And if our government's sole function was to ensure the highest possible profits for Best Buy, you'd have a point.
Instead, as a poster pointed out earlier in this topic, our economy is more or less based on free market principles. The foundation of the free market is the ability of the members of that market to be able to make informed decisions about their economic choices(e.g. buying something). By saying that Best Buy has the right to prevent people from sharing information about its prices, you are implicitly tossing out a free market in favor of a "lets make the rich richer" market.
There's a difference between saying "that begs the question of why blah blah blah" and "you're begging the question"
The latter is declaring a logical fallacy, the former is simply a statement. It's already been established that "begs the question" has a perfectly valid and common definition of "begs", so how can the existence of the other form invalidate the first?
Finally, your "misuse english" is overstated, at best. The "correct" English you use is only correct because usage has made it so. You are obeying the rules that people decided on many years ago in favor of the rules people use today. Please get off your high horse.
Re:No one took your time in the first place.
on
Take Back Your Time!
·
· Score: 1
I know families of LBYMers (Live Below Your Means) who, with a couple of kids and two parents, can live on $100 a month in groceries
That's $.83/person/day. Please explain to me how this is possible. I do try to live and eat cheaply, but I seriously question this - unless they're really going nuts with clipping coupons, doing double/triple coupon days, stockpiling food, etc.
but it's not the governments right or responsibility to kill off an entire industry because that industry "bothers" some people.
I'm sorry, what country did you think you were in? Our country, a constitutional republic, is setup in such a way that if an entire industry bothers some people, those people can get their legislators restrain that industry in certain ways.
So you see, your initial assumption was wrong. Citizens in the US do not need to put up with any amount of abuse from faceless legal entities.
And to be frank, I don't think you missed a Constitutional right. I think you missed the entire Constitution.
First off I use a Mac and I'm not some/. Linux fanboy, so ease of the idiotic stereotypes.
Secondly, I disagree with a lot of what the original poster was saying, that doesn't mean I was OK with letting bad arguments against what he said go unchallenged.
I too would like a large house all my own, with a nice yard to keep me a comfortable distance from neighbors.
That said, there are compromises to be had. Some wealthy people get houses with yards the size of football fields, and similar in appearance: no trees, nothing, except for blindingly green grass that must have been genetically engineered to be that way, and fed megadoses of fertilizer on a daily basis for maintenence. This is a problem.
It's one thing to have a yard to give yourself a place to play catch and have some space so you don't have to hear the fights your neighbor has or the music he listens to. It's another to build your house like a castle, complete with moat.
There also seem to be a lot of new housing developments that are set off from the rest of civilization, where surrounding forests are bulldozed and replaced by endless fields of grass and road just so that the houses can be set back 2 miles from the next nearest development. This is also unnecessary and absurd.
We as a society need to make a decision to stop wasting land like this.
Your argument is still incoherent. The original poster says people should have smaller houses with no lawns.
You say a lawn is better for the environemnet than pavement.
But why would there be pavement there instead of a lawn? If humans used less space for housing and development, there would be more space. Thats pretty simple. What would be in that space? The rest of nature. So forests would take the space that lawns once used, and the world would be better off.
I really hope you aren't referring to Steven Sodamnarrogant's Solaris.
I haven't seen the version it was a remake of nor read the book, but the Clooney one sucked. More fake art from the director who can't make enough of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Alright, this has to be a troll
"The beauty of our paper is that it is independent of materials, just like Slashdot is independent of thought."
Brilliant
...and serving as the butt of jokes for its lame handwriting recognition
Uhh....come again?
And if our government's sole function was to ensure the highest possible profits for Best Buy, you'd have a point.
Instead, as a poster pointed out earlier in this topic, our economy is more or less based on free market principles. The foundation of the free market is the ability of the members of that market to be able to make informed decisions about their economic choices(e.g. buying something). By saying that Best Buy has the right to prevent people from sharing information about its prices, you are implicitly tossing out a free market in favor of a "lets make the rich richer" market.
Wonderful
There's a difference between saying "that begs the question of why blah blah blah" and "you're begging the question"
The latter is declaring a logical fallacy, the former is simply a statement. It's already been established that "begs the question" has a perfectly valid and common definition of "begs", so how can the existence of the other form invalidate the first?
Finally, your "misuse english" is overstated, at best. The "correct" English you use is only correct because usage has made it so. You are obeying the rules that people decided on many years ago in favor of the rules people use today. Please get off your high horse.
I know families of LBYMers (Live Below Your Means) who, with a couple of kids and two parents, can live on $100 a month in groceries
That's $.83/person/day. Please explain to me how this is possible. I do try to live and eat cheaply, but I seriously question this - unless they're really going nuts with clipping coupons, doing double/triple coupon days, stockpiling food, etc.
I thought he was a bad guy...Free Kevin and all. Now he's not? Slashdot is confusing my Slashbot mind...
Why don't you put a glider on the ground and get some 25mph headwinds and see if it flies around, assclown
Yeah, and you know what else? I hear those Ford Model T's get really shitty mileage. What a shame.
Just Plan Stupid - Believing that there even *are* chicks on Slashdot
Yeah. The $2 million minimum for the (abolished) estate tax really eats into that $500,000...
Or the dogcows ;)
moof
I don't see why they would need anything other than simple OS X client for the slave nodes.
Uhh, maybe because OS X has way more overhead than you need for a computer you're just using for its CPU
but it's not the governments right or responsibility to kill off an entire industry because that industry "bothers" some people.
I'm sorry, what country did you think you were in? Our country, a constitutional republic, is setup in such a way that if an entire industry bothers some people, those people can get their legislators restrain that industry in certain ways.
So you see, your initial assumption was wrong. Citizens in the US do not need to put up with any amount of abuse from faceless legal entities.
And to be frank, I don't think you missed a Constitutional right. I think you missed the entire Constitution.
http://www.apple.com/powermac/
Without XUL, there would have been no Netscape help in doing Mozilla for...Mac...
Then what is Camino?
And one more thing...since when does Win2k have fast user switching?
I'd be interested in seeing a photo. Could you email:
crayz at hotpop dot com
I don't think I can get attachments through there, but I can give you a place to upload the photo
Thanks
...they'll have a rocket that can send a man to the moon, but not a nuke to NY?
But please stop repeating the "small step for man" thing. Armstrong said it wrong, and there's no point in quoting his mistake.
It was supposed to be "small step for a man," and makes far more sense that way
Maybe so, but thats $.79 per song, per CD. So I doubt you'll make a lot of money selling your CDs.
The free Linux operating system now has 98% market share among home computer users...
First off I use a Mac and I'm not some /. Linux fanboy, so ease of the idiotic stereotypes.
Secondly, I disagree with a lot of what the original poster was saying, that doesn't mean I was OK with letting bad arguments against what he said go unchallenged.
I too would like a large house all my own, with a nice yard to keep me a comfortable distance from neighbors.
That said, there are compromises to be had. Some wealthy people get houses with yards the size of football fields, and similar in appearance: no trees, nothing, except for blindingly green grass that must have been genetically engineered to be that way, and fed megadoses of fertilizer on a daily basis for maintenence. This is a problem.
It's one thing to have a yard to give yourself a place to play catch and have some space so you don't have to hear the fights your neighbor has or the music he listens to. It's another to build your house like a castle, complete with moat.
There also seem to be a lot of new housing developments that are set off from the rest of civilization, where surrounding forests are bulldozed and replaced by endless fields of grass and road just so that the houses can be set back 2 miles from the next nearest development. This is also unnecessary and absurd.
We as a society need to make a decision to stop wasting land like this.
Your argument is still incoherent. The original poster says people should have smaller houses with no lawns.
You say a lawn is better for the environemnet than pavement.
But why would there be pavement there instead of a lawn? If humans used less space for housing and development, there would be more space. Thats pretty simple. What would be in that space? The rest of nature. So forests would take the space that lawns once used, and the world would be better off.
I really hope you aren't referring to Steven Sodamnarrogant's Solaris.
I haven't seen the version it was a remake of nor read the book, but the Clooney one sucked. More fake art from the director who can't make enough of it.