$1,300,000 / 300 million Americans = a refund check of about.0043 cents. Printing and administrative costs for 300 million refund checks? Well over 1.3 million dollars. That's why you're not getting a refund.
Another reason they offer rebates is to get the purchaser for businesses to buy their product over another. Let's say I work at a company that needs to buy a printer: I head to OfficeMax, check out all the printers and buy the one with the largest rebate regardless of price. I pay for it on the corporate credit card but apply for the rebate in my own name, reaping the entire rebate amount for my trouble. My company need never know there was a rebate, and they were paying for a printer anyway so likely they don't care. It's a lot like the airline miles programs.
I forgot to add, thank you for a civil and well-argued discussion. These political things tend to veer off into name-calling rather quickly here, and it's refreshing to discuss these issues without rancor.
I understand your point. However, I still don't think the Democrats want a permanent majority. I'm a Democrat and I don't want the Democrats to gain permanent one-party rule because the idea of one-party rule is repugnant. There's no real accountability in a one-party system. A multi-party system would be better, but that's a different discussion. Trying to win elections is not the same thing as desiring a permanent majority. My point is that the only people framing elections as a means to achieve a permanent majority are the radical right. It's the wrong way to look at elections. It's not that Democrats want to lose elections on purpose, yet they don't necessarily believe that the Republican party should disappear as an option. Put another way, the stated purpose of the Republicans in power is to make any and all opposition parties disappear. That's just not healthy for democracy.
Look at it this way: the actual ideological basis for each of the parties change over time. The Republicans used to be the party of liberal social causes, opposed to the conservative Democrats. They changed because they were trying to get more votes. If there was only one party, there would be no incentive to change, and the entrenched power elite would become more entrenched until we end up looking like the Soviets or worse, like the Imperial Romans. Do you really think that Democrats want that?
You're framing the question weirdly. Of course Democrats aren't intentionally losing elections, but the desire to put your politicians into office does not also equal a desire for a permanent majority. The behaviors of the two parties to get their politicians elected are indistinguishable, if you discount the stories of underhanded tactics the Republicans have used in the last two elections; but once in power, the Republicans have used any methods they can (legal and otherwise) to ensure their continued power, which is reminiscent of fascist or communist one-party states. It used to be the case that neither party would engage in such power grabs because they were worried (rightly so) that they would not want the other party to have such power when they eventually got back into office. With the Bush administration this changed to an unprecedented short-term goal of grabbing as much power for the Executive branch that they could while at the same time trying to ensure that they stayed in power. This has nothing to do with actually winning or losing elections, but trying to keep themselves entrenched as much as possible.
Your opinion is that Democrats want a permanent majority, and I disagree whole-heartedly. Democrats have never wanted permanent majority; the Republicans have stated that they do and are actively working toward this goal. How can it be hypocritical to criticize somebody for wanting something that would be clearly bad for the country and the world? Two-party rule is bad enough, but having a single political party is just stupid and culturally suicidal: you might as well chuck the concept of democracy and just declare Bush an emperor if that's where you want to go.
I don't think you've been paying attention to the ways that the Republicans have been trying to cement their hold on the Federal government through methods that go way above and beyond anything seen in modern democracies. The current leadership of the Republican party is sick, greedy and twisted and they don't represent the actual needs of most of the people who vote them into power. Republicans were supposed to be for small, financially responsible government. Whatever happened to that? Now it's all about gay people and abortion, like those issues really matter. Wake up, you've been duped.
I think I'm more worried about the borderline retarded kids shining this into other peoples' eyes. If you're stupid or 'weak' enough to blind yourself with it then you will in all likelihood have no problem blinding some innocent bystanders as well, whether those bystanders can think for themselves or not.
Most of those 93 warning labels aren't there to actually warn you about anything, they're there to reduce the manufacturer's legal exposure to the lawsuits of stupid people. Though in the case of 245mW lasers, you might consider paying attention to them.
And speaking of Darwin, I'm with you--I'm all for repealing mandatory helmet laws. Just as long as my taxes or increasing health insurance premiums don't have to pay for your long, brain-damaged life. If you don't want to wear one, you clearly don't value what it protects.
It's like this guy lent his car to his buddies and they used it to pick up a bunch of skin mags and cds which they left in the back seat. Then he threw away the magazines and cds, but traffic cameras show that his car was used to get the ill-gotten merchandise, so now he's on the hook.
No, wait, it's more like he lent his garage to his buddies and they filled the rafters with hookers and rock stars.
Think of it from the FBI's point of view though: would you want to be the guy in charge of the investigation of a sitting US Senator only to discover that he was either innocent or not prosecutable? You're going to make damn sure you know exactly what you're looking for and that actual surprise is on your side, or that you already have enough evidence to convict and you're just looking for corroborating evidence. They're not going to want to make any mistakes here because the case is too high-profile. If you were the investigator in charge, would you want to tip the Senator off so he could help you lose your job for you?
This may be marketed as a theft-deterrent, but it's also enabling Apple to exert more control over when and how you listen to your own music. This would also make it very easy for Apple to brick your iPod for doing something they don't approve of. Not that I'm saying they'd abuse that power that way, but it would be technically possible.
I have a Humax Tivo Series II which includes a DVD-RW. As a bonus, it will create a play menu of the shows you burn to look like the tivo interface. We use it to copy the kids' favorite cartoons to dvd for car trips. Another bonus is that you can watch dvds without needing a separate box.
Regardless, anyone who goes through the expense... even a government, is going to want some assurance that the rest of humanity won't leech off their work.
Like those pesky Colonials. Give them some arable land really far away and suddenly they think they're a sovereign nation.
1) The Bush administration doesn't need intelligent people to buy it, they just need political cover while they do what they want.
2) 'Seems to actually expect', 'Most Americans', 'seem to prefer to believe' followed by 'actually just stating true facts' is an incompatible position. Either you are stating your opinion (what things seem to be), or you are stating facts. You clearly don't have any idea what 'most Americans' really think, so you're as unqualified as Fox News to decide that your opinions are 'true facts'.
3) You should be modded troll not because I'd like to continue living in denial (which I'm not) but because you're just attacking Americans as a whole using this issue as cover and pretending like you're not because it's currently fashionable.
Look, I can understand the world's anger at Bush and his failed policies. Americans are also angry. But you making blanket statements about what 'most Americans' think is unhelpful and ignorant of the truth, which is that a privileged and powerful few have hijacked America for their own purposes. Most Americans are working to get their country back, and you aren't helping so get out of the way.
I guess I meant 'harder core' in the sense that having sex is harder core than wearing frilly foundation garments. I get your point about prudish Americans with guns being harder core than Britons with vibrators, however my point was that Victoria's Secret in this case is a bad example because marketing aside it is not a sex store but a clothing store; the most they do to facilitate sex is print catalogs and film advertisements. Though some people might argue that technically you need two or more people to call that 'sex'.
Slashdot Mirror
That gives me a great idea for some Google AdWords.
Just because we have chisled abs and stunning features, does not mean we to can't not die in a freak gasoline fight accident.
I seem to remember that the kid of one of the major label execs was sharing songs online last year and nothing happened.
I think the day EO3 showed up was probably worse.
$1,300,000 / 300 million Americans = a refund check of about .0043 cents. Printing and administrative costs for 300 million refund checks? Well over 1.3 million dollars. That's why you're not getting a refund.
Another reason they offer rebates is to get the purchaser for businesses to buy their product over another. Let's say I work at a company that needs to buy a printer: I head to OfficeMax, check out all the printers and buy the one with the largest rebate regardless of price. I pay for it on the corporate credit card but apply for the rebate in my own name, reaping the entire rebate amount for my trouble. My company need never know there was a rebate, and they were paying for a printer anyway so likely they don't care. It's a lot like the airline miles programs.
I forgot to add, thank you for a civil and well-argued discussion. These political things tend to veer off into name-calling rather quickly here, and it's refreshing to discuss these issues without rancor.
I understand your point. However, I still don't think the Democrats want a permanent majority. I'm a Democrat and I don't want the Democrats to gain permanent one-party rule because the idea of one-party rule is repugnant. There's no real accountability in a one-party system. A multi-party system would be better, but that's a different discussion. Trying to win elections is not the same thing as desiring a permanent majority. My point is that the only people framing elections as a means to achieve a permanent majority are the radical right. It's the wrong way to look at elections. It's not that Democrats want to lose elections on purpose, yet they don't necessarily believe that the Republican party should disappear as an option. Put another way, the stated purpose of the Republicans in power is to make any and all opposition parties disappear. That's just not healthy for democracy.
Look at it this way: the actual ideological basis for each of the parties change over time. The Republicans used to be the party of liberal social causes, opposed to the conservative Democrats. They changed because they were trying to get more votes. If there was only one party, there would be no incentive to change, and the entrenched power elite would become more entrenched until we end up looking like the Soviets or worse, like the Imperial Romans. Do you really think that Democrats want that?
You're framing the question weirdly. Of course Democrats aren't intentionally losing elections, but the desire to put your politicians into office does not also equal a desire for a permanent majority. The behaviors of the two parties to get their politicians elected are indistinguishable, if you discount the stories of underhanded tactics the Republicans have used in the last two elections; but once in power, the Republicans have used any methods they can (legal and otherwise) to ensure their continued power, which is reminiscent of fascist or communist one-party states. It used to be the case that neither party would engage in such power grabs because they were worried (rightly so) that they would not want the other party to have such power when they eventually got back into office. With the Bush administration this changed to an unprecedented short-term goal of grabbing as much power for the Executive branch that they could while at the same time trying to ensure that they stayed in power. This has nothing to do with actually winning or losing elections, but trying to keep themselves entrenched as much as possible.
Your opinion is that Democrats want a permanent majority, and I disagree whole-heartedly. Democrats have never wanted permanent majority; the Republicans have stated that they do and are actively working toward this goal. How can it be hypocritical to criticize somebody for wanting something that would be clearly bad for the country and the world? Two-party rule is bad enough, but having a single political party is just stupid and culturally suicidal: you might as well chuck the concept of democracy and just declare Bush an emperor if that's where you want to go.
I don't think you've been paying attention to the ways that the Republicans have been trying to cement their hold on the Federal government through methods that go way above and beyond anything seen in modern democracies. The current leadership of the Republican party is sick, greedy and twisted and they don't represent the actual needs of most of the people who vote them into power. Republicans were supposed to be for small, financially responsible government. Whatever happened to that? Now it's all about gay people and abortion, like those issues really matter. Wake up, you've been duped.
I always thought that scene was showing that those were 3D holograms, not just 2D images. A hologram would respond that way.
I think I'm more worried about the borderline retarded kids shining this into other peoples' eyes. If you're stupid or 'weak' enough to blind yourself with it then you will in all likelihood have no problem blinding some innocent bystanders as well, whether those bystanders can think for themselves or not.
Most of those 93 warning labels aren't there to actually warn you about anything, they're there to reduce the manufacturer's legal exposure to the lawsuits of stupid people. Though in the case of 245mW lasers, you might consider paying attention to them.
And speaking of Darwin, I'm with you--I'm all for repealing mandatory helmet laws. Just as long as my taxes or increasing health insurance premiums don't have to pay for your long, brain-damaged life. If you don't want to wear one, you clearly don't value what it protects.
Welcome to capitolism.
Where everybody is forced to live in the city containing the main government buildings.
I think that's because the explanation 'God' is a stretch several orders of magnitude bigger than the alternatives.
It's like this guy lent his car to his buddies and they used it to pick up a bunch of skin mags and cds which they left in the back seat. Then he threw away the magazines and cds, but traffic cameras show that his car was used to get the ill-gotten merchandise, so now he's on the hook.
No, wait, it's more like he lent his garage to his buddies and they filled the rafters with hookers and rock stars.
Man, this is harder than I thought.
Think of it from the FBI's point of view though: would you want to be the guy in charge of the investigation of a sitting US Senator only to discover that he was either innocent or not prosecutable? You're going to make damn sure you know exactly what you're looking for and that actual surprise is on your side, or that you already have enough evidence to convict and you're just looking for corroborating evidence. They're not going to want to make any mistakes here because the case is too high-profile. If you were the investigator in charge, would you want to tip the Senator off so he could help you lose your job for you?
This may be marketed as a theft-deterrent, but it's also enabling Apple to exert more control over when and how you listen to your own music. This would also make it very easy for Apple to brick your iPod for doing something they don't approve of. Not that I'm saying they'd abuse that power that way, but it would be technically possible.
I have a Humax Tivo Series II which includes a DVD-RW. As a bonus, it will create a play menu of the shows you burn to look like the tivo interface. We use it to copy the kids' favorite cartoons to dvd for car trips. Another bonus is that you can watch dvds without needing a separate box.
Buncha peeping Toms. Don't you have anything better to do than watch me watching TV? Get the hell offa my lawn!
Regardless, anyone who goes through the expense ... even a government, is going to want some assurance that the rest of humanity won't leech off their work.
Like those pesky Colonials. Give them some arable land really far away and suddenly they think they're a sovereign nation.
Good point. Personal anecdotes are always more important than actual facts, and make better logical arguments. You're still no better than Fox News.
You are a troll, and here's why:
1) The Bush administration doesn't need intelligent people to buy it, they just need political cover while they do what they want.
2) 'Seems to actually expect', 'Most Americans', 'seem to prefer to believe' followed by 'actually just stating true facts' is an incompatible position. Either you are stating your opinion (what things seem to be), or you are stating facts. You clearly don't have any idea what 'most Americans' really think, so you're as unqualified as Fox News to decide that your opinions are 'true facts'.
3) You should be modded troll not because I'd like to continue living in denial (which I'm not) but because you're just attacking Americans as a whole using this issue as cover and pretending like you're not because it's currently fashionable.
Look, I can understand the world's anger at Bush and his failed policies. Americans are also angry. But you making blanket statements about what 'most Americans' think is unhelpful and ignorant of the truth, which is that a privileged and powerful few have hijacked America for their own purposes. Most Americans are working to get their country back, and you aren't helping so get out of the way.
I guess I meant 'harder core' in the sense that having sex is harder core than wearing frilly foundation garments. I get your point about prudish Americans with guns being harder core than Britons with vibrators, however my point was that Victoria's Secret in this case is a bad example because marketing aside it is not a sex store but a clothing store; the most they do to facilitate sex is print catalogs and film advertisements. Though some people might argue that technically you need two or more people to call that 'sex'.