I think that vast majority of Christians aren't so loud mouthed. It's rare that I run into any of the wacko rightists. In fact, the 2002 estimate from the World Fact Book indicates that 79% of us are Judeo/Christian/Muslim in the United States.
For what it's worth, I never discuss religion publicly, I vote Republican when it matters or Libertarian when it doesn't, think it's illogical to say abortion isn't murder but murding a pregnant mother is double homocide, I believe in evolution, think awareness of intelligent design should be taught (like, awareness of other cultures is taught), and think I pay too many taxes.
Okay, the damned article is at a pro-union worksite, and their interpretation of the NLRB ruling is decidedly inline with their own agenda; it's not necessarily a fair interpretation of the NLRB ruling. Twisting facts to scare the public at large -- including./ers -- is the same technique that union organizers have been using since unions have become irrelevant. Fear and intimidation is the only tool that they have to support their stupid monopoly cash cow. It so happens that I *am* a union member not by choice but by having the choice forcibly taken away from me by the same damn assholes that publicize these scare tactics. We're trying to *decertify* our stupid loser union -- considering the NLRB *won't* let us circulate petitions at work, where does everyone expect us to present information and circulate petitions? Oh, by the way, the same damn, lazy assholes who brought in the union did all of their campaigning on company property. Where does the power lie?
Yeah, okay -1 for flamebait, but that's evened out by my making +1 for a damn good reminder to read what you will with a critical eye -- even if it's only reading this response!
Re:perhaps not as sure as you seem to think
on
Xbox 360 for $300
·
· Score: 1
Heh. My wife can't say no to the DOG when the dog starts complaining about wanting to go for a walk. Imagine what'll happen when we have kids.
So I've never asked myself this, and I'm tempted to make this a separate ask-slashdot question, but why the heck is broadband so important? Most of all, why is it a federal government interest?
If I didn't have broadband, I'd still have a POTS line or ISDN, plus dialup, I guess. I couldn't watch Battlestar Galactica without a lot more patience, free music would be a lot more annoying, and iTunes music store could be less popular.
So, I can afford cable internet and won't give it up until I can no longer afford it. But would my life suck without it? Would I be out of touch with my government? Blocked from/.? At some type of disadvantage in this world?
Is there really some compelling interest in that EVERYONE have broadband?
It's about time -- I've always wanted a keyboard like this. What I didn't expect, though, was color; that's a nifty little bonus. Additionally, the fact that I see Macintosh keys is fairly encouraging. Hopefully that means that there will be out of the box support for the Mac OS. Yeah, I know they said universal compatibility, but they also said "on a basic level."
One thing China has - similar to what Russia had - was a surplus of dispensible bodies and a lack of anyone who can and will complain about it. That's something that the USA didn't have. Would China stop their space program for a year if one of their spacecraft burnt up upon rentry? Would the USSR have done so?
You can joke all you want about the "evil" USA, but there are governments in this world today that are dispicable beyond belief.
Not only will you suddenly have a very hard time pinpointing your hometown, let alone your country.
I dunno -- one of the things I always like about being from Port Huron, Michigan, USA was that I'd always have the easiest time in the world find myself on a map or from outer space.
>>Just out of curiousity, why do you think that these tiny alternative fuel cars are little "death traps"? While they may not have the bulk of an SUV, they make up for it in improved handling and drastically reduced risk of roll-over.
Sorry for the confusion -- I meant a "little death traps" compared to the majority of American automobiles, not just SUV's. If you look at all of the alternative fuel vehicles, they're all little commuter things that would come out far worse than a "normal sized" Taurus in a collision with one.
Only relatively weathly Americans that want to be "green" buy them currently. They cost more than the gas they save. People aren't buying them because of the price of gas, but only to save gas regardless of the price. It's still a great first step. If you look at small cars that are not alternative-energy powered, you find that IN GENERAL the poorer people buy smaller vehicles. IN GENERAL people that can afford larger vehicles purchase larger vehicles. This is the vast majority of the car purchasers in the United States and Canada. Alternative-energy vehicles will be a runaway hit once we can put them into vehicles that are not reminiscent of econo-boxes.
Don't come back and talk about your rich, Focus-owning uncle. Don't tell me that a hybrid Accord has nice woodgrain in it. I'm talking in generalities for TODAY. Yes, I want to progress to tomorrow, but we have to recognize that to get there we have to pass through today, and today sucks for alternative energy vehicles for Americans and Canadians.
>>Hell no. Why would people with a vested financial interest in the oil business actively participate in the funding of alternative energy sources? Financially it doesn't make sense. And if it doesn't make sense financially, it probably won't happen.
Hell, I'm just a stupid, little engineer with no knowledge of the oil business. I do know, though, that oil is running out. I hope to God that the oil executives know the same thing!
Based on that knowledge they're becoming "energy companies" rather than "oil companies," and they are some of the biggest investors in researching alternative energies. They're not going to be happy and just wither away and die when the oil disappears.
In the meantime, though, they deserve their profits. If you look at the grander scheme of things, the exploitation and the high cost of oil is NOT due to "oil companies" in the sense that we think of them; it's due to (1) cartels that would be otherwise illegal in the US, and (2) nationalized industries that are inefficient and have no way to improve themselves because they have no true exposure to the free market.
That means that the "oil companies" aren't the owners of the oil. They purchase, move, and refine the oil. The US is one of the *very few* places that does have *true* oil companies, and yes, they're getting higher prices due to higher prices world wide. In the grand scheme of things, though, American oil costs more to produce, and there's very little of it flowing.
I'll let someone else figure out the exact percentages of "free market" oil versus OPEC/nationalized oil that are consumed world wide.
In the meantime, OPEC and nationalization are the true causes for the skyrocketing price; let's blame them. The rich, free-market oil men just have the current, lucky opportunity to go along for the ride. Let's embrace the system that protects the individual right to make a profit.
>>Until the legislation and tax rules are changed to make it un-economic to run a massive SUV.
Why should the government interfere? It's the free market that's finding a replacement for gasoline. Frankly, all of these little alternative fuel vehicles are tiny little death traps. What will REALLY make the market take off is the ability to drive something that's reasonably-sized using alternative fuels. So is your crusade against full-sized vehicles, or against gas guzzling? Will you step up in support of hydrogen powered Excursions?
>>and no additional taxes on large vehicles then what will be the incentive for the MAJORITY of Americans to do this?
Using Michigan as a guide the federal and state taxes are $0.446 per gallon, my Continental averages 22 mpg, and my Expedition averages 16. I use them roughly half and half, let's say 10,000 miles each per year. So I'll have paid $76 more in taxes on the bigger car. So there's your additional taxes.
>>and its ridiculously expensive to buy ridiculous cars like the Ford Excursion.
Yeah, who needs an Excusion, especially when an Expedition is already perfectly adequate!
Reader's Digest tried this bull-plop with me, and I've got to say to my embarrassment that it worked. It didn't get to the point of collection letters, though.
I subscribed to Readers Digest "Selecciones" on-line. It offers a ONE YEAR subscription. If you go there now (and can read Spanish) it still offers a ONE YEAR subscription. Nothing more. No disclaimers. Nothing about an auto-renewal. Hell, I just sent a subscription to Bill Clinton with NOTHING indicating auto-renew.
So... I let the subscription lapse. I don't want it any more. The constant reminder notices that always come, I just threw them out unopened -- we all know what they are, right? Well, I still open the non-bulk-rate, plain white envelopes that don't have fake quasi-government-looking crap printed on them, and it was a notice from Readers Digest that the subscription had been automatically renewed and that I ought to stop ingnoring their bills. Well, I paid online and send a nasty email about the auto-renew, and to their credit they did email back stating that the auto-renew had been removed from the account.
Nuke the middle east. I'll happily pay $5/gallon for gasoline like the rest of the world if it means that the middle east no longer exists. It's cheap, too -- we've already paid for the missiles and warheads, and we have enough that we wouldn't need to replace them. We wouldn't have to pay for occupying forces, either. We could let other countries go in and take care of the survivors (or, "take care of" the survivors).
Innocent lives? Well, yeah, it's sad and it happens. Feel better in knowing that the world poverty level dropped significantly with their destruction.
How would I feel if we were nuked out of existence? Wouldn't feel anything, having been nuked out of existence. But... we're stronger and non-evil (other than the nuking the middle east out of existence part), and might makes right. No, that's not irony.
Revenge by the survivors? Not being any fresh source of COWARDLY MOTHERFUCKERS they'd just slowly blow themselves out of existence.
Okay, I'm blowing off steam so I realize there are some inherent flaws with the above plan. So nuke me.
I seem to recall an ABB Robotics person telling me that their S4PC products (PC controller for industrial robots) were all memory based drives. This'd've been in 1997 or so, Win95 (yeah, yeah), and "only" 256MB drive would have been adequate for the purpose (hey, my 100MB ZIP was a dream come true at the time).
Oh, I was hoping this would mean that the best-in-class road maps would finally go south of the US border. I've ALREADY been able to see the Mexico satellite photos -- granted I had to drag along the highway to get where I wanted: Hermosillo and San Carlos, but they've already been there.
Yeah, but the Mexican airline prices are competetive. I have my option of many of the US-based carriers, too. So the fact is, you PAY for those services on US carriers, too, you just don't GET them. And for the US carriers, I'm not talking the 80's and early 90's; I'm only going to pre-9/11. It was a big excuse to cut all of the service without cutting all of the fares.
Hey, I'm cheap, too. I won't pay for first class when I can get good treatment in tourist class. Hell, even BEFORE 9/11 I wouldn't touch Southwest with a 10-foot pole -- the Greyhound Bus of the skies. Unfortunately everyone else is become Greyhound too. And yeah, I understand the market considerations. Cheapies -- like me -- take the lower-priced tickets. Some people take the absolutely lowest prices they can find.
So, it's Aeromexico or Aerocalifornia or Aviacsa whenever I can get away with it.
I know the parent is cliche now, but dang it, I've had many opportunities to fly some of the Mexican airlinelines lately, and it reminds me of the way things used to be. Hot meals. Silverware. The *whole* can of soda. Free booze (yeah, even domestic flights). Pillows. Blankets. Little doily-things on the headrest so the previous passenger's grease wouldn't infect your head. In flight magazine (yeah, in English). Enough legroom for my 6'2" body. And all of this in tourist class. And you know, on my last flight, I bought the tickets a couple of days in advance, and it was the same price as when I'd checked them a month in advance.
And just to show that I'm still a little sexist, latina stewardesses of the highest calibre.
>>Problem: all of the new fat binaries will take up twice as much space on my already crowded hard drive.
Well, just as I use a freeware tool to remove all of the extra foreign languages (1.5GB savings!), someone will find or make a tool to remove all of the foreign-processor code. Or, you can do it yourself. Remember that a Mac app or library is just a directory with the "real" executables inside it. Trash the appropriate binaries, and voila! Come to think of it, the savings won't be *half* because all of the common stuff, like the NIBs, graphics, config files, etc, etc, etc (everything that used to be a resource in the old days).
Hell, we did the same for crowded hard drives in the 680x0-to-PPC days -- used ResEdit to manually remove the 680x0 code resources and the PPC code lived happily in the data fork. There were even free little utilities to hunt down all of the 680x0 code from FAT apps and eliminate it.
Why is it always that Intel == x86? All chips these days are essentially RISC-based with a "front end" thrown onto them. Why can't Intel throw a PPC front end onto one of their kick-ass chips and make it essentially PPC compatible? Okay, I'm downplaying the true difficulty in this, but it's easier than migrating an entire platform to a new technology (and yes, I lived through the PPC migration, thankyouverymuch).
Amen to that. We've got $0.10 in Michigan, and those slow-ass machines don't make it worth the effort. I've given my cans on multiple occassions to other people in line that looked like they needed it more than I do -- you know, people that look like their deposits are their savings.
It would take a significant deposit on computer merchandise to make me go out of my way to recycle it. Look at how many people never do their mail-in rebates. If I have to drive 1/2 hour to get $10, then it's not worth it. No, not morally, either -- that's what the landfill is for.
Given that, since we seem to have so many government imposed recycling laws on the books, it really ought to be the government that figures out how to get this money without pissing off the taxpayer. In my case, taxing the manufacture is pissing me off, because it's not their problem. Taxing me is pissing me off, because if the government's going to fund something, it ought to figure out how to pay for it without pissing me off. See the problem here?
I said in another comment that I saw it in Spanish. As it happens, here in Mexico. Only a 2.5 hour drive from the Arizona town of Nogales.
I'd REALLY like to compare notes with someone who saw it in English and Spanish. I have no complaints with the Spanish version, and now I'm hesitant to see it in English. I'll just count my blessings that the English version was sold out for the show -- although, I'd have no idea why it sold out ahead of the Spanish version!
I'm in a land where Spanish is spoken, and I don't do too bad at it myself. So, of course I went to see it opening night! Despite being in Spanish (English version sold out for some reason!), I went to see it.
It wasn't bad. I didn't see too much of the crappy dialogue and acting that everyone's griping about.
So, anyone ELSE see this in Spanish here? Am I just not good enough at understanding Spanish yet to be totally let down by this movie? Further more, I'm HAPPY with episode III -- will I be totally let down if I see it in English???
Slashdot Mirror
I think that vast majority of Christians aren't so loud mouthed. It's rare that I run into any of the wacko rightists. In fact, the 2002 estimate from the World Fact Book indicates that 79% of us are Judeo/Christian/Muslim in the United States.
For what it's worth, I never discuss religion publicly, I vote Republican when it matters or Libertarian when it doesn't, think it's illogical to say abortion isn't murder but murding a pregnant mother is double homocide, I believe in evolution, think awareness of intelligent design should be taught (like, awareness of other cultures is taught), and think I pay too many taxes.
Okay, the damned article is at a pro-union worksite, and their interpretation of the NLRB ruling is decidedly inline with their own agenda; it's not necessarily a fair interpretation of the NLRB ruling. Twisting facts to scare the public at large -- including ./ers -- is the same technique that union organizers have been using since unions have become irrelevant. Fear and intimidation is the only tool that they have to support their stupid monopoly cash cow. It so happens that I *am* a union member not by choice but by having the choice forcibly taken away from me by the same damn assholes that publicize these scare tactics. We're trying to *decertify* our stupid loser union -- considering the NLRB *won't* let us circulate petitions at work, where does everyone expect us to present information and circulate petitions? Oh, by the way, the same damn, lazy assholes who brought in the union did all of their campaigning on company property. Where does the power lie?
Yeah, okay -1 for flamebait, but that's evened out by my making +1 for a damn good reminder to read what you will with a critical eye -- even if it's only reading this response!
Heh. My wife can't say no to the DOG when the dog starts complaining about wanting to go for a walk. Imagine what'll happen when we have kids.
So I've never asked myself this, and I'm tempted to make this a separate ask-slashdot question, but why the heck is broadband so important? Most of all, why is it a federal government interest?
/.? At some type of disadvantage in this world?
If I didn't have broadband, I'd still have a POTS line or ISDN, plus dialup, I guess. I couldn't watch Battlestar Galactica without a lot more patience, free music would be a lot more annoying, and iTunes music store could be less popular.
So, I can afford cable internet and won't give it up until I can no longer afford it. But would my life suck without it? Would I be out of touch with my government? Blocked from
Is there really some compelling interest in that EVERYONE have broadband?
It's about time -- I've always wanted a keyboard like this. What I didn't expect, though, was color; that's a nifty little bonus. Additionally, the fact that I see Macintosh keys is fairly encouraging. Hopefully that means that there will be out of the box support for the Mac OS. Yeah, I know they said universal compatibility, but they also said "on a basic level."
Worse! What movie was it I saw (it was MST2K show) that recycles BSG footage for the movie? And the movie was NOT related at all to BSG!
One thing China has - similar to what Russia had - was a surplus of dispensible bodies and a lack of anyone who can and will complain about it. That's something that the USA didn't have. Would China stop their space program for a year if one of their spacecraft burnt up upon rentry? Would the USSR have done so?
You can joke all you want about the "evil" USA, but there are governments in this world today that are dispicable beyond belief.
Not only will you suddenly have a very hard time pinpointing your hometown, let alone your country.
I dunno -- one of the things I always like about being from Port Huron, Michigan, USA was that I'd always have the easiest time in the world find myself on a map or from outer space.
Hehe... wish I had some mod points today.
>>Just out of curiousity, why do you think that these tiny alternative fuel cars are little "death traps"? While they may not have the bulk of an SUV, they make up for it in improved handling and drastically reduced risk of roll-over.
Sorry for the confusion -- I meant a "little death traps" compared to the majority of American automobiles, not just SUV's. If you look at all of the alternative fuel vehicles, they're all little commuter things that would come out far worse than a "normal sized" Taurus in a collision with one.
Only relatively weathly Americans that want to be "green" buy them currently. They cost more than the gas they save. People aren't buying them because of the price of gas, but only to save gas regardless of the price. It's still a great first step. If you look at small cars that are not alternative-energy powered, you find that IN GENERAL the poorer people buy smaller vehicles. IN GENERAL people that can afford larger vehicles purchase larger vehicles. This is the vast majority of the car purchasers in the United States and Canada. Alternative-energy vehicles will be a runaway hit once we can put them into vehicles that are not reminiscent of econo-boxes.
Don't come back and talk about your rich, Focus-owning uncle. Don't tell me that a hybrid Accord has nice woodgrain in it. I'm talking in generalities for TODAY. Yes, I want to progress to tomorrow, but we have to recognize that to get there we have to pass through today, and today sucks for alternative energy vehicles for Americans and Canadians.
>>Hell no. Why would people with a vested financial interest in the oil business actively participate in the funding of alternative energy sources? Financially it doesn't make sense. And if it doesn't make sense financially, it probably won't happen.
Hell, I'm just a stupid, little engineer with no knowledge of the oil business. I do know, though, that oil is running out. I hope to God that the oil executives know the same thing!
Based on that knowledge they're becoming "energy companies" rather than "oil companies," and they are some of the biggest investors in researching alternative energies. They're not going to be happy and just wither away and die when the oil disappears.
In the meantime, though, they deserve their profits. If you look at the grander scheme of things, the exploitation and the high cost of oil is NOT due to "oil companies" in the sense that we think of them; it's due to (1) cartels that would be otherwise illegal in the US, and (2) nationalized industries that are inefficient and have no way to improve themselves because they have no true exposure to the free market.
That means that the "oil companies" aren't the owners of the oil. They purchase, move, and refine the oil. The US is one of the *very few* places that does have *true* oil companies, and yes, they're getting higher prices due to higher prices world wide. In the grand scheme of things, though, American oil costs more to produce, and there's very little of it flowing.
I'll let someone else figure out the exact percentages of "free market" oil versus OPEC/nationalized oil that are consumed world wide.
In the meantime, OPEC and nationalization are the true causes for the skyrocketing price; let's blame them. The rich, free-market oil men just have the current, lucky opportunity to go along for the ride. Let's embrace the system that protects the individual right to make a profit.
>>Until the legislation and tax rules are changed to make it un-economic to run a massive SUV.
Why should the government interfere? It's the free market that's finding a replacement for gasoline. Frankly, all of these little alternative fuel vehicles are tiny little death traps. What will REALLY make the market take off is the ability to drive something that's reasonably-sized using alternative fuels. So is your crusade against full-sized vehicles, or against gas guzzling? Will you step up in support of hydrogen powered Excursions?
>>and no additional taxes on large vehicles then what will be the incentive for the MAJORITY of Americans to do this?
Using Michigan as a guide the federal and state taxes are $0.446 per gallon, my Continental averages 22 mpg, and my Expedition averages 16. I use them roughly half and half, let's say 10,000 miles each per year. So I'll have paid $76 more in taxes on the bigger car. So there's your additional taxes.
>>and its ridiculously expensive to buy ridiculous cars like the Ford Excursion.
Yeah, who needs an Excusion, especially when an Expedition is already perfectly adequate!
Reader's Digest tried this bull-plop with me, and I've got to say to my embarrassment that it worked. It didn't get to the point of collection letters, though.
I subscribed to Readers Digest "Selecciones" on-line. It offers a ONE YEAR subscription. If you go there now (and can read Spanish) it still offers a ONE YEAR subscription. Nothing more. No disclaimers. Nothing about an auto-renewal. Hell, I just sent a subscription to Bill Clinton with NOTHING indicating auto-renew.
So... I let the subscription lapse. I don't want it any more. The constant reminder notices that always come, I just threw them out unopened -- we all know what they are, right? Well, I still open the non-bulk-rate, plain white envelopes that don't have fake quasi-government-looking crap printed on them, and it was a notice from Readers Digest that the subscription had been automatically renewed and that I ought to stop ingnoring their bills. Well, I paid online and send a nasty email about the auto-renew, and to their credit they did email back stating that the auto-renew had been removed from the account.
Nuke the middle east. I'll happily pay $5/gallon for gasoline like the rest of the world if it means that the middle east no longer exists. It's cheap, too -- we've already paid for the missiles and warheads, and we have enough that we wouldn't need to replace them. We wouldn't have to pay for occupying forces, either. We could let other countries go in and take care of the survivors (or, "take care of" the survivors).
Innocent lives? Well, yeah, it's sad and it happens. Feel better in knowing that the world poverty level dropped significantly with their destruction.
How would I feel if we were nuked out of existence? Wouldn't feel anything, having been nuked out of existence. But... we're stronger and non-evil (other than the nuking the middle east out of existence part), and might makes right. No, that's not irony.
Revenge by the survivors? Not being any fresh source of COWARDLY MOTHERFUCKERS they'd just slowly blow themselves out of existence.
Okay, I'm blowing off steam so I realize there are some inherent flaws with the above plan. So nuke me.
I seem to recall an ABB Robotics person telling me that their S4PC products (PC controller for industrial robots) were all memory based drives. This'd've been in 1997 or so, Win95 (yeah, yeah), and "only" 256MB drive would have been adequate for the purpose (hey, my 100MB ZIP was a dream come true at the time).
Oh, I was hoping this would mean that the best-in-class road maps would finally go south of the US border. I've ALREADY been able to see the Mexico satellite photos -- granted I had to drag along the highway to get where I wanted: Hermosillo and San Carlos, but they've already been there.
Still, can't wait to see what develops!
Yeah, but the Mexican airline prices are competetive. I have my option of many of the US-based carriers, too. So the fact is, you PAY for those services on US carriers, too, you just don't GET them. And for the US carriers, I'm not talking the 80's and early 90's; I'm only going to pre-9/11. It was a big excuse to cut all of the service without cutting all of the fares.
Hey, I'm cheap, too. I won't pay for first class when I can get good treatment in tourist class. Hell, even BEFORE 9/11 I wouldn't touch Southwest with a 10-foot pole -- the Greyhound Bus of the skies. Unfortunately everyone else is become Greyhound too. And yeah, I understand the market considerations. Cheapies -- like me -- take the lower-priced tickets. Some people take the absolutely lowest prices they can find.
So, it's Aeromexico or Aerocalifornia or Aviacsa whenever I can get away with it.
I know the parent is cliche now, but dang it, I've had many opportunities to fly some of the Mexican airlinelines lately, and it reminds me of the way things used to be. Hot meals. Silverware. The *whole* can of soda. Free booze (yeah, even domestic flights). Pillows. Blankets. Little doily-things on the headrest so the previous passenger's grease wouldn't infect your head. In flight magazine (yeah, in English). Enough legroom for my 6'2" body. And all of this in tourist class. And you know, on my last flight, I bought the tickets a couple of days in advance, and it was the same price as when I'd checked them a month in advance.
And just to show that I'm still a little sexist, latina stewardesses of the highest calibre.
>>Problem: all of the new fat binaries will take up twice as much space on my already crowded hard drive.
Well, just as I use a freeware tool to remove all of the extra foreign languages (1.5GB savings!), someone will find or make a tool to remove all of the foreign-processor code. Or, you can do it yourself. Remember that a Mac app or library is just a directory with the "real" executables inside it. Trash the appropriate binaries, and voila! Come to think of it, the savings won't be *half* because all of the common stuff, like the NIBs, graphics, config files, etc, etc, etc (everything that used to be a resource in the old days).
Hell, we did the same for crowded hard drives in the 680x0-to-PPC days -- used ResEdit to manually remove the 680x0 code resources and the PPC code lived happily in the data fork. There were even free little utilities to hunt down all of the 680x0 code from FAT apps and eliminate it.
Why is it always that Intel == x86? All chips these days are essentially RISC-based with a "front end" thrown onto them. Why can't Intel throw a PPC front end onto one of their kick-ass chips and make it essentially PPC compatible? Okay, I'm downplaying the true difficulty in this, but it's easier than migrating an entire platform to a new technology (and yes, I lived through the PPC migration, thankyouverymuch).
Amen to that. We've got $0.10 in Michigan, and those slow-ass machines don't make it worth the effort. I've given my cans on multiple occassions to other people in line that looked like they needed it more than I do -- you know, people that look like their deposits are their savings.
It would take a significant deposit on computer merchandise to make me go out of my way to recycle it. Look at how many people never do their mail-in rebates. If I have to drive 1/2 hour to get $10, then it's not worth it. No, not morally, either -- that's what the landfill is for.
Given that, since we seem to have so many government imposed recycling laws on the books, it really ought to be the government that figures out how to get this money without pissing off the taxpayer. In my case, taxing the manufacture is pissing me off, because it's not their problem. Taxing me is pissing me off, because if the government's going to fund something, it ought to figure out how to pay for it without pissing me off. See the problem here?
1 billion consumers? Isn't that more than 1 per every household on the planet?
Can't vouch for the non-sucking part, but Sanborn's always has English language books. Or of you're close to an airport, they often do, too.
I said in another comment that I saw it in Spanish. As it happens, here in Mexico. Only a 2.5 hour drive from the Arizona town of Nogales.
I'd REALLY like to compare notes with someone who saw it in English and Spanish. I have no complaints with the Spanish version, and now I'm hesitant to see it in English. I'll just count my blessings that the English version was sold out for the show -- although, I'd have no idea why it sold out ahead of the Spanish version!
I'm in a land where Spanish is spoken, and I don't do too bad at it myself. So, of course I went to see it opening night! Despite being in Spanish (English version sold out for some reason!), I went to see it.
It wasn't bad. I didn't see too much of the crappy dialogue and acting that everyone's griping about.
So, anyone ELSE see this in Spanish here? Am I just not good enough at understanding Spanish yet to be totally let down by this movie? Further more, I'm HAPPY with episode III -- will I be totally let down if I see it in English???