner for 2 at a nice Restaurant = $80 Bottle of Wine = $90 Parking = $10 Total = $200 Extravagent... Dinner for 2 at a Fine restaurant = $120 Bottle of Wine = $120 Valet Parking = $20 Total = $240+++ Keep in mind, this doesn't cover things like movie tickets, club covers, tickets for Shows, galleries or museums, concerts, parking, horse rides, filling up the gas tank on the boat, etc, etc, etc. Really, ymmv... either way, shelling out bucks every time you go on a date adds up no matter who you are. Especially since people tend to spend what is expected given their own personal financial situations sooner or later. Just my 2 cents... Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 246 (view)

Very High IQ Posted: 1/6/2009 2:01:37 PM
Well, sticking to the original OP's post and without getting into a long post addressing the many viewpoints on this forum (whose opinions run the gamut from well concieved to erroneous to outlandish), all I can state is my own thoughts and opinions. I went through a streamed program for gifted children (from grade 4 through grade 11 when the program ended), where the minimum benchmark was a confirmed test score of 135. While it was a gifted program, even within the program there was a broad spectrum of intelligence, ranging from the marginal to the brilliant. While some of my classmates excelled (one of my classmates ended up placing in the international Mathematics Olympiad and now teaches advanced Mathematics at Stanford, another became a successful Hedge Fund Manager, others became doctors, lawyers, screenwriters, etc), many ended up in relatively mediocre white collar professions and I wouldn't be surprised if a few ended up being the proverbial brilliant Starbucks Baristas or Taxicab drivers. Having transitioned to the "normal" educational stream after so many years in gifted programs, I can say that the main differences between the two from my perspective was a combination of curriculum (the gifted program pushed forward more advanced material like Calculus 2 years earlier than the normal program did) and a different approach by instructors (greater emphasis on self-directed learning and projects). That being said, many of the brighter students still found themselves bored to the point of stultification when covering "rote" materials. My thought is that the main obstacle you will encounter with these children is the issue of boredom. For a person with a swift mind and memory, the rate at which they acquire, process and master information is far faster than people realize. Similarly, their ability to assimilate information quickly (as well as synthesize that information usefully) means that they will always be seeking a higher bar in terms of satisfaction when it comes to mastering a particular topic. The real problem starts when they "outpace" the curriculum that has been laid out for them. The only way to really make those topics exciting is to either make the topics sufficiently complex to challenge their minds, or to create a context to the information that is meaningful to them so that their intellectual curiousity is piqued. For example, teaching someone probability is extraordinarily boring.. until you place the concept of statistics within a framework that they themselves find either useful or interesting. For example, if they have a penchant for games... taking statistics and having them apply those skills to real life probability problems such as those that take place when playing craps or poker, or analyzing the results of an election in terms of variance and deviation would challenge their intellectual capabilities and give them a reason to acquire and apply that knowledge. Often, the way that information is presented in classrooms is in a way that is stale and clinical. While the idea of two trains approaching each other at different speeds may seem appropriate in terms of a context, if it were me, it would have been far more interesting if the problem were presented more along the lines of a real life contextual problem... for example, let's put a new twist on the old 2 trains problem... a) You and your friend are on opposite sides of the city approximately 20 miles apart. You have a car and can take the highway, averaging 60 miles an hour. Your friend has to take the subway, which averages 35 miles per hour. It's 6pm and you have to get to a concert by 8pm that is located at the intersections of Oak and Elm. Assuming that you can drive from wherever you pick up your friend at an average speed of 25 miles per hour in the city, what is the best subway station to meet that will allow you the most time to get some dinner and still get to the concert on time? How much time will you have for dinner? What time would you get to the concert if you skipped dinner? As for the idea of conforming to rules, this isn't just an issue of intelligence, but assuming that you believe this stems somewhat from their intelligence (perhaps they have learned a healthy disrespect for rules... not uncommon among my peers), then most likely they haven't formed a connection in their minds in terms of how it relates specifically to their particular set of goals. For example, if you plan on being a musician, then the idea of mastering Algebra and Trigonometry becomes an abstract rather than a practical exercise. In cases such as this, then you really have only a few options... 1) Let them figure it out. While getting into college/university is valuable, not everyone is destined to go on to higher education right after high school. They may desire to learn and explore the world on their first. 2) Attempt to get into a logical discussion regarding the ends... ie, form a connection between their own goals and objectives and the task at hand. For example, they may want to travel the world and don't see an application for University... until you point out that Students can travel on a special Student Visa and live and work abroad in many countries for up to 6 months, or that graduates with any University degree can take a course and get certified as an English teacher and use that as a means to fund their desire to travel. Another example would be to show that the ability to grasp higher mathematical concepts is useful should they wish to engage in high Finance, or that going on to education at higher institutions will expose them to a wide variety of people that they can form social connections with in order to further their goals. 3) Should it be acceptable withing your cultural context, you could simply pressure/guilt them into it. For example, obedience to parents is very highly valued in certain cultures and would simply require the parents to take a firm stand and "order" them to do so. 4) You could give them a research project and let them learn for themselves about the pro's and cons of education. Tell them that you'll respect whatever decision they choose, but that you want them to make an informed decision. Give them some guidelines on what you want them to research. For example have them examine careers by educational path (most don't realize how many careers require solid mathematics or writing skills), relative earning power, expected differences in lifespan, in-depth research on 4 or 5 careers and would include interviews, anecdotal and statistical research, and whatever else you might feel is relevant. If these kids are as smart as you say they are, they just might have some ideas in terms of what they want. Finally, while intelligence is valuable, it is neither a free ticket, nor is it fair to expect that they'll use that potential to the maximum. While we often hope for the maximum potential for our children, sometimes the question is more about happiness. The human race is full of underachievement... we just don't hear about it all that often. Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 69 (view)

philosaphys of the rich Posted: 9/29/2008 6:40:55 AM
um... how did you get these numbers?? with $10,000 a year you just make $1 mill. actually all your numbers seem a little increased...What formula are you using? That was a typo. It was supposed to say 40 years. 30 years would be $1m and $5.5m, 40 years is $2m and $11m respectively. Even if you compound it every day you're only making $271,790.96. I must be missing something in your calculations.. Hmm all your latter ones seem to be around $100,000 off..did you just add the original savings value again in addition to your future balance? You are correct. That was an error. Just deduct $100k exactly from all figures. It happens when you're writing after a night at the pub. Should also consider that in 40 years being a millionaire ($1-5 mill) won't mean too much. The inflation in the past 40 years was around 500% so divide all your 40 year values by 5. So saving $100,000 now will never make you the equivalent of a millionaire in 40 years (although you'll be awfully close). While your note regarding inflation is correct, the calculations I made were in reference to effective rates of return, IE, assumed return is after inflation is deducted. Inflation does fluctuate annually, and it would have made for a much more unwieldy demonstration of compounding to do a calculation pre-inflation, then input inflation adjustments and indicate a future value of money assumption. More importantly, the end results are the same. Legend has it that Albert Einstein called compound interest, "the greatest mathematical discovery of all time." While I can't say that I agree, I can say that it will pave a road to retirement. Best of luck. Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 62 (view)

The person you are interested in is already retired ... you are not. Posted: 9/25/2008 12:47:05 PM
I think it will depend alot on the individual. If you are older and retired, it may be something of an issue and you will consider how it will impact your lifestyle and whether you are comfortable with the changes that it will bring. For some it will not be a big deal... not every person wants to be with their significant other all the time. If you are younger and financially independent, then you don't really have the option of being that picky. Being under 40 and not on the clock has alot of benefits (the ability to pursue hobbies and interests for example), but you realize quickly that it is a luxury that very, very few people actually have. While it isn't ideal for dating at that age (in that you'll have to fill your time with other things), you either learn to accept it or you'll find yourself spending alot of time single. I would suggest that you discuss your concerns and see if they can live with them. Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 9 (view)

How long do men feel the need to pursue? Posted: 9/25/2008 12:38:20 PM
I can't speak for every man. I won't chase a woman more than 2 or 3 dates usually, with a maximum of 5 dates if they have legitimate reasons. If they can't make the leap to feeling comfortable calling me and initiating things to do by then, then I assume they are either not interested, or their head is too much caught up in games to be a partner in an adult relationship. I'm not a teenager, and don't expect the woman I see to act like one. Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 67 (view)

philosaphys of the rich Posted: 9/25/2008 10:10:15 AM
Interesting theory... most approved recipe how to become a millionaire Q. how did you became a millionaire? A. i found 25 cents, bought an orange, did from orange the juice and then sold the juice for 50 cents Q. and then after? A. i brought two oranges, did the juice again and sold it for one dollar and so on. Q. but this way is too long? A. of course too long. but then my rich uncle died and left all his estate to me. Or maybe if you were a creative businessman, it would have worked something more like this.... most Improved recipe on how to become a millionaire Q. how did you became a millionaire? A. i found 25 cents, bought an orange, did from orange the juice and then sold the juice for 50 cents Q. and then after? A. I saw a market for the orange juice, so I went to my friends and family, who staked me for $1,000 each. I paid them an interest rate of 5% with a 3 year term. I found 10 people who would back me, which combined with my good credit rating, the $5,000 I put in myself and a detailed business plan outlining the market for the juice and my anticipated overhead and profit margins at various levels of sales allowed me to approach the bank with a 65% financing loan. When they asked me details about my projections, I presented information regarding similar businesses in other areas with similar levels of traffic and population demographics. The terms I negotiated there was 5 years at 7%. With the $45,000 I had in total, I was able to lease a kiosk at a local mall. I then built the kiosk to specification after arranging leases with Food Equipment companies for the juicers, refrigerators and Cash registers. While I was doing this, I spent some time creating a core operation manual, working out detailed inventory and pricing structures, as well as recruiting and training staff to assist me in the endeavour. One of my key staff was a person who I knew who was willing to work for a reduced wage in exchange for a small percentage of ownership of the operation. Since my projections were correct, I made an industry standard margin, with food and labor costs running at approximately 30%. This allowed me to carry my financing, pay back my friends, pay myself a small salary, and more importantly save capital, which I then used to build similar operations in other busy locations. There were setbacks. Some days I wondered if I could make payroll. Prices for oranges went up and down depending on the season. Business would ebb and flow depending upon the weather and the economy. Sometimes I had to take a second job or borrow money to help keep the business afloat. Other times I worked double shifts to cover when someone didn't show up for work. 10 years later, I now have a number of locations and am well on the road to financial independence. Q. but this way is too long? A. There are no free rides in life. You make do with what you have and do the best you can. And sometimes, hard work and luck pay off. There's no moral to this story. Only what you take out of it. Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 54 (view)

philosaphys of the rich Posted: 9/20/2008 9:10:39 PM
Sorry, had to take some issue with this post. I'm still not clear how you define Rich and Poor, Andvari. Are your 'philosophies' exclusively defining rich and poor? What about all of the people in the middle? Do you even define a middle? There are over 3 million high net worth individuals in the US yet less than 2000 Americans earn more than $250,000 per year. Thirty-four thousand of those are ultra-high net worth individuals. How do they do that off such small incomes? It would take 120 years to save up enough to become a UHNWI. That leaves you wondering how at least 32,000 of these individuals got their money with the philosophies in the OP. You have to wonder if the author of the book isn't just laughing all the way to the bank. Wikipedia has an interesting article on wealth This is absolutely false. According to the IRS, the percentage of households reporting an adjusted income of $250,000 or greater is 2 percent. If you were talking individuals, the numbers would be smaller but would still number in the hundreds of thousands. As for high net worth individuals, what level are you categorizing them? $1 million? 5 million? $10 million? $30 million? If you fall in between one and five million, you can easily reach that level through a combination of saving and investment if your saving rate is sufficiently high. If you saved $50,000 per year (not unattainable for someone earning $250,000) for 30 years at 7% compounded return, you would end up with $11 million by the time you retired. Even if you saved only $10,000 per year, you would still end up with over $2 million. Putting aside the idea of retirement contribution (which can get you to several million dollars with prudence and discipline), how most people get very wealthy is they invest their money wisely in businesses, real estate investments, stock investments, etc, etc. And what works in their favor is a combination of time + compounding. Here is an example... if you saved $100,000 (a large amount, but not insurmountable), here is what you end up with at 5% over time.... 10 years - $262,000 20 years - $307,000 30 years - $532,000 40 years - $804,000 Now let's see what happens at 7% 10 years - $296,000 20 years - $486,000 30 years - $860,000 40 years - $1.6 million How about 10%? 10 years - $359,000 20 years - $772,000 30 years - $1.84 million 40 years - $4.65 million This all assumes you never put another dime into your savings, and you earn that rate of return consistently. If you were contributing to your savings the entire time, you would earn far, far more. I'm sure some of you are saying it isn't possible to get 10% over 30 years... well, Warren Buffett has earned 22% return for over 40 years. George Soros earned 33% for over 10 years. Peter Lynch earned 36% for over 15 years. Bill Gates has earned over 30% for over 20 years. You don't have to be Soros, Gates, Buffett or Lynch... if you spend the time and do the work, you can earn that much. There are alot of ways to earn money... whether it's through starting a business, buying stocks, or buying real estate, it has been done by many. They don't set out to make a ton of money, they just get into the habit of making good investments year after year after year. What does 20% a year for 40 years look like? Well, that $100,000 would be $147 million. It's not easy, it takes time and tremendous patience, it takes work and lots of learning... but it is far from unattainable. And to be completely honest, even if you were only 1/3 as good as Warren Buffett, you can still retire a millionaire. Just some thoughts. Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 375 (view)

Abortion Rights As Election Issue - The Truth Posted: 9/18/2008 8:08:28 AM
The problem with the political discussion of abortion as an election issue is fundamentally it comes down to someone taking a moral position on what they percieve as the distinction between when a human being becomes a human being. While for those that believe life begins at conception this is an immutable moral view, for the most part it is a view that is grounded in whatever moral worldview you happen to hold. So here is the question? If you decide to forward your own personal worldview as a basis for legislation for abortion, you are in fact attempting to legislate that worldview on those who do not necessarily hold that same worldview. While this does make sense for those that hold such a position, it does imply a certain level of "moral certainty" on an issue that is actually in conflict with those of a different worldview. This is not a question of moral relativism, it is in fact a conflict of moral assumptions. Here are some examples of the differing worldviews on the concept of "human life". Current Catholic Church Doctrine - Life begins prior to conception This of course has been an ongoing debate for centuries... for example. St. Augustine (354-430 CE) reversed centuries of Christian teaching in Western Europe, by returning to the Aristotelian Pagan concept of "delayed ensoulment." He wrote that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated). He wrote extensively on sexual matters, teaching that the original sin of Adam and Eve are passed to each successive generation through the pleasure generated during sexual intercourse. This passed into the church's canon law. Only abortion of a more fully developed "fetus animatus" (animated fetus) was punished as murder. St. Jerome (circa 340 - 420) wrote in a letter to Aglasia: "The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs" Pope Innocent III (circa 1161-1216): He wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not "animated." Early in the 13th century he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) also considered only the abortion of an "animated" fetus as murder. Pope Sixtus V (1471-1484) issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty. Pope Gregory XIV (1535-1591) revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the "quickening" test, which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks). Other denominations of Christianity - Varies according to denomination Islam - 40 days after conception Hindu - After conception Judaism - A subject of debate, with times ranging from 60 to 90 to 120 days. For example... Halacha (Jewish law) does define when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). "...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.' " In the case of a "feet-first" delivery, it happens when most of the fetal body is outside the mother's body. Jewish beliefs and practice not neatly match either the "pro-life" nor the "pro-choice" points of view. The general principles of modern-day Judaism are that: The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life. It gains "full human status at birth only." Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus. Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health. With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women. "...each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law." Historical Christianity has considered "ensoulment," the point at which the soul enters the body) as the time when abortions should normally be prohibited. Belief about the timing of this event has varied from the instant of fertilization of the ovum, to 90 days after conception, or later. There has been no consensus among historical Jewish sources about when ensoulment happens. It is regarded as "one of the 'secrets of God' that will be revealed only when the Messiah comes." Quakers - up to each individual Buddhists - Life is eternal, however acts such as abortion must be viewed in the context of the suffering that the child would bring to the mother. Dalai Lama - Of course, abortion, from a Buddhist viewpoint, is an act of killing and is negative, generally speaking. But it depends on the circumstances. If the unborn child will be retarded or if the birth will create serious problems for the parent, these are cases where there can be an exception. I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance. Dalai Lama, New York Times, 28/11/1993 Sikh - At moment of conception. Atheism - Up to each individual. My main point here, is that in a pluralistic society, what "pro-life" advocates are in fact advocating, is the imposition of their own personal religious belief systems and worldview on those that have a different religious belief and worldview. While this is morally acceptable within the personal context, IE, "I believe X therefor I judge you to be Y", attempting to pressure the government to espouse this view legislatively is as morally defensible as attempting to ban one's religion because you happen to believe that your religion is the one true path. As for those who argue that Roe V. Wade should be overturned on purely constitutional grounds (constitutionalists), IE, that judges should not be allowed to "legislate from the bench", this is an extremely narrow view of constitutional interpretation that conveniently forgets that the Supreme Court has been legislating from the bench from it's inception. We should also keep in mind that if you truly interpreting the breadth of US law through the literal interpretation of the constitution and the intended meaning of the founders and leaving it to the States, then many, many, decisions would never have come into being... including... The abolishment of Jim Crow laws The abolishment of segregation The creation of Title 9 allowing equal access to athletics The creation of the FDA, EPA, FHA and other agencies The Federal Bank system (Only the Congress has the right to create money) The expansion of powers for the Executive Branch Anyway, regardless of your personal views on Abortion (pro-life, pro-choice, pro-abstinence, pro-sex, pro-cheetos), I guess the question at the end of the day is whether you feel you are justified to impose your own personal moral view on those who don't share that view. And perhaps ask yourself the question that if the population of the US did shift to a majority of people who oppose your moral view, whether you feel it is appropriate to legislate their moral views upon your personal freedom to act. Just my 2 cents. Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 33 (view)

philosaphys of the rich Posted: 9/15/2008 6:20:29 AM
1.Find a niche market and exploit it to the fullest. 2.Destroy your competition without mercy. 3. Buy as much influence in Government as you can and write your own laws. 4. Have no pity for your customers. Millionaires don't follow my 4 little rules. Billionaires do ! Nice generalization. I don't suppose you would care to explain how the following people neatly fit your sweeping generalization? Warren Buffett Pierre Omidyar George Soros Peter Lynch Michael Bloomberg Sergei Brin Ingvar Kamprad Steve Jobs Lawrence Ellison Karl Albrecht Bernard Arnault The list goes on. People are diverse. And while some rose to prominence through skulduggery, not every one did. Just my 2 cents. Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 39 (view)

Is a gambler a bad catch? Posted: 9/14/2008 3:09:03 PM
Some interesting insights... To wanderer1999 concerning point number 3 Most people who consider themselves professional gamblers are really just gamblers. When I was learning poker in Atlantic City my teacher told me all about the professional poker players that would constantly be dirt broke. This is correct. I never said that those individuals were common, I was just outlining the general groupings of gamblers. There are very few professional poker players, horse betters, and sports betters because of the "vig." The tracks take 20+% , the bookies take 10% and the poker rooms take a rack so in the long run the gamblers as a group must lose. Only the very best can overcome the high vigs and rakes and really make a living at betting. Both true and not. The rake/vig can be substantial, so requires a certain expectation to overcome it. As for making a living, for many people who are capable of becoming "professional" players, the problem is not that they can have a winning expectation, but that the amount of money you can earn versus the time invested is insufficient to warrant doing it as a profession. For example, let's assume that your maximum return at your level of play is 2 big bets per hour on a 5-10 table. That means you are earning $20 per hour, or $40k per year assuming you play a 40 hour work-week. This of course doesn't count overhead like meals, travel, hotels, etc. This sounds great, unless you have a job that pays you $60k per year as an engineer or manager... at that point then poker becomes a losing proposition. And quite frankly, if you're smart enough to earn $100k+ per year at poker, you're most likely smart enough to make far more money in other lines of work/business. Additionally, many people who desire to become professional gamblers don't realize the substantial lifestyle sacrifices that are involved. Constant travel, irregular hours, highly volatile income (winning/losing streaks are FAR more common than most people realize), substantial record-keeping (Assume you're filing income tax... which is unavoidable if you do any substantial tournament play), etc. etc. This of course is aside from any moral issues you or people that you know may have with gambling as a profession in general. What to do if you meet a guy who says he is a professional gambler? Play the odds and tell him to get lost. More than 99% of "pro" gamblers lose. That is fact. A better set of questions would probably be... 1) Is this your main profession? Or do you do other things for money? "Professional" gamblers do it full time. They don't need to take other jobs. 2) How long have you done this for a living? If they've been at it for a year or longer, odds are they're at least break-even. Of course, the other thing to watch out for would be "leaks" in their bankrolls. There are many professional gamblers who are excellent at their games... but suffer other character flaws that leave them broke. For example, they may be world class poker players, but they blow their winnings on Drugs, drinking, or even other gambling games like Pai Gow, Craps or Blackjack. Successful professional players make their money, then go do stuff unrelated to gambling like watch television, read books, or have dinner with their friends. For the professional gambler, it's just a job like any other. Just my 2 cents. Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 30 (view)

philosaphys of the rich Posted: 9/14/2008 2:39:05 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how strongly people feel about money and wealth. 2. Rich people play the money game to win. It helps when you can use your money to manipulate the rules to your favor. Actually, most people aren't able to manipulate the rules in order to get rich. More than likely, they are merely playing by the rules that we all operate under. For example, if you run a business you are able to take certain tax deductions that you can't take when employed by someone else. This isn't "manipulating" the rules, this is utilizing the tax rules that you are given. If you put money into a RRSP, then the gains are tax-deferred. If you choose to invest outside of an RRSP and forego the tax advantages of a RRSP, then is it the fault of the person who utilizes those existing rules? Or is it your fault for either not learning them or not taking advantage of them? If you play basketball and forget that you're allowed to pass the ball, is it the fault of the other team? Or is it your fault for not learning the rules of the game? 3. Rich people are committed to being rich. Poor people want to be rich. Some people get rich telling other people how to get rich. Actually, there is a tremendous amount of truth to this statement. The difference between wanting to be rich, and desiring to be rich is the measure of how much you want to sacrifice in order to attain your goals. For example, I have a sister who works in the public health sector. She has an MBA and makes a certain amount per year. If she chose to work for a consulting firm, her salary would double. If she started her own business and employed other consultants or manufactured a product, her earning potential could be several orders of magnitude higher. Why doesn't she make more money? She chooses NOT to make more money. She doesn't like the stress, the time commitment, the travel, or the responsibilities associated with making more money. She enjoys having weekends off, not being on call, and the generous holidays and other benefits. This is neither good or bad. It is however a CHOICE. We all make these choices of what we are willing to sacrifice in order to attain our goals. Do we take that second job? Do we forego that dinner in order to put it into an investment account? Do we decide to study that extra 5 hours to get an A instead of a B on an exam? Do we choose to bang on doors or work late instead of going out for beers with a bunch of friends? That isn't to say there isn't luck in life. If you were born in North America you are exceptionally fortunate. If you were born in Rwanda, your path in life is much, much harder. However, let us not fool ourselves into thinking that the results of our own lives have no input from ourselves. My father was born poor in another country. He grew up during the great depression. He worked extremely hard for everything he earned. He made the CHOICE to leave his family, friends, country and all he knew behind just to have a CHANCE at a better life. He worked at a technician union job for decades, working overtime to save money. He worked double-shifts so he could save money more quickly. He bought used cars and fixed them himself to save on mechanics bills. He would go fishing on weekends to save money on groceries. He hardly spent any money on himself, buying only the absolute minimum of clothes and personal items. He bought a black and white television to save the $100 versus a color television. He would buy used books at garage sales and flea markets to read to us in order to save money. He also spent all his spare time at the library reading books, magazines and newspapers to learn how to make his money grow. He started and failed in 4 businesses before he finally was able to get it right. And he never worried about the "Joneses". He was also able to retire at the age of 50... 15 years before his co-workers. He finally bought a new car when he turned 60... in cash. Why did he do all of this? Not because he was greedy. He did it because he wanted a better life for his family. He did it because he put his own personal desires behind his vision of what he wanted for his children. Most of these are simply an apology for the wealthy. It's the whole " pull yourselves up by your boot straps" philosophy, which few rich people ever do. It's easy to tell rich people they are rich because of their superior life attitudes and that the system works. When the system stops working so well, the rich are just as quick to start looking for a hand-out as poor people are. Maby quicker, since the system is designed to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. It's not a question of "superior life attitudes". If money is a priority, then the rules are simple. 1) Spend less than you earn. If you make too little, find jobs to make more. If you spend too much, find ways to spend less. 2) Save money. You can't get ahead without putting money aside. 3) Put your money to work for you. If you don't know how, go learn it. It isn't rocket science. This isn't about "the system", it's common sense. Now if you're arguing that those who are priveledged have an obligation to help those less fortunate and those who are vulnerable, that is a different discussion entirely. There are many born to great disadvantage. Some through unfortunate circumstance while others through accident of upbringing. I don't think that it takes a brain surgeon to realize that helping those at the "bottom of the ladder" improves life for everyone by making our society a better one. The best way to get wealthy is to be born into it. Most of the real wealth in the world is inherited. Actually, the vast majority of millionaires are self-made. Very few inherit great wealth. If you looked at the actual statistics, you would know this is true. Of the few examples of people becoming very wealthy of their own means, there are only a few of simple rules which they almost all share. Right, and wrong. Shall we go down the list? 1.Find a niche market and exploit it to the fullest. More like find a societal need and provide it. If there's too many janitors, then your value to society is reduced. If there's too few nurses, then their value goes up. If someone needs a better mousetrap, find a way to invent one, or find someone who's invented one and help them take it to market. This isn't exploitation, it's common sense. 2.Destroy your competition without mercy. You mean if you have a competitive edge, keep innovating and managing in order to maintain that edge? Don't cry to me about the "victim" businesses. Everyone who owns a business or puts their money to work knows the risks and rules. Nobody forces ANYONE to play in business or investing. If you think you're smart enough to get into business, whether it's manufacturing, services, stocks or real estate, then you take your chances just like everyone else. If someone drives me out of business, it's either because I made a mistake, or someone out-smarted me. That's not predatory, that's life. If I field a team in the NFL, I don't cry about how the other team won the Super Bowl. I either field a better team next year, or I go find something else to do. While predatory capitalism is a real issue when it is completely unregulated and unfettered, it is a generally accepted concept in modern societies that the outcome of unregulated business in the end becomes detrimental to society. This is why there are laws that exist to reduce predatory and monopolistic business activities. While I won't even pretend to argue that predatory capitalism has been completely eliminated, the amount of predatory capitalism in the US and Canada is a fraction of what it is in much of the world. I certainly see alot of free choice in terms of who makes your PC, who makes your cars, who makes your Cell Phone, who delivers your milk to the grocery store, etc, etc, etc. Sure, there are industries that require additional oversight and anti-monopoly action, however compared with the bulk of the economy, this is still only a small portion of total overall economic activity. Can we improve on our regulation and oversight? Certainly. That however, is a completely different discussion. 3. Buy as much influence in Government as you can and write your own laws. The laws are written by the request of special interests. While "special interest" is often a dirty word in politics, we need to realize who these "special interests" are. They aren't just limited to companies and corporations. Aside from "big business", they also include such diverse groups such as... Local municipalities, counties and state governments Individual governmental departments and agencies Local, state/provincial and national chambers of commerce Local, state and national unions Community organizations, churches and faith-based groups Individuals seeking to have particular legislative needs addressed Professional associations such as Medical, Lawyers and Engineering associations Academic and Research Institutions Charities and Philanthropic Groups Delegations from foreign nations When "bad laws" are created, they are in my opinion not the problem of "interest groups" seeking to have legislation created, the problem lies in the closed-door committee process, lack of transparency, and requirement of elected officials to raise large amounts of money in order to campaign for office effectively. By definition, an "interest group" represents a portion of the population that wishes to see legislative change take place. Sometimes it's the Red Cross, sometimes it's Focus on the Family, other times it's Industry, Unions, or organizations like the ACLU. 4. Have no pity for your customers. This is absurd at it's best. With the exception of vital services like Utilities (which are heavily regulated), no company can sell you something if you don't wish to buy it. Most everything you can purchase has an alternative that you can purchase to accomplish the same thing, assuming you can't live without it entirely. Can't afford a dishwasher? Wash your own dishes. Can't afford a house? Rent an apartment. Can't afford a car? Take public transit. Can't afford to live far away from work? Move somewhere closer. No company can survive for long without providing a vital need to people at a fair price. How is the price determined as fair? It's determined as fair when the majority of people pay the set price. If people didn't think that the product or service warranted the price asked, then they would either substitute for another product, or someone would develop an alternative. This isn't meant to belittle those going through economic diffulty due to unusual situations like substantial economic slowdowns. /rant on ... tangential discussion incoming! There is a time when government should step in to assist those in need. Just as we willingly intervene when there are natural disasters like hurricanes, tsunami's and earthquakes, there should be a willingness to intervene when individuals suffer from human disasters like injury, illness, or tectonic shifts in economic activity. I know this is a strange concepts to Americans sometimes, but in Canada the choice was made long ago to protect individuals from the harshest of life's "human disasters". In the mind of Canadians, suffering a catastrophic injury or illness should be treated with the same compassion as someone who's house is lost to a storm surge. This is why Canadians choose Universal Health Care. /rant off Just my 2 cents. Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 31 (view)

Is a gambler a bad catch? Posted: 9/14/2008 7:35:24 AM
This is not a simple question. I think it depends on alot of factors. In my experience, people gamble for a number of reasons. However, they tend to fall into three broad categories. 1) Adrenaline junkies. Some people gamble exclusively for the adrenaline rush of the win. They don't think about the real probability of winning or losing, they only feel happy and alive when there is a large amount of money at stake and they win. While there are adrenaline junkies in most every gambling game, they tend to have high percentages in games where there is little or no probability of actually making a profit. Some games that are well known for poor or negative win probabilities are games like craps, blackjack (without card-counting), roulette, pai gow, caribbean poker, keno and slot machines. Adrenaline junkies are the most likely to become addicted to gambling as they seek ever increasing bets and risk in order to feel good about their play. 2) Social gamblers. Social gamblers usually are only gambling because they either enjoy the company of other gamblers, or they like to go gambling with friends. They're usually the people that will gravitate around a poker table and talk all night, or go to the casino only when their friends invite them to go gambling. They tend to have a low incidence of gambling addiction, though if they do become addicted it's more because of the social relationships they build at the casino or card room. They often feel little desire to gamble at higher stakes as their enjoyment is driven by the people around them. 3) Professional gamblers. Professional gamblers are concerned solely with the accumulation of as much money over time as is possible. Professional gamblers are motivated by profit. They avoid situations where the probability of winning is not substantially in their favor. They have little ego on the line, so they tend to seek only those games where they have the greatest advantage. They avoid games of chance like craps, roulette, slots or keno. They know the games that they play intimately, as well as the odds and statistical probabilities of both winning individual plays as well as the expected rates of return on their investments. In business terms, they would be looked at as investors. They only put their money at risk when there is a high probability of profit. Professional poker players will leave a poker table when there are too many good players on it. They are conscious of how much money they have at any given time, as well as how much that money affects their ability to continue gambling. They often keep meticulous records of winnings and losses, and only consider themselves "winners" if they are profitable at the end of the week/month/year. They don't increase betting stakes unless they are confident they will make more money at a higher level of play than at a lower one. Sometimes the profit margins on a low limit table are more substantial than on a higher limit table. It all depends on who they are playing against. So is a gambler a "bad catch"? I think it depends on what type of gambler you are. Are you an adrenaline junkie? A social gambler? Or a professional gambler? Most people who gamble have some traits from all three... however those who have addictive personalities, or who personalize the games the play are more susceptible to losing control of their gambling. As for the insurance industry, yes, the insurance industry does make a bet... but I don't consider that "gambling" in the sense that I don't consider professional gamblers to "gamble". They make calculated risks, based on extensive statistical analysis of the probabilities of winning and losing, while factoring in the volatility of random chance. It is as far from gambling as owning a Casino is far from gambling. There's a reason why they say "Vegas wasn't built on winners". Just my 2 cents. Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 19 (view)

Lifelong bachelor, workaholic. Is it hopeless? Posted: 6/16/2008 10:53:12 PM
Lots of possible scenarios here. If he's working that many hours, it's quite possible that he just has one of those businesses that get extremely busy on a seasonal basis. Landscaping, construction, contracting, fishing... they all fall in that category. When winter comes, there's little to no work. During the season, you work as much as you can to save what you need to get through until next year. There are lots of businesses that are like this. If your friend owned an accounting firm, you'd be lucky to see him during tax season. Also keep in mind, that the US is solidly heading into Recession. If he's as smart a cookie as you seem to think he is, then he's quite possibly preparing for the worst right now. Landscaping, construction and contracting all suffer terribly during economic downturns. I know several people in contracting -- they'll take any job they can right now just to fill up the books for the next several months/years so that they won't need to lay as many people off later. However, if he's in landscaping, expect things to slow down for him towards the end of summer... and somewhere in there depending on how packed his bookings are, he'll have some time here and there. If you want to know the details, then I suggest you ask him. If he says it's going to slow down, try to get an approximate time frame. As for the FWB worry... um, how many times do you get to see him? FWB only works if you see eachother enough for him to get the B part hehe. Good luck. Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 59 (view)

So, hes rich, funny and handsome....why is he on here?? Posted: 6/3/2008 7:38:57 AM
As far as dating, there's not much difference between someone being rich and dating and middle class and dating. Having money isn't a free pass to meaningful relationships. It gives certain advantages but it also gives certain disadvantages. There are many potential reasons why someone who is affluent may be looking for love online... -They may live in a smaller community and have exhausted their local dating pool -They may not be willing to date work or business associates -They may not enjoy the bar/disco scene -They may be hoping that online dating will allow them to screen prospective mates more efficiently -They may be hoping that online dating will give them access to a larger number of women, thus improving their chances -They may be shy in person, making online dating more comfortable -They may have gotten good feedback from friends regarding online dating so decided to try it -They may be frustrated with the dating scene in general and wanted to try something new Of course, who knows. Maybe your guy is legit, maybe they're a scam artist. Only one way to find out. In the end, we're all looking for a special someone. Is it so hard to believe that someone who has money wouldn't exercise all their options? As for using a free website, why wouldn't someone try it? If someone hasn't done online dating before, wouldn't it make sense to try a free site out first and see how you like it before spending money on a paid website? Not to mention, it never hurts to be a member of a free website, even if you decided to join paid sites. Finally, there has been alot of debate among men of means as to whether the best strategy is to hide your wealth, or to flaunt it when online dating. On the one hand, hiding your wealth limits the number of gold-diggers. On the other hand, being financially and occupationally successful is part of who one is... and that success can be very attractive to members of the opposite sex. Attraction to men of means isn't always about the money... it is just as much about the perceived character traits of ambition, responsibility, reliability, work ethic, and ability to live up to commitments. While men who hide their success and wealth have an advantage in discouraging those women with $$$ in their eyes, if they don't portray any success or are particularly evasive about their successes, then women can also perceive a man as lacking in ambition, work ethic, etc. It's quite the catch 22. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Each man has to reach their own individual decision whether they wish to conceal their wealth, and how much of it they wish to conceal. It's not up to us to judge them for whichever road they take. Just some thoughts. Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 50 (view)

Is there such a thing as a confirmed bachelor??? Posted: 5/20/2008 10:44:44 PM
I think alot of men have issue with the whole idea of a woman's wedding ring being the equivalent of hitting the legal lottery. Most of the single guys I know are in no rush to get married. Many of the ones who've been divorced, plan on never getting remarried. Many of the ones who've never been married, have seen enough divorces to seriously question the value of getting married. You women aren't around when we're sitting at the local bars or games talking about this stuff, but the truth is, more and more of us have decided that the upside/downside risk is too out of whack. The fact is, if you're in a LTR with a woman (or even several Short term relationships), what exactly does a guy have to gain if he gets married? Then measure what he has to lose if he gets divorced? Toss in that the more successful you are, the greater the penalty for an unsuccessful marriage, and suddenly the smarter, more successful men (who happen to be pretty good at risk assessment... it's part of what made them successful), start drifting from the position of Certainly, to Probably, to Maybe, to Not likely, to No way in Hell. I'm not quite that jaded personally, but then I would need a pretty spectacular woman for me to seriously consider tying the knot... and even then, she'd better be ready to spend some time with some lawyers. Now if they removed the disproportionately punitive system from Marriage and Divorce, then you would probably see a lot more men going back the other way... unfortunately, that's just not that likely. In the meanwhile, increasing numbers of men will just bide their time and either say, "I'm picky", or "I'm waiting for the right one", or simply "I like being a Bachelor". Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 54 (view)

why do you go on 1st date so casual... Posted: 5/20/2008 10:21:56 PM
shrug I suppose it depends on the man. I couldn't care less what other people think. I dress how I like, and wear what I find comfortable. Does that mean I don't dress appropriately? Of course not. If I go to the theatre, or a four star restaurant, or a formal dinner function, of course I break out the top shelf wardrobe. However, when I do so it's not to impress anyone, it's because it's considered socially appropriate for the function. The rest of the time, I wear jeans or shorts and a T-shirt or sometimes flannel. That being said, it doesn't mean you should look like a slob. Taking the time to shave, tuck a shirt in, and wear clean clothes isn't about being yourself, it's about being clean and hygenic. As for a first date, it depends on where it is. If it's in a nice restaurant, I dress appropriately. If it's in a cafe, the same. Some of the most interesting people I've ever met were dressed in jeans and sneakers. And some of the most assinine people I've ever met wore nothing but suits. If a woman places so much importance on whether I wear a button down shirt vs. a t-shirt, or slacks vs. jeans, or a suit versus a sweater, then the problem lies with them, not with me. That being said, I don't look bad in a suit. Of course, a high quality suit makes anyone look good -- but that's why you pay your Tailor, isn't it? Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 146 (view)

How important is money? Posted: 5/16/2008 12:12:18 PM
Just a few observations... There is a difference between wearing money and having money. Some people "wear" their money. They buy expensive clothes, watches, shoes, and cars. They throw around money at bars and restaurants. They buy the biggest and most expensive houses and condominiums that they can afford, usually at the cost of their savings. Some of these people actually are well off. In reality, most are not. They are what I like to call the "fake" wealthy. Then there are the wealthy who have money but don't wear it. They drive Honda's, Toyotas and pickup trucks. They wear simple watches like Timex and Casio. They wear sweatshirts, t-shirts, golf shirts, and affordable shoes. They don't buy a car unless they can pay for it in cash. They don't buy houses unless they can put afford to buy it for cash even if they decide to put a mortgage on it. Sure, they could afford an Aston Martin, wear a Rolex, put on Hugo Boss and slip on Gucci's, but who would they be trying to impress? When you initially meet a woman, wearing money definitely makes you more attractive. A woman has only two ways to know if a man is financially successful. Either they are "wearing" wealth, or someone has told them that the man at the end of the bar is wealthy. Given that men who don't wear wealth generally don't like talking about their wealth, then it makes sense that a woman will tend to be attracted when there is the appearance of wealth. It's the closest thing to an indicator of the ability to provide, regardless of how inaccurate it is. Those who are truly successful already know they are successful. The people who matter to them already know how successful they are. Most of them could care less whether Joe Blow at the local bar thinks they are successful. Actually having money makes a man more attractive to a woman once they are already in a relationship. This is where the idea of security, freedom and financial independence come into play. While not an over-riding factor, most women do take it into consideration when they are considering the prospects of getting married or having a family. How much it helps is up to each woman, however I've met very few women who would say that a man being wealthy would be a turn off. Sure, those women exist. However, those women tend to have issues with wealth, poverty, capitalism and the material world in general. They are quite frankly the exception. That being said, among the wealthy, the ones who wear their money are far, far less common than the ones who appear middle class or average to most of the outside world. Unfortunately, it's the individual who wears their money that is most visible in society. The ostentatious consumption is what the world sees, not the quiet millionaire who carefully guards their savings and investments. It's the loud braggarts like Donald Trump with his 282 foot yacht, $100,000 parties and jet-setting lifestyle who get all the public attention. Meanwhile, quiet men like Warren Buffett live in the same house middle class house he bought in 1962, has his cherry cokes and cheeseburgers and goes about his business. In actuality, most people who are wealthy are less material than those of the middle class. They are less concerned with "keeping up with the Joneses" as they already know where they stand in the world. They have means, and feel little compulsion to "prove it". Is money a factor for women? Of course it is. Not always because of the money itself, but often because of the character traits that are associated with wealth. Right or wrong, people who are successful financially are often viewed as hard-working, responsible, ambitious, skilled, talented, more often than not educated, high in social status, and more intelligent than average. Is this always true? Of course not. However, unless you happen to inherit your wealth or win a lottery, most likely at least some of those traits are true. As for the negative stereotype of the greedy, power-hungry and egotistical millionaire, this is rarely true as well. Most wealth is generated through the creation and operating of businesses. Only a very small fraction is generated through such means as speculation through the stock market, athletics or famous occupations such as actors and musicians. There are millions of millionaire businessman, but perhaps only a few thousand millionaire actors, musicians and athletes. A business is the sum of it's people. If you own a business, you had better know how to deal with people. Otherwise, sooner or later your people either end up driving your business into the ground, or they pull up stakes and go work for someone else. Finally, just having money isn't nearly as helpful in meeting women as most men like to think. If you want to extract the maximum benefit, you have to "wear" your money. Of course, that opens the door to the other side of the dating coin... the "gold digger". This of course leaves wealthy men with a curious choice. Live ostentatiously and attract more women, but be more vulnerable to attracting gold diggers and superficial women, or live simply like Eddie Murphy in Coming to America, and hope that fortune smiles and helps you find that genuine woman who falls in love with you before she knows how much money you have. Just some thoughts. Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 6 (view)

Wife wants me to find a friend with benifits Posted: 5/16/2008 4:51:29 AM
Only you and your wife would know if this is a viable route. I have a friend who's wife became physically incapable of having sex due to medical issues. It was extremely painful for her and she was unable to enjoy it. After she realized it wasn't going to get better, she encouraged him to find satisfy his sexual urgings elsewhere. She only had 4 rules. 1) He must only seek prostitutes, and not "date". 2) He must not see the same woman more than once. 3) He must never talk about any woman he slept with. 4) He must always wear protection. 5) If he ever thought he was falling in love with another woman, he must tell her immediately Their marriage lasted for several years. Sadly, their marriage did end... he ended up filing for divorce though it wasn't over sex. Of all things, they ended up seperating over conflicts with her relatives about money. I wish you the best of luck. Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 7 (view)

The New Economy Posted: 5/14/2008 8:40:26 AM
No substantial economy that is based primarily on the service sector is sustainable. Like it or not, society is built on production. The rest is just overhead/friction. Look at things this way. If everyone in the US was in the service industry, who would grow the food? Who would manufacture the cars? Who would weave the clothing? Now that being said, society does have some service industries that are infrastructural that contribute to overall productivity, like the specialization of transport lowering costs so that farmer don't have to haul corn from Iowa to California themselves. However, in reality those service industries are really just the delegation of a societal function to a specialized group. In my humble opinion, while there is a role for service industries, in the end the wealth of a nation is only sustainable as long as there are products to trade where you have a competitive advantage. The problem with many service industries is that inherently there is no competitive advantage. There is no advantage to paying an Accoutant in the US 5x the rate of an accountant in the Philippines or India. This is why you're increasingly seeing the outsourcing of those service jobs that don't require a local presence. When you don't have a native competitive advantage, either in terms of location, cost or technology, then what you inevitably have is a race to the bottom of the wage scale. Why is it not more in the middle? Well, quite simply there are a lot more people in the world earning $100 a month then there are people earning $100 a day... which means if you fit in the latter versus the former category, unless your job can only really be done where you work, you'll find yourself earning $100 a month quickly enough. That being said, there are a handful of countries that do quite well with little to no manufacturing... however, I believe those countries are anomalies. If you have a place like Hong Kong with 7 million people working the service sector, or another small nation like Switzerland that's one thing... trying to employ 30 or 300 million people in the service sector just doesn't work. The fact is, you just don't need that many bankers, lawyers, or accountants in the world. I like to think of economies like interlinked glasses of water. If you earn 5x your counterpart in another nation, then your glass of water might be 5 ounces, while your neighbor might have 1 ounce. Connect them with a straw and see what happens. The main difference of course is that historically speaking, the American glass holding 5 ounces is currently surrounded by 15 glasses holding 1 ounce and the straws are starting to flow... Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 56 (view)

Peak Oil Production - Anyone else heard of it? Posted: 5/14/2008 12:47:31 AM
Hrm... with oil at $125 a barrel, seems like a good time to revisit this thread. Hehehe. Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 15 (view)

Everybody look! Out of these 4 ways which have you found the most successful? Posted: 5/12/2008 8:17:34 AM
The best place to meet someone is invariably the place where you are best able to interact normally and be yourself. If you are not comfortable in a bar or pub, and are not comfortable with introducing yourself to people, you won't meet people there. If you are in a workplace that discourages dating, are uncomfortable approaching people at work, or feel that you need to put on a face at work, then you won't meet people there. If you don't have alot of friends, or your friends are not very social with people outside of your own personal social circle, then you won't meet alot of people through them. If you aren't comfortable with e-mailing and online chat, then you won't meet alot of people online. That being said, where you meet a woman or how many you meet is irrelevant. All you need to do is find ONE. The best thing I can say is force yourself to interact with people and women, and you'll quickly find that women will naturally find you interesting. This of course assumes that you're not a total clutz around women. If that's the case, then you may need to do some work on yourself. As has been said many times by the women here, there's nothing like a man who is confident to draw their attention. Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 36 (view)

why won't men say what thy do for a living - don't want their$$$$ Posted: 5/12/2008 8:05:25 AM
I think it depends alot on the man. There are alot of reasons why a man may choose to not advertise their jobs. On the one side, there are those that are not comfortable with their line of work. -they may be embarassed by their line of work -their line of work may have negative connotations -their line of work may not be their preferred line of work -work may not be interesting or important to them, ie, just a paycheck On the other side, it may be none of those reasons... -some individuals are very private. They don't feel the need or desire to advertise their professions -some jobs are very niche, making it very easy to identify them. If you were a politician in a small town, you wouldn't be able to have any anonymity at all. -some men don't want their jobs to be the main reason a woman contacts them. For example, I know firefighters that hate to tell women initially that they are firefighters because of industry stereotypes. For me personally, the job I list is purposefully vague. This is not because I am ashamed of what I do for a living, but for a number of reasons. 1) Some women have been intimidated by my line of work. This isn't theoretical, this is based upon women telling me specifically that they found my vocation intimidating. 2) When I meet a woman, I prefer to impress them with my character as a human being versus what I do. Sometimes my vocation gets in the way of that. 3) My responsibilities are quite varied and not easily definable. I have no interest in outlining my business life in detail to someone who I only know on a superficial level. 4) I have found that women become less honest and couch their thoughts around me initially when they know what I do. When they have little idea, I find that they often say things that are extremely character revealing. If it sounds like this is creating an artificial hurdle for women to overcome, I freely admit that I fully understand and acknowledge this. I don't have a problem meeting or dating women. What I do have is a problem finding the RIGHT woman. Unfortunately, there's more than a few women who think of men as a trophy. Something to be polished and then shown off to their friends. Sorry, but some of us refuse to play that game.

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 14 (view)

Is it ethical to tell a married woman that if she was ever to leave her husband ... Posted: 2/28/2008 5:46:16 AM
I suspect it's highly situational. If I was in love with a woman who was married, and knew that she was unhappy, and that her husband was a jerk and treating her poorly, would I be doing either of us any favors by saying nothing? On the other hand, if she was happy in her marriage, and her husband treated her well and was a kind and loving man, would I be doing either of us any favors by saying something? To each their own I guess. Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 12 (view)

workaholics Posted: 2/23/2008 9:55:25 PM
what is a man thinking when he always put work in front of his relationship. Its a new relationship (5 months)and we care about each other alot, and he calls me every day several times and texts me alot, but he is a machine and [bold]feels such pressure to keep the jobs going for the men who work for him.[/bold] Sounds like a very responsible person. While I'm sure he cares about you very much, you also have to realize you've only been together for 5 months. How long has he been doing his work? Years? Decades? How many people at work depend on him to perform? How many people would suffer if he didn't? It sounds like that alot of people who work for him depend upon him to do his job well. In many businesses, if a manager/owner slows down it puts people's jobs and livelihoods at risk. If it's his own business, part of his responsibilities are to make sure there's enough work and contracts lined up to make sure that he doesn't have to fire or lay people off. If you were an employee, and your long-time boss told you that he was going to lay you off because he spent time with his new girlfriend and dropped the ball, how would you feel? How sympathetic would your family be? He says he plans to retire soon and he is trying to build this business to help with retirement income. Sounds pretty clear to me. He's got a plan and goal in mind, he's trying to wind down. You don't just hand over the reigns overnight. It takes time. He doesnt seem to know how to make enough time for his relationship with me. I do not ask for alot as I know he needs to keep his guys working so they can take care of their families. He says it will get better and wants me to be patient. I want to be because he is the most awesome man I have ever met...except for that one little thing. Any workaholics out there can tell me whats going on in his mind? Sounds to me like he's just very busy at the moment. If he's truly intending to retire soon, then you just might need to wait. As for what drives a workaholic, they are driven by a number of possible things... Ambition - Some guys are trying to achieve something. Passion - Some guys love their jobs and love being around it. Responsibility - Some guys feel the need to meet or exceed expectations, whether that's self-imposed or from those that they work with... On the other hand, you knew who he was when you met him. Successful, driven, hard-working, and responsible. If that's not acceptable to you, there are lots of people who aren't like that in the world. Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 25 (view)

flaunting assetts. Posted: 2/22/2008 1:28:43 PM
Well, I think you may be overthinking it to be honest. I dated a guy for quite a while. When I would go to his house to make dinner and spend the evening with him, he often would have a ton of bank and investment statements neatly spread out in columns on the floor ( about 40 or 50 of them.) I never looked that close to see what they were, but he would say little things like "Sorry I have paperwork all over, I was working on my investment portfolio." Or, maybe he's like myself or a lot of people I know, who do alot of their stuff from home, and when they need alot of room either take over an entire dining table or the floor so that they can keep their paperwork organized the way they like. Maybe, he had no desire to "tidy up" his paperwork, because he trusted you and didn't want to put it away then take it back out again. What I really think he was doing is had a camera on me to see if I would start looking through his papers. He left me with his paperwork twice. Well, I never looked. It was none of my business. He ended up proposing and I turned him down and we broke up. Bit of a suspicious mind there? Did he give you any impression that he was the obsessive type? If not, maybe the problem is more in your head... I dated another guy that was a day trader. He taught me alot about it. One day, he brought out a bunch of gold coins he had bought to show me. Then on another occasion, he brought out an expensive set of ruby and gold necklace and earrings he had purchased abroad, to show me. That fellow must have trusted you very much. Most people who have those sorts of hard assets in their homes, keep them locked in a safe and show them to NOBODY. There is no shortage of burglaries, home invasions, robberies, etc. that start with inside information. And more often than not, it starts with either acquaintances, disgruntled employees, ex-friends, or unhappy ex's. I suppose he could have been trying to impress you, however if he had considerable wealth already, then I doubt he would have felt the need to "flaunt" those items. Most likely, he probably felt he'd made some good investments and wanted to share his triumph... much like telling your friend that you bought 1,000 shares of Microsoft on the cheap. We dated exclusively for a couple of years. We kept the finances even. He was very tight with money and would never buy gifts at birthdays or holidays or on any occasion. He said he didn`t believe in gift giving. Not every family has been sucked into the material bandwagon of gift-giving. My family never had a tradition of gifts. Birthdays, christmas, new year's... those weren't times for gifts. Those were times to spend together with your family over dinner or on a trip. As for "very tight" with money... what exactly is "very tight"? If you mean that he spent less than he earned, that's just called good money management. If he had a very high savings rate, it means that he probably has aggressive investment goals. Unlike the image on the TV, most people who are truly affluent do NOT spend large amounts of money on "Bling". It's very common for people to set a spending cap based upon an arbitrary amount, or on a percentage of their earnings/net worth to determine how much of their money goes to "fun". If they want something more expensive than their self-imposed limits, they either save the money for it, or they wait until they earn more. He also proposed to me ( which was a big surprise) and I also turned him down and broke up. Interesting pattern developing... either you're staying with men that you don't love, or you're running away from men you love. Neither of which is a terribly good thing. Can anyone explain why they acted like this? If it was a test, it just pissed me off and made me want to break up with them. What is the deal? Why would a guy do that? What if it was a test? Does it matter? If they're testing you, it's because they are trying to protect themselves. It's no different than locking the door to your house. You may trust your neighbors, but that doesn't mean there aren't criminals out there. Men who become that successful do so often by learning to think ahead and plan for contingencies... one of which, may be to make sure they avoid women who are mainly interested in their money. Sure, you may not be a "gold digger", but there is no shortage of them out there in the world. I wouldn't blame them one bit for making sure. Think of things this way... if everyone was an infallible judge of character, then the divorce rate wouldn't be 50% and con-men would go out of business. Unfortunately, the ability to lie well is not an uncommon trait in human beings. Safe is often better than sorry, so to speak. These guys have "poverty issues". They were probably raised with a consciousness that money is hard to get, and once you et (sic) any, you better hang on and invest wisely. The problem with this is that they never get out of the way of thinking that THEY ARE ALWAYS POOR. They could have stockpiled a million, but will stay in poverty consciousness. Wow. Sorry, but if you think money is "easy" to get, then either you're an heiress, you won the lottery, or you're on a different planet than most folks. As for thinking that they are "poor", maybe it's more about the realization that they aren't Rich. There's a BIG difference between the two. The idiot who had that jewelry should have given it to you. He should have had the decency to realize that by hiding jewelry as "an investment" is just a wastge. Excess money is to be used for a good cause. In my case, the first $100,000 was the hardest to save. After that, it just compounded, month by month, with very little effort on my part. Your two friends needed to set a goal. After the first $100,000 invested, the profit made should bse spent in a way that is enjoyable for the people who they love. Wow. Not even sure where to start here. First, if he's accumulating hard commodities like gold, silver, palladium, coins or jewellery, what that shows is that he's a fairly sophisticated investor. Most likely he's allocated some portion of his portfolio to Inflation Hedged assets. This is called good financial planning. As for the first $100k, erm, $100k doesn't even get you solidly into the middle class. You do realize that most financial planners will tell you that to retire you need to accumulate between $1m and $3m dollars in income generating assets at a minimum? Sure, $50k a year in interest/dividends sounds great... right until it's taxed to oblivion. Meanwhile, you still have utilities, property taxes, vehicles, etc, etc. $100k doesn't pay most people's mortgages, won't put a child through college, and certainly won't support your family for more than a year or two maximum should a person become unemployed or suffer crippling injury. As for "giving" the jewellery to her, why on earth would he do that? He already offered to share the rest of his life with her by proposing marriage. She turned him down. As the young kids like to say, "No ring, no Bling." They obviously lost you. You were cooking and cleaning. A housekeeper should be in order. You should not be cleaning a guys house that is showing off his assets. What about you? Do you have any assets? At least a ROTH IRA, or something? Real estate? A house you can rent, while you're giving the goodies to old money bags in an overnight dinner and movie? While he is exposing his portfolio to you in the wee hours of the morning, are you collecting rent on your place, in order to establish something for yourself? As for the cooking and cleaning, did he make her do the cooking and cleaning? If she didn't do the cooking and cleaning, would he have done it for himself? If you didn't cook, would he have cooked for you? Some men hire help, some do things themselves. This doesn't sound incriminating at all. I held out for years before I hired a cleaning service, even though I could have afforded one for many years. It just wasn't that important to me. As for her having substantial financial assets, I suspect if she were affluent, this discussion wouldn't have even come up. If anything, she would have been somewhat sympathetic. Gold diggers aren't just women ya know. People who have substantial financial assets to lose have every right to protect those assets from the undeserving. As for whether that was their motivation or not, is something only those gentlemen could answer. Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 23 (view)

Do you believe in free will? Posted: 11/7/2007 1:05:26 PM
I like to think I have free will, unfortunately my logical mind brings up all kinds of problems with that whole idea. Okay, here's some of the scenario's I've run through my mind... Predestination - If you believe in Fate, then we all have a destiny. The problem with Destiny, is that regardless of action you still arrive at the same place. In the end, it's all predetermined, IE, no free will. Omniscient/omnipotent Supreme Being - If your God(s) are/is omnipotent (all powerful), by definition they are omniscient (all knowing), therefore he/they would know the past, present, and future, and since the powers that be initiated creation, then they would know the consequent results of that creation, including all things that occur, all actions of humanity, and the resultant consequences of those actions. IE, by setting in motion the creation of the Universe, and knowing the exact outcome, then our lives are pre-destined, IE, we have no free will in the true sense. Causality - If you believe that all effects are the results of causes, ie, heat water and it boils, then starting at the movement of the first sub-atomic particles, then all outcomes are inevitable. IE, pre-destination based upon causal effect. Environment becomes a form of external genetic influence, combining with internal genetics to result in pre-determined outcomes. Of course, this doesn't mean that we can predict them. Especially if you buy into the idea of the Butterfly Effect in complex systems. They may be beyond comprehension, but it doesn't mean that there is not an inevitable outcome. Infinite Universes/Quantum Theory - If you believe that all sub-atomic particles exist in infinite quantum states, and extend this to the idea of infinite universes, then all outcomes occur simultaneously. Since all actions occur, and all outcomes occur, then by definition there is no free will. Only infinite outcomes. Chaos Theory - If you believe that all outcomes contain a random component, just as a drop of water will take a different path from the same starting point, then all actions become random. Even though it can appear to be free will, it is instead true chaotic randomness, ie, with no willfull action. Despite the fact our human minds try to impose human minds impose order upon chaos, it does not change the nature of chaos. Is there a scenario where there is free will in the absolute sense? Sure, if you ignore the effect of causality. The existence of a supreme being then works as long as you accept that the supreme beings are not omniscient or omnipotent. Personally, I find it easier to function psychologically by assuming (willful ignorance, if that's even possible...) that I have free will. Otherwise, it all becomes rather pointless, doesn't it?

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 29 (view)

Canadian Dollar Hits 30 yr High Posted: 11/6/2007 8:36:20 PM
the value of $$$ going up and down won't affect people that much in the states, but certainly will affect the travelers like me Actually, the value of the USD has substantial effects upon Americans. Virtually all international commodities are priced in USD. That includes oil, steel, wheat, corn, sugar, coffee, timber, cotton, beef, pork, natural gas, etc. When the USD goes down in value, this does not affect the actual global demand for a commodity. The value of the commodity in global currency terms remains the same. What that means is when the USD goes down against the bulk of currencies, then the purchasing power of Americans decreases. This translates into higher material costs for virtually every item priced in USD. The impact is not necessarily felt immediately or overnight, as often retail prices are somewhat sticky on the way up. This means that it takes time for higher commodity prices to work their way through the system of suppliers and distributors and directly impact retail purchasers. In the case of Americans, this will translate into higher inflation for food, fuel, energy, etc, etc, etc. In the end, a devaluation of the USD makes Americans less wealthy in global absolute terms, as well as in relative terms. Not so sure? Just ask the Germans about the 1920's and their currency devaluations. While you're at it, check into Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, or Argentina and Brazil during the 1980's. If the USD was only declining against a specific currency such as the Euro, then the impact would be negligible. However, the USD has been declining as a currency against almost all currencies on the planet. Finally, Americans complain about the pegging of the Yuan to the USD. In some ways, you should be thanking them. If the Yuan were to float free, you would see a massive spike in US inflation. At the moment, they are exporting Deflation through their artificial support of the USD. While certain US exports might increase with a Yuan increase, a huge number of products would jump in price, ranging from electronics, to toys to clothing. Not to mention, if China were to release the Yuan, you would see a substantial increase in US interest rates. It has been estimated that China's artificial support of the USD through their $1.2 trillion USD reserve holdings cuts at least 75 to 100 basis points off borrowing rates in the US. They export to the US, then instead of redeeming those dollars for hard assets, they recycle the USD's back into the US economy through the purchase of US treasuries and debt. This puts upward pressure on US Bond prices, lowering effective yields and lowering the cost of borrowing for American home owners and businesses. Contrary to popular belief, those jobs would not return to the US. There has not been a substantial US manufacturing presence in Textiles, consumer electronics, or toys since the 1980's. The US simply cannot compete on pure raw labor cost. Mostly what you would see would be substantial price hikes for US consumers, and then at best a shift of manufacturing facilities to other low cost manufacturing nations like Vietnam, Indonesia, Mexico and Sri Lanka.

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 5 (view)

I'm working at my bf's restaurant.. Is this a mistake? Posted: 11/6/2007 5:16:54 PM
It all depends on how well you interact with them. If it's fine with you and everyone, try it out, and if you find it's uncomfortable then go work somewhere else. If it does work out, it's a very good way to build a substantial relationship with him and his family, as well as understand the nature of his business and personality. You will get to see him both as a bf and as a businessman... not necessarily a bad thing, especially if this develops into something long term. Just make sure you understand the ground rules. Family businesses are often very informal, without clear lines of management or decision-making. Basically, everyone pitches in and stuff gets done. They can be chaotic at times. If you need clear lines of management, then make sure that you establish your needs up front.

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 77 (view)

How do you come up with age range limits? Posted: 11/6/2007 2:56:12 PM
I've always used the standard formula. (age/2)+7 ==> (age-7)x2 As for younger men dating older women, for most of my life I dated older women. Throughout my late teens through 20's and early 30's, my girlfriends tended to range from 10 to 20 years older (the oldest being 47 when I was 27). I found that I just didn't relate very well with most women closer to my age. I guess some of us are just forced to grow up faster than others. And since marriage and children were nowhere on my mind, that worked just fine. Unfortunately, as I've reached my mid-30's, the issue of the prospect of having children and getting married enters the picture. Women in their mid-30's and up either have children/grandchildren already, are not interested in having new/additional children, or are incapable of having children. This is aside from the fact that the dating pool of interesting single women in their 30's and up is smaller demographically than those in their 20's. Alot of them are either married or in long-time relationships. Thus, to satisfy the inevitable biological impulse and reality of demographic distribution, I find myself forced to date women who are younger than I would normally feel comfortable with, hoping to find the rare younger woman who has a substantially mature mindset. Sometimes it seems to be less common nowadays, with people staying in school for so long and parents being substantially more protective/sheltering than they used to be. It seems that younger folks tend to stay home longer, work fewer jobs in school, and spend more time on career and online than in the real world than they used to. Now, if they ever managed to push back the biological clock substantially, that might change things a bit. Here's hoping for medical science. On the bright side, I'm not that worried about time frames. I am taking my time to find the right woman. Humphrey Bogart had his first children at the age of 49, Andrew Carnegie at 69. As a guy, I guess the clock runs substantially longer.

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 41 (view)

Attention Geniuses: Traffic Posted: 11/6/2007 8:30:27 AM
Some believe the problem with traffic management is rooted in the automobile. I believe it is more of an urban planning problem. While some might argue that there are too many cars, or too few highways, I think it's easier to think of the real problem as being too many people reliant upon automobiles for transportation to work. If you look at transportation patterns, outside of work-related rush hours, the streets and highways are more than sufficient to manage the everyday driving needs of most human beings. This leads us to the issue of mass transit solutions like subways, light rail, and buses. Unfortunately, mass transit is only viable under specific circumstances. In many regions of North America, mass transit loses money and must be subsidized heavily. Now, some would argue that you should tax automobile and highways more to encourage usage, others argue that you should increase subsidies, neither of these solutions really get to the root of the problem. The core problem with mass transit is the same problem that is inherent in the distribution of all civil services, whether it is sewage, water, electrical distribution, or mail delivery -- that of population density. What we have in North America is an unsustainable lifestyle, unsustainable in that people feel "entitled" to owning a home, having a nice yard, and living in a suburb. Unfortunately, suburbs are the least efficient model of human habitation that you can have. In order to sustain a substantial transition to mass transit, you need higher population density. Think of it like running a sewage line. From a civil perspective, running a sewage line to an apartment building or condominium of 1,000 families is enormously more efficient and less expensive than running sewage lines to 1,000 homes in a community. Similarly, these expenses scale for water delivery, electrical delivery, mail delivery, or any other public service you wish to make available. The time and labor that it takes to deliver mail to 10,000 families in an apartment complex is a miniscule fraction of the time and labor that it requires to deliver mail to 10,000 homes in a group of sub-divisions. This also applies to mass transit. Only through concerted effort by communities to direct development towards higher population densities are you able to increase the efficiency of mass transit to the point where it can make a substantial difference in both the economics of mass transit, as well as substantially reduce the use of vehicles during peak transit hours. In Ontario, the government in the last 10 years has adopted the official policy of "intensification". Intensification is the policy of restricting additional housing development to specific geographic areas. Large swaths of land have been allocated as rural/greenbelt areas, with re-zoning of those areas being made virtually impossible. The theory is that if you restrict development exclusively to designated areas, then over time those areas will "intensify" in population, ie, their population density will increase and increase the efficiency of service delivery, whether it is water, sewage, electricity or mass transit. You can tinker with the economics through incentives like subsidized transit, or increased commuter/highway/vehicle usage taxes, but in the end, the only way to really create a sustainable traffic model is to increase the economic efficiency of transit to the point that it becomes the best and most viable transportation option. I'm not one of those people that would advocate the elimination of the automobile. It's unrealistic to expect people to surrender their vehicles. However, a model of intensified population would have a number of impacts. First, it would reduce traffic loads on existing highways and roads, reducing maintenance burdens on government. Second, it would allow some individuals to forego vehicles entirely, allowing people to save more money that could go to other economic endeavours. Third, it would foster a boom in smaller and more local businesses such as grocery stores, hardware stores, etc. The big box model is predicated on a few core concepts, that of cheap real estate (only possible in low density areas), and on the availability of personal vehicles to justify the travel distances when shopping. If you wanted to take a look at a functional mass transit model, you probably need to take a look at places like Hong Kong or Singapore. Hong Kong has 7 million people, and it's geographic size is extremely limited due to it being an island. As a result, mass transit is the preferred method of travel. For a first world level economy, only a very small percentage of the population own vehicles. This is due to the combination of exceptional mass transit, and very high vehicle taxes. Only the wealthy own actual homes (due to very high land costs), with most people striving to own condominiums (many of which start at $1m). In Hong Kong, the mass transit is completely private, operated by publicly traded companies that exist only to make a profit. The Hong Kong government owns a substantial portion of the shares, but still must answer to the shareholders. They also are allowed to operate as any normal business, so they often do substantial development above their subway stations, lease office and residential space, and lease considerable advertising and kiosk space. If the MTR wishes to finance additional construction, they do not seek government handouts. Instead, they issue bonds and raise capital, just as any other business. Simlarly, as a shareholder, the government receives a substantial portion of any profits, thus reducing pressure to raise taxes. The corporation which operates their Subways (the MTR), has substantial authority to expropriate land. It is a fast and efficient process, with very little room for appeal or protest. If the MTR has done the studies and determined that your land is needed, don't even bother fighting them. You will lose and everyone knows it. To offset higher land prices from high population density, the city subsidizes lower income housing (keyed to income and inflation) for the financially dis-advantaged. The end result is a highly efficient transit system with one of the highest usage rates in the world. Virtually everyone takes transit to work, school and recreational events. There are grocery and variety stores on virtually every block. There are no "big box" or massive shopping centers in the North American sense. In a city of 7 million, there are 5 subway lines, the latest completed just in the last few years. There is also yet another one under planning/construction. Under it's current design, close to 90% of the city is within a 10 minute walk of a subway station. In addition to this, there are dozens of privately operated bus-lines and thousands of taxi-cabs that cover the entire city. Since most people don't have cars, mass transit and taxi-cab fares are some of the lowest in the world. Despite the numerous private transportation options, all the buses, subways and ferry's are on a universal payment system. While you can pay with cash fares, most people use the Octopuss card. The Octopuss card is a pre-paid transit card. It is fully transferable, and like a pre-paid phone card, you charge the card with any amount you wish (at automated machines in every station, or at a handful of manned booths), then you far is automatically deducted every time you enter/exit a transportation station/vehicle. The card does not to be inserted into a machine, it is instead done through proximity. If it is in your wallet, you do not take it out of your wallet and instead just swipe your wallet past the sensor. Similarly, the sensor is located at the top of the turnstile, so people often just leave it in the bottom of their briefcase/bags, then swipe their bag along the top. Fares are calculated purely on a distance basis. From station to station has a pre-set cost, which is then deducted when you exit the station/vehicle. People who travel more, pay more. Those who travel less, pay less. This encourages people to live closer to where they work when possible, thus reducing load on the system. The Octopuss card is so efficient, that it is also used by many retail establishments. People put their money on the Octopuss card, then can get on the subway, and can pick up drinks/food/etc at any number of stores in and around the city. Every 7-11 in the city accepts the Octopuss card. The end result is that development is heavily distributed throughout the city. While there are financial centers that are more expensive, there are large office and apartment towers throughout the city. Heavy industrial factories are restricted to specific areas, while light manufacturing is located almost everywhere. Virtually all shopping centers are part of existing office/commercial developments, usually taking up a handful of the bottom floors with commercial offices located above. While this model is currently far from viable in most North American cities, a concerted effort by government to change the way people live and work would eventually lead to an urban model where this becomes both possible and viable. The only question is whether North Americans can learn to abandon their dreams of houses with a lawn and instead move towards a condominium/apartment with a local park. Just some stuff to think about.

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 40 (view)

If you truly loved your g/f would you dump her for not putting out? Posted: 11/4/2007 9:36:33 AM
Most guys would be gone, and I wouldn't blame them one bit. Waiting a month, maybe two is understandable. Waiting four months raises all kinds of red flags. Sex is one of the most important parts of a meaningful and sustainable romantic relationship. Sure, you can love your parents, children and friends and not sleep with them. On the other hand, you're not exactly "dating" them or planning to marry them are you? Unless she had a specific objection (religious -- I want to wait for marriage, psychological -- I was abused and intimacy causes me to relive trauma, or medical -- due to injury/surgery/disease I am incapable of sex without pain), then what she's really saying by refusing sex is one of the following: 1) I know you after 4 months, but I don't trust you with my feelings or my body. I don't know when I'll trust you, if ever, due to my fear of hurt and betrayal. Enjoy your celibacy. 2) I like sex, but I only have sex with people I love. I don't really love you, and I'm reserving myself for someone that I do love. I enjoy your company, but you don't mean that much to me and I don't have the integrity to tell you the truth. 3) I like sex, but I find you completely unattractive sexually. I enjoy the attention and company you provide, but I know that if I told you the truth you may have some self-respect and want to find a partner who finds you attractive. 4) I really dislike sex, and thus am trying to avoid sex. I should probably tell you, but I am worried that you will find a non-sexual relationship unattractive, thus I will string you along with promises of "the potential for sex" and hope that will be enough. Unless she has some really good reasons, exit, stage left.

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 45 (view)

are u really honest about yourself when dating Posted: 11/1/2007 7:33:34 AM
There is a big difference between honesty and "complete disclosure". I don't brag about my positive qualities, nor do I put my negative aspects on display. While I am a very social person, I am also fundamentally a very private person. The intimate details of my life are just that, intimate details that are only meant to be discussed with a very small circle of people. When a person asks me a question about my thoughts or beliefs, I am usually upfront and honest unless I feel the answer may be controversial or uncomfortable for the other person. Not everyone wants to become involved in a deep intellectual or spiritual discussion, even if they appear to be seeking one. Similarly, for those of us that have experienced things on the extreme end of the curve, those experiences are often best left unsaid. Not everyone can relate to every aspect of your life, just as you would not expect to relate to every aspect of theirs. In the end, I suspect that all one can do is find a few points of common ground, and build from there. Over time, for better or worse, the layers of the onion will be peeled back and exposed. I know, not a very satisfying answer is it? Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 46 (view)

Do men look at ring fingers? Posted: 11/1/2007 6:50:42 AM
Absolutely. It's the first thing I check, and usually is done from a distance. Wedding band/rock means hands off. I don't even approach. If it's an unusual ring and I am very attracted, I might approach and try to find out if they are married. As said before, nice guys see the ring and move on. Idiots don't care whether you are married or not. There is no reliable way to screen out the idiots and leave only the good ones. You take your chances and learn to put up with the idiots. Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 429 (view)

Sex with minors Posted: 9/28/2007 5:42:27 AM
Hrm, not to put gas on the fire... No disrespect to those seeking to protect their siblings/children, but I always figured the age of responsibility should be in line with the age that a person can seek emancipation. In Ontario, a person can seek effective emancipation (IE, move out) from their parents at the age of 16. At 16, they can choose to become independent and free of their parents, free to seek work, join the military, etc. I know this because I knew several people in high school who pursued this option, this is aside from the countless friends who considered this option both seriously and idly. If a person can drive a car, work full-time, and join the military, then it seems obvious to me that they should be able to choose with whom they want to spend the private time. If people consider that too young, then they should change the laws of responsibility to a higher age. Frankly, if a person can get a job, pay their bills, drive a car, and pick up a gun and shoot someone, then they're responsible enough to choose a partner for themselves.

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 132 (view)

Pick up techniques on women Posted: 9/28/2007 5:13:36 AM
There is a big difference between "pick up lines" and "pick up techniques". Pick up lines are approaches to conversation that are designed to elicit interest. Some are good, some are bad, some are very cliche. In and of themselves, they are not bad as long as they elicit enough initial interest that the other person will take the time to learn more about you. I like to think of them as being similar to a cover letter on a resume. The best are well-designed in that they are tasteful and creative, while still being emblematic of the personality of the person using them. The worst ones can be offensive, insulting of one's intelligence, or downright deceptive. As for "pick up techniques", I tend to think of these as a misnomer. The concept of "pick up techniques" tends to sell to people, as human beings who are having difficulties interacting with the opposite sex like the idea of there being a "formula". While I personally don't believe in the idea of a "foolproof formula" for interacting with a person of the opposite sex, as a man I do believe that successful relationships and interactions with women do tend to operate under general rules. The idea of "be yourself" is a fallacy in my view. When you go to work, there are rules for success. "Being yourself" only works for those individuals that already know how to operate under the "rules". Let's look at management. If you are good at managing people, then "being yourself" works great. If your people management skills are poor, then "being yourself" is one of the worst things you can do. While some leadership skills are born (such as introversion versus extroversion), many can be learned, while others can be overcome. Even introverts can learn how to sell and speak publicly. While most who are weak leaders do not become extraordinary leaders, many can become competent leaders through experience, practice and study. The same applies to being a successful team member in an organization. Some people are better "team players" than others. For those who are great, "being themselves" works great. For those with poor team skills, "being themselves" works poorly. In those cases, it is much better for those persons to force themselves to adapt, learn new skills, break themselves of bad habits, and improve their skills until they become better team members. While being in a relationship is not quite the same as being at work, I believe the analogy applies here as well. Some people make relationships look easy. They are confident, outgoing, humorous, kind, generous, strong and empathetic. For these people, "being yourself" works amazingly well. For most everyone else, "being yourself" can lead to sub-optimal results. Those who seek "pick up techniques" are more often than not looking to understand what makes successful relationships and dating successful. This in and of itself is not a bad thing. As long as a person's intentions are good, IE they are genuinely looking to create a successful and satisfying relationship, then what does it matter where they gain the skills and wisdom to do so? In my opinion, I guess the best question to ask oneself is not "what sort of person does he/she want me to be", but instead, "What kind of partner do I want to be?", and what sort of partner would find that attractive? If you want to be strong, confident, and humorous, kind, generous, and considerate, exciting, intriguing and sexy, then ask yourself why you are not what you desire to be? We are all the ultimate instruments of change. Does your behavior match your vision of yourself? Does your self-perception match who you are? Is this the person you wish to be? If not, then one must ask themselves what roads will lead to the changes in their lives and themselves that they desire? In my humble opinion, the partner you end up with is more a reflection of who you are than what you do. There is not a pick up line in the world that will hide who we are as human beings, strong or weak, kind or cruel. More often than not, we get that which we deserve.

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 114 (view)

Does it matter how you pay for a date? Posted: 9/9/2007 12:33:26 PM
Strange. Personally, I tend to reserve my credit card for items like clothing or furniture. I usually pay cash first and debit second for most everything else (unless it's deductible or is for tracking business expenditures). There's a few good reasons to pay cash. First, there's a built in budget (cash in pocket) so it's easier to manage expenditures. If you start with an amount of cash at the beginning of a week, it's easy to know exactly how much and how fast you are spending. When you are buying things in cash, you tend to think more carefully about what you purchase and how much you are paying. Multiple studies show that people who use credit cards tend to spend far more on average and more often than if they are paying in cash. Second, it's good for the businesses you patronize. Businesses must pay a transaction fee for credit card transactions that typically range from 2 to 3%. If everyone paid cash, it means that the business makes more profit and/or can keep prices lower. Personally, I would rather that the business I patronize recieves my money than have more money go to outfits like Visa, Mastercard and American Express. Not to mention, many servers that I have met generally prefer to be tipped in cash. Right or wrong, it's easier to under report tip earnings when paid in cash. Third, there is always the risk of credit card fraud. The more you use your credit card, the greater the chance that someone will swipe your credit card and make copies, or possibly leverage it for identity fraud. Using cash also reduces the numbers of transactions that appear on your credit card statements, making it easier to spot incorrect or fraudulent charges. While someone copying your card isn't a big deal if your limit is $500 or $1,000, if you have considerably more credit it becomes a somewhat riskier proposition. For example, if you had a $50,000 credit limit, I would consider it wise to limit the use of that card only to the most reputable establishments, and try to minimize the use to only when necessary. Even so, I would rather use debit cards on most purchases over credit cards when amounts are larger. Fourth, reducing the use of your credit cards reduces the probability that you will carry balances from month to month or go overlimit, thus reducing banking and interest charges in the long run. Finally, one good reason for using cash is that if you are trying to buy things when the machines are down or there is a power outage, cash is always good. Depending solely on credit cards can leave you stuck without options. There are lots of times to use credit cards. Flights, hotel reservations, car rentals, or purchases where you want the warranty or insurance protection. Otherwise, I prefer cash or debit. Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 48 (view)

Peak Oil Production - Anyone else heard of it? Posted: 9/8/2007 1:28:33 AM
sigh If only people had a better understanding of oil production. There are two basic definitions of "Peak Oil" production. The first is a finite limit of pumpable/refinable oil. The idea is that crude reserves are finite, and those fields are producing at an ever decreasing level. Let's say you have an oil field with 100 barrels. The first 25 barrels basically gush out of the ground. It takes no effort to pump. The next 25 take serious work, requiring the best technology. The last 50 are currently impossible to extract due to the nature of oil geology. Pumping oil is NOT like pumping oil out of a bucket. It's not like there's a huge underground cavern that you just stick a straw in and suck out. Oil actually exists in porous rock strata. Think of it like a sponge with oil trapped in the pockets. Essentially, the oil exists in a contained underground chamber, usually under some level of pressure (due to surrounding rock), which permeates the strata of rock. When you initially tap that chamber, the surrounding pressure of the chamber forces the oil out (like putting a sponge under pressure). As you deplete the oil from the rock, the pressure drops until there is no longer sufficient pressure for it to pump itself. As the pressure decreases, the rate at which the oil can be pumped decreases. Once the pressure drops to a certain level, then oil can only be pumped out at the rate that the oil moves through the porous material. Think of it like tapping an underground water aquifer. You can only pump as fast as the water pools at the bottom. However, oil is far more viscous (thicker), and thus slower moving than water. In order to maintain that level of production, you must employ increasingly more sophisticated methods to extract the remaining oil. The simplest way is to force another substance into the pores (such as gases or water) into the rock, thus increasing the pressure and forcing oil towards your pump at a faster than normal rate. As the level of oil continues to decrease, you must employ increasing amounts of pressure to force oil towards your pump in order to extract it (increasing costs). Eventually, you reach the limits of technology to extract the remaining oil, leaving substantial amounts of oil essentially inaccessible. For every 100 barrels of oil in the ground, current technology is limited to recovering only 50 barrels. In other words, 1/2 of all oil reserves found on the planet are completely inaccessible using current technology. This is why oil fields have increasingly declining yields as they age. This is called reaching "Peaking", which applies to all oil fields in the world that are exploited. When applied to nations, then you can say that a particular nation's oil fields have reach "Hubbert's Peak". This held true in the continental United States (1970's), and is arguably occuring now in Saudi Arabia (though the Saudi's will debate this). The second definition of Peak Oil production is one that is viewed in the context of current and future oil production in relation to growing rates of demand. World oil demand is increasing at a rate of 3 to 5% per year (some would say 1 to 2%), depending upon who's statistics you believe. The world consumption of oil was 86 million barrels per day, with the United States accounting for 22 million barrels/day of current oil consumption, the remaining demand comes from the rest of the world. China (6.7m/day), India (2.6m/day) + all the other nations. Currently, oil production capacity is growing nowhere near the current rate of oil demand. To put this in context, if the world oil consumption is 31.4 billion barrels per year. Due to declining yields, all world wide oil production is decreasing at a rate of 5 to 8%. Even without additional oil demand, you need to bring online anywhere from 1.6 billion to 2.4 billion barrels per year (through either improved pumping or additional drilling), every year. On top of that, in order to satisfy global oil demand growth of just 2%, you would need to add an additional 627 million barrels per year. Every year. Grand total, you need to add anywhere from 2.2 billion to 3 billion barrels per year of pumping capacity online, each year, every year. Between 1955 and 1965, oil reserves were being discovered at a rate of 50 billion barrels per year. In 2004 new oil reserves were discovered totalling 10 billion barrels. Even if you immediately exploit an oil field, you can only extract it at a certain rate limited by the field, the number of rigs, and the infrastructure to transport that oil to markets through pipelines and tankers. To put this in perspective, Iraq's total oil output is approximately 627 million barrels per year. To match current declining oil production plus world wide oil consumption growth, you would need to find and bring online the pumping capacity of 2.5 to 3 Iraq's per year, every year. When analysts speak of "peak oil", they are not necessarily referring to the same thing. They can be referring to one of two things. 1) Peak production of all types of crude. 2) Peak production of light/sweet crudes. Whether Hubbert's peak applies to global accessible crude sources (including heavy crudes and synthetics) is up for debate. The tar sands represent estimated crude reserves equalling Saudi Arabia. And there are potentially billions of barrels of crude in the Arctic, Siberia, and other difficult to access regions. Let's assume that this is still up in the air, as the reserves in the Arctic and other remote regions are still unknown. As for Peak production of light/sweet crude, this is not up for any debate at all. Maybe you have heard people refer to Texas sweet crude, or Brent Northern crude. Not all crude oil is created equally. Oil is not a monolithic commodity. It is actually graded according to quality based upon tar and sulfur content. Light/sweet crudes are the easiest and cheapest to refine into petroleum derivatives like gasoline, diesel, jet fuel or manufacturing chemicals. From there, you move to heavy crudes (those with higher tar sulfur content). And beyond that are what are called synthetic crudes (tar sands, coal liquification, wood chip extraction, etc. As tar and sulfur content increases, the costs of refining increase rapidly. If all the crude in the world was light/sweet crude, then oil would still be at $20/barrel. However, processing most heavier crudes aren't even break even until oil breaks $35/barrel. Synthetics are the most expensive and require huge energy and resource inputs. Most synthetics aren't even break even until oil break $65 per barrel, while some of the more exotic synthetic crudes (like biomass extracted or coal liquification) require oil prices of over $100 per barrel. Even within a synthetic crude type break even points change. While there are billions of barrels of potential crude in the tar sands, less than 10% is currently accessible at $65 per barrel. Curent exploitable tar sands are like coal in that small amounts are at the surface and can be strip mined relatively cheaply, the remaining 90% are in subterranean pockets and veins that would require extensive mining operations. In other words, of the billions of barrels of potential tar sands crude, only about 10% can be economically extracted, even with oil at $75 per barrel. The rest requires increasing oil prices of $90 per barrel all the way upwards to over $150 per barrel. The other alternative is to extract raw crude from increasingly remote areas like the Arctic, Alaska and Siberia. Unfortunately, the cost of extracting the crude (which is high) is only the beginning. You still need to transport all that crude from these remote areas, requiring astronomical expenditures on shipping or pipelines. Either way, whether you are dealing with more remote fields or more exotic sources, the cost of oil is going up in the long run. Way, way, way up. On a final note, while gasoline for cars does represent the bulk of oil consumption, a large part of oil demand is not from passenger cars. Even if everyone in the US switched to hybrid cars tomorrow (not going to happen unless they tax cars/gasoline sky-high, subsidize hybrids like crazy, or just oulaw regular cars), it would only address a small part of the problem. US gasoline consumption for cars/light trucks is 140 billion gallons per year. Increasing mileage by 15% for every car in the US would reduce consumption by ~ 21 billion gallons to 119 billion gallons. If gasoline consumption continues to grow at 2% per year, you would reach 140 billion gallons of demand in approximately 8 years, and you are back to where you started. Additionally, consider the following... -Virtually all trucks require diesel -Virtually all trains run on diesel -Virtually all ships run on diesel -All planes consume jet fuel (no current substitutes) -All plastics (nylon, rayon, PVC, etc) require petroleum derivatives (no current substitutes) -Most manufacturing uses oil derivatives (ethylene, benzene, toluene, etc) in one form or another (no current substitutes) -Most fertilizers and virtually all pesticides are created from oil derivatives (no current substitutes) -All asphalt requires oil derivatives As for home energy consumption, crude oil only supplies 3% of the entire US electrical grid. 50% is from coal, 18% from natural gas, 19% from nuclear, 8% from hydro-electric, with renewables comprising ~2%. Put in all the solar panels you want. The impact on US oil consumption is trivial. Finally, biofuels just trades one problem for another. Producing corn to create ethanol just substitutes food for fuel. Corn is heavily used in the feeding of livestock as well as human food and syrup for sweeteners in cooking and beverages. Creating billions of gallons of Ethanol demand drives prices for corn sky-high, while at the same time driving up the price of other crops that grow on corn-friendly land such as soybeans (also used for feed and food). This is aside from the fact that meeting global gasoline demand would require clear-cutting hundreds of millions of acres of forest world-wide. The entire US corn crop was approximately 9 billion bushels in 2006. This is anticipated to rise to 13 billion bushels in 2007. Current technology allows the production of 2.5 gallons of ethanol per bushel of corn. If you took the entire 2007 corn crop of the US and converted it to Ethanol, you would yield approximately 32.5 billion gallons of Ethanol. Current US gasoline consumption for light vehicles alone (passenger cars and light trucks) is approximately 140 billion gallons of Gasoline. Think about this carefully. Entire US corn crop - 13 billion bushels IF the Entire US corn crop was converted to Ethanol - 32.5 billion gallons US Light vehicle Gasoline consumption - 140 billion gallons Average corn yield per acre - 140 bushels Average ethanol yield per acre - 350 gallons Total acres required to match shortfall to switch to 100% ethanol - 308 million Acres Total US acres currently growing corn - 90 million acres Total farmland in the United States - 983 million acres Percent of worldwide corn production represented by the US - 10.3% In other words, if you convert almost 1/2 of all US farmland to corn production, then convert ALL the corn to Ethanol, you would have just enough ethanol to fuel the existing cars on the road. This would be assuming that all the land was suitable for growing corn (which it isn't). You would then need to plant another 80 million acres every year just to keep up with growing gasoline demand. In less than 10 years, you would then run out of farmland and need to start levelling forests or cities. Another way to look at it is if you took 1/2 of all the corn grown on the Planet Earth and converted it to ethanol, you would have just enough to fuel all the light vehicles in the United States, and within 6 years would be consuming ALL the corn on the planet. This does not include trucks, buses, planes, ships or trains. This assumes of course that either you don't want any food grown in the US at all, or that you want to eliminate corn use worldwide for anything but Ethanol. Get used to high oil prices. They're going to get higher. And there's not much we can do about it any time soon for multiple decades.

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 833 (view)

Mail order brides Posted: 9/7/2007 10:41:43 PM
Dating and marriage is competitive by nature. Those who are most competitive tend to date more often as well as marry more easily. Other men are at a disadvantage. Maybe it is due to looks, income, finances, shyness or other personality traits. For those men, there is very little dating and a very low probability of finding a mate that they would consider anywhere near ideal. Just as the top 20% of people make 80% of the money, the top 20% do 80% of the dating. The other 80% are basically dealing from a position of disadvantage. Men and women seek the best attainable mate, whether it is looks, intelligence, personality, values, wealth, ambition, or any other criteria. Men in general value looks more highly than women. Women in general value accomplishment and finances more than men. This is both genetic and cultural. If a man does not feel he is competitive given the current supply/demand curve, it is logical for some to expand their search to include populations where he feels he is more competitive. This doesn't mean he is a "loser", he may be shy, introverted, or simply may be looking for a particular set of traits that are uncommon and/or unavailable locally. Would men in Alaska be considered losers because they look for women outside of Alaska? Or should they accept that the supply of preferred women is poor and that they need to go outside of their current locales? If men are choosing to seek brides outside of their home towns, is it because they are being unrealistic or is it that the women locally are being unrealistic or are simply poor matches for those men? In the end, it takes two to tango. If men are seeking women outside of their home towns where there are relatively equal numbers of men and women, then women are just as much at fault as the men. Maybe men need to be more flexible in their requirements. On the other hand, maybe women need to be more flexible in their requirements. We should all just shut up and be happy that some people are finding someone that they believe will make them happy. And if women have a problem with that, they can always go looking overseas for their perfect mates (which coincidentally is what the mail-order brides are doing). All that aside, mail order brides have just as many complications as local ones, just different ones. Marrying someone from a different culture is inherently more difficult as there is more to adjustment. For some men, it's worth the effort as they are able to attain those characteristics in a woman that they desire. Whether it is physical looks, traditional values, higher education, etc, etc, etc. For those individuals who realize this and make the effort to bridge those cultural gaps, they are ahead of the curve and far more likely to have a successful relationship.

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 39 (view)

Man charged with murder after victim of 1966 shooting dies Posted: 9/7/2007 10:07:32 PM
Pointless. Here are the scenarios.... 1) You try him for murder, but the evidence cannot be used twice for the same crime. IE, double jeopardy and case dismissed. 2) You try him for murder, but for any murder case to stand up in court you would have to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that his actions 40 years previous, and ONLY those actions were the sole and only possible DIRECT reason for the contraction of the urinary infection and subsequent death. Consider a chain of evidence and cause and effect. Try proving to a jury of 12 peers that a gunshot 40 years ago directly caused the urinary infection. Imagine you ask a doctor on the stand how many potential ways a person in a wheelchair could contract a urinary infection, and how many ways that could have been contracted as a result of poor medical treatment, poor hygiene, poor diet, poor environment, immunodeficiency factors due to either previous infections or genetic disposition, etc. Then prove that gunshot resulted in his inability to survive that infection despite available medical treatment. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the chance of a successful conviction is near zero by the time you are done with appeals. 3) Let's imagine that you manage to convict him and the judge ignores the double-jeopardy issue. You would then have to argue for a death sentence (highly unlikely given the lapse of time, appeal process and the defendent's age), which if unsuccessful would then result in time served as applied against the sentence (most likely resulting in no jail time at all). The end result? Tons of taxpayer money spent, tons of people's time wasted, for the insanely small probability of extracting a death sentence against someone who is 70+ years old. It would do a lot more good to spend that money on hiring more police officers and then catching and convicting CURRENT criminals who represent a CURRENT danger to society. Can anyone say political grandstanding? As for 15 years not being enough, if that's your point of view change the sentencing guidelines. The fact is, at the time of the crime that was the sentence, ie, the amount of time deemed by society to be the fair and adequate punishment for the crime committed. That is what "debt to society" means. Do the crime, serve the time, your debt is paid. If you don't like your current justice system, either work to change it or go live somewhere else. Otherwise, suck it up and deal with it. It's the law and it applies to everyone whether you like it or not.

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 29 (view)

supply and demand theory Posted: 9/7/2007 7:26:07 AM
According to a report that I saw the other night, maybe last week, I think it was the Lehrer Newshour... the person being interviewed was in the oil industry and very emphatically said there is plenty of oil in the ground Actually, this is only partially true. Even if you don't buy into Hubbert's peak oil theory in terms of overall oil capacity and reserves, the facts are (and these are generally undisputed) is that the supply of the least expensive crude is rapidly declining. --- Crude 101 When everyone looks at the price of crude oil, they think of it as a monolithic commodity that is the same no matter where it is from. This is not true. Crude comes in many grades and levels of quality. The grade of crude is determined by sulfur content, with the lowest sulfur content being crudes such as West Texas, or North Brent Crude (which you'll notice have different prices). This is important because the costs of refining crude increase rapidly as sulfur content increases. The lightest sweet crudes (low sulfur content) are the easiest to refine, with refining costs in terms of extracting byproducts such as gasoline, fuel oil, and manufacturing derivatives being very low. If you had an oversupply of light crudes, then oil would easily be able to stay at the $20/barrel level. However, world demand has greatly exceeded the supply of light crude. As you exceed the demand for readily refinable light crudes, refiners are forced to use alternative "heavier" crudes. Heavy crudes create difficulties in refining. They are more viscous with higher sulfur and tar contents, requiring more expensive and time-consuming techniques of refining. At the top end of the cost matrix are what you can call "synthetic" crudes, such as those from the Athabasca tar sands, or gas/coal extracted synthetic crudes. For example, the Athabasca tar sands contain as much potential crude as the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, however, they are not only locked in physical form (bonded to the sands), but they are high in tar content and sulfur content. How expensive is it to process the tar sands into synthetic crude? You can't even break even unless oil is over $45/barrel. And that barely even factors in the tremendous energy input costs. They're going to need to build a nuclear reactor in Alberta just to drive the refining/processing facilities. The energy input/output efficiency is actually very low compared to the sweet/light crudes. As for synthetics extracted from coal, natural gas, woodchips, etc, the costs for refining there would require crude prices over $75 a barrel... and that's without the existence of a substantial refining demand. Let's not even mention the tremendous energy requirements to process/refine it. Similarly, crude oil extracted from areas like the Arctic, Siberia, Kazakhstan or deep sea drilling are very expensive to drill and transport. Whether you believe that we have reached a peak in oil production in general or not (open to debate in some circles), it is pretty much universally acknowledged by oil analysts that the supply of "cheap and easy" crude is basically done. It's declining and expected to dwindle to a trickle over time. At the same time, the worldwide demand for crude is increasing at a rate of approximately 3-5% per year depending on who's estimates you are using. In other words, you have increasing demand for crude and crude oil derivatives, while at the same time you have declining/flat production of the least expensive light/sweet crudes. All this adds up to a severe supply/demand imbalance, forcing the refining of increasingly expensive/cost-prohibitive heavy/sour crudes. In other words, higher prices. Long gone are the days of wildcatting in easy to reach places like Texas or Saudi Arabia where you could just drop a rig and get billions of barrels. Over the last 25 years, oil companies worldwide are spending more and more money and discovering less and less oil for every exploration dollar. Simlarly, transportation costs are increasing dramatically as you extract crude from increasingly remote and inhospitable locations. Think of it this way. Even if you found a gazillion barrels of oil on the moon, the costs of drilling and transporting it would be so astronomical that it would be economically non-feasible unless oil prices went through the stratosphere. In other words, oil prices are higher, they're here to stay, and expect it to get a lot more expensive over the next several decades. There's no way around it. Period. And for those thinking that some green energy source is going to save us, think again. While normal gasoline consumption for things such as cars is a large part of crude consumption, consider the following... -All heavy trucking relies on diesel -Virtually all trains run on diesel -Virtually all the worlds shipping requires diesel -Planes run on jet fuel (no current substitutes) -All plastic polymers (nylon, PVC, rayon, etc) are made from crude derivatives (no current substitutes) -Many heavy manufacturing processes require crude derivates (benzene, toluene, etc. - no current substitutes) -Most fertilizers and pesticides are manufactured with crude derivatives (virtually no substitutes) As for Biofuels like Ethanol, don't hold your breath. Biofuels just shift costs toward food. Ethanol from corn merely adds to demand for corn in general, which is currently used for feed for livestock as well as food stocks. If you replaced the entire world's gasoline consumption with Ethanol, you would probably near to clearcut millions of acres of forest just to have enough arable land to grow the corn. Let's not forget that high corn prices are already displacing same land crops such as soybeans (also used for food and livestock feed). We won't even get into the impact of biofuels on global warming -- I'll give you a hint, they don't help in terms of CO2 emissions on a net/net basis.

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 3 (view)

Talent Deserves No Credit Posted: 9/7/2007 6:42:02 AM
I disagree. Talent is recognized in society because the contributions to society are often disproportional. Whether the talent is "deserved" is irrelevant, if you need to move 2000Kg of wheat, you appreciate the contribution of the person who can carry 3x more than everyone else. Similarly, you appreciate the hunter who brings home 3x the meat, the innovator who finds a way to reduce everyone else's workload by 2/3, or the manager who finds a way to magnify the efforts of those around them. In the grand scheme, those individuals input far more into the society in terms of resources relative to what they draw from it. That is why talent of most kinds is respected and given credit. By your reasoning, then why should anyone with "talent" contribute more than anyone else outside of some abstract "moral" obligation? Nice in theory, but never actually works in practice. It's why communism is great in principal but crap in practice. It's why some people get paid more or get more recognition from society. Is it fair? Not in a strictly egalitarian sense. On the other hand, I've always had problems with the idea of "all men being created equal". A human being born in the West is not the same as being born in a developing nation. Neither is a gifted athlete/intellect/artist/sage the same as the average person. Should we not recognize Leonardo DaVinci, Shakespeare, Einstein, Martin Luther King or Rousseau because they had extraordinary gifts? Or should we be thankful that people with such extraordinary gifts made extraordinary contributions? They could just as easily have decided to stay under the radar and be the same as everyone else. Just as in Science, Humanity stands on the shoulders of Giants.

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 5 (view)

Is every action a selfish action? Posted: 9/7/2007 6:18:27 AM
Depends on your definition. If you include psychological motivations, then you could make an argument that virtually all actions are somewhat selfish in motivation. IE, you do something for tangible, or psychological benefit, including those acts which are done to assuage one's conscience, or to meet one's "moral" compass. I would argue that some acts that are instinctual may be non-selfish in nature. For example, a purely biological respone like one of extreme terror, where your body freezes even though you consciously know that fleeing would save your life is one example of an action that is free of motive. This could happen if you suffered from a severe phobia. Actions such as sleepwalking would arguably be non-selfish. As for those that require conscious action or inaction, probably mostly selfish if you use a broad enough definition of motive.

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 20 (view)

Do punk goth skater posers turn you off? Posted: 9/7/2007 6:11:55 AM
Punk, goth, skater... Tinker, tailor, candlestick maker... We are who are, despite what we wear. If it makes you happy, then who cares what anyone else thinks. Just be aware that all external images come with prejudice and stereotypes. Unfair? Yes. On the other hand, I don't see many people rushing to deposit their savings with people dressed in hoodies. Clothing is more than the shirt on your back, it is often an emblem and uniform of the social group you associate yourself with... whether it applies to your particular circle of friends or not. It's up to each to decide if the perks are worth the price.

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 25 (view)

If you fell in love with a Kiwi, would you move to NZ?? Posted: 8/24/2007 8:08:06 AM
I suspect it depends heavily on the man, how comfortable they are with travel, how many ties and obligations they have locally, and how easy it would be for them to find work in NZ. Personally, I wouldn't move from Canada (or anywhere that was more than a couple hours flight from Canada) as I have too many local family and business obligations. That being said, I could easily see myself holidaying 3 to 4 months abroad per year there if I was with someone who wanted to split time between countries... at least until we had children that were old enough to watch the store All the Kiwi's that I've ever met are a fun bunch. I suspect winter would be the best time to flee northern climes. As for the best time to bring it up, I guess it depends upon how far down the road you are talking about. If you're thinking about returning to NZ in 5 years, that's very different than 25 years when your children are adults and grown. If you're thinking a relatively short time frame, then it would be worth bringing it up early in the dating (if you consider that to be a deal-breaker). Otherwise, 25 years is a long time away. Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 52 (view)

Unequal incomes and relationships Posted: 8/22/2007 7:10:12 PM
Hrm, yet another thread about dating and money. What are your thoughts on getting involved with someone who earned much less then you? If you're a high income earner or have substantial net assets, they you're pretty much stuck in terms of choices. Those in the top 5% simply are going to learn to deal with it and accept that most people are going to be substantially less affluent, or they are going to make a choice to hang around in upper social circles and hope they stumble into someone of similar net worth/income (much smaller dating pool). Dating people of lower income/net worth is a choice you make to increase your chances. Otherwise, it's just another criteria that one would need to screen... on top of looks, intelligence, personality, values, etc. etc. Personally, I don't like making it harder than it needs to be. How do you feel about getting involved with someone who earns a lot less then you do. I will also say that he or she is happy in their career. All others parts of the relationship are good. I think it's as important as you make it. Personally, I put minimal emphasis on income or net worth. Financially speaking, what's more important to me is a person's general attitudes towards money, wealth, success, career, etc. A person with good money sense will always get ahead, regardless of how little they make in the present. A person with poor saving and spending habits will always spend more than they can afford and end up broke. A person with a good head on their shoulders is uncommon indeed... at least as far as money is concerned. In general, people with good saving/spending habits are a lot less common (special thanks to the spend-spend-spend media blitz) than people who have large salaries or assets. In the end, your attitutudes towards money matter a lot more... though a large income or substantial assets gives you a big head start. Can a relationship work with a great difference in income? How do you deal with the monthly expenses? paying bills, savings and retirement? I suppose it depends on how much difference you are talking about. If you are in the category of financially free or higher, then it really shouldn't matter that much. If you can afford an upper class or even upper middle class lifestyle, then the financial contributions of someone at the lower quartile of income makes virtually no difference in the big picture. If they are somewhat closer, like someone earns $125k and the other person earns $50k, then they can easily contribute in a substantial way. However, even someone earning $50k a year is pretty close to negligible when you are talking about individuals with incomes in the $250k+ range or net worths at the $2 million+ level. $50k sounds like a lot, but it's not so substantial once the taxman gets done with your pay check. I suppose for legal purposes, the easiest way is to segregate the monies (separate accounts), and then do bill contributions based upon percentage or a pre-determined amount. However, it's not unheard of for one person to pay all the bills, or even to commingle monies completely. I think it depends a lot on each person's comfort and preferences, as well as their attitudes towards finances in general. Personally I would have the woman I'm with manage her own savings and retirement accounts, and if she managed to stick it out to retirement with me and I still had enough income/assets to support both our lifestyles, she could use it for either further investing or spending cash. It's good to leave something for the kids, but let's not forget that you should have some fun on the way. Wanderer

wanderer1999

Joined: 2/10/2007

Msg: 11 (view)

Places in time Posted: 8/12/2007 12:49:25 AM
I suspect it all depends on whether you believe time is linear or non-linear, or somewhere in between. If you believe that time is linear or advancing from point A to B in a single immutable stream, then time travel with interaction would be impossible as the universe would not allow changes to the timeline. IE, person goes back in time, attempts to kill his grandfather, but for various reasons is unable (kind of like Final Destination 2 where the guy tries to shoot himself but the gun always jams). If you believe that time is overall linear but not strictly immutable, then you could have temporary paradoxes or changes in time that would have no impact on the overall timestream, but may be visible to the person who instigated the change. For example, person goes back in time, kills his grandfather and succeeds, and to the outside observer disappears from the timeline, however he does exist within a contained loop of existence/non-existence that nobody is aware of. To him it appears that he has changed the timeline, but in actuality he would have only entered a loop or wrinkle in time that was already pre-existing/pre-determined. Kind of the like the movie the Philadelphia Experiment where some of the individuals get caught in a causal loop. Think of it like hitting a loop the loop on a roller coaster. You still go from point A to B but can backtrack and even become trapped while the rest of the roller coaster moves forward. If you believe in the idea of infinite universes, then any change in the timeline is not actually a change in the timeline, but instead a movement by the observer from one timeline to another (like skipping from one rail-line to another). In this case, any "changes" to the timeline would only be apparent to those from the previous timeline who were present from the point of the change. To everyone else, it would appear as if time were a single uninterrupted stream. IE, person from Universe A goes back in time, kills his grandfather, and at that instant creates alternate universe B with a timeline where he was never born. However, because he originated in Univerase A, in Universe A he simply goes missing, while in Universe B he now exists with no apparent point of origin. As for the origin for ideas and technology, it is concievable that an idea could come form the "future" per se if you allow for a pre-destined timeline or infinite universes, however it would still mean that someone would need to invent it at some point in their past (relative to them), though whether that is your past or future would be fundamentally irrelevant. Is time travel possible? There is mathematics if physics that allow for the possibility, just as there are theories that allow for most possibilities depending on what assumptions you make about the nature of time. Which of those theories are correct will remain an area of contention, at least until someone is able to clearly demonstrate time travel in a practical sense. Of course, Time travel itself raises all sorts of ethical questions. If it were possible to go back in time and influence the past, you would theoretically be impacting the lives of an indeterminate number of beings. People would live that did not live before, just as people would die who would not have died otherwise. What right would any individual or group of individuals have to potentially tamper with the lives and deaths of millions without their knowledge? IMHO, even if Time Travel were possible, any changes to a timeline would be as inherently immoral as going on a mass killing spree in the hope that it would change the future for the better. Regardless of intention, the near infinite complexity of any such interaction would make any outcome essentially unpredictable. On the other hand, I suppose you could argue that if you subscribed to the idea of multiple universes, then all possibilities exist simultaneously, thus removing any question of morality from the equation. After all, everyone would still be both alive and dead in every possible permutation, thus making any changes essentially moot in the grand scheme of things. Did I mention that Time Travel makes my head hurt?

Show ALL Forums