Pedro the sombrero wearing slug

.flickr-photo { border: solid 2px #000000; }.flickr-yourcomment { }.flickr-frame { text-align: left; padding: 3px; }.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }

westcliff, originally uploaded by termie.

Have had a great weekend so far. I really like this not planning anything strategy. Went to dinner with Akiko on Friday, mmm sushi, then ate ice cream, watched a movie and hung out. Then spontaneously went to Santa Cruz on Saturday with Jessica and her friend Andy and his friend Vess for a couple of hours. Then came home and went to a San Jose Stealth lacross game with Kirsten and had yummy tacos afterwards. Today has been spent messing with photos and relaxing. I’m taking a day off tomorrow and hanging out with Amanda, that will be fun too.

Anyone who might read this have an opinion about whether I should make a seperate photoblog? I would probably post more photos there because if I post too many here I feel like it gets crowded. But maybe posting more here is fine too…

Heartbreak & Heroin

queenie

Glyptic

I have to disagree with Mike Langberg in his assumption of the good that the Federal Trade Commission will bring to mail-in rebate hassles. While I do think that mail-in rebates are an extraordinary bother when trying to find good deals on computer and electronics products, I don’t believe making retailers responsible for other companies will have the desired benefit.

The issue with CompUSA working with a manufacturer that was knowingly defrauding those seeking rebates may be a legitimate issue in itself, there is no need to expand the scope with more regulatory action. Instead, there can be voluntary agreements between retailers and manufacturers. Rebates can be “guaranteed” by a retail outlet, where they promise to deliver on the rebate if there is any trouble with the manufacturing company at hand. This will make retailers foster better relationships with rebate issuing manufacturers and will offer a benefit to consumers. Those consumers who would be willing to deal with possible extra hassle may have the choice to deal with “non-guaranteed” rebates.

If legislation is passed or regulations imposed that make a retailer responsible for any rebate on any product they sell, the immediate response will probably be a slimmer offering of products with rebates because of the liability imposed on the retailer. This ultimately makes the consumer suffer because of a lessening of choices and less opportunities for lower prices. I, for one, take into account the possibility of a hassle when I am comparing prices between products that offer rebates and those that don’t. Mike Langberg assumes that there are no consumers who are willing to do this to save money:

In a perfect world, mail-in rebates would be banned. Consider a notebook computer advertised today for $899 that actually sells for $999 with a $100 mail-in rebate. Perhaps half of buyers will submit valid rebate requests, so the manufacturer is only sacrificing $50 a unit. I think we’d all prefer a more honest system where the manufacturer sold the notebook to everyone for $949, with none of the mail-in rebate hocus-pocus.

I would rather have the option of a mail-in rebate or not than higher prices and no choice. Sorry Mike, you assume wrongly. Don’t impose your preferences on me.

A sting occurred recently to crack down on the heinous crime of unlicensed contracting in Santa Clara County. The logic behind the licensing laws doesn’t hold up to me. The Mercury News article states that, “Investigators say that unlicensed contractors often perform shoddy work — or take the money and run before the job is finished.” While that may be true, it does not follow that unlicensed workers will do that.

Also, the fines issued to the unlicensed contractors are really just extortion in my eyes. You won’t pay us money to take our test so we will fine you more money is the line of thinking. Licensing also harms the people who would be willing to take the “risk” of hiring an unlicensed contractor because they could typically get a lower bid from those who are unlicensed.

The California Contractors State Licensing Board offers tips to check out a contractor and avoid fraud, all of which make sense and probably ought to be used except the two which call for hiring only licensed workers and checking the license. These steps would do nothing extra if the other following steps were followed:

-Get three references and review past work.
-Get at least three bids.
-Get a written contract and don’t sign anything until you completely understand the terms.
-Pay 10 percent down, or $1,000, whichever is less.
-Don’t let payments get ahead of work. Keep records of payments.
-Don’t make final payment until you’re satisfied with the job.
-Don’t pay cash.
-Keep a job file of all papers relating to your project.

That is all great information, especially when paying for an expensive job. For those who would argue that a license provides an extra sense of security, I ask them what would be the difference then with a private trade organization that had standards for membership and was reputable?

In the end it should be the customer who chooses to assume some risks for the benefit of less expensive work. Anything that involves fraud can be taken to court, the government has no need to be involved in qualifying contractors.

I read the newspaper today because I finished all 5 books in The Ultimate Hitchhiker’s Guide. All this business about steroid use in baseball is on the front page. I read both stories (1, 2) in the Mercury News and I don’t even like baseball. What I do care about is the archaic Drug War. Because baseball is a private organization, I could care less about whether or not the players are allowed to use drugs or not in the rules. Baseball should be able to make its own rules. If drug use is disapproved of by the public, they will be turned off by baseball and the MLB organization will feel the pressure to crack down when the revenues start to dry up. This is the way the market works. If people continue to watch and enjoy the game when players are using drugs, what is the problem? The only arguments that people make are that “it’s not the way baseball has been,” or “it’s just not right.” Well, people’s opinions who have a soapbox (ahem, the House of Representatives) should not trump the opinions of everyone who tunes in or forks over money for tickets. I really can’t stand it when lawmakers, or anyone else for that matter, tell us they know what “the American people” want when talking about things. The only way to really be sure about what people want is to look at how they spend their hard-earned money. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California) claims, “Now America is asking baseball for integrity.” Actually it might only be Jose Canseco, whose book basically prompted the hearings, not “America.” He might not even be doing that. According to the story he changed his opinion between his testimony and the book. I don’t know. I didn’t watch the hearings or read the book. I don’t plan on it either. I care about the principle, not the silly nitty gritty.

Yesterday something happened to our phone line. I got home and the internet was down, which happens every so often, I can usually fix it rather quickly, resetting the DSL modem or whatever. This was different. Odd lights were blinking on it and nothing was working. I pick up the phone to call SBC and there is no dial tone. Great. All the lines in the house were hung up so I call on my cell phone. No appointments were available for yesterday so I had to take today off to make sure I was here when the technician showed up. He came early which was nice and took a few hours to get it all fixed.

But now I can’t remember anything I was going to say.