Isn't Spirit airlines the same airline that will charge you for luggage whether you check-in or carry-on. How many people travel with no luggage? Simply put the only choice Spirit offers you is whether you pay them more to handle your bags or pay them less for the privilege of handling your own bags.
You mean pay them less for the privilege of shipping your bags across the country along with you. Do you expect that UPS would do it for free if you just loaded it onto their airplanes for them and unloaded it yourself at the destination? If it really doesn't cost anything for Spirit to do this, they should go into competition with UPS -- they can put UPS out of business if they've managed to eliminate all costs of shipping beyond handling.
You are completely missing the point. Companies are not being honest, that is the problem. With your self-sufficient attitude, you may as well go to the place walking. But your approach is selfish. Maybe one day your grandma or your pregnant wife would not be able to handle her luggage by themselves, or will need to eat something at the plane, and they will be taken advantage of. Of, course, you will not have a problem with that, would you, big guy?
If the fees they charge for these services are in line with the cost of providing them, then no, I don't have a problem with that. TANSTAAFL. OTOH, if they're overcharging for them in order to subsidize a cheaper price on the ticket than it should be, then yes, it's a problem.
Wake up, pal. You are nowhere near as free as you think you are. Your life is as constrained by our bullshit corporatist state as the Chinese are by their bullshit corporatist state. The only difference is that you are showered with a moronic brain-junk-food commercial pop-culture that has evidently convinced you completely that you are free and can express yourself freely and without limit.
Yes, and thank you for demonstrating above that he is right.
When you're talking about evidence where the death penalty is at issue, the ONLY acceptable collision rate is zero.
Well, the death penalty is morally indefensible until you can prove the legal system is entirely perfect and beyond possibility of error. Of course, the courts are a government run institution, so they never make mistakes, right?
Before long we're going to need complete isolation suits before we can commit a crime.
Personally, I'm not committing any crimes until I can remote-pilot a bot from very far away. And afterward, make sure the bot is torn into pieces, and throw every piece into a fire.
... Or they become UFC champions, which is kind of neutral...
lol... but seriously, do not underestimate the value of those who entertain, even if it isn't exactly high-brow entertainment. I suspect if you eliminated all the stupid TV, there'd be more crime and even serial killers and such as these people went out and tried to find other activities to occupy their free time. The theory that they'd start watching smart TV seems far-fetched. Better to keep them at home glued to their TVs watching that drivel than out wandering the streets looking for things to do that they'd find amusing...
Granted, but in this case, he is. If you read/. long enough, certain people's comments stand out enough that you recognize their names on future comments, particularly when you find yourself saying "Wow, that's a dumb comment" and look to note it's the same name you've noted the last three times you said to yourself, "Wow, that's stupid..."
Yes, in the fiction in question, these things replace roads, not sidewalks, so they are much wider. And you can pass people easily, you just step over to the faster lane and pass them by.
LA Times picked up the story on July 6th, 2010, which according to my calendar was yesterday. Like many "news" items, it no doubt was circulating for long before that, but that's when it got noticed by a newspaper, which is then when it became news (under the theory that newspapers make news, contrasting to the absurd alternate theory that they merely report news).;)
It forces people to attack each other's arguments rather than resorting to ad hominems,
You must be using a different internet than I am. Could you tell me how you get access to the one you're using? It sounds nice.
Wait until you see the Internet where everyone uses their real names. Then you're appreciate how little there was of ad hominem attacks, relatively speaking.
The comments never bothered me. I simply don't read them.
This sounds good in theory. In practice, people who read a lot generally cannot help but successfully read entire sentences in their peripheral vision. Nothing short of removing the text from my visual field will prevent the meaning of the words from becoming instantly lodged in my brain the moment they appear anywhere visible.
No, it tells you how you learn the lesser-known language named "PHP in 24 hours" which differs from normal PHP in that the scripts always take 24 hours to run.
The problem with that idea, is without the visit to the optometrist, serious problems may go undiscovered.
Sudden changes to your vision may be a sign of serious condition, and a visit to a medical professional is in order.
And for not so sudden changes? You know the perfectly ordinary, gradual changes that come with age?
Without a visit to the optometrist, serious problems may go undiscovered. So instead we have the current situation, where due to the laws and the cost, serious problems go undiscovered, and minor problems don't get fixed either, since people who can't afford to don't go to the optometrist either way, so the only change here is they don't get anything fixed at all.
So I could see access to a device like this being restricted, regulated, or limited (to licensed professionals) on that basis.
If and only if the government is then picking up the tab for the bill, sure. However, in a country without universal health care, this kind of law does more harm than good. It just leaves people without treatment for minor things they could otherwise take care of themselves. If you take the ability to fix it out of people's hands, you need to take the need to pay someone else to fix it away too. If you aren't going to pick up the tab, you need to let people do it themselves as best they can.
By outlawing less than ideal treatment, you're leaving a lot of people with the only remaining option: no treatment at all. You've made the perfect the enemy of the good.
Here in the developed world, this $2 device will cost $1000, because it will be classified as a medical device and thus require lots of testing to satisfy the FDA, and kickbacks to keep the opticians from trying to ban it due to it stealing their jobs.
3/10 -- almost plausible if you ignore the vast number of cheap medical devices already on the market for OTC use, also, a little too light on the tinfoil/conspiracy angle
It would be. Of course, a doctor with the app and an assortment of premade glasses can correct the vision of several people for the cost of one of those self-adjusting things.
Sorry, I assumed it went without saying that one hasn't seen what doesn't exist yet, and I didn't expect anyone to interpret "you've pretty much seen it all" to mean you've seen things that don't yet exist. Taking that absurd interpretation of what I wrote, you are of course correct in stating it's false. However, taking the statement as it was meant, it is true, and you are mistaken.
The problem is, if you want to argue for the wisdom of crowds, there are plenty of examples to point to. And if you want to argue for the stupidity of crowds, there are plenty of examples to point to. And some people on either side will use the same examples (e.g. Youtube -- I lolled). I suspect that people who believe there's inherently a tendency either one way or the other are using (or are unconscious victims of) selection bias. I don't see much in the way of evidence for one or the other.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't Spirit airlines the same airline that will charge you for luggage whether you check-in or carry-on. How many people travel with no luggage? Simply put the only choice Spirit offers you is whether you pay them more to handle your bags or pay them less for the privilege of handling your own bags.
You mean pay them less for the privilege of shipping your bags across the country along with you. Do you expect that UPS would do it for free if you just loaded it onto their airplanes for them and unloaded it yourself at the destination? If it really doesn't cost anything for Spirit to do this, they should go into competition with UPS -- they can put UPS out of business if they've managed to eliminate all costs of shipping beyond handling.
You are completely missing the point. Companies are not being honest, that is the problem. With your self-sufficient attitude, you may as well go to the place walking. But your approach is selfish. Maybe one day your grandma or your pregnant wife would not be able to handle her luggage by themselves, or will need to eat something at the plane, and they will be taken advantage of. Of, course, you will not have a problem with that, would you, big guy?
If the fees they charge for these services are in line with the cost of providing them, then no, I don't have a problem with that. TANSTAAFL. OTOH, if they're overcharging for them in order to subsidize a cheaper price on the ticket than it should be, then yes, it's a problem.
Wake up, pal. You are nowhere near as free as you think you are. Your life is as constrained by our bullshit corporatist state as the Chinese are by their bullshit corporatist state. The only difference is that you are showered with a moronic brain-junk-food commercial pop-culture that has evidently convinced you completely that you are free and can express yourself freely and without limit.
Yes, and thank you for demonstrating above that he is right.
We're talking Oklahoma... meditation is already demonized. After all, it's associated with Buddhism and all that other satanic stuff... :p
When you're talking about evidence where the death penalty is at issue, the ONLY acceptable collision rate is zero.
Well, the death penalty is morally indefensible until you can prove the legal system is entirely perfect and beyond possibility of error. Of course, the courts are a government run institution, so they never make mistakes, right?
Before long we're going to need complete isolation suits before we can commit a crime.
Personally, I'm not committing any crimes until I can remote-pilot a bot from very far away. And afterward, make sure the bot is torn into pieces, and throw every piece into a fire.
... Or they become UFC champions, which is kind of neutral...
lol... but seriously, do not underestimate the value of those who entertain, even if it isn't exactly high-brow entertainment. I suspect if you eliminated all the stupid TV, there'd be more crime and even serial killers and such as these people went out and tried to find other activities to occupy their free time. The theory that they'd start watching smart TV seems far-fetched. Better to keep them at home glued to their TVs watching that drivel than out wandering the streets looking for things to do that they'd find amusing...
Granted, but in this case, he is. If you read /. long enough, certain people's comments stand out enough that you recognize their names on future comments, particularly when you find yourself saying "Wow, that's a dumb comment" and look to note it's the same name you've noted the last three times you said to yourself, "Wow, that's stupid..."
...And if you try to pass them (even if the escalator is pretty wide), they get pissed and offended, ...
And this is a problem? For you, I mean? Sounds like their problem... I can't be bothered to care.
Yes, in the fiction in question, these things replace roads, not sidewalks, so they are much wider. And you can pass people easily, you just step over to the faster lane and pass them by.
LA Times picked up the story on July 6th, 2010, which according to my calendar was yesterday. Like many "news" items, it no doubt was circulating for long before that, but that's when it got noticed by a newspaper, which is then when it became news (under the theory that newspapers make news, contrasting to the absurd alternate theory that they merely report news). ;)
Slowest news day ever!
Yeah, not a hella lot going on...
Won't you get your ass kicked in New York anyways regardless?
How is the EU not a country? It has ...
How is Africa not an island? It's land, completely surrounded by water...
Yes, the EU has many things in common with a nation. It is not, however, a nation, merely because it has all those commonalities.
You must be using a different internet than I am. Could you tell me how you get access to the one you're using? It sounds nice.
Wait until you see the Internet where everyone uses their real names. Then you're appreciate how little there was of ad hominem attacks, relatively speaking.
And yet everyone gives out their real name on Facebook when they have the choice to give a fake one.
People who read your Facebook page are less likely to be mad than people who you gank and corpse-camp in Stranglethorn Vale.
Well, for most people anyway... don't know what's on your Facebook page specifically...
The comments never bothered me. I simply don't read them.
This sounds good in theory. In practice, people who read a lot generally cannot help but successfully read entire sentences in their peripheral vision. Nothing short of removing the text from my visual field will prevent the meaning of the words from becoming instantly lodged in my brain the moment they appear anywhere visible.
No, it tells you how you learn the lesser-known language named "PHP in 24 hours" which differs from normal PHP in that the scripts always take 24 hours to run.
An optimized version, then? ;)
The problem with that idea, is without the visit to the optometrist, serious problems may go undiscovered.
Sudden changes to your vision may be a sign of serious condition, and a visit to a medical professional is in order.
And for not so sudden changes? You know the perfectly ordinary, gradual changes that come with age?
Without a visit to the optometrist, serious problems may go undiscovered. So instead we have the current situation, where due to the laws and the cost, serious problems go undiscovered, and minor problems don't get fixed either, since people who can't afford to don't go to the optometrist either way, so the only change here is they don't get anything fixed at all.
So I could see access to a device like this being restricted, regulated, or limited (to licensed professionals) on that basis.
If and only if the government is then picking up the tab for the bill, sure. However, in a country without universal health care, this kind of law does more harm than good. It just leaves people without treatment for minor things they could otherwise take care of themselves. If you take the ability to fix it out of people's hands, you need to take the need to pay someone else to fix it away too. If you aren't going to pick up the tab, you need to let people do it themselves as best they can.
By outlawing less than ideal treatment, you're leaving a lot of people with the only remaining option: no treatment at all. You've made the perfect the enemy of the good.
Here in the developed world, this $2 device will cost $1000, because it will be classified as a medical device and thus require lots of testing to satisfy the FDA, and kickbacks to keep the opticians from trying to ban it due to it stealing their jobs.
3/10 -- almost plausible if you ignore the vast number of cheap medical devices already on the market for OTC use, also, a little too light on the tinfoil/conspiracy angle
Really wouldn't be easier to get real optical equipment?
Are you serious? No, not by a long shot.
Wouldn't it be better to actually _correct_ the problem, rather than just diagnose it with an app?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99838367
It would be. Of course, a doctor with the app and an assortment of premade glasses can correct the vision of several people for the cost of one of those self-adjusting things.
Why anyone would remake the movie is beyond me.
They're not remaking it, they're making a sequel.
Sorry, I assumed it went without saying that one hasn't seen what doesn't exist yet, and I didn't expect anyone to interpret "you've pretty much seen it all" to mean you've seen things that don't yet exist. Taking that absurd interpretation of what I wrote, you are of course correct in stating it's false. However, taking the statement as it was meant, it is true, and you are mistaken.
The problem is, if you want to argue for the wisdom of crowds, there are plenty of examples to point to. And if you want to argue for the stupidity of crowds, there are plenty of examples to point to. And some people on either side will use the same examples (e.g. Youtube -- I lolled). I suspect that people who believe there's inherently a tendency either one way or the other are using (or are unconscious victims of) selection bias. I don't see much in the way of evidence for one or the other.