Are you really saying "public health" wasn't used as justification by prohibitionists?
The origins of Prohibition are firmly rooted in religion, and decried the negative impact of alcoholism on society; the adverse physical health effects of alcohol were secondary, at best, to Prohibitionists' justifications.
Also, Prohibition made the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol illegal and effectively made it illegal to acquire ANYWHERE. This soda ban is limited to a few specific public areas, and only bans drinks larger than 16 ounces, so does not at all impact your ability to consume it on your own time in your own home, similar to smoking bans.
in the quantity and container I prefer
You never have had control over the quantity/container of soda sold at those specific establishments; theaters, restaurants, and stadiums almost universally prohibit patrons from bringing in their own food/drink.
And again, "It's saying I can't buy things at places I used to be able to buy them" (which is true) in no way infringes on what you can purchase for your personal consumption in your own home.
...unless, of course, you've been specifically going to restaurants/theaters/stadiums to purchase more than 16 ounces of pop to bring home and drink. If so, then this ban will force you to more cheaply and conveniently purchase soda.
Prohibition and the war on drugs had nothing to do with public health; that's the big difference. Also, this ban is in no way infringing on your freedom to buy pop and consume it at home.
Illegal? Oh, just like soda will be totally illegal with this ban? Just like how cigarettes are now illegal, and cannot be purchased anywhere and consumed in the comfort (albeit smoky comfort) of your own home?
The fact that they are buying the large sodas means the public wants it
Not really true; just about everyone can agree that we should all be more healthy, but it's very difficult to get a large amount of people to actually work toward that goal without some assistance.
a ban seems to infringe on peoples' freedom of choice
Ehh, again, not really. People can still go to the store and buy all the pop they want (the proposed ban does not affect convenience or grocery stores). I mean, I also have the "freedom" to smoke cigarettes, but am banned from doing so in MANY places.
It really doesn't sound like you use it much at all, or are simply greatly inflating the claims of your battery life. With normal usage and generally keeping my 3G off, my Android phones (G2, original Droid, G2, Nexus) typically have maxed out at around 2 days, all with stock batteries. When going more data heavy, maybe a full day's worth of usage, max.
What do you use your phone for? Heck, even when using my phones as glorified clocks (all radios off, only turning the screen briefly on to check the time), a full week of uptime on one charge is pretty aggressive.
Wow, so smug! h4rr4r seemed to simply be voicing his opinion.
The idea that all cultures are equal or that all people want the same thing leads to nothing but disaster.
That's kinda like believing inherently that "one viewpoint is as good as another". Freedom is a complicated thing to entirely define, but some of the most basic moral views allow us to determine some things that most people agree are human rights - and individually it's safe to say that "all people" want those sorts of rights. A dictatorship, by its vary nature, cannot guarantee those rights, because ultimately the power to do so can only be granted by the people themselves.
Tell me why heredity based systems should be dismissed as invalid.
Or, convince us why a single FUD-filled allusion to Egypt is enough to validate a system based primarily on a lack of freedom of the general populace.
A stong central dictatorship progressively modernizing society and removing the destructive influences of religion might be a far more "Moral" choice in the long run.
*Might*, and it *might* only last for a single ruler's reign, after which a power hungry heir *might* prove to ultimately be evil.
But, like you said...
Thankfully most of us live in democracies where the viewpoints seen as valid by the majority are generally more humane.
The TOS isn't above the law, but it can help the interpretation of the law: if the content is owned by the user (per the TOS), Twitter could be violating the law by giving in to the subpoena.
The Billy Goat(s - there are more than one in Chicago) is closer to a bar/grill than a straight up bar, and is commonly visited for lunch. Still no idea where the story poster's anecdote came from, though.
He didn't say useless, that's your word. He provided a story that neatly describes a mildly nefarious marketing tactic, playing off the fact that having only the 4GB hard drive (or none) can be a significant bane more many (most?) users.
That's a perfect opportunity for a parent to, you know, do some parenting, and create or facilitate a compromise between the kids in the house. My sibling and I also had a "1 hour" rule when it came to computer or console gaming, which obviously impacted the ability to play games with no saves, infrequent saves, or multiplayer when we wanted to try to play with friends over dialup/internet.
I think the edge case you describe should not negate the ability to have the household rules that the AC suggests, unless you're incapable of standard reason (in which case you probably shouldn't be having children).
Multiple consoles in a single household is a luxury option, at best, and really shouldn't be a realistic option for the target market of this specific Xbox pricing.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. s/bug/feature/g
The origins of Prohibition are firmly rooted in religion, and decried the negative impact of alcoholism on society; the adverse physical health effects of alcohol were secondary, at best, to Prohibitionists' justifications.
Also, Prohibition made the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol illegal and effectively made it illegal to acquire ANYWHERE. This soda ban is limited to a few specific public areas, and only bans drinks larger than 16 ounces, so does not at all impact your ability to consume it on your own time in your own home, similar to smoking bans.
You never have had control over the quantity/container of soda sold at those specific establishments; theaters, restaurants, and stadiums almost universally prohibit patrons from bringing in their own food/drink.
And again, "It's saying I can't buy things at places I used to be able to buy them" (which is true) in no way infringes on what you can purchase for your personal consumption in your own home.
...unless, of course, you've been specifically going to restaurants/theaters/stadiums to purchase more than 16 ounces of pop to bring home and drink. If so, then this ban will force you to more cheaply and conveniently purchase soda.
Haha. I think the wives could also use the exact same argument.
Prohibition and the war on drugs had nothing to do with public health; that's the big difference. Also, this ban is in no way infringing on your freedom to buy pop and consume it at home.
Illegal? Oh, just like soda will be totally illegal with this ban? Just like how cigarettes are now illegal, and cannot be purchased anywhere and consumed in the comfort (albeit smoky comfort) of your own home?
HA! uid 234k calling uid 37k a junior hipster. Classic.
Not really true; just about everyone can agree that we should all be more healthy, but it's very difficult to get a large amount of people to actually work toward that goal without some assistance.
Ehh, again, not really. People can still go to the store and buy all the pop they want (the proposed ban does not affect convenience or grocery stores). I mean, I also have the "freedom" to smoke cigarettes, but am banned from doing so in MANY places.
Probably not, but a cup filled "2/3 with ice" is not actually filled 2/3, it's more like 1/3 (or less).
It isn't the ONLY thing that makes you fat, but it helps (a lot)!
Based on your original post, it seems like getting married made you fat. Should probably just get that shit annulled for your own health.
It really doesn't sound like you use it much at all, or are simply greatly inflating the claims of your battery life. With normal usage and generally keeping my 3G off, my Android phones (G2, original Droid, G2, Nexus) typically have maxed out at around 2 days, all with stock batteries. When going more data heavy, maybe a full day's worth of usage, max. What do you use your phone for? Heck, even when using my phones as glorified clocks (all radios off, only turning the screen briefly on to check the time), a full week of uptime on one charge is pretty aggressive.
Wow, so smug! h4rr4r seemed to simply be voicing his opinion.
That's kinda like believing inherently that "one viewpoint is as good as another". Freedom is a complicated thing to entirely define, but some of the most basic moral views allow us to determine some things that most people agree are human rights - and individually it's safe to say that "all people" want those sorts of rights. A dictatorship, by its vary nature, cannot guarantee those rights, because ultimately the power to do so can only be granted by the people themselves.
Or, convince us why a single FUD-filled allusion to Egypt is enough to validate a system based primarily on a lack of freedom of the general populace.
*Might*, and it *might* only last for a single ruler's reign, after which a power hungry heir *might* prove to ultimately be evil.
But, like you said...
The TOS isn't above the law, but it can help the interpretation of the law: if the content is owned by the user (per the TOS), Twitter could be violating the law by giving in to the subpoena.
The Billy Goat(s - there are more than one in Chicago) is closer to a bar/grill than a straight up bar, and is commonly visited for lunch. Still no idea where the story poster's anecdote came from, though.
True.
Naw, no need. My reading comprehension is pretty good the first time around.
...like smugly posting on an Xbox-related story?
derr, 25%? Really?
He didn't say useless, that's your word. He provided a story that neatly describes a mildly nefarious marketing tactic, playing off the fact that having only the 4GB hard drive (or none) can be a significant bane more many (most?) users.
It's a 2-year contract, not a 'requirement'. Breaking the contract simply results in a hefty early-termination fee.
Agreed, although I'm pretty sure you replied to a troll.
That's a perfect opportunity for a parent to, you know, do some parenting, and create or facilitate a compromise between the kids in the house. My sibling and I also had a "1 hour" rule when it came to computer or console gaming, which obviously impacted the ability to play games with no saves, infrequent saves, or multiplayer when we wanted to try to play with friends over dialup/internet.
I think the edge case you describe should not negate the ability to have the household rules that the AC suggests, unless you're incapable of standard reason (in which case you probably shouldn't be having children).
Multiple consoles in a single household is a luxury option, at best, and really shouldn't be a realistic option for the target market of this specific Xbox pricing.
Why are you so new to Slashdot?