http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Acer computer for $200 at WALMART - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/62a95b83acaa1d71?hl=en
* getting 3x faster internet for same price - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/7eeb5cfa430c2c15?hl=en
* This is what has sprung from the film... V for Vendetta. . It is
untargetable. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/805e50da751e5d80?hl=en
* Good Samaritans lift truck off the chest of cyclist - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/9e7b6c47d4aac7d9?hl=en
* Purest bottled water - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8fb2e6ad277be2bc?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Acer computer for $200 at WALMART
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/62a95b83acaa1d71?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 13 2011 10:25 pm
From: Forrest Hodge
On 7/12/2011 8:29 PM, aesthete8 wrote:
> If anyone has tried that, what was your reaction?
Seeing how $200 barely buys a mid-range video card. One can't help but
think the $200 computer will be a cheaply made, underpowered POS.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 14 2011 12:12 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Forrest Hodge wrote
> aesthete8 wrote
>> If anyone has tried that, what was your reaction?
> Seeing how $200 barely buys a mid-range video card.
Only gamers need anything like that. There are plenty of
perfectly adequate $20 video cards around and those
included with the motherboard that dont even cost that too.
> One can't help but think the $200 computer will be a cheaply made, underpowered POS.
More fool you.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 14 2011 2:07 pm
From: Forrest Hodge
On 7/14/2011 3:12 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Forrest Hodge wrote
>> aesthete8 wrote
>
>>> If anyone has tried that, what was your reaction?
>
>> Seeing how $200 barely buys a mid-range video card.
>
> Only gamers need anything like that. There are plenty of
> perfectly adequate $20 video cards around and those
> included with the motherboard that dont even cost that too.
>
>> One can't help but think the $200 computer will be a cheaply made, underpowered POS.
>
> More fool you.
>
>
> Only gamers need anything like that.
Gamers will have more than a $200 a video card under the hood. The more
demanding games like Crysis 2 w/ the DX11 patch pretty much requires
multiple mid tier video cards to get a decent frame rate with the eye
candy turn on.
>There are plenty of perfectly adequate $20 video cards around
The $20 video card won't be much better than integrated.
>and those included with the motherboard that dont even cost that too
Those aren't discrete cards chief, they are integrated onto the mobo or
in some cases the CPU itself.
> More fool you.
Perhaps my standards are bit higher than the typical user.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: getting 3x faster internet for same price
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/7eeb5cfa430c2c15?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 14 2011 4:02 am
From: Ohioguy
My Dad is moving to the area, and asked me to look into high speed
internet for him. About 8 months ago, I had signed up for "cable
internet light" through Earthlink. (which uses Time Warner) At the
time, that was the best deal around here - a rural area - for $29.95.
It gives me 0.7 megabits per second. Previously I was on dialup, so it
seemed fast.
However, when I looked a couple of days ago, I saw that the Earthlink
prices had been upped a few dollars for new signups, so I went to look
at the Time Warner cable internet pages directly. Interestingly, I saw
that they offered the same thing I currently have for $19.95 a month for
12 months. They also had 2 megabits per second, around 3x my current
speed, for the same $29.95 a month I'm currently paying - also for 12
months.
I can't seem to find anything about what their regular prices are,
what they might jump up to after 12 months, or if this just means the
price is guaranteed at that level for 12 months, with no increases.
Can anyone shed any light on this? I am wondering if it might be
worth it for me to cancel for 3 weeks, then sign up again for a year
with the 3x faster speed.
Thanks!
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 14 2011 6:52 am
From: "Bob F"
Ohioguy wrote:
> My Dad is moving to the area, and asked me to look into high speed
> internet for him. About 8 months ago, I had signed up for "cable
> internet light" through Earthlink. (which uses Time Warner) At the
> time, that was the best deal around here - a rural area - for $29.95.
> It gives me 0.7 megabits per second. Previously I was on dialup, so
> it seemed fast.
>
> However, when I looked a couple of days ago, I saw that the
> Earthlink prices had been upped a few dollars for new signups, so I
> went to look at the Time Warner cable internet pages directly. Interestingly,
> I saw that they offered the same thing I currently
> have for $19.95 a month for 12 months. They also had 2 megabits per
> second, around 3x my current speed, for the same $29.95 a month I'm
> currently paying - also for 12 months.
>
> I can't seem to find anything about what their regular prices are,
> what they might jump up to after 12 months, or if this just means the
> price is guaranteed at that level for 12 months, with no increases.
>
> Can anyone shed any light on this? I am wondering if it might be
> worth it for me to cancel for 3 weeks, then sign up again for a year
> with the 3x faster speed.
>
Try calling them and asking if they are offering any special prices currently.
That has worked for me with my cable company. They usually will offer some
special 6-12 month deal. Occasionally, I have to try again in a few weeks to get
a deal. It could help to have a better alternative you could go to to leverage
them.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: This is what has sprung from the film... V for Vendetta. . It is
untargetable.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/805e50da751e5d80?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 14 2011 9:38 am
From: phil scott
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLJ2z8BSUPc&feature=feedf
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Good Samaritans lift truck off the chest of cyclist
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/9e7b6c47d4aac7d9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 14 2011 9:56 am
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
On Jul 13, 2:07 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser
Philosopher" <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This could be interpreted in many ways but it falls upon my shoulders
> to ask the tough questions: WHY DO WE NEED TO DRIVE ENORMOUS VEHICLES?
> It would have taken three people to lift a Mini off her chest. What if
> there weren't 9 people around?
>
> "Miller fell to the ground, with the truck on top of her. She was
> having difficulty breathing, and was turning purple.
>
> That's when IHOP manager Jose Preciado and nine others jumped into
> action. The group, which also included a cook and several diners,
> teamed up to pull the enormous vehicle off of Miller."
>
> Here you may find more interpretations... (including the customary
> "god blessing")
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/samaritans-lift-truck-off-cyclist...
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Wisdom of the jungle dictates that you stay away from a bone crushing
> elephant"
>
> http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
This may look out of place here, but the bottom line is the same: TAX
TRUCKS OUT OF EXISTENCE, well beyond the reach of the middle class.
On Jul 13, 10:39 pm, Billy <Wildbi...@withouta.net> wrote:
> In article
> <cb7921d5-7342-4fd4-9f0b-bcc17bb7a...@hg8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
> > I don't but just I assume that "most" blacks voted for Obama, I assume
> > that most Christians consider Obama evil. Their president was
> > warmongering Bush.
>
> Nearly 25 per cent of U.S. adults - about 30 million - are Catholic and
> 54 per cent of them voted for pro-abortion Obama as opposed to 46 per
> cent for McCain.
>
> 78% of the Jewish vote went to Obama. Jewish support - which made up 2%
> of the overall electorate - has, in recent years, been overwhelmingly
> Democrat; with Al Gore receiving 79% in 2000 and John Kerry 74% in 2004.
>
> Bush probably got the Baptist vote.
It's no surprise that the Free Spirits voted Democrat, the lesser evil
so to speak.
"12% of the vote cast were cast by those of No particular religious
faith, 75% of whom voted for Obama and 23% for McCain."
It's the hardcore American Taliban that puts Obama as the Devil
himself. Remember also people were just fed up with the Republicans
and their wars. Obama means little change in a system caught up in
corruption and lies. Case in point, Obama said over the debt
negotiations:
"What we're seeing here confirms what the American people think is the
worst about Washington: that everyone is more interested in posturing
and political positioning and protecting their base than solving real
problems."
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-vs-cantor-tempers-flare-debt-ceiling-negotiations-132033325.html
Nobody wants to hear the big truth: PUT AN ENERGY TAX IN PLACE SIMILAR
TO EUROPE, and help close the debt gap. TAX WARS at least. Where are
the people that supported them?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Purest bottled water
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8fb2e6ad277be2bc?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 14 2011 11:42 am
From: "mr.Vandalay"
In article
<d4aad25b-5e29-423f-89ea-1a1c73a4d754@n5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
aesthete8 <artsy6@gmail.com> wrote:
> Any recommendations?
We filter our tap water through a solid block of carbon. A Multi-pure
filters out stuff to .5 micron. then refill bottles to carry around.
Relatively cheaper.
--
Karma, What a concept!
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
