Unfortunately you wouldn't be putting back what was taken out in the first place. The uranium is enriched, plutonium exists in the waste, etc, etc. The uranium is extracted from rock and at that time isn't concentrated. Grinding the waste and releasing it in the atmosphere would just spread concentrated radioactive material across the globe and pretty much destroy us all;)
Why? You'll find that it would be quite difficult to come up with a store policy that would both keep the customers with defective products happy and simultaneously prevent 'renters' since, if nothing else, the renters could intentionally disable the product before returning it. Tell me how the store policy could be changed so that people could still return their products (such as in the case of the original poster who used Costco's policy the way it was meant to be used) while preventing people from doing what your friend did or a simple variation of what your friend did (ie, one that could not easily be circumvented).
Simple, put in a timeframe and require a legitimate reason (i.e. damaged through normal use, 'just doesn't work anymore', etc) for the return to be accepted. Sure there's some grey area on the return reason, but no way my friend could have returned his unit the way he did with these conditions (he actually did tell them that he got central air and didn't need it anymore).
Anyways, I'd written up this paragraph about what obvious actually means and how your 'confident' beliefs don't even approach logical, but then erased it. I can't believe I've allowed myself to be baited so much by a coward -- I'm done.
I'm posting A/C because it would be modded troll/flamebait if anything and isn't worth wasting a point or two on.
Thus the karma whoring -- you'd rather hold onto karma than stand behind your argument...shows some great character.
Since you asked, I still say you're the brain dead one. Theft is taking something that doesn't belong to you. He took nothing. The store policy was to give him the money back -- if you have a problem with that then blame the store that sets the policy, not the person who follows that policy.
Bleh, read my reply above to the other karma whoring coward if you care. It's nice to see that you're so sure of your opinion you're willing to put your name to it and stand behind it -- oops, wait a sec....
Normally I wouldn't bother replying to a coward, but I just don't get it and can't stand brain dead idiots. My friend (and that's singular btw, since the other friend mentioned was working at Costco when the pie was returned, NOT the one returning the pie) returned the AC unit and they gave him cash for it. He didn't say it was defective, he didn't lie about anything, he just said he didn't want it anymore and they gave him his money back.
Now where exactly is the lying or thieving in that you karma whoring coward?
Eventually visiting Canada again with the original receipt, we took it there and explained what was happening. Costco refunded the full price of the camera. No fuss. No muss. In cash.
I'm not condoning this in any way, but I've got 2 better Costco stories. First is my friend who bought a window AC unit, used it for a season, stored it for the winter, then moved to a place with central air in the spring so brought the unit back. No receipt, unit dirty as hell, and they took it back and gave him a full cash refund.
Second story is a friend who worked there and told me about a person who returned a pie they bought. There was one small slice left (Costco pies are HUGE), and he told them he didn't like the pie. Full cash refund:O
Did nobody RTFA (part1) and notice the part at the end?
"Finally, as he was bearing down on a toll booth, Dequiedt said he finally managed to bring the car to a halt -- having raced down some 125 miles of highway between Vierzon and Riom in central France.
"I stomped on the brakes as hard as I could and the car finally stopped," he said."
It's just coincidence that he managed to stop his car before crashing through a toll booth and very likely injuring someone?? Come on now...
I was talking area actually (which is why I said 'area' and not 'population'). And it does make sense in this context since I was trying to figure out how anyone could make a blanket statement saying that Canada is so safe that people don't lock their doors. I'm not saying it's a correct way to look at things, but just that it's possibly how they justified it for the film. Please read what I actually write, and not what you think I write.
Depends on where you live. In TO, of course everyone locks everything. But in rural areas people hardly lock anything. I haven't seen the film either, but my guess would be that his conclusion is drawn from the fact that Canada is made up of considerably more rural area than urban.
Yikes, where did I say I was making any choices for anybody else? My original reply was to refute an illogical argument that aircraft, cars, knives, etc, should be looked at the same as guns.
I never said anything about taking away anyones guns, or whether or not people should be able to own and/or carry guns. If it appeared that way, then I'm sorry for your mistake. Building up an argument yourself, then attributing it to me and shooting it down is not a very good way to debate. It's called a paper tiger. Please don't do it. And drop the condescension too. If you can't debate like a big boy then go back to the sand box.
Maybe you'd be WISHING you had a gun (actually I'm sure you already do), but I certainly wouldn't. You assume that anyone who is againt guns has never been threatened and/or hurt by someone....that's quite wrong. I've come through those situations and I'll still never consider owning a gun.
The difference between guns and all those things is that the other things were designed for various purposes to help people, and can be missused as weapons. Guns have only one purpose -- to kill.
You're correct, I didn't mention the article in my original post. However, since this whole discussion is supposed to be about the artice, I think it's reasonable to assume that's what I was referring to without explicitly stating it. My line about 'if you have nothing to hide...' was in reference to the monitoring of religious groups. You can only assume my comments are based on the article....if you apply my arguments to things outside the article, then you are doing my argument an injustice.
The killing....you're nit-picking the argument. You originally said that because we can't kill people, we don't have freedom. That's what I feel is (I'll drop the 'retarded') a poor argument. My reply is in the context which you defined -- don't apply my argument outside that context because you can't defend your original stance.
You mentioned lying in court, or lying about (slandering) someone. That's what I meant by you can't lie. Again, don't take my argument and apply them out of context.
I believe this is the same reason given by those who want to restrict free speech and privacy...
That's actually an interesting point. The main difference to the sides is in what you consider a hinderance to the pursuit of a decent life. People in support of restricting free speech and privacy would likely argue safety as a prime requisite of a decent life, while I and,if I may be so bold to assume, people like me feel that freedom and privacy are prime requisites of a decent life.
As I mentioned earlier, my comments were in regard to the original article posted -- please read it. That article did not mention anything about airport searches, therefore, how can it be assumed I was referring to them in any way? I didn't take into account any rights that weren't mentioned in the article -- if I had I would have said so.
In civilized society, saying 'that we cannot kill someone means we aren't free' is indeed retarded. The freedom you speak of is referred to as Anarchy, and society evolved past that long ago. If someone now says the earth is flat, I would call that argument retarded since we've moved past that thinking. In the same way I consider the 'no kill=no freedom' thought equally retarded.
Freedom of Speech....again you are mistaking freedoms and Anarchy. Of course you can't threaten people (that goes for any person, not just the President btw). Of course you can't lie. Of course you can't spread false accusations. In Anarchy, these actions would have the likely consequences of earning the person a beating (or worse). Since we don't want vigilante's running all over the place, we put in laws to protect against these liers.
Our Freedoms aren't in place to allow people to go out and do/say anything they want. Our Freedoms are in place to allow people the ability to pursue a decent life.
Don't base your argument on something that I neither intended nor wrote.
If you care to reply to my comments, then please do so -- but don't put words in my mouth. I didn't mention anything about airports, and saying we aren't free because we can't kill people is (pardon the harsh word) retarded. My comments are in regards to the article posted here (which I assume you read right?), and how a polled group of Americans are willing to give up free speach rights, and privacy rights.
But you'd have to admit that it must make them pretty happy to destroy American life as it's been known with a single attack. Even if this isn't exactly what they set out to accomplish, I still argue that by causing a loss of privacy and rights, the US will not be the 'winner' of this conflict.
Anyone who thinks the US is winning the "War on Terrorism" is wrong. The terrorists have already won it. It's sickening how many people are willing to hand over their rights to privacy and free speach just to avoid the CHANCE that something bad MIGHT happen. I can't even count how many times I've heard people say "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about". *shudder*
Due to 9/11, many Americans are willing to give up some of the most important things that make them Americans. Even if every single terrorist on the planet is killed/imprissoned it doesn't matter -- they've already won.
I thought this worked on all DVD players....maybe it's just on Sony's. Hit the chapter advance button to skip over the FBI warnings and other annoying tracks -- works every time.
Again, WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN to try to get this stopped. It may seem useless, but if everyone here writes in and tells their 10 best friends to write in, etc, etc....it could actually make a difference.
Slashdot Mirror
..to change to firefox at work, but our vendors supply web applications written to run on IE only -- it was a sad day when I found this out :(
Milk, cookies and hotcakes? Damn, I'm hungry now, time to find lunch!
I was wondering why I was having a hard time browsing AICN -- Damn you slashdot effect....damn yooooouuuuuuuu! *shakes fists at the sky*
Ummmm, coal isn't radioactive.
Unfortunately you wouldn't be putting back what was taken out in the first place. The uranium is enriched, plutonium exists in the waste, etc, etc. The uranium is extracted from rock and at that time isn't concentrated. Grinding the waste and releasing it in the atmosphere would just spread concentrated radioactive material across the globe and pretty much destroy us all ;)
See this link for a good intro to the nuclear cycle: http://www.uic.com.au/nfc.htm
Anyways, I'd written up this paragraph about what obvious actually means and how your 'confident' beliefs don't even approach logical, but then erased it. I can't believe I've allowed myself to be baited so much by a coward -- I'm done.
Since you asked, I still say you're the brain dead one. Theft is taking something that doesn't belong to you. He took nothing. The store policy was to give him the money back -- if you have a problem with that then blame the store that sets the policy, not the person who follows that policy.
Bleh, read my reply above to the other karma whoring coward if you care. It's nice to see that you're so sure of your opinion you're willing to put your name to it and stand behind it -- oops, wait a sec....
Normally I wouldn't bother replying to a coward, but I just don't get it and can't stand brain dead idiots. My friend (and that's singular btw, since the other friend mentioned was working at Costco when the pie was returned, NOT the one returning the pie) returned the AC unit and they gave him cash for it. He didn't say it was defective, he didn't lie about anything, he just said he didn't want it anymore and they gave him his money back.
Now where exactly is the lying or thieving in that you karma whoring coward?
Second story is a friend who worked there and told me about a person who returned a pie they bought. There was one small slice left (Costco pies are HUGE), and he told them he didn't like the pie. Full cash refund
I was talking area actually (which is why I said 'area' and not 'population'). And it does make sense in this context since I was trying to figure out how anyone could make a blanket statement saying that Canada is so safe that people don't lock their doors. I'm not saying it's a correct way to look at things, but just that it's possibly how they justified it for the film. Please read what I actually write, and not what you think I write.
Depends on where you live. In TO, of course everyone locks everything. But in rural areas people hardly lock anything. I haven't seen the film either, but my guess would be that his conclusion is drawn from the fact that Canada is made up of considerably more rural area than urban.
No worries. Sorry about my sand box comment...I knee jerked, my bad.
Yikes, where did I say I was making any choices for anybody else? My original reply was to refute an illogical argument that aircraft, cars, knives, etc, should be looked at the same as guns.
I never said anything about taking away anyones guns, or whether or not people should be able to own and/or carry guns. If it appeared that way, then I'm sorry for your mistake. Building up an argument yourself, then attributing it to me and shooting it down is not a very good way to debate. It's called a paper tiger. Please don't do it. And drop the condescension too. If you can't debate like a big boy then go back to the sand box.
Maybe you'd be WISHING you had a gun (actually I'm sure you already do), but I certainly wouldn't. You assume that anyone who is againt guns has never been threatened and/or hurt by someone....that's quite wrong. I've come through those situations and I'll still never consider owning a gun.
The difference between guns and all those things is that the other things were designed for various purposes to help people, and can be missused as weapons. Guns have only one purpose -- to kill.
You're correct, I didn't mention the article in my original post. However, since this whole discussion is supposed to be about the artice, I think it's reasonable to assume that's what I was referring to without explicitly stating it. My line about 'if you have nothing to hide...' was in reference to the monitoring of religious groups. You can only assume my comments are based on the article....if you apply my arguments to things outside the article, then you are doing my argument an injustice.
,if I may be so bold to assume, people like me feel that freedom and privacy are prime requisites of a decent life.
The killing....you're nit-picking the argument. You originally said that because we can't kill people, we don't have freedom. That's what I feel is (I'll drop the 'retarded') a poor argument. My reply is in the context which you defined -- don't apply my argument outside that context because you can't defend your original stance.
You mentioned lying in court, or lying about (slandering) someone. That's what I meant by you can't lie. Again, don't take my argument and apply them out of context.
I believe this is the same reason given by those who want to restrict free speech and privacy...
That's actually an interesting point. The main difference to the sides is in what you consider a hinderance to the pursuit of a decent life. People in support of restricting free speech and privacy would likely argue safety as a prime requisite of a decent life, while I and
As I mentioned earlier, my comments were in regard to the original article posted -- please read it. That article did not mention anything about airport searches, therefore, how can it be assumed I was referring to them in any way? I didn't take into account any rights that weren't mentioned in the article -- if I had I would have said so.
In civilized society, saying 'that we cannot kill someone means we aren't free' is indeed retarded. The freedom you speak of is referred to as Anarchy, and society evolved past that long ago. If someone now says the earth is flat, I would call that argument retarded since we've moved past that thinking. In the same way I consider the 'no kill=no freedom' thought equally retarded.
Freedom of Speech....again you are mistaking freedoms and Anarchy. Of course you can't threaten people (that goes for any person, not just the President btw). Of course you can't lie. Of course you can't spread false accusations. In Anarchy, these actions would have the likely consequences of earning the person a beating (or worse). Since we don't want vigilante's running all over the place, we put in laws to protect against these liers.
Our Freedoms aren't in place to allow people to go out and do/say anything they want. Our Freedoms are in place to allow people the ability to pursue a decent life.
Paper Tiger and/or Red Herring argument.
Don't base your argument on something that I neither intended nor wrote.
If you care to reply to my comments, then please do so -- but don't put words in my mouth. I didn't mention anything about airports, and saying we aren't free because we can't kill people is (pardon the harsh word) retarded. My comments are in regards to the article posted here (which I assume you read right?), and how a polled group of Americans are willing to give up free speach rights, and privacy rights.
Possibly.
But you'd have to admit that it must make them pretty happy to destroy American life as it's been known with a single attack. Even if this isn't exactly what they set out to accomplish, I still argue that by causing a loss of privacy and rights, the US will not be the 'winner' of this conflict.
Anyone who thinks the US is winning the "War on Terrorism" is wrong. The terrorists have already won it. It's sickening how many people are willing to hand over their rights to privacy and free speach just to avoid the CHANCE that something bad MIGHT happen. I can't even count how many times I've heard people say "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about". *shudder* Due to 9/11, many Americans are willing to give up some of the most important things that make them Americans. Even if every single terrorist on the planet is killed/imprissoned it doesn't matter -- they've already won.
I thought this worked on all DVD players....maybe it's just on Sony's. Hit the chapter advance button to skip over the FBI warnings and other annoying tracks -- works every time.
Again, WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN to try to get this stopped. It may seem useless, but if everyone here writes in and tells their 10 best friends to write in, etc, etc....it could actually make a difference.