I simply dispute the original claim. It's the kind of mindless snobbery that whole foods feeds on.
Although the term "hamburger" specifically means something and that something is a bit shady really. It's not the sort of term i would expect any informed consumer (foodie or otherwise) to use.
If you really care, you would grab a slab of something and run it through your the sausage grinder attachment on your overpriced stand mixer.
They don't want to change or they don't think they can. Liberals will happily enable them and tell them they can't.
UBI is not going to solve the urban crime problem. Those people already represent some degree of ambition and consumerist hunger. They want more than their mere pittance and they are willing to do whatever it takes to get it.
The point of capitalism is to create a bigger middle class, not a bigger sponge class. Someone has to pay the bills.The fat cats have armies of lobbyists and lawyers to avoid taxes. That effectively leaves the rest of us.
If you are fixated on the minimum wage, your economic policy is a failure.
The issue is matter of degree. The difference is a Victorian notion of charity rather than a modern notion of mass dependence. Do we expect healthy young individuals to fend for themselves and be responsible for themselves?
That's where 19th century notions of Xian charity diverge from Communism.
Social security is actually a fine example. It was never meant to be used as a universal pension program. Medicare was created to address a particular market failure. It's a bit like modern fire departments in this way. It's not the result of a notion of the nanny state being the default but a fall back when other options have failed.
As an actual cancer patient, I want nothing to do with with either Medicare or Medicaid. I don't want to be dependent on Social Security either.
> So what you're saying is that, like all right wing scumbags, you're a complete idiot.
Yes. Show us the extent of your expansive intellect with... insults.
This shit happens all the time. It's only a tragedy today because you are butt hurt about the election. You are a flaming hypocrite that wouldn't care less about this situation if Hillary won the election.
This cannot be linked to any particular policy directive of the current administration. It's just being played for mindless hysterics and being crassly exploited by partisans.
It's deluded to think that Democrat politicians and their own 1% patrons give two shits about this stuff. It's just another set of fat cats with a different financial agenda pulling the strings.
Those tax cuts you are whining about are what allow business to function and your personal retirement account to flourish. You can't punish the "rich" without punishing yourself because part of your future is dependent on those same loopholes.
Also, the definition of "rich" is too low. You probably qualify yourself. This isn't theoretical. This is based on what's passed in states like New York in terms of "free tuition".
> Has anyone here ever received anything of value from a class action lawsuit?
Yes. Safe consumer products.
Civil servants don't have the resources or motivation to properly enforce this stuff.
The point of class action suits is to keep corporations in line and prevent them from turning you into green crackers. It's not about a personal pay day for you.
It's not even about a personal windfall if it's just you and it's an injury lawsuit. It's about holding the responsible party responsible.
The fact that it is or isn't a luxury good is irrelevant. Their market is a small oligopoly. The tolerance of this nonsense effectively strips everyone of their rights. One jackass gets away with it and the other 2 jackasses follow suit. Some contracts are illegal as a matter of public policy. Being forced to sign away your rights to be able to use an entire class of good or service should fall into that category.
Except industrial chemicals are notorious for causing Cancer and all sorts of other fun stuff. Plus you have to make that stew somewhere. You aren't magically avoiding the energy and pollution issues 's just free range grazing. You are replacing what can be a dead simple natural one with a highly industrial one and then kidding yourself.
The countries from the original ban came straight from the Obama administration. Half of them are in tatters. They are places that make Lebanon and Egypt look respectable.
I view the issue less in terms of terrorism than religious fundementalism. Liberals are fine to eviscerate Xians for this kind of thing and then give Muslims a free pass or even glorify their 3th century nonsense. We shouldn't be going out of our way to import theocrats into a secular society.
I never associated the hijab with muslims at large until liberals started virtue signalling about it. All the ones I've ever known are impossible to pick out of the crowd. Less convenient for virtue signalling.
Religious oppression is a classic example of genuine refugee status. This "cry for the poor war orphans" nonsense is just a temporary run around the rest of immigration law. It's bound to create nasty consequences later on when that temporary status expires.
Abused Xians and Kurds are the sort of refugees that can stay permanently. Garden variety Syrians are not. This is a key detail that a lot of people fail to acknowledge.
A number of somewhat unrelated things got lumped together in the travel ban.
You are confusing monopoly coercion with a corporate acquisition.
Nice try though.
Conglomerates are not a new or interesting thing.
Hell, as potentially evil and dangerous as Amazon is they are a platform to competitors that fill in Amazon's own gaps. That can be very handy sometimes.
The most obvious relevant use case would be body temperature. Having a few degrees between healthy and dead seems like a useful thing. Meat cooking temperatures can also be subtle. Done versus dried out is a pretty thin line in some cases.
It's "buy stuff from a catalog. The rest of what you are describing is nothing more than how to deliver that better.
In some areas it doesn't matter because Amazon either has holes in their product lineup or their approach clashes with the type of product they are trying to sell. Or they just do that niche poorly.
Grocery is one of those niches.
Amazon doesn't have the selection or the price. At best it can compete on obscure stuff and even there it does poorly against speciality vendors that do obscure better.
If anything, what Amazon might do in the grocery space is really "blast from the past" stuff. It's nothing remotely new and everyone else is already doing some form of it better already.
The whole phone thing is a really inappropriate analogy.
It's just the usual hype and nonsense with the news media trying to create the reality rather than just reporting on it.
> Also, they kind of gave up on that a while ago. Apple mice have had a virtual second button for years.
No, not really. It's much like the single user zero security underpinnings of Microsoft. They tried to move on by they remain mired in their own past and can't really get away from it. People are too used to doing things the old way.
> Going online would have killed the brick and mortar stores.
Sears, Montgomery Ward, and JCPenny's were already catalog stores where many physical locations were glorified show rooms or a place to pick up something you ordered from the catalog.
They were a different beast to begin with. They thrived, struggled, or DIED because they forgot this.
That may be true. That doesn't mean that he has to contribute to the situation if he doesn't want to. This peculiar anti-liberty attitude seems to be inspired by a certain sort of bigotry that isn't applied in an equal fashion.
If you're not defending people you personally despise, then you don't quite get this freedom thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I simply dispute the original claim. It's the kind of mindless snobbery that whole foods feeds on.
Although the term "hamburger" specifically means something and that something is a bit shady really. It's not the sort of term i would expect any informed consumer (foodie or otherwise) to use.
If you really care, you would grab a slab of something and run it through your the sausage grinder attachment on your overpriced stand mixer.
For some things, that's the only option really.
> People in poverty:
Don't care.
They don't want to change or they don't think they can. Liberals will happily enable them and tell them they can't.
UBI is not going to solve the urban crime problem. Those people already represent some degree of ambition and consumerist hunger. They want more than their mere pittance and they are willing to do whatever it takes to get it.
The point of capitalism is to create a bigger middle class, not a bigger sponge class. Someone has to pay the bills.The fat cats have armies of lobbyists and lawyers to avoid taxes. That effectively leaves the rest of us.
If you are fixated on the minimum wage, your economic policy is a failure.
The issue is matter of degree. The difference is a Victorian notion of charity rather than a modern notion of mass dependence. Do we expect healthy young individuals to fend for themselves and be responsible for themselves?
That's where 19th century notions of Xian charity diverge from Communism.
Social security is actually a fine example. It was never meant to be used as a universal pension program. Medicare was created to address a particular market failure. It's a bit like modern fire departments in this way. It's not the result of a notion of the nanny state being the default but a fall back when other options have failed.
As an actual cancer patient, I want nothing to do with with either Medicare or Medicaid. I don't want to be dependent on Social Security either.
> So what you're saying is that, like all right wing scumbags, you're a complete idiot.
Yes. Show us the extent of your expansive intellect with... insults.
This shit happens all the time. It's only a tragedy today because you are butt hurt about the election. You are a flaming hypocrite that wouldn't care less about this situation if Hillary won the election.
This cannot be linked to any particular policy directive of the current administration. It's just being played for mindless hysterics and being crassly exploited by partisans.
It's deluded to think that Democrat politicians and their own 1% patrons give two shits about this stuff. It's just another set of fat cats with a different financial agenda pulling the strings.
Those tax cuts you are whining about are what allow business to function and your personal retirement account to flourish. You can't punish the "rich" without punishing yourself because part of your future is dependent on those same loopholes.
Also, the definition of "rich" is too low. You probably qualify yourself. This isn't theoretical. This is based on what's passed in states like New York in terms of "free tuition".
> Has anyone here ever received anything of value from a class action lawsuit?
Yes. Safe consumer products.
Civil servants don't have the resources or motivation to properly enforce this stuff.
The point of class action suits is to keep corporations in line and prevent them from turning you into green crackers. It's not about a personal pay day for you.
It's not even about a personal windfall if it's just you and it's an injury lawsuit. It's about holding the responsible party responsible.
The fact that it is or isn't a luxury good is irrelevant. Their market is a small oligopoly. The tolerance of this nonsense effectively strips everyone of their rights. One jackass gets away with it and the other 2 jackasses follow suit. Some contracts are illegal as a matter of public policy. Being forced to sign away your rights to be able to use an entire class of good or service should fall into that category.
Except industrial chemicals are notorious for causing Cancer and all sorts of other fun stuff. Plus you have to make that stew somewhere. You aren't magically avoiding the energy and pollution issues 's just free range grazing. You are replacing what can be a dead simple natural one with a highly industrial one and then kidding yourself.
The countries from the original ban came straight from the Obama administration. Half of them are in tatters. They are places that make Lebanon and Egypt look respectable.
I view the issue less in terms of terrorism than religious fundementalism. Liberals are fine to eviscerate Xians for this kind of thing and then give Muslims a free pass or even glorify their 3th century nonsense. We shouldn't be going out of our way to import theocrats into a secular society.
I never associated the hijab with muslims at large until liberals started virtue signalling about it. All the ones I've ever known are impossible to pick out of the crowd. Less convenient for virtue signalling.
Religious oppression is a classic example of genuine refugee status. This "cry for the poor war orphans" nonsense is just a temporary run around the rest of immigration law. It's bound to create nasty consequences later on when that temporary status expires.
Abused Xians and Kurds are the sort of refugees that can stay permanently. Garden variety Syrians are not. This is a key detail that a lot of people fail to acknowledge.
A number of somewhat unrelated things got lumped together in the travel ban.
You are confusing monopoly coercion with a corporate acquisition.
Nice try though.
Conglomerates are not a new or interesting thing.
Hell, as potentially evil and dangerous as Amazon is they are a platform to competitors that fill in Amazon's own gaps. That can be very handy sometimes.
The total cost is what matters in the end. Doesn't matter what that is.
Although depending on the item, you can recover your "free shipping membership" on a single purchase alone.
Amazon has merely eliminated the games most mail order retailers play with "shipping and handling".
Sure... not monopolistic. They can dictate to their suppliers. They have already been doing this for years. This is just more of the same.
They can bend everyone else over and have their way with them but "they're not a monopoly". Suuuure.
Not that Amazon is much better.
Arizona is only habitable by humans because of very wasteful technology. Without that technology the vast majority of the inhabitants would flee.
You would be the first to go if you couldn't use air conditioning.
You mean how like a pint (16 fluid ounces) weighs a pound?
The most obvious relevant use case would be body temperature. Having a few degrees between healthy and dead seems like a useful thing. Meat cooking temperatures can also be subtle. Done versus dried out is a pretty thin line in some cases.
Local represents cheap and in season with a shorter supply chain. The shorter supply chain is very important for things that don't have a shelf life.
Resources don't have to be wasted for storage and shipping.
I can even inspect the production facility myself.
Nope.
It's "buy stuff from a catalog. The rest of what you are describing is nothing more than how to deliver that better.
In some areas it doesn't matter because Amazon either has holes in their product lineup or their approach clashes with the type of product they are trying to sell. Or they just do that niche poorly.
Grocery is one of those niches.
Amazon doesn't have the selection or the price. At best it can compete on obscure stuff and even there it does poorly against speciality vendors that do obscure better.
If anything, what Amazon might do in the grocery space is really "blast from the past" stuff. It's nothing remotely new and everyone else is already doing some form of it better already.
The whole phone thing is a really inappropriate analogy.
It's just the usual hype and nonsense with the news media trying to create the reality rather than just reporting on it.
> Also, they kind of gave up on that a while ago. Apple mice have had a virtual second button for years.
No, not really. It's much like the single user zero security underpinnings of Microsoft. They tried to move on by they remain mired in their own past and can't really get away from it. People are too used to doing things the old way.
> Going online would have killed the brick and mortar stores.
Sears, Montgomery Ward, and JCPenny's were already catalog stores where many physical locations were glorified show rooms or a place to pick up something you ordered from the catalog.
They were a different beast to begin with. They thrived, struggled, or DIED because they forgot this.
That may be true. That doesn't mean that he has to contribute to the situation if he doesn't want to. This peculiar anti-liberty attitude seems to be inspired by a certain sort of bigotry that isn't applied in an equal fashion.
If you're not defending people you personally despise, then you don't quite get this freedom thing.