Or at least don't send them off to spend $6 trillion dollars on military actions based on false information. There's no question the US needs a strong military. But why does it have to spend more than the rest of the world combined?
Or maybe the problem with space exploration is that the moon was the cherry (ie. cherry picking). It was mostly an exercise in engineering and money at that point. Now the distances (or masses, if you want to start a moon colony) involved are such that something fundamental has to happen to make it worthwhile - and just because we haven't figured out how to break the (known) laws of physics doesn't mean there was no effort expended since then. It just has to be a lot smarter, since spending orders of magnitude more money to accomplish the same thing on planets orders of magnitude further away does pose a moral question when so many people are suffering on Earth in the here and now.
Here's one example: we officially eradicated smallpox in 1979. Which effort do YOU think has done more to improve the lives of the entire population of the world? If people had their priorities straight that could arguably be the greatest scientific and logistic accomplishments of the 20th century. Of course, there are TONS of other examples of amazing scientific/engineering accomplishments (superconductivity, nuclear fission, discovery of DNA, the transistor, etc) - the problem is they just weren't designed to be broadcast to the world on TV.
You clearly aren't getting his point. IMO by definition "the populous" would imply the majority, when in fact it's the few percent of those with money who really end up deciding the primaries. So then at that point the "populace" gets to decide on the cherry picked candidates from the left and the right.
The only way to stop this absurd process is to ban campaign contributions, "Super-PACs", etc. Though even that may be a lost cause. A lot of the problem is just that 535 people just can't reasonably listen to or properly represent the interests of 300 million (when this system was devised the population was ~3M, ie. 1% of what it is now!) It's obvious that the current legislature is completely beholden to a few wealthy and influential special interest groups rather than actually listening to "the populace" that supposedly elected them. Something in the system sure has to change, and (duh) it's not going to be the populace.
Premiums going down on average isn't good enough. Anybody's premiums going up (or losing benefits at the same cost, which is the same net effect) means the law was misguided & badly written.
Except that's just not how governing a country of 300M+ people works. Nor is it how the (now slightly LESS in fact!) world of health insurance (or any other insurance based on differing premiums per customer) works. It *sucks* for those few who may make out worse, but that's the way it is and always has been. Same thing with tax law changes - how it affects you depends highly on your situation.
And yet ANOTHER statistic that people love to gloss over: of the policies that were cancelled, it's estimated ~60% of them were short term policies in effect for no more than a year: ie. in the small (yes, still a lot of people, but in terms of total industry: like 6% of the population?) private individual insurance market. And these short term/temporary policies undergo a huge churn anyway. So, with the other estimate of 40-50% of those who may have to change their policy, that's down to almost 1% of the insured in the US who had longer term existing policies and will have to find a new one in the marketplace. And no, that doesn't mean 1% is going to have a worse policy, just a different one - there have been anecdotes of both good and bad experiences, but until real numbers come out, that's all they are - anecdotes.
I'm so glad you think refusing people for preexisting conditions, imposing maximum lifetime payouts, and dropping people when they have had major claims for things like *paying the premium too soon* (yes, that happened) were excellent features of the old plans. As I said, these aren't strict requirements! There are still plenty of low cost, high deductible/copay plans for people to choose from - most of those aspects haven't really changed much.
You do realize the Federal government also requires cars to have seat belts, air bags, and comply with other safety and emissions standards? These weren't all just done through the kindness of the auto manufacturer's hearts...
Well, I one thing I consider perfectly good, was that as an un-married male, I didn't need maternity care or any other type of obstetrics coverage, nor do I need coverage for kids, etc. under my old policy.
I'm required to have such coverage and pay for itWFT?
Of course you aren't. If you want to cover a spouse and kids you have to pay for those policies as well, you don't just get them for free. But I guess as an unmarried male without kids you didn't even realize that? So, one less incorrect assumption to complain about.
And you clearly don't even know what the policies available with the new system are - there are HSA options with high-deductible major medical coverage, etc. The differences in policies are that they can't now refuse/drop/jack up rates for pre-existing conditions, they can no longer impose a lifetime maximum payout, and *if* covering dependent children (which is an extra premium, OF COURSE) they have to continue to offer coverage until 26. Since some existing policies had those provisions they had to make people switch to new ones that did not.
I mean seriously so what makes you qualified to discuss *anything* other than your specific situation if you have never heard of any of these really fundamental aspects of health insurance in general and the ACA in particular before??
Please cite examples that aren't Fox News on this? And I'm sure we can trade plenty of "anecdotes" either way - for example, a friend of mine just used the Texas exchange and her premium went down from over $1000 a month to about $300. But that's mostly irrelevant, since anecdotes aren't statistics, and the point is to increase the overall coverage and decrease the overall cost. And ANY conclusion about that right now (when it's only in the 2nd month of enrollment and NO old policies have actually even expired yet) is ridiculously premature.
Also, "perfectly good coverage" is kind of a joke. The reason many policies were cancelled is because they were so bad they didn't pass the minimum requirements for policies under the new law (which isn't particularly stringent, anyway), or the insurance companies were just revamping their policy offerings and expected people to sign up under the new (sometimes nearly identical) ones. Such a conspiracy theory without hard evidence...
And really, "if ACA actually starts to work as planned"? The Federal website != The ACA. There are plenty of state exchanges that are working fine - but even those aren't "the ACA". The ACA is a *law*, not some website.
Which has already proven to be less harmful to the USA
Are you KIDDING me? Better to spend $300M to get 44 people health care (and that's a moronic statistic, anyway - they spent too much money and the site isn't ready, but that's an NRE cost, not a per-person rate, DUH) than $5 TRILLION to get thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians killed. For the cost of those wars the US could have fully insured every citizen in the US for years.
And name ANY direct harm that has actually come to anyone AS OF TODAY over the ACA (not some unproven conspiracy theory of future issues). Yes, millions of cancellations of policies have been announced (*not* enacted yet), but the vast majority of those people will end up with with cheaper policies with more coverage. Combine that with newly covered people and it will be a large net gain. Not comforting to those individuals who made out the worse for it, of course, but on the scale of 300M people that's how things go.
Yep, I agree - and there are already regulations in place to allow the airlines to enforce this. If the captain feels you are causing a disturbance before takeoff he can kick you off the plane - and in rare cases they have made unscheduled landings to remove uncooperative (though usually in that case, violent) passengers.
Apparently the law has basically been interpreted to mean disobeying a direct order from the flight crew is considered "interfering with flight crew in performance of their duties", which is a Federal offense with up to a 20 year prison sentence!
And personally, I would choose an airline that prohibits cell phone use when in flight over one that allows it any day.
Based on the pure number of nonsensical mods and trolling AC posts, there is no way he's solely responsible. He must have crossposted on theblaze or thedailycaller to solicit that "extra republitroll support"...
the person pay out of pocket $3,000 before any insurance kicks in. So not only are the workers paying more from their paychecks, but they're paying all of their medical bills. So unless they almost die, it's simply not reasonable to have insurance at all
I guess you haven't been to the ER lately? One visit could blow through that deductible in an hour, and if you get dmitted you could be looking at $5-10k+. And just hope you don't need some sort of surgery (even relatively minor) which may very well run you $15-20k+, or up to $200k or more if it's a recurring illness - at which point you will finally understand the concept of "insurance" and "no lifetime limits".
Bot sure why I am deploying to a horribly fucking stupid AC post, but oh well.
California residents lost 5.5 million policies.
1. where do you get that number? I read the number of cancellations was closer to 1 million (and that's from a "conservative* source). 2. almost all of those are just canceling crap policies that can be renewed on the new exchange for LESS money. Combine that with all of the new policies and it's a definite net GAIN. Ie. your statement is a bald-faced lie.
Ok, I can't even bother to reply to the rest inline since it's all predicated on your first lie. But to summarize - yeah, the left may make decisions on too few "data points", but I'd rather at least attempt to make decisions from data than the misinformation and outright lies you seem to be peddling.
Oh, and what the fuck? You are now blaming deaths of those without health insurance on "lefties"? Those same lefties who wanted a *universal* healthcare plan but had to settle for the relative crap that was the ACA because of the conservative position that the government should not be responsible for supporting those who can't take care of themselves? That's a novel angle...
F1 cars (or hell, even NASCAR) don't use stability control, either. If you are going to buy a $500,000 car designed and built for racing, you should be expected to know how to drive it and the risks involved in going fast in it. Porsche even required dealers to explain to buyers that it was a difficult car to drive and why.
F1 cars are MUCH more (potentially) dangerous and unforgiving (not to mention expensive). In fact, even a good amateur could barely get one going from a stop at first (see Richard Hammond's attempt to drive one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGUZJVY-sHo) That's why they generally are only driven by the best in the world...
Yeah, there are a lot fewer trees in the middle of a race track, which is where it should be driven - while wearing safety gear like a helmet and fireproof suit - if you want to go 100mph+.
And this isn't ideal for "American style" anything. It's ideal for keeping a certain quantity of hot liquid hot. Feel free to fill it with a latte, cocoa, tea, apple cider, mulled wine, or your own urine if you feel so inclined.
Wait, what does the time of day have to do with thermodynamics? If the coffee and insulating material are both heated to the same temperature then there is no way it would cool things down *more* quickly than if there were no insulation at all. Especially if you rinse the mug out with some hot water first to add some heat to the system before putting the coffee in. There is no disadvantage to this system...
Except even in large companies if you go into a store you are dealing with a *person*. If I go into a Starbucks and the employee accidentally gives me $20 instead of $1 change, they will be the ones held responsible for that mistake, and it may come out of their meager wages. Companies are not people, but they are made up of people. Same reason I don't start screaming at some poor random customer support agent on the phone when something totally out of their control happened to me.
I'm sure everyone knows the tired adage "two wrongs don't make a right" - well, this would be a good use of that. Using the argument "I have been shortchanged before by someone and so I have a right to money mistakenly given me" is *exactly* the kind of thing I was talking about in my original post.
Now, if you noticed you were shortchanged by a specific business, they refused to fix the problem, and then later that same business gave you too much money - I'd say, sure, keep it. But applying that reasoning to any situation is just a cop out "I was wronged, I deserve to get it back anyway I can!"
Yeah - you could take that same "they make lots of money, they won't miss it" argument to try to justify shoplifting, fraud, etc. as well. Sure, it's a "moral compass" and not a "moral GPS" because it's not all black or white. But personally I try to "do the right thing" where possible rather than decide "how injured" the person/corporation/etc on the short end of the mistake will be from my actions.
No, the code link in the post you replied to is for Chacha itself from DJB, not the DJM code that *used* it (which was linked in the article).
Not only it it free of rants, it's free of ANY useful comments, which IMO for mostly inscrutable crypto code based largely on C macros is worse than ranting.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with goto if used in a way that is procedurally correct and readable. A C compiler effectively compiles conditionals down to a bunch of ASM goto (aka "jump") statements anyway, so if it's MORE readable to use goto in C than if/else gymnastics and repeated code/extra functions, why not?
Q. Am I obligated to return or pay for merchandise I never ordered? A. No. If you receive merchandise that you didn’t order, you have a legal right to keep it as a free gift.
Q. What should I do if the unordered merchandise I received was the result of an honest shipping error? A. Write the seller and offer to return the merchandise, provided the seller pays for postage and handling. Give the seller a specific and reasonable amount of time (say 30 days) to pick up the merchandise or arrange to have it returned at no expense to you. Tell the seller that you reserve the right to keep the merchandise or dispose of it after the specified time has passed.
And while it's true the law is vague in the definition of "unsolicited", if you already made a contract with a seller (which is what happened) to deliver an item for payment, and the seller messed it up, good luck convincing a judge there is a distinction based on whether the seller wants to fix the mistake to honor the contract vs. the buyer...
How is the end party *responsible* in this case? If the company offered to pay for return shipping and any other expenses related to their mistake they seem to be taking responsibility to me.
Trying to pretend this is in any way similar to someone sending you a completely unsolicited product and demanding payment (vs. what it was, a customer ordering a product, getting the wrong one, and the company wanting to exchange it for the correct - and yes, less expensive - one) just seems like some bogus "slippery slope" argument justifying a personal ethical deficiency.
Exactly. I never understood people who exploit obvious bugs/mistakes and then get all indignant when a company refuses to "honor" their exploit. It's just a complete lack of some basic moral compass.
I'd imagine these sorts of people would also say "cool, I was owed $10 and accidentally got back $30 in change, my lucky day!" instead of "hey, looks like you gave me too much change, here, wouldn't want you to get in trouble!"
Then again, there is only so far one can go. I was once delivered a different dresser from one I ordered (one that cost about 3x and was much nicer in every way). I called and left two messages explaining this, but never got a response. Fine with me!
Slashdot Mirror
Or at least don't send them off to spend $6 trillion dollars on military actions based on false information. There's no question the US needs a strong military. But why does it have to spend more than the rest of the world combined?
Yeah, the choice is between no representation and useless representation. Good times.
Or maybe the problem with space exploration is that the moon was the cherry (ie. cherry picking). It was mostly an exercise in engineering and money at that point. Now the distances (or masses, if you want to start a moon colony) involved are such that something fundamental has to happen to make it worthwhile - and just because we haven't figured out how to break the (known) laws of physics doesn't mean there was no effort expended since then. It just has to be a lot smarter, since spending orders of magnitude more money to accomplish the same thing on planets orders of magnitude further away does pose a moral question when so many people are suffering on Earth in the here and now.
Here's one example: we officially eradicated smallpox in 1979. Which effort do YOU think has done more to improve the lives of the entire population of the world? If people had their priorities straight that could arguably be the greatest scientific and logistic accomplishments of the 20th century. Of course, there are TONS of other examples of amazing scientific/engineering accomplishments (superconductivity, nuclear fission, discovery of DNA, the transistor, etc) - the problem is they just weren't designed to be broadcast to the world on TV.
You clearly aren't getting his point. IMO by definition "the populous" would imply the majority, when in fact it's the few percent of those with money who really end up deciding the primaries. So then at that point the "populace" gets to decide on the cherry picked candidates from the left and the right.
The only way to stop this absurd process is to ban campaign contributions, "Super-PACs", etc. Though even that may be a lost cause. A lot of the problem is just that 535 people just can't reasonably listen to or properly represent the interests of 300 million (when this system was devised the population was ~3M, ie. 1% of what it is now!) It's obvious that the current legislature is completely beholden to a few wealthy and influential special interest groups rather than actually listening to "the populace" that supposedly elected them. Something in the system sure has to change, and (duh) it's not going to be the populace.
Premiums going down on average isn't good enough. Anybody's premiums going up (or losing benefits at the same cost, which is the same net effect) means the law was misguided & badly written.
Except that's just not how governing a country of 300M+ people works. Nor is it how the (now slightly LESS in fact!) world of health insurance (or any other insurance based on differing premiums per customer) works. It *sucks* for those few who may make out worse, but that's the way it is and always has been. Same thing with tax law changes - how it affects you depends highly on your situation.
And yet ANOTHER statistic that people love to gloss over: of the policies that were cancelled, it's estimated ~60% of them were short term policies in effect for no more than a year: ie. in the small (yes, still a lot of people, but in terms of total industry: like 6% of the population?) private individual insurance market. And these short term/temporary policies undergo a huge churn anyway. So, with the other estimate of 40-50% of those who may have to change their policy, that's down to almost 1% of the insured in the US who had longer term existing policies and will have to find a new one in the marketplace. And no, that doesn't mean 1% is going to have a worse policy, just a different one - there have been anecdotes of both good and bad experiences, but until real numbers come out, that's all they are - anecdotes.
I'm so glad you think refusing people for preexisting conditions, imposing maximum lifetime payouts, and dropping people when they have had major claims for things like *paying the premium too soon* (yes, that happened) were excellent features of the old plans. As I said, these aren't strict requirements! There are still plenty of low cost, high deductible/copay plans for people to choose from - most of those aspects haven't really changed much.
You do realize the Federal government also requires cars to have seat belts, air bags, and comply with other safety and emissions standards? These weren't all just done through the kindness of the auto manufacturer's hearts...
Well, I one thing I consider perfectly good, was that as an un-married male, I didn't need maternity care or any other type of obstetrics coverage, nor do I need coverage for kids, etc. under my old policy.
I'm required to have such coverage and pay for itWFT?
Of course you aren't. If you want to cover a spouse and kids you have to pay for those policies as well, you don't just get them for free. But I guess as an unmarried male without kids you didn't even realize that? So, one less incorrect assumption to complain about.
And you clearly don't even know what the policies available with the new system are - there are HSA options with high-deductible major medical coverage, etc. The differences in policies are that they can't now refuse/drop/jack up rates for pre-existing conditions, they can no longer impose a lifetime maximum payout, and *if* covering dependent children (which is an extra premium, OF COURSE) they have to continue to offer coverage until 26. Since some existing policies had those provisions they had to make people switch to new ones that did not.
I mean seriously so what makes you qualified to discuss *anything* other than your specific situation if you have never heard of any of these really fundamental aspects of health insurance in general and the ACA in particular before??
Please cite examples that aren't Fox News on this? And I'm sure we can trade plenty of "anecdotes" either way - for example, a friend of mine just used the Texas exchange and her premium went down from over $1000 a month to about $300. But that's mostly irrelevant, since anecdotes aren't statistics, and the point is to increase the overall coverage and decrease the overall cost. And ANY conclusion about that right now (when it's only in the 2nd month of enrollment and NO old policies have actually even expired yet) is ridiculously premature.
Also, "perfectly good coverage" is kind of a joke. The reason many policies were cancelled is because they were so bad they didn't pass the minimum requirements for policies under the new law (which isn't particularly stringent, anyway), or the insurance companies were just revamping their policy offerings and expected people to sign up under the new (sometimes nearly identical) ones. Such a conspiracy theory without hard evidence...
And really, "if ACA actually starts to work as planned"? The Federal website != The ACA. There are plenty of state exchanges that are working fine - but even those aren't "the ACA". The ACA is a *law*, not some website.
Or maybe they could add a new "ejection feature" to the lavatories.
Which has already proven to be less harmful to the USA
Are you KIDDING me? Better to spend $300M to get 44 people health care (and that's a moronic statistic, anyway - they spent too much money and the site isn't ready, but that's an NRE cost, not a per-person rate, DUH) than $5 TRILLION to get thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians killed. For the cost of those wars the US could have fully insured every citizen in the US for years.
And name ANY direct harm that has actually come to anyone AS OF TODAY over the ACA (not some unproven conspiracy theory of future issues). Yes, millions of cancellations of policies have been announced (*not* enacted yet), but the vast majority of those people will end up with with cheaper policies with more coverage. Combine that with newly covered people and it will be a large net gain. Not comforting to those individuals who made out the worse for it, of course, but on the scale of 300M people that's how things go.
Yep, I agree - and there are already regulations in place to allow the airlines to enforce this. If the captain feels you are causing a disturbance before takeoff he can kick you off the plane - and in rare cases they have made unscheduled landings to remove uncooperative (though usually in that case, violent) passengers.
Apparently the law has basically been interpreted to mean disobeying a direct order from the flight crew is considered "interfering with flight crew in performance of their duties", which is a Federal offense with up to a 20 year prison sentence!
And personally, I would choose an airline that prohibits cell phone use when in flight over one that allows it any day.
Based on the pure number of nonsensical mods and trolling AC posts, there is no way he's solely responsible. He must have crossposted on theblaze or thedailycaller to solicit that "extra republitroll support"...
the person pay out of pocket $3,000 before any insurance kicks in. So not only are the workers paying more from their paychecks, but they're paying all of their medical bills. So unless they almost die, it's simply not reasonable to have insurance at all
I guess you haven't been to the ER lately? One visit could blow through that deductible in an hour, and if you get dmitted you could be looking at $5-10k+. And just hope you don't need some sort of surgery (even relatively minor) which may very well run you $15-20k+, or up to $200k or more if it's a recurring illness - at which point you will finally understand the concept of "insurance" and "no lifetime limits".
Bot sure why I am deploying to a horribly fucking stupid AC post, but oh well.
California residents lost 5.5 million policies.
1. where do you get that number? I read the number of cancellations was closer to 1 million (and that's from a "conservative* source).
2. almost all of those are just canceling crap policies that can be renewed on the new exchange for LESS money. Combine that with all of the new policies and it's a definite net GAIN. Ie. your statement is a bald-faced lie.
Ok, I can't even bother to reply to the rest inline since it's all predicated on your first lie. But to summarize - yeah, the left may make decisions on too few "data points", but I'd rather at least attempt to make decisions from data than the misinformation and outright lies you seem to be peddling.
Oh, and what the fuck? You are now blaming deaths of those without health insurance on "lefties"? Those same lefties who wanted a *universal* healthcare plan but had to settle for the relative crap that was the ACA because of the conservative position that the government should not be responsible for supporting those who can't take care of themselves? That's a novel angle...
F1 cars (or hell, even NASCAR) don't use stability control, either. If you are going to buy a $500,000 car designed and built for racing, you should be expected to know how to drive it and the risks involved in going fast in it. Porsche even required dealers to explain to buyers that it was a difficult car to drive and why.
F1 cars are MUCH more (potentially) dangerous and unforgiving (not to mention expensive). In fact, even a good amateur could barely get one going from a stop at first (see Richard Hammond's attempt to drive one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGUZJVY-sHo) That's why they generally are only driven by the best in the world...
Yeah, there are a lot fewer trees in the middle of a race track, which is where it should be driven - while wearing safety gear like a helmet and fireproof suit - if you want to go 100mph+.
Anyone can criticize anything, big deal.
And this isn't ideal for "American style" anything. It's ideal for keeping a certain quantity of hot liquid hot. Feel free to fill it with a latte, cocoa, tea, apple cider, mulled wine, or your own urine if you feel so inclined.
Wait, what does the time of day have to do with thermodynamics? If the coffee and insulating material are both heated to the same temperature then there is no way it would cool things down *more* quickly than if there were no insulation at all. Especially if you rinse the mug out with some hot water first to add some heat to the system before putting the coffee in. There is no disadvantage to this system...
Except even in large companies if you go into a store you are dealing with a *person*. If I go into a Starbucks and the employee accidentally gives me $20 instead of $1 change, they will be the ones held responsible for that mistake, and it may come out of their meager wages. Companies are not people, but they are made up of people. Same reason I don't start screaming at some poor random customer support agent on the phone when something totally out of their control happened to me.
I'm sure everyone knows the tired adage "two wrongs don't make a right" - well, this would be a good use of that. Using the argument "I have been shortchanged before by someone and so I have a right to money mistakenly given me" is *exactly* the kind of thing I was talking about in my original post.
Now, if you noticed you were shortchanged by a specific business, they refused to fix the problem, and then later that same business gave you too much money - I'd say, sure, keep it. But applying that reasoning to any situation is just a cop out "I was wronged, I deserve to get it back anyway I can!"
Yeah - you could take that same "they make lots of money, they won't miss it" argument to try to justify shoplifting, fraud, etc. as well. Sure, it's a "moral compass" and not a "moral GPS" because it's not all black or white. But personally I try to "do the right thing" where possible rather than decide "how injured" the person/corporation/etc on the short end of the mistake will be from my actions.
No, the code link in the post you replied to is for Chacha itself from DJB, not the DJM code that *used* it (which was linked in the article).
Not only it it free of rants, it's free of ANY useful comments, which IMO for mostly inscrutable crypto code based largely on C macros is worse than ranting.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with goto if used in a way that is procedurally correct and readable. A C compiler effectively compiles conditionals down to a bunch of ASM goto (aka "jump") statements anyway, so if it's MORE readable to use goto in C than if/else gymnastics and repeated code/extra functions, why not?
From the US FTC site:
Q. Am I obligated to return or pay for merchandise I never ordered?
A. No. If you receive merchandise that you didn’t order, you have a legal right to keep it as a free gift.
Q. What should I do if the unordered merchandise I received was the result of an honest shipping error?
A. Write the seller and offer to return the merchandise, provided the seller pays for postage and handling. Give the seller a specific and reasonable amount of time (say 30 days) to pick up the merchandise or arrange to have it returned at no expense to you. Tell the seller that you reserve the right to keep the merchandise or dispose of it after the specified time has passed.
And while it's true the law is vague in the definition of "unsolicited", if you already made a contract with a seller (which is what happened) to deliver an item for payment, and the seller messed it up, good luck convincing a judge there is a distinction based on whether the seller wants to fix the mistake to honor the contract vs. the buyer...
How is the end party *responsible* in this case? If the company offered to pay for return shipping and any other expenses related to their mistake they seem to be taking responsibility to me.
Trying to pretend this is in any way similar to someone sending you a completely unsolicited product and demanding payment (vs. what it was, a customer ordering a product, getting the wrong one, and the company wanting to exchange it for the correct - and yes, less expensive - one) just seems like some bogus "slippery slope" argument justifying a personal ethical deficiency.
Exactly. I never understood people who exploit obvious bugs/mistakes and then get all indignant when a company refuses to "honor" their exploit. It's just a complete lack of some basic moral compass.
I'd imagine these sorts of people would also say "cool, I was owed $10 and accidentally got back $30 in change, my lucky day!" instead of "hey, looks like you gave me too much change, here, wouldn't want you to get in trouble!"
Then again, there is only so far one can go. I was once delivered a different dresser from one I ordered (one that cost about 3x and was much nicer in every way). I called and left two messages explaining this, but never got a response. Fine with me!