Stores can charge whatever they want, but hopefully people resist this.
This is a misconception. Example: on September 11, 2001, several local gas stations quadrupled their fuel prices. On September 12, 2001, those same gas stations were shuttered by government agents for illegal price fixing.
>>>some of the more unscrupulous and technically-minded people out there will quickly learn how to game the system.
I acquired a then-new Final Fantasy with $40 "new customer" discount and sold it for $54.50 on ebay. Bought a new gamecube for $49, got the Zelda Collection for free, sold it for $60.
I setup five accounts with Pizza Hut in order to get a 5 free medium pizza for newbs. And three accounts to get "20% welcome discount" from an online hobby store. In other words YES you are correct.
I disagree - taking advantage of the schemes of incompetent retailers is not unscrupulous behavior, it's capitalism in action. Unless, of course, one subscribes to the philosophy that capitalism itself is inherently evil...
Police are going to have a field day with printed guns, which by nature won't have/need serial numbers or registration (except possibly for conceal and carry)
*re-reads the Second Amendment*
Hmm, don't see the clause where it requires all my firearms to be registered with the government...
Hmmm...you better reread the whole fucking document, dude -- quoting the 2nd Amendment out of context like you just did doesn't score you any credibility points..
Except that I didn't quote shit; perhaps you should consider reading posts before you give your obviously emotional response, lest you make yourself appear the jackass, as you have done here. Congrats on that.
I do not place "states rights" above peoples rights. No state nor the federal government can ban guns under the 2nd amendment. But both are capable of making laws regulating guns, and in order to serve the public welfare some regulations are in order. I would prefer a national standard, so that that everyone has equal protection and so that I have equal protection wherever I go.
Alright, you've won me over. How does one go about subscribing to your newsletter?
I know why this is modded down, but just wanted to state: it shouldn't be.
Yes it should be. As soon as someone comes up with some repeatable, publicly observable evidence for things that do "not necessarily follow currently known physical and biological laws" or that "quantify the basic concept of vital energy in the human body", I will pay attention
Science has yet to explain the physical and biological laws that govern human consciousness and sentience, yet here we are, 2 conscious and sentient humans having a conversation. I believe this is the point AC was trying to make. That, and that "science" has a tendency to pat itself on the back for being the summation of all knowledge, moments before making a new discovery that indicates maybe we don't know as much about the universe and how it works as we like to think.
So far in my life of over 60 years, I haven't seen any, and I have looked.
I shall meet your anecdote with one of my own:
In my life of 28 years, I have looked, and I have seen many, many things the science of today can't explain (or flat out refuses to even try, how scientific is that?). I personally have stood in a room of an empty building, devoid of life, and watched inanimate objects move about the area as if by their own power. I have sat alone in graveyards with tape recorders, taping the 'silence' around me, only to find voices imprinted on the recordings both analog and digital. I have seen lights in the sky that appear to move intelligently, yet in ways that are physically impossible for known terrestrial craft to move in.
Can science explain what I've experienced? I believe yes, granted that effort is put forth, rather than having the entire matter isn't poo-pooed into oblivion because some mainstream asshole, who is a scientist not for love of the science but to draw a paycheck, claims it's 'pseudo-science,' in flagrant disregard for the scientific method, likely because that's not the science he's getting paid to engage in.
And, while we're on the subject, why is shit like the GP always posted AC?
Aww, c'mon, you know the answer to that - they want to keep their Karma, of course.
Why such a trivial thing would matter to anyone is beyond me, but then again, I hardly understand the infatuation with Twitter and Facebook, which is probably atypical for a member of my generation.
The article says Apple should restrict its bans to apps that have terrible functionality or a poor UI, and 'get out of the business of censorship.'
TFA explains the difference between quality control and censorship, but isn't it kindof the same thing?
No; barring an app because it doesn't work, or has a visually jarring UI that makes you want to claw your eyes out is quality control. Barring an app because it contains the word "Nigger" or exposes the bad behavior of certain Apple-friendly governments is censorship.
Now, as to whether or not Apple should be doing quality control for apps they did not create, on devices their customers paid for (notice I did not say "owned").
I understand that yes, there are differences, but why ban an app with a bad UI? Who decides whether it's good or bad?
THAT, my friend, is a fair question. To me, as the consumer who paid for and thus owns my devices, I feel that decision should be up to me. My thought process is, "It's my toy, I'll fuck it up if I want to."
As you can probably guess from my aforementioned philosophic stance, I do not own any iDevices, nor shall I.
"If you read Jeremy Hunt's response letter, what he actually says is that some PATIENTS want and/or believe in homeopathic medicine, so we should let them have it."
That's nonsense. As a patient I believe that eating caviar, drinking champagne, and eating chocolate-covered gold leaf candies will cure my medical condition. That doesn't mean the fricking taxpayer should help pay for treatment if there is NO scientifically demonstrated medical benefit. If people want a medically useless treatment, then can spend their own money on such snake oil.
In all fairness, I must point out that water and sugar pills are orders of magnitude cheaper to provide to patients than caviar, champagne, and chocolate-covered gold leaf candies, whatever that is. Hell, most medical facilities have water and placebos on hand, it's not like there's going to be all that much added expense, if any.
1: constitutionally, the bill of rights restricts the power that BOTH state and federal governments have to restrict the peoples rights. If the federal government can not place "any" restrictions on firearms, neither can the states. The 2nd amendment shouldn't be treated any different than the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc.
The 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Note how the People is pre-empted by the States.
2: I've spent most of my life moving from state to state. I don't have any place to call home more than any other. And I would rather the entire country be free and reasonable. If one state has unreasonably restrictive laws (gun bans) an another has unreasonably loose restrictions (as an absurd example, everyone is required to carry a fully loaded ak-47 and rpg at all times) then my freedom to travel to or even through those states may be restricted.
Malarky - your individual hangups do not, repeat, do not qualify as a 'travel restriction.' Just because I refuse to set foot in the state of California does not in any way mean my travel to California is restricted in any sort of legal sense, it just means I consider that place Hell on Earth and would rather not find myself there.
3: The right to bear arms in the 2nd amendment is an individual right, independent of the membership in any kind of official militia. The meaning of militia at the time of the American Revolution was every draftable person residing in the state (able bodied adult white males), and considering the fortunate progress of liberties over the years bring recognized for include women, other races, etc the idea of the militia in the second amendment would now include people in general.
So you're saying that cows have all kinds of "rights",
No. Read my words, don't substitute your own. That's just stupid.
I think you just underscored my point - that the "cuddly, fuzzy" animals that we form emotional attachments to are afforded greater protection because we form those "cuddly, fuzzy" attachments to them.
Cows aren't "cuddly, fuzzy" animals?
Have you ever seen a baby cow? They're fucking cute, and this is coming from a guy who loves burgers almost as much as he loves his wife.
You fucking city kids will never get it, and I'm done trying to explain.
No it does not matter. Inherent to the idea that a Militia was properly functioning would be oversight and control by our democratic government, otherwise it is just a private mercenary army.
... No. Just... just no.
The idea here was NOT that militia or citizens would be empowered to be above the democratically passed laws of our nation, but rather that because the government would be dependent on the general populace for defense and law enforcement, vs. say a certain class of people, so it would be hard for the population to repress itself.
Obviously, I could talk until blue in the face, and you would maintain your position of absolution in complete disregard to reality. If you want to eschew historic fact for fiction, that is your prerogative, but I will no longer respond to your hyperbolic nonsense.
So according to you, a militia with no oversight or control would be "well-regulated".
Uh, no. Never did I say that, or anything even resembling what you're claiming I said. I was merely pointing out that the definition you gave for "well-regulated" does not fit the definition that was applied when the Second Amendment was written, and thus cannot be what was meant by the framers.
As is oft stated here on/., you may be entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
I am what a lot of people might call a gun nut. But I don't have any problem with things like registration, training requirements, background checks or (minor) delays.
People should be allowed to own and use rifles, shotguns and pistols with minimal requirements.
People should be allowed to conceal-carry pistols after demonstrating a sufficient knowledge of safe and responsible firearm usage and state self defense law.
People should be allowed to own and use (though not necessarily public carry) fully automatic weapons for entertainment and sporting purposes after they have demonstrated sufficient knowledge of safe and responsible use of potentially indiscriminate weapons.
But I don't want nutjobs running around with guns thinking they are in a bad comic book movie.
And I don't want idiots running around with guns with a video camera, thinking that saying "i'm gonna stand my ground" allows them to shoot someone for playing their stereo to loud.
And I don't want some asshole running out and buying a gun so he can go home and shoot his wife, kids and himself 15 minutes after getting fired.
Completely agree (bit of a firearm enthusiast myself, if the sig wasn't a dead giveaway). My point is that the federal government, by the Second Amendment, lacks any such right of restriction. The states are, Constitutionally speaking, free to set up the rules of their militias as they see fit.
we are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms so we can defend ourselves against the government
Let me know how well that works out for you. I reckon you'll be on the receiving end of something way bigger than you're allowed to own, pretty damn smartish.
1) I can't speak for you or anyone else, but I would rather die on my feet a free man, than live on my knees as a slave.
2) Our troops swear allegiance to the Constitution, her People, the military, and the President, in that order. If they receive orders which violate the Constitution or the rights of her People, they are, by the oath they've sworn, to deny said orders.
You may lack the moral fortitude to stand up for what's right, but there are a large number of us, many enlisted, who do not.
Did you happen to see the clause where it even allows for private ownership or guns in the first place that don't have any connection to a well-regulated militia?
Well-regulated == properly functioning
militia == armed force of regular civilians, not employed by the government (such as cops and soldiers)
Essentially, every private citizen is a member of their respective state militia, and thus is allowed private armament ownership.
Just because the Second Amendment doesn't explicitly state that guns need to be serieled or registered doesn't mean it's unconstitutional for a state to pass laws requiring that guns be serieled and registered.
If we were talking about the states requiring firearm registration, you would be correct; however, this discussion is in regard to federal registration requirements, which stink of unconstitutionality.
After all, no where in the constitution does it state that cars traveling on public roads have to be serieled and registered and yet somehow they are. So unless you're going to tell me that license plates are unconstitutional then you can't tell me that gun registration is unconstitutional.
Riddle: Why do state license plates for cars say the state name, instead of "USA?"
"Well regulated militia" is the context of the 2nd Amendment.
Regulated = LAW
I would ask if you see it now, but you have clearly already blinded yourself.
When I read posts like this, it makes me sad to think these people graduated from the same public school system I did, but without learning anything of importance...
Hmm, don't see the clause where it requires all my firearms to be registered with the government..."
You should start reading it from the beginning rather than the end.
You should try reading historically accurate definitions for terms, instead of assuming that the English language has been in stasis for the past 300 years:
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell, if I had a store and could identify people willing to pay more for my goods, I'd charge them more too.
And I wouldn't be surprised if you got sued for doing so. Discrimination is bad, mmkay.
Sued, arrested for committing felonies in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, ya know, whatever...
Stores can charge whatever they want, but hopefully people resist this.
This is a misconception. Example: on September 11, 2001, several local gas stations quadrupled their fuel prices. On September 12, 2001, those same gas stations were shuttered by government agents for illegal price fixing.
So no, stores cannot 'charge whatever they want.'
>>>some of the more unscrupulous and technically-minded people out there will quickly learn how to game the system.
I acquired a then-new Final Fantasy with $40 "new customer" discount and sold it for $54.50 on ebay. Bought a new gamecube for $49, got the Zelda Collection for free, sold it for $60.
I setup five accounts with Pizza Hut in order to get a 5 free medium pizza for newbs. And three accounts to get "20% welcome discount" from an online hobby store. In other words YES you are correct.
I disagree - taking advantage of the schemes of incompetent retailers is not unscrupulous behavior, it's capitalism in action. Unless, of course, one subscribes to the philosophy that capitalism itself is inherently evil...
Police are going to have a field day with printed guns, which by nature won't have/need serial numbers or registration (except possibly for conceal and carry)
*re-reads the Second Amendment* Hmm, don't see the clause where it requires all my firearms to be registered with the government...
Hmmm...you better reread the whole fucking document, dude -- quoting the 2nd Amendment out of context like you just did doesn't score you any credibility points..
Except that I didn't quote shit; perhaps you should consider reading posts before you give your obviously emotional response, lest you make yourself appear the jackass, as you have done here. Congrats on that.
I do not place "states rights" above peoples rights. No state nor the federal government can ban guns under the 2nd amendment. But both are capable of making laws regulating guns, and in order to serve the public welfare some regulations are in order. I would prefer a national standard, so that that everyone has equal protection and so that I have equal protection wherever I go.
Alright, you've won me over. How does one go about subscribing to your newsletter?
I know why this is modded down, but just wanted to state: it shouldn't be.
Yes it should be. As soon as someone comes up with some repeatable, publicly observable evidence for things that do "not necessarily follow currently known physical and biological laws" or that "quantify the basic concept of vital energy in the human body", I will pay attention
Science has yet to explain the physical and biological laws that govern human consciousness and sentience, yet here we are, 2 conscious and sentient humans having a conversation. I believe this is the point AC was trying to make. That, and that "science" has a tendency to pat itself on the back for being the summation of all knowledge, moments before making a new discovery that indicates maybe we don't know as much about the universe and how it works as we like to think.
So far in my life of over 60 years, I haven't seen any, and I have looked.
I shall meet your anecdote with one of my own:
In my life of 28 years, I have looked, and I have seen many, many things the science of today can't explain (or flat out refuses to even try, how scientific is that?). I personally have stood in a room of an empty building, devoid of life, and watched inanimate objects move about the area as if by their own power. I have sat alone in graveyards with tape recorders, taping the 'silence' around me, only to find voices imprinted on the recordings both analog and digital. I have seen lights in the sky that appear to move intelligently, yet in ways that are physically impossible for known terrestrial craft to move in.
Can science explain what I've experienced? I believe yes, granted that effort is put forth, rather than having the entire matter isn't poo-pooed into oblivion because some mainstream asshole, who is a scientist not for love of the science but to draw a paycheck, claims it's 'pseudo-science,' in flagrant disregard for the scientific method, likely because that's not the science he's getting paid to engage in.
And, while we're on the subject, why is shit like the GP always posted AC?
Aww, c'mon, you know the answer to that - they want to keep their Karma, of course.
Why such a trivial thing would matter to anyone is beyond me, but then again, I hardly understand the infatuation with Twitter and Facebook, which is probably atypical for a member of my generation.
The article says Apple should restrict its bans to apps that have terrible functionality or a poor UI, and 'get out of the business of censorship.'
TFA explains the difference between quality control and censorship, but isn't it kindof the same thing?
No; barring an app because it doesn't work, or has a visually jarring UI that makes you want to claw your eyes out is quality control. Barring an app because it contains the word "Nigger" or exposes the bad behavior of certain Apple-friendly governments is censorship.
Now, as to whether or not Apple should be doing quality control for apps they did not create, on devices their customers paid for (notice I did not say "owned").
I understand that yes, there are differences, but why ban an app with a bad UI? Who decides whether it's good or bad?
THAT, my friend, is a fair question. To me, as the consumer who paid for and thus owns my devices, I feel that decision should be up to me. My thought process is, "It's my toy, I'll fuck it up if I want to."
As you can probably guess from my aforementioned philosophic stance, I do not own any iDevices, nor shall I.
You know what they call alternative medicine that has been shown to work? Medicine.
Can't remember who said that.
I do: A fictional character
Ironic? A bit.
I know why this is modded down, but just wanted to state: it shouldn't be.
"If you read Jeremy Hunt's response letter, what he actually says is that some PATIENTS want and/or believe in homeopathic medicine, so we should let them have it."
That's nonsense. As a patient I believe that eating caviar, drinking champagne, and eating chocolate-covered gold leaf candies will cure my medical condition. That doesn't mean the fricking taxpayer should help pay for treatment if there is NO scientifically demonstrated medical benefit. If people want a medically useless treatment, then can spend their own money on such snake oil.
In all fairness, I must point out that water and sugar pills are orders of magnitude cheaper to provide to patients than caviar, champagne, and chocolate-covered gold leaf candies, whatever that is. Hell, most medical facilities have water and placebos on hand, it's not like there's going to be all that much added expense, if any.
1: constitutionally, the bill of rights restricts the power that BOTH state and federal governments have to restrict the peoples rights. If the federal government can not place "any" restrictions on firearms, neither can the states. The 2nd amendment shouldn't be treated any different than the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc.
The 10th Amendment:
Note how the People is pre-empted by the States.
2: I've spent most of my life moving from state to state. I don't have any place to call home more than any other. And I would rather the entire country be free and reasonable. If one state has unreasonably restrictive laws (gun bans) an another has unreasonably loose restrictions (as an absurd example, everyone is required to carry a fully loaded ak-47 and rpg at all times) then my freedom to travel to or even through those states may be restricted.
Malarky - your individual hangups do not, repeat, do not qualify as a 'travel restriction.' Just because I refuse to set foot in the state of California does not in any way mean my travel to California is restricted in any sort of legal sense, it just means I consider that place Hell on Earth and would rather not find myself there.
3: The right to bear arms in the 2nd amendment is an individual right, independent of the membership in any kind of official militia. The meaning of militia at the time of the American Revolution was every draftable person residing in the state (able bodied adult white males), and considering the fortunate progress of liberties over the years bring recognized for include women, other races, etc the idea of the militia in the second amendment would now include people in general.
No disagreement there.
So you're saying that cows have all kinds of "rights",
No. Read my words, don't substitute your own. That's just stupid.
I think you just underscored my point - that the "cuddly, fuzzy" animals that we form emotional attachments to are afforded greater protection because we form those "cuddly, fuzzy" attachments to them.
Cows aren't "cuddly, fuzzy" animals?
Have you ever seen a baby cow? They're fucking cute, and this is coming from a guy who loves burgers almost as much as he loves his wife.
You fucking city kids will never get it, and I'm done trying to explain.
No it does not matter. Inherent to the idea that a Militia was properly functioning would be oversight and control by our democratic government, otherwise it is just a private mercenary army.
... No. Just... just no.
The idea here was NOT that militia or citizens would be empowered to be above the democratically passed laws of our nation, but rather that because the government would be dependent on the general populace for defense and law enforcement, vs. say a certain class of people, so it would be hard for the population to repress itself.
Obviously, I could talk until blue in the face, and you would maintain your position of absolution in complete disregard to reality. If you want to eschew historic fact for fiction, that is your prerogative, but I will no longer respond to your hyperbolic nonsense.
Good day, sir.
So according to you, a militia with no oversight or control would be "well-regulated".
Uh, no. Never did I say that, or anything even resembling what you're claiming I said. I was merely pointing out that the definition you gave for "well-regulated" does not fit the definition that was applied when the Second Amendment was written, and thus cannot be what was meant by the framers.
/., you may be entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
As is oft stated here on
I am what a lot of people might call a gun nut. But I don't have any problem with things like registration, training requirements, background checks or (minor) delays.
People should be allowed to own and use rifles, shotguns and pistols with minimal requirements.
People should be allowed to conceal-carry pistols after demonstrating a sufficient knowledge of safe and responsible firearm usage and state self defense law.
People should be allowed to own and use (though not necessarily public carry) fully automatic weapons for entertainment and sporting purposes after they have demonstrated sufficient knowledge of safe and responsible use of potentially indiscriminate weapons.
But I don't want nutjobs running around with guns thinking they are in a bad comic book movie.
And I don't want idiots running around with guns with a video camera, thinking that saying "i'm gonna stand my ground" allows them to shoot someone for playing their stereo to loud.
And I don't want some asshole running out and buying a gun so he can go home and shoot his wife, kids and himself 15 minutes after getting fired.
Completely agree (bit of a firearm enthusiast myself, if the sig wasn't a dead giveaway). My point is that the federal government, by the Second Amendment, lacks any such right of restriction. The states are, Constitutionally speaking, free to set up the rules of their militias as they see fit.
You have obviously never yourself, or known another person, who read any of the coverage of factory farming practices.
"Reading coverage" pales in comparison to living it.
I reposted this to my journal, so anyone who wants to quote/share my take on the response can find it more easily.
Thanks for reading!
Very amusing. I'm happy to see someone lampoon both major parties equally for once.
Lambasting one but not the other would be impossible to do while maintaining any semblance of integrity or honesty, which I strive to do.
What I always found amusing is that a well regulated militia is limited to personal firearms.
Ever seen one of these bad boys before?
we are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms so we can defend ourselves against the government
Let me know how well that works out for you. I reckon you'll be on the receiving end of something way bigger than you're allowed to own, pretty damn smartish.
1) I can't speak for you or anyone else, but I would rather die on my feet a free man, than live on my knees as a slave.
2) Our troops swear allegiance to the Constitution, her People, the military, and the President, in that order . If they receive orders which violate the Constitution or the rights of her People, they are, by the oath they've sworn, to deny said orders.
You may lack the moral fortitude to stand up for what's right, but there are a large number of us, many enlisted, who do not.
I apologize; I misread your comment. In hindsight, what you posted was quite obvious but I was just being especially dense that particular day.
No worries, mate, we all have off days!
I'm not a world-class constitutional scholar like you apparently are, but I think it's the part where it says the militia should be "well regulated".
Sigh...
Educate yourself: http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
Did you happen to see the clause where it even allows for private ownership or guns in the first place that don't have any connection to a well-regulated militia?
Well-regulated == properly functioning
militia == armed force of regular civilians, not employed by the government (such as cops and soldiers)
Essentially, every private citizen is a member of their respective state militia, and thus is allowed private armament ownership.
Just because the Second Amendment doesn't explicitly state that guns need to be serieled or registered doesn't mean it's unconstitutional for a state to pass laws requiring that guns be serieled and registered.
If we were talking about the states requiring firearm registration, you would be correct; however, this discussion is in regard to federal registration requirements, which stink of unconstitutionality.
After all, no where in the constitution does it state that cars traveling on public roads have to be serieled and registered and yet somehow they are. So unless you're going to tell me that license plates are unconstitutional then you can't tell me that gun registration is unconstitutional.
Riddle: Why do state license plates for cars say the state name, instead of "USA?"
"Well regulated militia" is the context of the 2nd Amendment.
Regulated = LAW
I would ask if you see it now, but you have clearly already blinded yourself.
When I read posts like this, it makes me sad to think these people graduated from the same public school system I did, but without learning anything of importance...
"*re-reads the Second Amendment*
Hmm, don't see the clause where it requires all my firearms to be registered with the government..."
You should start reading it from the beginning rather than the end.
You should try reading historically accurate definitions for terms, instead of assuming that the English language has been in stasis for the past 300 years:
http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm