Frugal Living: 24 new messages in 11 topics

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

24 new messages in 11 topics - digest

misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: LCD power consumption
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/b7795a2be395a19a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 9 2007 4:12 pm
From: Warren Block

Dennis <dgw80@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:03:48 -0000, Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>There are standalone tuner/video boxes that will drive a VGA monitor
>>without a computer, and also act as a switch so you can still use the
>>monitor with the computer.
>
> Or another alternative is a monitor with composite and/or Svideo
> inputs, in conjuction with a cable/satellite box or a VCR/ DVD
> recorder (for tuning OTA NTSC channels). My Dell widescreen LCD
> monitor has these inputs, in addition to VGA and DVI..
>
> You also need something to deliver the audio in all these scenarios.

The KWorld box looks like it has a built-in speaker. Of course, some
monitors also have built-in speakers, and the TV tuner boxes also switch
that signal depending on whether you're viewing the TV or computer.

--
Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota * USA

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 9 2007 5:08 pm
From: Jeff

Dennis wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:03:48 -0000, Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Jeff <dont_bug_me@all.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On another note, anyone have a monitor/tv combo? What's it take to
>>>get televison on a monitor? How about those TV tuner cards? What about
>>>a digital video (US) or NTSC to DVI converter?
>>
>>There are standalone tuner/video boxes that will drive a VGA monitor
>>without a computer, and also act as a switch so you can still use the
>>monitor with the computer.
>
>
> Or another alternative is a monitor with composite and/or Svideo
> inputs, in conjuction with a cable/satellite box or a VCR/ DVD
> recorder (for tuning OTA NTSC channels). My Dell widescreen LCD
> monitor has these inputs, in addition to VGA and DVI..
>
I like that idea. Most of what I've seen advertised have DVI and USB
but but not composite. I'll look some more and think about updating to
XP here. Funny how when XP came out that many of the high end video
devices (Pinnacle for one) couldn't get XP drivers out the door.

> You also need something to deliver the audio in all these scenarios.

OK. As long as I don't need two remotes!

Jeff
>
> Dennis (evil)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Living Simply (and Frugally) in WNY
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/9a75ab38f093d21b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 9 2007 4:18 pm
From: "mistressofthemoonlight@yahoo.com"

I have become unemployed recently and have been making adjustments to
get through this gracefully. I have been blogging my experience as I
go:

http://lessthan800dollarsmonthly.blogspot.com/

Please stop by and share your experiences. IF THIS IS CONSIDERED
SPAMMING please contact me and I will be grateful for the input. Sign
me, M

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ron Paul...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/eb674cb08f954f60?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 9 2007 5:10 pm
From: gfretwell@aol.com

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:49:20 -0700, George Grapman
<sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:

>>> Good point, that federal money comes with mandates the money will not
>>> cover.
>>
>> Always do. Why do think the drinking age everywhere is 21 and
>> there are mandatory seatbelt laws, etc. etc. etc. etc.
>
>
> With both examples a state could negate those laws by losing federal
>funding but even the strongest advocates of states rights are rarely
>ready to do that.

The states would do that if they could stop sending the gasoline taxes
that fund the roads to washington.

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 9 2007 5:12 pm
From: gfretwell@aol.com

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:49:39 GMT, George Grapman
<sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:

>> When you compare the money the federal government gives to education
>> to the cost of what it requires states and school districts to do to
>> get that money, it is doubtful that there is much benefit for anyone.
>>
>> Austin
>>
> Fine, your state and district are free to refuse that money.
The state can refuse the money but they still can't refuse the
mandates

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 9 2007 7:00 pm
From: George Grapman

gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:49:39 GMT, George Grapman
> <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:
>
>>> When you compare the money the federal government gives to education
>>> to the cost of what it requires states and school districts to do to
>>> get that money, it is doubtful that there is much benefit for anyone.
>>>
>>> Austin
>>>
>> Fine, your state and district are free to refuse that money.
> The state can refuse the money but they still can't refuse the
> mandates
Which mandates are you talking about?

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 9 2007 8:03 pm
From: gfretwell@aol.com

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 02:00:58 GMT, George Grapman
<sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:

>>> Fine, your state and district are free to refuse that money.
>> The state can refuse the money but they still can't refuse the
>> mandates
> Which mandates are you talking about?

Free breakfast and lunch, Curriculums that are packed with politically
correct subjects instead of basic education, busing and generally
trying to make all schools everything for everybody. School boards
have no flexibility to tune a particular school to the needs of the
community it serves.

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 9 2007 9:08 pm
From: gfretwell@aol.com

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:58:41 -0700, George Grapman
<sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:

>>
>> Free breakfast and lunch, Curriculums that are packed with politically
>> correct subjects instead of basic education, busing and generally
>> trying to make all schools everything for everybody. School boards
>> have no flexibility to tune a particular school to the needs of the
>> community it serves.
>
> None of which are forced on states if they refuse federal funding.

That is just wrong. The state of Utah is currently in court over "no
child left behind" lets see how that goes.

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 9 2007 9:38 pm
From: George Grapman

gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:58:41 -0700, George Grapman
> <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:
>
>>> Free breakfast and lunch, Curriculums that are packed with politically
>>> correct subjects instead of basic education, busing and generally
>>> trying to make all schools everything for everybody. School boards
>>> have no flexibility to tune a particular school to the needs of the
>>> community it serves.
>> None of which are forced on states if they refuse federal funding.
>
>
> That is just wrong. The state of Utah is currently in court over "no
> child left behind" lets see how that goes.

They are suing over a provision that requires students under
performing schools to be bused to better schools.
The law allows a state to opt out if it refuses federal funding.

http://www.nhpr.org/node/5820

Two of the Legislature's top Democrats are launching a new effort to get
New Hampshire to withdraw from the national No Child Left Behind program.

They say Washington is making demands that it doesn't pay for. They
complain about losing local control.

But this year New Hampshire is not alone.

New Hampshire Public Radio's political correspondent, John Milne, reports:

Some academics suggest it will be a significant issue in this fall's
election.

But that debate begins sooner in New Hampshire.

Towns throughout the state are debating school budgets now and for the
next few weeks.

And Democrats are telling voters to blame President Bush and the
Republicans if No Child regulations demand more school spending and
higher taxes.

Senate Democratic Leader Lou D'Allesandro of Manchester connects the
political and fiscal dots:
(nochild1)
It's time to revisit this issue. We need to tell Washington that our
property taxpayers are not going to pay the bills. The bill without
money is not acceptable. Show me the money!

School administrators say tests mandated by the law are far more costly
than the funds Washington provides. That's 66 million dollars for all
schools in the state.

Steve Spratt is on the Mascenic Regional school board in New Ipswich. He
complains that the federal money comes with too many restrictions:
(nochild 2)
NCLB is punitive. It's all stick. There are very few carrots in the
bill. If you don't make the grade, you're forced to lower the standards.
There are 40 measurements in the bill, and if you miss any one of them,
you're classified as need improving.

The New Hampshire House passed a bill last year to refuse No Child
money. The state Senate tabled the bill. There's been no action this year.

Mike Sentance is the regional representative of the U-S Department of
Education. He says the No Child program is fully funded. It would have
no effect on local spending, and therefore no increase in property taxes.

(nochild4)
In fact, I would be arguing that you're getting more bang for your buck
out of your property tax. I mean, if you know that now the people have
the appropriate level of qualifications to be in the classroom, your
school should be more effective. I mean, one of the things that always
confuses me about the conversation in New Hampshire is why people defend
having thoroughly unqualified people in classrooms as being a good
investment of local tax dollars.

Sentance blames politics for why 14 states other than New Hampshire are
protesting the No Child law.

In Utah, for example, the Republican-led House voted 64 to 8 to scrap
the No Child mandates. Utah's Senate hasn't acted.

In Virginia, the House of Delegates passed a resolution criticizing the
law. Patricia Wright is superintendent for instruction of the Virginia
Board of Education:

There are some technicalities in the No Child Left Behind law that would
be counterproductive to our own reform. And it expressed some concern
with the federal intrusion into state's rights.

So far no state has rejected the program.

One reason is that a state that rejects the federal law would also have
to turn down millions of dollars in federal aid.
From a political perspective, the debate reverses traditional partisan
positions in the state.

The Democrats say No Child Left Behind will increase taxes and destroy
local control.

The Republicans say the federal program calls for improvements in
reading, math and science that all parents would want.

But the "little democracies" of New Hampshire towns are famous for their
independence. Their votes may offer a nonpartisan analysis of No Child
Left Behind

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 9 2007 10:46 pm
From: gfretwell@aol.com

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 04:38:04 GMT, George Grapman
<sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:

>gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:58:41 -0700, George Grapman
>> <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Free breakfast and lunch, Curriculums that are packed with politically
>>>> correct subjects instead of basic education, busing and generally
>>>> trying to make all schools everything for everybody. School boards
>>>> have no flexibility to tune a particular school to the needs of the
>>>> community it serves.
>>> None of which are forced on states if they refuse federal funding.
>>
>>
>> That is just wrong. The state of Utah is currently in court over "no
>> child left behind" lets see how that goes.
>
> They are suing over a provision that requires students under
>performing schools to be bused to better schools.
> The law allows a state to opt out if it refuses federal funding.
>
>
>http://www.nhpr.org/node/5820
>
>
>Two of the Legislature's top Democrats are launching a new effort to get
>New Hampshire to withdraw from the national No Child Left Behind program.
>
>They say Washington is making demands that it doesn't pay for. They
>complain about losing local control.
>
>But this year New Hampshire is not alone.
>
>New Hampshire Public Radio's political correspondent, John Milne, reports:
>
>
>
>
>Some academics suggest it will be a significant issue in this fall's
>election.
>
>But that debate begins sooner in New Hampshire.
>
>Towns throughout the state are debating school budgets now and for the
>next few weeks.
>
>And Democrats are telling voters to blame President Bush and the
>Republicans if No Child regulations demand more school spending and
>higher taxes.
>
>Senate Democratic Leader Lou D'Allesandro of Manchester connects the
>political and fiscal dots:
>(nochild1)
>It's time to revisit this issue. We need to tell Washington that our
>property taxpayers are not going to pay the bills. The bill without
>money is not acceptable. Show me the money!
>
>School administrators say tests mandated by the law are far more costly
>than the funds Washington provides. That's 66 million dollars for all
>schools in the state.
>
>Steve Spratt is on the Mascenic Regional school board in New Ipswich. He
>complains that the federal money comes with too many restrictions:
>(nochild 2)
>NCLB is punitive. It's all stick. There are very few carrots in the
>bill. If you don't make the grade, you're forced to lower the standards.
>There are 40 measurements in the bill, and if you miss any one of them,
>you're classified as need improving.
>
>The New Hampshire House passed a bill last year to refuse No Child
>money. The state Senate tabled the bill. There's been no action this year.
>
>Mike Sentance is the regional representative of the U-S Department of
>Education. He says the No Child program is fully funded. It would have
>no effect on local spending, and therefore no increase in property taxes.
>
>(nochild4)
>In fact, I would be arguing that you're getting more bang for your buck
>out of your property tax. I mean, if you know that now the people have
>the appropriate level of qualifications to be in the classroom, your
>school should be more effective. I mean, one of the things that always
>confuses me about the conversation in New Hampshire is why people defend
>having thoroughly unqualified people in classrooms as being a good
>investment of local tax dollars.
>
>Sentance blames politics for why 14 states other than New Hampshire are
>protesting the No Child law.
>
>In Utah, for example, the Republican-led House voted 64 to 8 to scrap
>the No Child mandates. Utah's Senate hasn't acted.
>
>In Virginia, the House of Delegates passed a resolution criticizing the
>law. Patricia Wright is superintendent for instruction of the Virginia
>Board of Education:
>
>There are some technicalities in the No Child Left Behind law that would
>be counterproductive to our own reform. And it expressed some concern
>with the federal intrusion into state's rights.
>
>So far no state has rejected the program.
>
>One reason is that a state that rejects the federal law would also have
>to turn down millions of dollars in federal aid.
> From a political perspective, the debate reverses traditional partisan
>positions in the state.
>
>The Democrats say No Child Left Behind will increase taxes and destroy
>local control.
>
>The Republicans say the federal program calls for improvements in
>reading, math and science that all parents would want.
>
>But the "little democracies" of New Hampshire towns are famous for their
>independence. Their votes may offer a nonpartisan analysis of No Child
>Left Behind

I suppose you are too young to remember Brown V BOE

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Free Basis Sensitive Skin Bar
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/10807a5a08f90460?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 9 2007 5:28 pm
From: "TheBestFreebies.com"

Free Basis sensitive skin bar soap.

Basis sensitive skin bar soap is a remarkably mild soap that cleanses your
skin without stripping it of moisture. No harsh ingredients, no dyes or
perfumes -- just mild cleansers, plus calming chamomile, Aloe vera and
almond oil to leave skin soothed as well as smooth. No wonder
dermatologists recommend it.

--
The Best Freebies