I never said that the open-ness of the internet was what made censorship ok; shall I accuse you of arguing a straw man, or is the rhetorical gamesmanship to be one way in this discussion?
Then please explain your point, because I took it as since now that the barrier to entry for speech is lower, we should be happy and leave it at that. I agree that we've made progress, but we still need to go further. If you agree, then I don't see what your point was.
I disagree with the use of the term "censor" to describe a private company controlling the use of its communication network; but whether you want to label it censorship or not, it is ok because it is their tool. It would be ok for them to say you can't use it at all, and if they say you can use it then it is ok for them to set the terms under which you can use it. Or do you imagine just because I build something useful that means I'm obligated to let you use it?
Companies don't have rights, only people do, and its the scale of the company which changes the game. Google reaches a lot more people than you or I could individually. You seem to be confusing your rights as an individual with the privledges of a fictious entity.
Your view of the definition of censorship doesn't seem to be the accepted one, BTW.
You've argued that cost may be a limiting factor, but implied that nothing else should. So you're ok with only some letters to the editor being printed; but if the limiting factor there were merely cost/space, then they'd have to print the first however-many-submissions-would-fit that were received. They don't. Are you ok with the fact tht they're chosen based on the editor's views? Are you ok with the existance of conservative publications that specifically exclude liberal viewpoitns, or liberal publications that specifically exclude conservative viewpoints, even though they could print a balanced perspective in the same space for the same cost?
Good papers actually do print the opposing view in their letter to the editors. Thats actually the norm, because the point is to kick up a discusion (and thus improve readership). Also, if another paper is covering the opposing view, I'm less concerned. BTW, this isn't a revolutionary idea, we used to have something called the Fairness doctrine.
Google has as much right to define the use of their platform as a magazine publisher has to define the use of theirs. If you want to express an idea they don't want to propagate, it's your responsibility to find someone who will help you get that idea out; or did you forget that rights come with responsibilities?
Google has no rights period. Court cases saying otherwise need to be reversed, because saying they have legal rights is a large contributor to the mess we're in today. People say rights come with responsiblities, yet they only seem to apply those to individuals, not companies. I find that quite interesting. And the news outlets have responsbilities as well; they don't get to publish whatever they want simply because they own the presses.
Show me where the rights in the Bill of Rights are described as inalienable. Better yet, look up inalienable and once you know what it means show me any period in American history where the right to bear arms was treated as inalienable.
So me where there's a comprehensive list of all unalienable rights. You seem to think that a piece of paper grants unalienable rights. By definition, they are rights we have simply by virtue of being a human being. Your argument about the right to be arms as being not being treated as unalienable is foolish; its only in recent American history that the rights of blacks were said to be as equal as rights of whites. The fact is that the implementation has never equaled the ideal, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be correcting things and moving toward the ideal.
If you come into a business I own, our relationship is commercial. Do you pretend to have the right to bring a weapon into my place of
No, I understand what natural rights are.. and the right to be armed is one of them. Notice it says "keep and bear arms," not limited to guns.
Slavery was an infringement on inalible rights, and I wish it hadn't been included, but I think at the time they believed something was better than nothing, and that they could address it later.
Notice we still have blue laws, and gay marriage is outlawed. The fact that there are laws which conflict with natural rights doesn't make natural rights invalid.
That people are doing it doesn't mean its a good idea. Also, I use exactly zero of the applications, and 99% of the i never even heard of.
As for writing applications, I've always found myself to be way more productive with compilied code instead of scripting, which always seems fragile to begin with.
The problem JS has is that it sucks. When I can do: myDom.madeUpProperty = 'bleh'; and things chug along just fine, that's a problem.
I think you need to retake basic CS if you don't know the difference between script and compiled languages, and how either can be used to build an application.
Perspective, chief. Before the Internet nobody but those with lots of money could ever transmit their ideas broadly. Before, say, the 1900's, nobody could, period. Now, sometimes you can, but if you rely on a free service to do it then they might set some restrictions; that doesn't sound like erosion of rights to me so much as it sounds like progress.
The fact that the internet opens the door for more people to express ideas doesn't mean its ok to have some censorship.
Have you committed every resource at your disposal to helping other be heard, even when you disagree with them? Does that mean you're "abridging" their rights? Sure, you have less money than Google so you'd be doing less good than Google can do, but we all do what we can, no? No. Of course not. It's one individual's job not to infringe another's rights, but it's not one individual's job to bolster another's rights.
You're arguing a strawman. I'm not setting up a service for anyone to express ideas on; if I were, I would not place restrictions on the content short of legal requirements. As a platform, it should be all, or nothing. I understand cost may be a factor, and if that's a limiter, I'm ok with that. Take a newspaper editoral section; anyone can right, but due to space only a few may be published. I see nothing wrong with that, assuming the paper tries to reflect a variety of views.
As for the right to bear arms - where is that listed as inalienable? The only rights I'm aware of having been given that distinction are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I've never seen anything that suggests you should be able to carry a weapon anywhere you want at any time you want.
In the second amendment. Oh, and please work on your reading comprehension. Even in the declaration its clear that they are not spelling out an exaustive list of rights, nor does the bill of rights do so. We also more clearly have a right to defend ourselves against others; to do that, one may choose to employ a weapon of some kind. Do your research, this is pretty clear, and one of the reasons the DC handgun ban was shot down by the SC.
What makes the space you rent to sleep in any different from any other property you don't own? Do you believe the 2nd ammendment intends that you can bring a weapon into my home whether I want you to or not? (That's actually the kind of behavior that can lose you those inalienable rights.)
This is part of the debate I'm putting forth as my own idea; as a private individual entering another private individuals home, of course you are subject to the homeowners wishes. As soon as the agreement becomes commercial, a landlords abiility to interfere with the rights of another citizen end.
We already say its illegal for a landlord to not rent based on religious beliefs, that landlords cannot lawfully forbid you from having black friends come over, etc, so what I'm suggesting is not without precident.
I agree; JS should be taken out of the browser... but not how the article suggests. It should NOT be brought to the desktop, and it should be obsoleted in the browser.
Its a steaming pile who's replacement is long overdue.
Scripts are fine for small mundane tasks, they're NOT good for building applications.
Right, I appreciate that side of the arguement, however in an era of huge corporations, I think it loses much of the battle. What good is free speech if, even though the government can't abridge it, someone (or in google's case, something) with more money or power can?
Its the same with landlords; they all can force you to surrender your right to bear arms, so now you have to be a homeowner to exercise what is supposed to be an inalienable right.
There are plenty of studies, easily found on google. He might believe the experts agree with him, but they don't. This is really no different than IDers saying evolution is bunk, and that science doesn't back up that theory.. even when the overwhelming majority of biologists have come to the same conclusion.
Do your own research, I'm not going to do it for you.
This is a concern, but remember we're talking about the free service here. Google's free services are great while everything works, but if you need a human being's attention, you're likely to be waiting a long time. I've had bad experiences with YouTube publishing glitches.
Googles youtube isn't free though. For you it is, but advertising is what's paying for it. Google should be responding to a paying customer (I mean, you see the ads, right? So google got paid through your actions.), but they ignore you, even though its not really free. Which is why cloud won't take off.
Why is google worrying about whether your content is even appropriate or not? Are they going to stop a neo-nazi publishing their beliefs? They're awful, but free speech is more important.
And if you believe that's the lengths an investigation will go, you're sadly mistaken. No one will bother with the CCTV footage, if its still even there by the time you find out.
FYI, it was carbon steel, not stainless - such a nice is ordinarily $80-$90 at a kitchen store - the Walmart model had a somewhat different grip style.
Don't have time to look, but at any rate the price may have changed.
Why does it matter who else is in a store where you shop? Do you refuse to use roads that are also used by people with poor dental care and literacy? Restaurants? Internets?
Well I'd rather not be around people that are loud, smell bad, are inconsiderate (not that this particular issue isn't in non-walmart stores as well, but at walmart its a given) and too stupid to be able to effectively use the self-checkout lanes. Nor do I want to be around their little brats.
As for roads, not much I can do about that, but I'd rather dumb hick in his pickup not be on the same road, because they are more likely to try to engage in childish behavior such as racing, tail-gating, randomly hitting brakes, etc. Again, this isn't something the drooling walmart masses have a lock on, but seems more likely. A guy in a nicer car is more likely to drive sanely. What other people do on the internet doesn't affect me, so I don't give a shit. As for restraunts, it depends on the atmosphere. If there is a high concentration of drooling retards, I stay away. Again, cost seems to be a factor here; I'm more likely to be around loud, smelly people @ McDs than Olive Garden.
I got the knife about 3 years ago - it shows no sign of failing. I don't think anybody really argues that Walmart's pricing isn't the lowest on commodity goods. I've done the comparison shopping on Ziplock bags, Cottonelle, Kleenex, SpeedStick, etc., and the price savings are significant. Tropicana OJ can be had for half of the local grocery store.
I never argued about pricing either, its the quality that ends up suffering. A lawnmower is a commidity item as well, and one I got there didn't last a summer. An outdoor swing loveseat also didn't last the summer; the welding was shoddy (neither my wife nor I are obese).
I wouldn't buy food at walmart (even if they sold it at the only one in my state), but i know people that have in other states. The cheap ground beef is close to spoiling, already turning brown. Walmart also sold tainted pet food... taking it off the shelves only to restock it after closing for sale the next day. These are not isolated incidents, you can find reports of selling spoiled and rotten food quite frequently. The levis they sell are irregulars, that's known to be true. My wife bought a shirt there she liked, wore it once, and it literally fell apart in the wash. There are numerous stories of company cutting corners to meet walmarts price demands, because that's the only option they have to meet walmarts demands and still make some kind of profit.
What IQ floor is appropriate for a cashier? Perhaps your economic region is at full employment?
One in which the cashier can speak clear English and can scan three small items in under a minute. In no circumstance should the cashier be confused scanning three items, and the total checkout time is 15 minutes. Yes, I've experienced that directly. Given my experience at the self checkout lanes, I'd say IQ should be higher than that of the average walmart shopper, who as I mentioned ALSO cannot figure how to scan three simple items in under 15 minutes, nor do they seem to be able to READ THE INSTRUCTIONS ON SCREEN.
I don't get your quip about full employment; I'm talking about retards being replaced by average people (but not your average walmart shopper). A zero sum equation.
Hrm, being thrifty and considerate would just be 'normal' in most cases
There's nothing wrong with being thrifty. But spending less and getting less isn't really appealing to me. I'd rather pay a little more for a mower which is going on four years now. I've saved more by paying upfront for something that lasts much longer. I fail to see why I should be considerate to those who are not considerate themselves either.
I own my home and the ground its on so I can do what I damn well please.
Ha, ya right. Try painting your house a different color on the outside without a permit and see where that gets you. Or widening your driveway. Or install fencing. Or lighting. Or even remodel your kitchen.
Pet regulations aren't just for rabies, they are humanitarian so we don't have streets teeming with unvaccinated starving wild dogs and feral cats like Calcutta.
Well, be definition, someone owning a pet isn't letting it roam arojnd the streets unvaccinated. Oh, and we still have feral cats and dogs running around, even with your regulations. Tell me, what purpose is being served by having to register a dog to the tune of $70 / year? To make sure you'll be able to take care of it? To make sure you don't have too many living in a small space? Personally if that's the reason, I think we should be focusing on licensing having children before we worry about pets.
Car insurance is so you don't get hit by a deadbeat who won't pay to fix your car, and is a common protection.
Actually its so your medical bills get paid, you're still on the hook for repairing your own car if the other guy and you don't have collision coverage. And in most states, the only mandated coverage is liability (to cover medical expenses). Most of the rest of traffic law is to serve as a form of revenue (red light cameras, for example).
Emissions tests are really only in California so you give yourself away as being against liberalism simply to be contrary since you have the choice to live where you will, but then you wouldn't have anything to bitch about, no?
PA and NY have emissions tests as well. Also, I believe FL does, but I'm not sure.
You have to file one return for State (that includes your whole family), one for Federal, and possibly a local/COUNTY (not country you stupid non-english speaking copypasta) return.
Its not the number of returns, its the number of forms. God help you if you own a business.
Airline security is theater to make sure people don't stop (as I have) using the air transit system since there is little to no REAL security involved in the system.
In other words, its there to try to placate the other mindless retards who have an irrational fear that they'll be aboard a plane that's highjacked. Anyone seriously in fear of that is retarded, and you have a better chance of being hit by lightning.
Helmet/seatbelt laws are mainly there to stem the tide of braindead (literally) idiots who we pay to keep housed and fed since they turned themselves into drooling idiots and the government is left with their care when their broke white-trash families can't afford to pay after paying for all the chrome and noise.
Easy fix; stop paying, and let the drooling idiots die. THAT would fix the issue and be a HELL of a lot cheaper than your notion we should have laws (which BTW are ther eonly to generate revenue for the local government. As demonstrated time and again, when you say the local gov's can't keep the money from the ticket after maintence fees are removed, enforcement disappears. I believe that's what happened in SC, when locales were allowed to keep only the money to keep redlight cameras going, and the rest had to go to the states education fund. What happened? They shut the cameras down, stating very clearly it wsa never about safety to begin with).
Mind you I ride, I ride safely, and I wouldn't think about getting onto a road with a bunch of cagers without a lid on.
This is especially amusing, since you're more likely to die riding than flying a plane everywhere. Who are you calling drooling idiots again?
I joined CH for DVDs. Actually worked out well for me, especially since they emailed me about the CD they wanted to send me and i had plenty of time to go online and tell them not to send it. Got quite a few good deals out of it actually, and it was easy to cancel.
The fact that there are people who aren't in the target audience is irrelevent. Shall we summarize our election process whenever a post is made about US politics? How about a school shooting, shall we say "WV, a state in the US along the eastern seaboard."
How about you relaize you're not the in the target audience, and use google, instead of saying that the target audence should read a bunch of summary information which it already knows.
Idiot, they use sub-p1 class hardware because its been around a while and they know the hardware is reliable, not because they have "real programmers."
In other words, it's bad PR. It's kind of you to admit this so readily -- it saves us time. The moment you are concerned with PR your agenda is no longer a purely scientific one. That is what left you vulnerable to "skeptics".
Yes, I remember that movie, and someone recutting it to try to make it look like a horror movie doesn't change that the movie is aimed at children. Nor does your quipe about modern disney disprove anything I said, because the cruises are part of modern disney.
I stand by my assertion that people crusing on disney ships are immature themselves.
Ya, you don't think that someone on a Disney cruise being entertained by a company whose job is to entertain CHILDREN is pretty immature in itself?
I find Disney absolutely drab and boring. Safe, predictable garbage not aimed at me. Sure, when I was young it was appopriate and entertaining, but as an adult it doesn't cut it, I need something more. The same reason you wouldn't show something like Braveheart to a child... its over them, and wouldn't interest them.
The fact that supposed adults are interested by children's entertainment is quite disturbing to me.
If their ad tech relies on XSS, and IE successfully blocks XSS on google, then disabling it would allow googles ad tech to work again. Not that hard, really..
No, commodities. Silverware, windshield wipers, etc. Again, their top-of-the line commodity items are of decent quality. I got a Sabatier Chef's knife there for $20, which is excellent.
I just round that brand knife, 8" stainless steel, for $8 a Bed Bath & Beyond. Without knowing the exact one, I can't compare much else, but like I said, at that point you don't seem to be saving anything worthwhile at all.
Eh, if you check your elitism at the door you'll derive some economic benefit. Certainly there are stores who cater to folks who want to shop in 'proper' company, and they fill an economic nice too.
Whatever, I know who I see at my local walmart; toothless hicks who can't spell their own name. Its not an exaggeration, and I don't see the "economic benefit." Either I'm saving literally less than $0.05, or I'm getting a piece of cheap crap with a brand name on it which will be dead and useless to me in about 6 months.
I'd rather spend the few more cents, or in the case of crap with branding, spend to get the brand + the quality, and NOT have to deal with retards (again, literally working as cashiers).
So please, feel free to continue to think you're on some moral high ground, I really don't care. And its "niche."
Yes. Haven't you noticed that "adults" for some reason are refusing to act like adults as well. Why would an adult WANT to take a cruise on a disney ship WITHOUT their children? Yet people do it all the time.
The problem is people that didn't ever learn to grow up are now having their own kids, and their terrified of every stupid thing in the world and don't know how to react like an adult, and thus the over coddling.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said that the open-ness of the internet was what made censorship ok; shall I accuse you of arguing a straw man, or is the rhetorical gamesmanship to be one way in this discussion?
Then please explain your point, because I took it as since now that the barrier to entry for speech is lower, we should be happy and leave it at that. I agree that we've made progress, but we still need to go further. If you agree, then I don't see what your point was.
I disagree with the use of the term "censor" to describe a private company controlling the use of its communication network; but whether you want to label it censorship or not, it is ok because it is their tool. It would be ok for them to say you can't use it at all, and if they say you can use it then it is ok for them to set the terms under which you can use it. Or do you imagine just because I build something useful that means I'm obligated to let you use it?
Companies don't have rights, only people do, and its the scale of the company which changes the game. Google reaches a lot more people than you or I could individually. You seem to be confusing your rights as an individual with the privledges of a fictious entity.
Your view of the definition of censorship doesn't seem to be the accepted one, BTW.
You've argued that cost may be a limiting factor, but implied that nothing else should. So you're ok with only some letters to the editor being printed; but if the limiting factor there were merely cost/space, then they'd have to print the first however-many-submissions-would-fit that were received. They don't. Are you ok with the fact tht they're chosen based on the editor's views? Are you ok with the existance of conservative publications that specifically exclude liberal viewpoitns, or liberal publications that specifically exclude conservative viewpoints, even though they could print a balanced perspective in the same space for the same cost?
Good papers actually do print the opposing view in their letter to the editors. Thats actually the norm, because the point is to kick up a discusion (and thus improve readership). Also, if another paper is covering the opposing view, I'm less concerned. BTW, this isn't a revolutionary idea, we used to have something called the Fairness doctrine.
Google has as much right to define the use of their platform as a magazine publisher has to define the use of theirs. If you want to express an idea they don't want to propagate, it's your responsibility to find someone who will help you get that idea out; or did you forget that rights come with responsibilities?
Google has no rights period. Court cases saying otherwise need to be reversed, because saying they have legal rights is a large contributor to the mess we're in today. People say rights come with responsiblities, yet they only seem to apply those to individuals, not companies. I find that quite interesting. And the news outlets have responsbilities as well; they don't get to publish whatever they want simply because they own the presses.
Show me where the rights in the Bill of Rights are described as inalienable. Better yet, look up inalienable and once you know what it means show me any period in American history where the right to bear arms was treated as inalienable.
So me where there's a comprehensive list of all unalienable rights. You seem to think that a piece of paper grants unalienable rights. By definition, they are rights we have simply by virtue of being a human being. Your argument about the right to be arms as being not being treated as unalienable is foolish; its only in recent American history that the rights of blacks were said to be as equal as rights of whites. The fact is that the implementation has never equaled the ideal, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be correcting things and moving toward the ideal.
If you come into a business I own, our relationship is commercial. Do you pretend to have the right to bring a weapon into my place of
No, I understand what natural rights are.. and the right to be armed is one of them. Notice it says "keep and bear arms," not limited to guns.
Slavery was an infringement on inalible rights, and I wish it hadn't been included, but I think at the time they believed something was better than nothing, and that they could address it later.
Notice we still have blue laws, and gay marriage is outlawed. The fact that there are laws which conflict with natural rights doesn't make natural rights invalid.
That people are doing it doesn't mean its a good idea. Also, I use exactly zero of the applications, and 99% of the i never even heard of.
As for writing applications, I've always found myself to be way more productive with compilied code instead of scripting, which always seems fragile to begin with.
The problem JS has is that it sucks. When I can do: myDom.madeUpProperty = 'bleh'; and things chug along just fine, that's a problem.
I think you need to retake basic CS if you don't know the difference between script and compiled languages, and how either can be used to build an application.
Perspective, chief. Before the Internet nobody but those with lots of money could ever transmit their ideas broadly. Before, say, the 1900's, nobody could, period. Now, sometimes you can, but if you rely on a free service to do it then they might set some restrictions; that doesn't sound like erosion of rights to me so much as it sounds like progress.
The fact that the internet opens the door for more people to express ideas doesn't mean its ok to have some censorship.
Have you committed every resource at your disposal to helping other be heard, even when you disagree with them? Does that mean you're "abridging" their rights? Sure, you have less money than Google so you'd be doing less good than Google can do, but we all do what we can, no? No. Of course not. It's one individual's job not to infringe another's rights, but it's not one individual's job to bolster another's rights.
You're arguing a strawman. I'm not setting up a service for anyone to express ideas on; if I were, I would not place restrictions on the content short of legal requirements. As a platform, it should be all, or nothing. I understand cost may be a factor, and if that's a limiter, I'm ok with that. Take a newspaper editoral section; anyone can right, but due to space only a few may be published. I see nothing wrong with that, assuming the paper tries to reflect a variety of views.
As for the right to bear arms - where is that listed as inalienable? The only rights I'm aware of having been given that distinction are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I've never seen anything that suggests you should be able to carry a weapon anywhere you want at any time you want.
In the second amendment. Oh, and please work on your reading comprehension. Even in the declaration its clear that they are not spelling out an exaustive list of rights, nor does the bill of rights do so. We also more clearly have a right to defend ourselves against others; to do that, one may choose to employ a weapon of some kind. Do your research, this is pretty clear, and one of the reasons the DC handgun ban was shot down by the SC.
What makes the space you rent to sleep in any different from any other property you don't own? Do you believe the 2nd ammendment intends that you can bring a weapon into my home whether I want you to or not? (That's actually the kind of behavior that can lose you those inalienable rights.)
This is part of the debate I'm putting forth as my own idea; as a private individual entering another private individuals home, of course you are subject to the homeowners wishes. As soon as the agreement becomes commercial, a landlords abiility to interfere with the rights of another citizen end.
We already say its illegal for a landlord to not rent based on religious beliefs, that landlords cannot lawfully forbid you from having black friends come over, etc, so what I'm suggesting is not without precident.
The second amendment makes me think owning a gun is a right.
I agree; JS should be taken out of the browser... but not how the article suggests. It should NOT be brought to the desktop, and it should be obsoleted in the browser.
Its a steaming pile who's replacement is long overdue.
Scripts are fine for small mundane tasks, they're NOT good for building applications.
Right, I appreciate that side of the arguement, however in an era of huge corporations, I think it loses much of the battle. What good is free speech if, even though the government can't abridge it, someone (or in google's case, something) with more money or power can?
Its the same with landlords; they all can force you to surrender your right to bear arms, so now you have to be a homeowner to exercise what is supposed to be an inalienable right.
There are plenty of studies, easily found on google. He might believe the experts agree with him, but they don't. This is really no different than IDers saying evolution is bunk, and that science doesn't back up that theory.. even when the overwhelming majority of biologists have come to the same conclusion.
Do your own research, I'm not going to do it for you.
This is a concern, but remember we're talking about the free service here. Google's free services are great while everything works, but if you need a human being's attention, you're likely to be waiting a long time. I've had bad experiences with YouTube publishing glitches.
Googles youtube isn't free though. For you it is, but advertising is what's paying for it. Google should be responding to a paying customer (I mean, you see the ads, right? So google got paid through your actions.), but they ignore you, even though its not really free. Which is why cloud won't take off.
Why is google worrying about whether your content is even appropriate or not? Are they going to stop a neo-nazi publishing their beliefs? They're awful, but free speech is more important.
And if you believe that's the lengths an investigation will go, you're sadly mistaken. No one will bother with the CCTV footage, if its still even there by the time you find out.
FYI, it was carbon steel, not stainless - such a nice is ordinarily $80-$90 at a kitchen store - the Walmart model had a somewhat different grip style.
Don't have time to look, but at any rate the price may have changed.
Why does it matter who else is in a store where you shop? Do you refuse to use roads that are also used by people with poor dental care and literacy? Restaurants? Internets?
Well I'd rather not be around people that are loud, smell bad, are inconsiderate (not that this particular issue isn't in non-walmart stores as well, but at walmart its a given) and too stupid to be able to effectively use the self-checkout lanes. Nor do I want to be around their little brats.
As for roads, not much I can do about that, but I'd rather dumb hick in his pickup not be on the same road, because they are more likely to try to engage in childish behavior such as racing, tail-gating, randomly hitting brakes, etc. Again, this isn't something the drooling walmart masses have a lock on, but seems more likely. A guy in a nicer car is more likely to drive sanely. What other people do on the internet doesn't affect me, so I don't give a shit. As for restraunts, it depends on the atmosphere. If there is a high concentration of drooling retards, I stay away. Again, cost seems to be a factor here; I'm more likely to be around loud, smelly people @ McDs than Olive Garden.
I got the knife about 3 years ago - it shows no sign of failing. I don't think anybody really argues that Walmart's pricing isn't the lowest on commodity goods. I've done the comparison shopping on Ziplock bags, Cottonelle, Kleenex, SpeedStick, etc., and the price savings are significant. Tropicana OJ can be had for half of the local grocery store.
I never argued about pricing either, its the quality that ends up suffering. A lawnmower is a commidity item as well, and one I got there didn't last a summer. An outdoor swing loveseat also didn't last the summer; the welding was shoddy (neither my wife nor I are obese).
I wouldn't buy food at walmart (even if they sold it at the only one in my state), but i know people that have in other states. The cheap ground beef is close to spoiling, already turning brown. Walmart also sold tainted pet food... taking it off the shelves only to restock it after closing for sale the next day. These are not isolated incidents, you can find reports of selling spoiled and rotten food quite frequently. The levis they sell are irregulars, that's known to be true. My wife bought a shirt there she liked, wore it once, and it literally fell apart in the wash. There are numerous stories of company cutting corners to meet walmarts price demands, because that's the only option they have to meet walmarts demands and still make some kind of profit.
What IQ floor is appropriate for a cashier? Perhaps your economic region is at full employment?
One in which the cashier can speak clear English and can scan three small items in under a minute. In no circumstance should the cashier be confused scanning three items, and the total checkout time is 15 minutes. Yes, I've experienced that directly. Given my experience at the self checkout lanes, I'd say IQ should be higher than that of the average walmart shopper, who as I mentioned ALSO cannot figure how to scan three simple items in under 15 minutes, nor do they seem to be able to READ THE INSTRUCTIONS ON SCREEN.
I don't get your quip about full employment; I'm talking about retards being replaced by average people (but not your average walmart shopper). A zero sum equation.
Hrm, being thrifty and considerate would just be 'normal' in most cases
There's nothing wrong with being thrifty. But spending less and getting less isn't really appealing to me. I'd rather pay a little more for a mower which is going on four years now. I've saved more by paying upfront for something that lasts much longer. I fail to see why I should be considerate to those who are not considerate themselves either.
Because of lust for power and basic greed, that's why.
I own my home and the ground its on so I can do what I damn well please.
Ha, ya right. Try painting your house a different color on the outside without a permit and see where that gets you. Or widening your driveway. Or install fencing. Or lighting. Or even remodel your kitchen.
Pet regulations aren't just for rabies, they are humanitarian so we don't have streets teeming with unvaccinated starving wild dogs and feral cats like Calcutta.
Well, be definition, someone owning a pet isn't letting it roam arojnd the streets unvaccinated. Oh, and we still have feral cats and dogs running around, even with your regulations. Tell me, what purpose is being served by having to register a dog to the tune of $70 / year? To make sure you'll be able to take care of it? To make sure you don't have too many living in a small space? Personally if that's the reason, I think we should be focusing on licensing having children before we worry about pets.
Car insurance is so you don't get hit by a deadbeat who won't pay to fix your car, and is a common protection.
Actually its so your medical bills get paid, you're still on the hook for repairing your own car if the other guy and you don't have collision coverage. And in most states, the only mandated coverage is liability (to cover medical expenses). Most of the rest of traffic law is to serve as a form of revenue (red light cameras, for example).
Emissions tests are really only in California so you give yourself away as being against liberalism simply to be contrary since you have the choice to live where you will, but then you wouldn't have anything to bitch about, no?
PA and NY have emissions tests as well. Also, I believe FL does, but I'm not sure.
You have to file one return for State (that includes your whole family), one for Federal, and possibly a local/COUNTY (not country you stupid non-english speaking copypasta) return.
Its not the number of returns, its the number of forms. God help you if you own a business.
Airline security is theater to make sure people don't stop (as I have) using the air transit system since there is little to no REAL security involved in the system.
In other words, its there to try to placate the other mindless retards who have an irrational fear that they'll be aboard a plane that's highjacked. Anyone seriously in fear of that is retarded, and you have a better chance of being hit by lightning.
Helmet/seatbelt laws are mainly there to stem the tide of braindead (literally) idiots who we pay to keep housed and fed since they turned themselves into drooling idiots and the government is left with their care when their broke white-trash families can't afford to pay after paying for all the chrome and noise.
Easy fix; stop paying, and let the drooling idiots die. THAT would fix the issue and be a HELL of a lot cheaper than your notion we should have laws (which BTW are ther eonly to generate revenue for the local government. As demonstrated time and again, when you say the local gov's can't keep the money from the ticket after maintence fees are removed, enforcement disappears. I believe that's what happened in SC, when locales were allowed to keep only the money to keep redlight cameras going, and the rest had to go to the states education fund. What happened? They shut the cameras down, stating very clearly it wsa never about safety to begin with).
Mind you I ride, I ride safely, and I wouldn't think about getting onto a road with a bunch of cagers without a lid on.
This is especially amusing, since you're more likely to die riding than flying a plane everywhere. Who are you calling drooling idiots again?
I joined CH for DVDs. Actually worked out well for me, especially since they emailed me about the CD they wanted to send me and i had plenty of time to go online and tell them not to send it. Got quite a few good deals out of it actually, and it was easy to cancel.
I only get four results; clearly most people are not bored of it.
The fact that there are people who aren't in the target audience is irrelevent. Shall we summarize our election process whenever a post is made about US politics? How about a school shooting, shall we say "WV, a state in the US along the eastern seaboard."
How about you relaize you're not the in the target audience, and use google, instead of saying that the target audence should read a bunch of summary information which it already knows.
Idiot, they use sub-p1 class hardware because its been around a while and they know the hardware is reliable, not because they have "real programmers."
Because a majority of experts back his stance?
In other words, it's bad PR. It's kind of you to admit this so readily -- it saves us time. The moment you are concerned with PR your agenda is no longer a purely scientific one. That is what left you vulnerable to "skeptics".
How is trying to counter a powerful lie PR?
Yes, I remember that movie, and someone recutting it to try to make it look like a horror movie doesn't change that the movie is aimed at children. Nor does your quipe about modern disney disprove anything I said, because the cruises are part of modern disney.
I stand by my assertion that people crusing on disney ships are immature themselves.
Ya, you don't think that someone on a Disney cruise being entertained by a company whose job is to entertain CHILDREN is pretty immature in itself?
I find Disney absolutely drab and boring. Safe, predictable garbage not aimed at me. Sure, when I was young it was appopriate and entertaining, but as an adult it doesn't cut it, I need something more. The same reason you wouldn't show something like Braveheart to a child... its over them, and wouldn't interest them.
The fact that supposed adults are interested by children's entertainment is quite disturbing to me.
If their ad tech relies on XSS, and IE successfully blocks XSS on google, then disabling it would allow googles ad tech to work again. Not that hard, really..
No, commodities. Silverware, windshield wipers, etc. Again, their top-of-the line commodity items are of decent quality. I got a Sabatier Chef's knife there for $20, which is excellent.
I just round that brand knife, 8" stainless steel, for $8 a Bed Bath & Beyond. Without knowing the exact one, I can't compare much else, but like I said, at that point you don't seem to be saving anything worthwhile at all.
Eh, if you check your elitism at the door you'll derive some economic benefit. Certainly there are stores who cater to folks who want to shop in 'proper' company, and they fill an economic nice too.
Whatever, I know who I see at my local walmart; toothless hicks who can't spell their own name. Its not an exaggeration, and I don't see the "economic benefit." Either I'm saving literally less than $0.05, or I'm getting a piece of cheap crap with a brand name on it which will be dead and useless to me in about 6 months.
I'd rather spend the few more cents, or in the case of crap with branding, spend to get the brand + the quality, and NOT have to deal with retards (again, literally working as cashiers).
So please, feel free to continue to think you're on some moral high ground, I really don't care. And its "niche."
Yes. Haven't you noticed that "adults" for some reason are refusing to act like adults as well. Why would an adult WANT to take a cruise on a disney ship WITHOUT their children? Yet people do it all the time.
The problem is people that didn't ever learn to grow up are now having their own kids, and their terrified of every stupid thing in the world and don't know how to react like an adult, and thus the over coddling.