Potty-Training Your Cat
You can do it yourself, with household items.
Home
Why?
Our Kitties
Movies (proof)
Flushing
Training
Deterrents
Donation Philosophy
FAQs
Dedication
Donation Philosophy
Did you know that individuals can exchange small amounts of money using PayPal? All you need is a person's e-mail address. Like this one:
klahn@klahnpages.net
Even the simplest devices, least elaborate websites, and most streamlined systems can take a lot more time than you might imagine to develop. If any of this helped you, feel free to promote this type of production/distribution in a tangible way.
Beyond this site, I'd like to, in general, promote a free exchange/donation/trust paradygm. I think many of us help to perpetuate ideas that are really two sides of the same coin. On one side, a producer of a product tries to attach limitations, copyrights, and other security systems in an attempt to "fairly" make as much as possible off a product. These tactics don't add to the actual usefulness of that product. On the other side, consumers are trying to get something for free or very little -"keeping the producers honest." Both are essentially trying to get much more out of what they've put into something. Both are kidding themselves. The cost just comes around indirectly and higher than before because there are now additional costs that must be paid by someone. We argue that it is the same difference whether we all trust each other or we all distrust each other. In both cases we know where everyone else stands. We reason that if we all distrust and look out for ourselves, the outcome of this aversarial system will find it's natural proper balance point on the fairest outcome. Yeah. . . that philosophy has been working great for our legal sytem . . . . . We always overlook the added expenses of the intermediary systems/people that need to be paid or the extra steps we need to go through. -the time in development, implementation , and use of encryption, -the time trying to hack in, -the lawyers fees, -the time in litigation. None of these things provide direct benefit to the producer or consumer. We can see how we've fooled ourselves into thinking we can get something for nothing when we look at network television. We actually think we are getting certain programs for free. We are paying for them in the form of being overcharged for the products we buy, that are advertised on TV. OK no big deal, right? You say you don't watch or are not influenced by commercials? Odds are that you are. Otherwise advertisers wouldn't run them. For any products you see on TV, you are splitting the cost of a production that comes to many times more than what it would take to simply communicate what product is available, with what features and at what price. Furthermore, the process cost more because of all the added admin and time it takes to take this indirect route. Finally, you don't even get what you want because your wishes (for what you want to see on TV) are filtered through what the advertiser thinks you want to see plus any agenda they feel they can get away with embedding in your programs. And don't even get me started on cable TV. You have old programs, the production costs of which have already been paid, but still have the same, expensive commercials. -should be paid for, right? Wrong. You still have to pay for the cable or satellite service.
Yes, I am actually saying that you will, overall, spend less (time and money) if you volunteer to pay directly vs. try to or think you are getting away with paying nothing. This is true for coupons, rebates, etc., etc.. You add an extra admin cost there that wasn't in the original, intended exchange. Who do you think pays those people that handle the rebate forms you send? YOU and THE PRODUCER! Matter/energy (resources) can neither be created nor destroyed.
We could extend this idea to insurance, gambling, taxes . . . Overall, an insurance company must get more out of it's policy-holders than it pays out. Otherwise how could it stay in business or at least break even with it's admin and personel overhead costs? Why don't we just pool our money into a cooperative or credit union and give all members the oportunity to vote on whether a member should get a settlment or not? Insurance is just a perverted form of gambling. Your "winning" just happens to be contractually tied to your "losing" in another area.
