Sounds like you should look at Matrox. I'll warn you in advance though, the kids will keep asking you why the PCB is that boring green color, where all the chrome is, and why it doesn't have a fan. The 2D quality is top notch though.
If someone swerves to miss a rabbit at 85mph, they're an idiot. I don't swerve to miss animals unless I'm going really slow (like 25mph), or they're big enough to hurt me and the car (like a deer). And yes, I regularly drive 85mph in my SUV because in the western US, the freeways are largely deserted 75% of the time.
FYI, I don't mind paying tickets, its having my insurance rates triple that pisses me off. And no, I've never had an accident that was my fault.
Doesn't take a genius to figure out that buying safety-critical equipment from a company in a "race to the bottom" isn't the best idea. Personally I refuse to buy anything from them because of their business practices, but even if they weren't evil I wouldn't let them work on my car.
Sounds like you're thinking about Rods from God. They're using Tungsten not Iron-Nickel, but the idea is the same, and after it hits, nobody will be able to tell what it was made of anyway. Although something with the impact force of a small nuclear weapon sure sounds like it violates the ban on WMDs in space to me, or at least it ought to.
I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, but it makes it easier to interact with my friends/family and have a normal social life if I'm on the same schedule as the rest of the world. Ever try to explain to a woman how you slept through a 9pm date?
That's the major downside I see to allowing my body to find its own schedule, or lack thereof. Just my $0.02.
Because it's been shown that exposure to sunlight is what synchronizes your natural circadian rhythm.
As someone who prefers to work at night and sleep during the morning and early afternoon, I can tell you that after a few days of this pattern and not being outside any longer than it takes to travel to the lab or gym, I lose all sense of time and start sleeping for random periods of time throughout the day/night. While productive, it's pretty annoying to wake up on the couch, look at the clock, and not know whether its 7am or 7pm. Making sure I get 15-20 minutes of sun a couple times a day synchronizes things nicely so I can interact with the rest of the world semi-normally.
There's something to be said for appreciating nature too.
A work of art!?! I'd like to hear someone explain to me how they feel shooting aliens can compare to Picasso or Monet. I don't dispute that digital art does exist, but a game with a storyline about an alien invasion is highly unlikely (IMHO) to make an effective artistic statement or evoke an emotional response. I believe that this emotional response is what separates true art from pretty eye candy.
The kids these days idealize the youth culture to such a degree that it really makes me despair of them ever discovering the more important things in life. Social responsibility, artistic beauty, philisophical introspection, scientific discovery, things that will make society more harmonious, etc.
Okay, go ahead and mod me troll now for violating groupthink(TM)...
Because they're cheap, until you have to fix them. Well that, and they don't have any interest in supporting American industry. Too bad nobody thinks about the long term implications of how they spend their money.
Just because it works (for some values of 'works') doesn't mean you should support their evil business practices by running it. Have a spine, support a community that's actually interested in making better software, i.e. GNU/Linux. Or at least run an OS that demonstrates the developers are interested in innovating, i.e. OSX.
As for M$ being evil being hearsay, last time I checked we had court documents to back it up.
As for games, there are a lot more worthwhile things to do with your life than play games all the time (ironic that I'm saying this while posting on Slashdot, which IMHO is almost as worthless as gaming), go donate your time to an OSS project, or go outside, read a (decent) book, fight the man, whatever. Once you give up games, there is basically no argument for running M$ software.
"Often the person who invents something is not as important as who can make it into a working product, at least in the business world."
That may be true, but it doesn't make it right. That's one of the problems with American society (and capitalism in general), we afford more respect to people who make piles of money in their own selfish interest than we do to those who through hard work and innovation improve our quality of life. Not only do we give the 'businessmen' more respect, we give them more money. This results in a society where (almost) the only reason to innovate is altruism and hope of a tiny piece of the pie, while providing all the incentive in the world to become a sleazy leech of a businessman and try to find intelligent people to carry you on their back to the top, before you kick them back down.
Not that I have anything against businessmen... really... I, um, don't... yeah...
I'm glad somebody actually took the time to investigate the matter before bashing this nifty affordable little sportscar that got some pretty cool aftermarket upgrades later in the production run. If I wanted to build a mid-engine road racer to show the rice-burners what real power is, I'd have to seriously consider dropping a small-block in a '67 Corvair.
Kudos to you for not blindly buying into the hype without following up on the story.
Innocent?, what about original sin. If we're killing the ones we judged to be guilty (and last time I checked the Christian Bible said we weren't supposed to judge people, not to mention kill them), then by the rationale of original sin killing unborn babies should be functionally equivalent.
"First, you are assuming that the actions that took place were outside British law. I would like to see a single shred of evidence that it is against British law for British agents to knock out the websites for foreign terrorist organization."
It may not be agains British law, but if the servers reside in another country it is certainly against international law. The servers and the fiber that connects them to the backbone which connnects them to the British agents computers constitutes infrastructure directly or indirectly owned by the hosting country (indirectly in the case of private ownership by a business entity licensed in that country). Perpetrating attacks on the infrastructure of another country without a declaration of war is most definitely illegal under international law (though it is done all the time under the banner of "police actions", "peace keeping missions", etc.). This illegal act would be comprable to attacking the power grid of the hosting country to deny the 'terrorists' power. Certainly no country would stand idly by while Britain bombed a power substation without a declaration of war so I don't see why they shouldn't have every right to object to this illegal act. You can argue collateral damage, but I think there are still plenty of ways to make the comparison work.
That being said, I'll decline to argue whether it is 'right' or 'wrong' for lack of information. Where was the page hosted? How was it taken down? Did the hosting country cooperate?
"Before 9-11 a Brit reporter interviewed a Muslim holy man in Afghanistan (IIRC) asking him what they wanted of the West. His reply could not have been clearer, "We don't want your women, we don't want to convert you, we want you dead-all of you." What part of "we want you all dead" is unclear?"
In related news, a 7-toothed Christian 'holy man' in rural Alabama told an American reporter last week, "I wants all them there Muslims dead." Obviously Alabama and the Christians must be stopped. Or maybe the opinion of one purported 'holy man' doesn't serve to indict a religion and a region...
"You find yourself spending money on porn and whatnot that you do not have"
Spending money!?! Were you using a TRS-80 and a 300-baud modem or something? Porn is why we have things like broadband and Bittorrent. The porn wants to be free...
"I am not going to preach to a non-Christian about proper sexual viewpoints -- if they reject God anyway, what is the point? They might as well live like they want."
Could you tell your fellow Christians this, especially the last sentence, please. Maybe you could put it in the newsletter or something. And while you're at it, tell them that not everyone is wide awake and psyched to talk about jebus at 9am on a Saturday so if they would stop knocking on my door, that would be super-cool.
Reading your posts hurts my brain, not to be a grammar nazi, but when it impedes comprehension it is a problem. Also, spell-check, learn it, know it, love it, please.
I don't have any FDR era experience either, hell I have to read up on the Reagan-era stuff to fill in the details. That doesn't mean I'm not informed about administrations that were in power before I was old enough to experience them though.
As for content, Bush II may spend liberally, but that doesn't make him a liberal. His foreign policy is most definitely not liberal. His social security reforms most definitely indicate a shift away from social services, a very conservative idea. On what issues exactly has he proposed more federal oversight, defense matters perhaps, but that's the mark of a neo-con. As for health insurance, environmental issues, and corporate taxation, he's as conservative as they come, dismantling any sort of oversight he can and reducing corporate tax burdens. As for the Shaivo case, Karl Rove saw that was a PR disaster waiting to happen and advised him to side-step it (IMHO). Once again, defense issues like the Patriot Act do not constitute oversight, they constitute traditional neo-conservative ideas about the lengths the government should be allowed to go to in protecting the populace. And finally, yes, he does spend liberally I agree. Unfortunately his spending does not go to typical liberal causes such as social services, but rather to war and corporate welfare, decidedly un-liberal ways to spend money.
Bush is a conservative through and through who just happens to spend a lot of money. If you want to call him financially liberal, be my guest, but he is liberal only in the amount he spends, and not what he spends the money on.
That being said, his fiscal policy is very far from traditional Republican values (pre-Reagan). His big-government approach also diverges from the old party line. This doesn't mean he's not a 'real' Republican or a conservative, it simply means that the Republican party is moving in a new direction. They're taking a more agressive role in ensuring corporate profits than ever before, and this takes a larger government and more spending.
It's just my opinion, but I don't think anyone can, in good concience, call Bush II a liberal. Whether you're comparing him to the current group of politicians, or any in the last 100 years, he's a conservative through and through on almost every issue you could differentiate on (except for perhaps volume of spending, as previously explained).
If you're looking for smaller government, less spending, and less oversight, you're looking for a libertarian, not a liberal.
Are you suggesting that Bush II (or as I prefer to call him, Il Duce, yeah, like Mussolini) was liberal!?! Someone please give this guy a -1:Troll or a +1:Funny.
I don't take issue with your statement that some students can benefit from this sort of self-directed learning model. However in the absence of interaction with their peers, I feel they would miss out on intellectual debate/discussion which is a key element in becoming a truly educated person. Moreover, I do not feel that any of the asynchronous communication channels available (i.e. forums, etc.) can subsitute for face-to-face communication. I'm currently a Ph.D. candidate and I can honestly say that I learn as much from intellectual discussions with my colleagues as I do from reading journals and papers. The ability to critically discuss my ideas with others saves me countless hours pursuing flawed ideas which are not always readily obvious to the one proposing them (me). The need for face-to-face discussion is the reason I go to conferences and visit other universities rather than simply sitting at home and reading papers and proceedings. If you integrate some sort of face-to-face intellectual discussion to your niece's education, I think you'll find she'll be even more successful than she seems to be at the moment. It's also important that this discussion occur with individuals that she does not have a personal relationship with as personal relationships can impede the ability to critically examine ideas (for some people, though my friends often tell me I don't pull enough punches in discussions with them). This forum for discussion was the one use I had for school when I was younger, incidentally I went to a public magnet school and think I got a pretty good education there.
Wow, I can't believe you just compared me to a Nazi. I probably shouldn't even respond to you, but you're comment is just so far out of line I can't help myself.
Regarding insurance, employees choose not to take it because it's terrible coverage, the typical deductible is $1000. That's a lot to swallow when you're only making $14k a year. The fact of the matter is that Wal-Mart spends significantly less on insurance than the average US employer, 37.5% less as a matter of fact (http://fivestones.sitestream.com/pdf/2005-annual- report.pdf). The insurance is cheap yes, but it doesn't cover the average Wal-Mart employee where they really need it. That's why they're forced to seek state-sponsored coverage.
As for the employees you've seen, I don't know too many companies where the people in the corporate offices complain. But I do know that Wal-Mart mistreats their store-level employees in a variety of ways. Their history of sexism is well documented and in litigation as we speak. They're also facing lawsuits for making people work off the clock, and they've already lost more than one. Their practice of locking in employees at night while they're stocking to reduce shrink is also well documented. I don't dispute that the higher level employees may be happy, a decent salary has a way of keeping people's mouths shut.
I'm not even gonna touch your last statement, comparing Hitler and the Jews to an issue like this is so far out of line I wouldn't know where to begin.
Yes, those employees who live below the federal poverty line and are forced to seek public assistance sure are a whiny bunch. Nevermind the fact that "Wal-Mart costs federal taxpayers over $1.5 billion a year in welfare to their employees", or that "Wal-Mart fails to cover 60% of their workers with any health insurance" [walmartwatch.com].
I have no "desire to piss [you] off by shopping at Wal-Mart."
Your first post specifically says, "you anti-Walmart zealots make me want to shop there more just to piss you off." I understand your point, but I just wanted to point that out.
I didn't list alternatives because ideally you would go out and buy the device from an independent local retailer, and I don't know all of them. Incidentally, unless you can provide some sort of evidence, I have to dismiss your claim that, "many 'mom & pop' stores, do the exact same things Walmart does" as vacuous. Most small businesses I know don't try to force their employees to seek state or federal assistance to save money. They also don't manipulate suppliers into sending manufacturing jobs over-seas. And most small businesses I know provide insurance for more than 40% of their employees. I haven't heard of any of my local businesses locking their employees in the store overnight either. Most importantly, most small businesses I know don't have the market-share to drive their competitors out of business in such a fashion that the competitor has no recourse (i.e. they simply can't compete on price). No, I think I'm completely justified in saying that the actions Wal-Mart takes that I oppose are most certainly not perpetrated in a widespread fasion by the average small business.
As for activism being noble, I don't do it because it's noble, I do it because I have a concience and I couldn't sleep at night if I didn't try to do something about the injustices I see. Not that a more harmonious society doesn't have an immediate beneficial impact on me personally. As for barely on-topic, I'll concede that this discussion is moving rapidly in that direction, however I don't think my original quip was too far out of line.
As for my car, no, I'm working on building a bio-diesel processor like this to run an old VW someone gave me on though. I don't drive that much anyway, I can ride my bike just about anywhere I need to go unless it's snowing. I'm sure that was rhetorical, but I just wanted to point out that I don't think I'm perfect, but I do make a concious effort to try to get a little closer to perfection every day. And yes, I do get an immense feeling of self-satisfaction from it.
As for my "Wal-Mart phobia", I do not fear the retailer or anything about them. I do however find their business practices to be morally reprehensible and decline to support them, as well as urging others to do the same.
I'm sorry that my being a responsible consumer and trying to educate others about the ultimate end the money they give to a corporation meets upsets you. I really am, because it indicates that you really don't care what the real cost (in terms of the standard of living of the employees and cost to the taxpayers) of patronizing these businesses is. Your attitude is by no means unique, and that's why I try to talk to as many people as possible about irresponsible corporations like Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Starbucks, and others.
That being said, I won't dispute that it is news that Wal-Mart is selling this product. The mention of Wal-Mart and no other retailers does make it more likely that individuals who wish to purchase this product will go there. My post was intended to make them think twice about it. As for patronizing local businesses and smaller franchise retailers, sometimes it does take extra effort, but that's the price of having a concience when you're deciding which business entity to fund.
As for your desire to piss me off by shopping at Wal-Mart, I fail to see the utility in reacting in that manner, and frankly it seems childish.
If you disagree with one of my causes, start your own movement advocating the opposite viewpoint, that's what activism is about. Being anti-activist in general however does no-one any good.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't worry so much about inanimate objects or quail reading my IM conversations so much as other people.
Sounds like you should look at Matrox. I'll warn you in advance though, the kids will keep asking you why the PCB is that boring green color, where all the chrome is, and why it doesn't have a fan. The 2D quality is top notch though.
FYI, I don't mind paying tickets, its having my insurance rates triple that pisses me off. And no, I've never had an accident that was my fault.
Doesn't take a genius to figure out that buying safety-critical equipment from a company in a "race to the bottom" isn't the best idea. Personally I refuse to buy anything from them because of their business practices, but even if they weren't evil I wouldn't let them work on my car.
Sounds like you're thinking about Rods from God. They're using Tungsten not Iron-Nickel, but the idea is the same, and after it hits, nobody will be able to tell what it was made of anyway. Although something with the impact force of a small nuclear weapon sure sounds like it violates the ban on WMDs in space to me, or at least it ought to.
That's the major downside I see to allowing my body to find its own schedule, or lack thereof. Just my $0.02.
As someone who prefers to work at night and sleep during the morning and early afternoon, I can tell you that after a few days of this pattern and not being outside any longer than it takes to travel to the lab or gym, I lose all sense of time and start sleeping for random periods of time throughout the day/night. While productive, it's pretty annoying to wake up on the couch, look at the clock, and not know whether its 7am or 7pm. Making sure I get 15-20 minutes of sun a couple times a day synchronizes things nicely so I can interact with the rest of the world semi-normally.
There's something to be said for appreciating nature too.
A work of art!?! I'd like to hear someone explain to me how they feel shooting aliens can compare to Picasso or Monet. I don't dispute that digital art does exist, but a game with a storyline about an alien invasion is highly unlikely (IMHO) to make an effective artistic statement or evoke an emotional response. I believe that this emotional response is what separates true art from pretty eye candy.
The kids these days idealize the youth culture to such a degree that it really makes me despair of them ever discovering the more important things in life. Social responsibility, artistic beauty, philisophical introspection, scientific discovery, things that will make society more harmonious, etc.
Okay, go ahead and mod me troll now for violating groupthink(TM)...
Because they're cheap, until you have to fix them. Well that, and they don't have any interest in supporting American industry. Too bad nobody thinks about the long term implications of how they spend their money.
As for M$ being evil being hearsay, last time I checked we had court documents to back it up.
As for games, there are a lot more worthwhile things to do with your life than play games all the time (ironic that I'm saying this while posting on Slashdot, which IMHO is almost as worthless as gaming), go donate your time to an OSS project, or go outside, read a (decent) book, fight the man, whatever. Once you give up games, there is basically no argument for running M$ software.
That may be true, but it doesn't make it right. That's one of the problems with American society (and capitalism in general), we afford more respect to people who make piles of money in their own selfish interest than we do to those who through hard work and innovation improve our quality of life. Not only do we give the 'businessmen' more respect, we give them more money. This results in a society where (almost) the only reason to innovate is altruism and hope of a tiny piece of the pie, while providing all the incentive in the world to become a sleazy leech of a businessman and try to find intelligent people to carry you on their back to the top, before you kick them back down.
Not that I have anything against businessmen... really... I, um, don't... yeah...
Kudos to you for not blindly buying into the hype without following up on the story.
Innocent?, what about original sin. If we're killing the ones we judged to be guilty (and last time I checked the Christian Bible said we weren't supposed to judge people, not to mention kill them), then by the rationale of original sin killing unborn babies should be functionally equivalent.
This story screams out for new moderation categories: "-1:Christian" and "-1:Heretic"
Now if he had a unification symbol, or subset symbol that would be another matter.
It may not be agains British law, but if the servers reside in another country it is certainly against international law. The servers and the fiber that connects them to the backbone which connnects them to the British agents computers constitutes infrastructure directly or indirectly owned by the hosting country (indirectly in the case of private ownership by a business entity licensed in that country). Perpetrating attacks on the infrastructure of another country without a declaration of war is most definitely illegal under international law (though it is done all the time under the banner of "police actions", "peace keeping missions", etc.). This illegal act would be comprable to attacking the power grid of the hosting country to deny the 'terrorists' power. Certainly no country would stand idly by while Britain bombed a power substation without a declaration of war so I don't see why they shouldn't have every right to object to this illegal act. You can argue collateral damage, but I think there are still plenty of ways to make the comparison work.
That being said, I'll decline to argue whether it is 'right' or 'wrong' for lack of information. Where was the page hosted? How was it taken down? Did the hosting country cooperate?
I don't have any FDR era experience either, hell I have to read up on the Reagan-era stuff to fill in the details. That doesn't mean I'm not informed about administrations that were in power before I was old enough to experience them though.
As for content, Bush II may spend liberally, but that doesn't make him a liberal. His foreign policy is most definitely not liberal. His social security reforms most definitely indicate a shift away from social services, a very conservative idea. On what issues exactly has he proposed more federal oversight, defense matters perhaps, but that's the mark of a neo-con. As for health insurance, environmental issues, and corporate taxation, he's as conservative as they come, dismantling any sort of oversight he can and reducing corporate tax burdens. As for the Shaivo case, Karl Rove saw that was a PR disaster waiting to happen and advised him to side-step it (IMHO). Once again, defense issues like the Patriot Act do not constitute oversight, they constitute traditional neo-conservative ideas about the lengths the government should be allowed to go to in protecting the populace. And finally, yes, he does spend liberally I agree. Unfortunately his spending does not go to typical liberal causes such as social services, but rather to war and corporate welfare, decidedly un-liberal ways to spend money.
Bush is a conservative through and through who just happens to spend a lot of money. If you want to call him financially liberal, be my guest, but he is liberal only in the amount he spends, and not what he spends the money on.
That being said, his fiscal policy is very far from traditional Republican values (pre-Reagan). His big-government approach also diverges from the old party line. This doesn't mean he's not a 'real' Republican or a conservative, it simply means that the Republican party is moving in a new direction. They're taking a more agressive role in ensuring corporate profits than ever before, and this takes a larger government and more spending.
It's just my opinion, but I don't think anyone can, in good concience, call Bush II a liberal. Whether you're comparing him to the current group of politicians, or any in the last 100 years, he's a conservative through and through on almost every issue you could differentiate on (except for perhaps volume of spending, as previously explained).
If you're looking for smaller government, less spending, and less oversight, you're looking for a libertarian, not a liberal.
Are you suggesting that Bush II (or as I prefer to call him, Il Duce, yeah, like Mussolini) was liberal!?! Someone please give this guy a -1:Troll or a +1:Funny.
I don't take issue with your statement that some students can benefit from this sort of self-directed learning model. However in the absence of interaction with their peers, I feel they would miss out on intellectual debate/discussion which is a key element in becoming a truly educated person. Moreover, I do not feel that any of the asynchronous communication channels available (i.e. forums, etc.) can subsitute for face-to-face communication. I'm currently a Ph.D. candidate and I can honestly say that I learn as much from intellectual discussions with my colleagues as I do from reading journals and papers. The ability to critically discuss my ideas with others saves me countless hours pursuing flawed ideas which are not always readily obvious to the one proposing them (me). The need for face-to-face discussion is the reason I go to conferences and visit other universities rather than simply sitting at home and reading papers and proceedings. If you integrate some sort of face-to-face intellectual discussion to your niece's education, I think you'll find she'll be even more successful than she seems to be at the moment. It's also important that this discussion occur with individuals that she does not have a personal relationship with as personal relationships can impede the ability to critically examine ideas (for some people, though my friends often tell me I don't pull enough punches in discussions with them). This forum for discussion was the one use I had for school when I was younger, incidentally I went to a public magnet school and think I got a pretty good education there.
Regarding insurance, employees choose not to take it because it's terrible coverage, the typical deductible is $1000. That's a lot to swallow when you're only making $14k a year. The fact of the matter is that Wal-Mart spends significantly less on insurance than the average US employer, 37.5% less as a matter of fact (http://fivestones.sitestream.com/pdf/2005-annual- report.pdf). The insurance is cheap yes, but it doesn't cover the average Wal-Mart employee where they really need it. That's why they're forced to seek state-sponsored coverage.
As for the employees you've seen, I don't know too many companies where the people in the corporate offices complain. But I do know that Wal-Mart mistreats their store-level employees in a variety of ways. Their history of sexism is well documented and in litigation as we speak. They're also facing lawsuits for making people work off the clock, and they've already lost more than one. Their practice of locking in employees at night while they're stocking to reduce shrink is also well documented. I don't dispute that the higher level employees may be happy, a decent salary has a way of keeping people's mouths shut.
I'm not even gonna touch your last statement, comparing Hitler and the Jews to an issue like this is so far out of line I wouldn't know where to begin.
I didn't list alternatives because ideally you would go out and buy the device from an independent local retailer, and I don't know all of them. Incidentally, unless you can provide some sort of evidence, I have to dismiss your claim that, "many 'mom & pop' stores, do the exact same things Walmart does" as vacuous. Most small businesses I know don't try to force their employees to seek state or federal assistance to save money. They also don't manipulate suppliers into sending manufacturing jobs over-seas. And most small businesses I know provide insurance for more than 40% of their employees. I haven't heard of any of my local businesses locking their employees in the store overnight either. Most importantly, most small businesses I know don't have the market-share to drive their competitors out of business in such a fashion that the competitor has no recourse (i.e. they simply can't compete on price). No, I think I'm completely justified in saying that the actions Wal-Mart takes that I oppose are most certainly not perpetrated in a widespread fasion by the average small business.
As for activism being noble, I don't do it because it's noble, I do it because I have a concience and I couldn't sleep at night if I didn't try to do something about the injustices I see. Not that a more harmonious society doesn't have an immediate beneficial impact on me personally. As for barely on-topic, I'll concede that this discussion is moving rapidly in that direction, however I don't think my original quip was too far out of line.
As for my car, no, I'm working on building a bio-diesel processor like this to run an old VW someone gave me on though. I don't drive that much anyway, I can ride my bike just about anywhere I need to go unless it's snowing. I'm sure that was rhetorical, but I just wanted to point out that I don't think I'm perfect, but I do make a concious effort to try to get a little closer to perfection every day. And yes, I do get an immense feeling of self-satisfaction from it.
I'm sorry that my being a responsible consumer and trying to educate others about the ultimate end the money they give to a corporation meets upsets you. I really am, because it indicates that you really don't care what the real cost (in terms of the standard of living of the employees and cost to the taxpayers) of patronizing these businesses is. Your attitude is by no means unique, and that's why I try to talk to as many people as possible about irresponsible corporations like Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Starbucks, and others.
That being said, I won't dispute that it is news that Wal-Mart is selling this product. The mention of Wal-Mart and no other retailers does make it more likely that individuals who wish to purchase this product will go there. My post was intended to make them think twice about it. As for patronizing local businesses and smaller franchise retailers, sometimes it does take extra effort, but that's the price of having a concience when you're deciding which business entity to fund.
As for your desire to piss me off by shopping at Wal-Mart, I fail to see the utility in reacting in that manner, and frankly it seems childish.
If you disagree with one of my causes, start your own movement advocating the opposite viewpoint, that's what activism is about. Being anti-activist in general however does no-one any good.