So I gather, then, that you see it as the role of government to apply an appropriate tariff to all goods to account for what it thinks the total cost really is?
Here's another anecdote. I used to buy belts at Walmart for about $10-$15. Unfortunately, the 'pleather' would crack over the buckle and around the tongue in about a week. So now I go to a men's store and spend $30-$50 on one that lasts for years.
I used to buy shirts at Walmart for $15 or so. But they would barely make it a year before becoming threadbare. So now I buy my shirts from L.L. Bean for $30, but they last for years. Moreover, L.L. Bean has what amounts to a lifetime guarantee on their clothing.
Some people, like me, have gotten tired of buying junk at the junk store.
Like I said, I would not trust a Kindle with such functionality to purchased books, but such a device could revolutionize the concept of the public library. Every book in the world could be available for free.
At the beginning of your semester, go to the school library and check out all your texts. Most colleges have their current in-use textbooks available for checkout at the library.
Take the books home, and scan them with a flat bed scanner.
Take the books back to the library.
If you're feeling generous, put your PDF files up on a bittorrent site.
To me, this flagging ability should be viewed as a good thing.
All books should be available from the library FOR FREE. You go to the library, you borrow the book, and you return it in two weeks. You can re-check it out again for another 2 weeks if you want.
This flagging ability COULD allow this to be done without driving to the library. You COULD use this to NEVER buy a book. You simply "check it out" for 2 weeks and then it vanishes.
Now I'm skeptical that it will ever be allowed to work this way, but this is the way such devices SHOULD work. If I can go check out a physical copy for 2 weeks, why not a digital copy? If it's free, I don't mind if it vanishes in 2 weeks, just like a library loan would.
>The local library is free and paper backs are cheap...
But you have to drive to the library, pick up the book, and return it in a certain amount of time.
Wouldn't it be nice to download it, read it, and let the book simply "evaporate" in a certain amount of time?
I would not trust a Kindle to/purchased/ books. But I think it would be a fantastic platform for delivering borrowed content, just like library books, for free.
>Show me a house with a lawn in the middle of Manhattan, then we'll talk.
This would make Manhattan a completely unappealing place to live for me.
>As for your "I couldn't imagine...", well I couldn't imagine dealing with the blandness and >close-mindedness of suburbanites, so to each their own I suppose.
Because wanting a yard and physical property not attached to someone else's makes one bland and close-minded. Gotcha, AC.
>Huh? Most of the world lives in (and owns) such dwellings (flats, townhouses, any other >medium or high density houses in which one or more walls/floors/ceilings are shared with >another dwelling). The big, separate houses you see in American suburbia are NOT the norm for >many countries.
I just don't care for it, personally. I don't want to own something that is physically attached to something that someone else owns. What if they burn their house down? I'm sure there is a firewall between the two buildings, but is that much comfort to realize that half the building you live in is charred wreckage?
So when I buy a house, I buy the whole building, with land all around it on all 4 sides. Thus everything on the property is mine and under my control.
If I was going to share a building with other people, I'd just rent an apartment (which I have done).
I'm confused by the terminology. Around here (southern USA) an apartment is something you rent. A Condominium is like an apartment in that it is on managed grounds but you can "buy" them. I say "buy" in quotes because the concept of buying half of a building attached to someone else's half does not sound like anything I would want to buy.
>Well that's your problem. You refuse to believe in what you do no understand.
This is untrue. There are many things in life that I did not at one time understand, but through scientific study, I came to understand. I will believe in anything that can be scientifically explained. I will not accept, however, anything as fact simply because someone said an invisible man told them so.
>Many things that was considered magic in the past have since been explained by science. >The idea that the Israelites were provided manna in the desert was considered "magic" >by many and therefor impossible. Yet studies have shown that the sap from the tamarisk >tree easily fits the description of manna and provides a likely explanation. Many of the >plagues of Egypt can be explained by natural occurrences. Even the parting of the Red Sea >can be explained by a tsunami. That tsunami could have been caused by an volcano that >erupting nearby, at the same time and could have caused many of the plagues. >These are scientific explanations for what many have perceived as miracles, or >"magic" as you put it. Was it a volcano and tsunami? I can't tell you. But I can >guarantee that there is science behind what you call "magic".
If it is your claim that these events, if they actually occurred, were the result of natural phenomenon, then I have no disagreement with you. I disagree with those who say that these events, if they actually occurred, were the result of magic.
>Well known scientists like Einstein once claimed that the universe was static and could not >have had a beginning. In the name of religion, a priest by the name of Georges Lemaitre >worked with recent scientific discoveries to prove that the universe did indeed have a creation. Was the Big Bang "magic"? Two hundred years ago, some would have said the exact same thing you did. >The one thing that Georges Lemaitre realized is that God works within the laws of the >universe that He created. These universal constants are narrow enough that even the >slightest variation of any of them would cause the universe not to exist at all. Is it magic? >Read this page and others like for examples of how respected scientists and mathematicians are >looking for rational explanations to what you might consider "magic". You don't have to believe >it, but you should approach it with an open mind and admit that there is some science behind be belief.
Just because a naturally occurring phenomenon is not well understood does not mean it is magic or supernatural, nor does it imply that "god did it". It simply means that our understanding of the science behind the phenomenon is insufficient to explain it at this time.
>Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean that it's "magic" and can not exist.
I agree entirely. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that it's magic or supernatural. It simply means you lack the science to describe it at this time.
>On the flip-side, "God did it" is not a valid explanation for things I don't understand.
Glad we agree.
>Galileo said it best: >"the laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics". --Galileo >God works within His own laws.
>First, you are confused. Yes, there is a freedom FROM a GOVERNMENT religion which is where >the BoR states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", but >'m free to practice whatever religion I wish because it says next, "or prohibiting the free > exercise thereof".
Yes, but the most important part here is that the government can't force a religion on the people. As a caveat, sure, people are allowed to believe in magic if they like, but it has no impact on government and vice versa.
>So, yes, the founders of the Bill of Rights thought religion was so important, >they mentioned it first. I'd call that enshrining.
No, they thought that GETTING A RELIGION CRAMMED DOWN YOUR THROAT WAS SO ABHORRENT that they made sure the law of the land prevented it. I'd call that neutering.
>However, the freedom of speech also covers you to look ignorant. When you call religion >"fairy tales and magic worship", it proves that you have very little clue as to what >religion entails. Most of religion are rules to live by. It sets a standard on how to live. >It teaches not to steal, murder, lie, cheat on your spouse or several other things that >cause problems between people. It also teaches to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, forgive >those that have done you wrong, and other things that make us better people and improve >society as a whole.
One small problem with this. You can, and people do, teach all of this WITHOUT INVOKING MAGIC.
I have a very large clue as to what religion entails, and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM INVOLVE MAGIC.
I don't have a problem with moral codes to live by. Only ones based on magic or other illogical basis.
>Evidently, you don't understand any of that, which makes you ignorant. Maybe you just think >that kind acts like feeding the hungry is all fairy tales, which would just make you an asshole.
Acts of kindness like feeding the hungry is great. It's the belief in magic that is all fairy tales.
You don't have to believe in magic to feed the hungry.
>I'll be kind and assume that it's just ignorance on your part. Tomorrow is Sunday. >Please wake up early enough to attend a church and talk with the people there before >you embarrass yourself further.
I've been to many a church service and I no longer feel it necessary to waste my precious time on nonsense like talking to an invisible man in the sky with magic powers.
The only people who need to be embarrassed are the people talking to invisible men with magic powers.
>No, this is just genuine racism. There's nothing integral about being >african-american that makes one reject learning.
It is not racist to point out a failing that is prevalent in a race of people.
You are correct in that there is nothing/intrinsically/ about being black that makes black people do poorly at school. Yet AS A GROUP they seem to do so. AS A GROUP, they do seem to reject learning.
It is not racist to point this out.
Too many people are eager to pull out the "racism" hammer and bash people like the OP with it and consequently little gets talked about concerning the root causes of problems like these.
I believe that black people do tend to have a dim view of learning and western culture. But I do not believe it has anything to do INTRINSICALLY with their race.
It has to do with expectations and opportunity.
AS A GROUP, I suspect most black people have low-paying, unskilled jobs. There are probably, for example, a lot more black janitors than black doctors. What this does is two important things:
First, it sets up a poor level of personal expectation from the children of such people. When your father or mother is a janitor or convenient store clerk this is going to be the metric by which many judge their own success in life.
Second, it sets up a feeling of despair, as when they look around for successful black roll models they find that they are very few and far between. Thus many black kids simply feel that it is not possible to achieve success and they give up or settle for less. Or worse, they harbor feels of resentment and actively reject opportunities for success.
Both of these things are reasons why I have come to grudgingly accept affirmative action. Though I abhor the idea of giving things away based on race, the simple fact is the pump needs to be primed. We need to get enough black people into positions of success until being a successful black person doesn't seem like an impossibility and in fact seems as common as any other color of successful person.
Until then, too many black youths will have no reason to aspire for better.
>To ridicule those that value religion, you are rejecting that which >preventss them from forcing you into their "hocus pocus sham".
Crock. Of. Shit. Freedom OF religion also means freedom FROM religion. The Bill of Rights does not enshrine religion, it neuters it, and rightfully so.
Yes, you have the right to worship whatever you like. Of course I also have the right to point out it's all fairy tales and magic worship.
>The translation is: "You are hateful bigot who can't accept the idea that some people have opinions > that are different than your own. You make yourself hate them rather than even consider that maybe, > just maybe, their ideas have merit. You are unable to promote your own ideas with any intelligence, > so you rely on belittling those who differ from you in a lame attempt to promote yourself."
I have no problem with people who have opinions that are different than my own.
As long as they aren't based in mysticism and superstition. Those opinions deserve nothing but scorn and laughter.
>The truth is, Bush didn't ban stem cell research. Bush didn't even ban embryonic stem cell research. >He only banned federal level funding for it. The States and the private sector were free to do as they pleased.
I'm so tired of this Bush apologizing.
The translation is, "He was a backward fuckwad pandering to religious nuts, but hey, at least his reach exceeded his grasp!"
>In other words, in 20 years' time the world is going to be full of 80-year-old people >with firm skin, perky tits, big throbbing erections, and absolutely no fucking memory of what to do with them.
Slashdot Mirror
So I gather, then, that you see it as the role of government to apply an appropriate tariff to all goods to account for what it thinks the total cost really is?
Here's another anecdote. I used to buy belts at Walmart for about $10-$15. Unfortunately, the 'pleather' would crack over the buckle and around the tongue in about a week. So now I go to a men's store and spend $30-$50 on one that lasts for years.
I used to buy shirts at Walmart for $15 or so. But they would barely make it a year before becoming threadbare. So now I buy my shirts from L.L. Bean for $30, but they last for years. Moreover, L.L. Bean has what amounts to a lifetime guarantee on their clothing.
Some people, like me, have gotten tired of buying junk at the junk store.
>Because none of the problems the GP listed would exist if the market cared about fuel efficiency.
Then what that means is the market is saying that fuel is not a scarce commodity and there is no reason to care about fuel efficiency.
If you want the market to take care of it, let it.
If the market can figure out the details, why have the government artificially raise the price of fuel?
Walmart has pushed its suppliers year after year to reduce their prices, and they have done so.
They have done so by making a cheaper and cheaper product. Walmart is now a place where you go buy disposable Chinese junk. They pushed too far.
Thus it's no surprise to me that they are entering the flea-market business.
Who knew?
Like I said, I would not trust a Kindle with such functionality to purchased books, but such a device could revolutionize the concept of the public library. Every book in the world could be available for free.
At the beginning of your semester, go to the school library and check out all your texts. Most colleges have their current in-use textbooks available for checkout at the library.
Take the books home, and scan them with a flat bed scanner.
Take the books back to the library.
If you're feeling generous, put your PDF files up on a bittorrent site.
To me, this flagging ability should be viewed as a good thing.
All books should be available from the library FOR FREE. You go to the library, you borrow the book, and you return it in two weeks. You can re-check it out again for another 2 weeks if you want.
This flagging ability COULD allow this to be done without driving to the library. You COULD use this to NEVER buy a book. You simply "check it out" for 2 weeks and then it vanishes.
Now I'm skeptical that it will ever be allowed to work this way, but this is the way such devices SHOULD work. If I can go check out a physical copy for 2 weeks, why not a digital copy? If it's free, I don't mind if it vanishes in 2 weeks, just like a library loan would.
>The local library is free and paper backs are cheap...
But you have to drive to the library, pick up the book, and return it in a certain amount of time.
Wouldn't it be nice to download it, read it, and let the book simply "evaporate" in a certain amount of time?
I would not trust a Kindle to /purchased/ books. But I think it would be a fantastic platform for delivering borrowed content, just like library books, for free.
>Show me a house with a lawn in the middle of Manhattan, then we'll talk.
This would make Manhattan a completely unappealing place to live for me.
>As for your "I couldn't imagine...", well I couldn't imagine dealing with the blandness and
>close-mindedness of suburbanites, so to each their own I suppose.
Because wanting a yard and physical property not attached to someone else's makes one bland and close-minded. Gotcha, AC.
>Huh? Most of the world lives in (and owns) such dwellings (flats, townhouses, any other
>medium or high density houses in which one or more walls/floors/ceilings are shared with
>another dwelling). The big, separate houses you see in American suburbia are NOT the norm for
>many countries.
I just don't care for it, personally. I don't want to own something that is physically attached to something that someone else owns. What if they burn their house down? I'm sure there is a firewall between the two buildings, but is that much comfort to realize that half the building you live in is charred wreckage?
So when I buy a house, I buy the whole building, with land all around it on all 4 sides. Thus everything on the property is mine and under my control.
If I was going to share a building with other people, I'd just rent an apartment (which I have done).
I'm confused by the terminology. Around here (southern USA) an apartment is something you rent. A Condominium is like an apartment in that it is on managed grounds but you can "buy" them. I say "buy" in quotes because the concept of buying half of a building attached to someone else's half does not sound like anything I would want to buy.
Anyway, what are they talking about?
I have long wondered why more public officials are not assassinated using a pistol mounted in a video camera.
What we are seeing here is the archeological equivalent of cracking DRM.
Once pieces can be reproduced indistinguishably from the real thing at cost X, the value of the real thing trends towards X.
Archeology's DRM has been cracked.
>Well that's your problem. You refuse to believe in what you do no understand.
This is untrue. There are many things in life that I did not at one time understand, but through scientific study, I came to understand. I will believe in anything that can be scientifically explained. I will not accept, however, anything as fact simply because someone said an invisible man told them so.
>Many things that was considered magic in the past have since been explained by science.
>The idea that the Israelites were provided manna in the desert was considered "magic"
>by many and therefor impossible. Yet studies have shown that the sap from the tamarisk
>tree easily fits the description of manna and provides a likely explanation. Many of the
>plagues of Egypt can be explained by natural occurrences. Even the parting of the Red Sea
>can be explained by a tsunami. That tsunami could have been caused by an volcano that
>erupting nearby, at the same time and could have caused many of the plagues.
>These are scientific explanations for what many have perceived as miracles, or
>"magic" as you put it. Was it a volcano and tsunami? I can't tell you. But I can
>guarantee that there is science behind what you call "magic".
If it is your claim that these events, if they actually occurred, were the result of natural phenomenon, then I have no disagreement with you. I disagree with those who say that these events, if they actually occurred, were the result of magic.
>Well known scientists like Einstein once claimed that the universe was static and could not
>have had a beginning. In the name of religion, a priest by the name of Georges Lemaitre
>worked with recent scientific discoveries to prove that the universe did indeed have a creation. Was the Big Bang "magic"? Two hundred years ago, some would have said the exact same thing you did.
>The one thing that Georges Lemaitre realized is that God works within the laws of the
>universe that He created. These universal constants are narrow enough that even the
>slightest variation of any of them would cause the universe not to exist at all. Is it magic?
>Read this page and others like for examples of how respected scientists and mathematicians are
>looking for rational explanations to what you might consider "magic". You don't have to believe
>it, but you should approach it with an open mind and admit that there is some science behind be belief.
Just because a naturally occurring phenomenon is not well understood does not mean it is magic or supernatural, nor does it imply that "god did it". It simply means that our understanding of the science behind the phenomenon is insufficient to explain it at this time.
>Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean that it's "magic" and can not exist.
I agree entirely. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that it's magic or supernatural. It simply means you lack the science to describe it at this time.
>On the flip-side, "God did it" is not a valid explanation for things I don't understand.
Glad we agree.
>Galileo said it best:
>"the laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics". --Galileo
>God works within His own laws.
The laws could also exist without a god.
>First, you are confused. Yes, there is a freedom FROM a GOVERNMENT religion which is where
>the BoR states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", but
>'m free to practice whatever religion I wish because it says next, "or prohibiting the free
> exercise thereof".
Yes, but the most important part here is that the government can't force a religion on the people. As a caveat, sure, people are allowed to believe in magic if they like, but it has no impact on government and vice versa.
>So, yes, the founders of the Bill of Rights thought religion was so important,
>they mentioned it first. I'd call that enshrining.
No, they thought that GETTING A RELIGION CRAMMED DOWN YOUR THROAT WAS SO ABHORRENT that they made sure the law of the land prevented it. I'd call that neutering.
>However, the freedom of speech also covers you to look ignorant. When you call religion
>"fairy tales and magic worship", it proves that you have very little clue as to what
>religion entails. Most of religion are rules to live by. It sets a standard on how to live.
>It teaches not to steal, murder, lie, cheat on your spouse or several other things that
>cause problems between people. It also teaches to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, forgive
>those that have done you wrong, and other things that make us better people and improve
>society as a whole.
One small problem with this. You can, and people do, teach all of this WITHOUT INVOKING MAGIC.
I have a very large clue as to what religion entails, and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM INVOLVE MAGIC.
I don't have a problem with moral codes to live by. Only ones based on magic or other illogical basis.
>Evidently, you don't understand any of that, which makes you ignorant. Maybe you just think
>that kind acts like feeding the hungry is all fairy tales, which would just make you an asshole.
Acts of kindness like feeding the hungry is great. It's the belief in magic that is all fairy tales.
You don't have to believe in magic to feed the hungry.
>I'll be kind and assume that it's just ignorance on your part. Tomorrow is Sunday.
>Please wake up early enough to attend a church and talk with the people there before
>you embarrass yourself further.
I've been to many a church service and I no longer feel it necessary to waste my precious time on nonsense like talking to an invisible man in the sky with magic powers.
The only people who need to be embarrassed are the people talking to invisible men with magic powers.
>Long story short: There was a whopping 3-point difference between the two groups...
I don't know anything about IQ testing. Is 3 points really a big difference or were you being sarcastic?
>No, this is just genuine racism. There's nothing integral about being
>african-american that makes one reject learning.
It is not racist to point out a failing that is prevalent in a race of people.
You are correct in that there is nothing /intrinsically/ about being black that makes black people do poorly at school. Yet AS A GROUP they seem to do so. AS A GROUP, they do seem to reject learning.
It is not racist to point this out.
Too many people are eager to pull out the "racism" hammer and bash people like the OP with it and consequently little gets talked about concerning the root causes of problems like these.
I believe that black people do tend to have a dim view of learning and western culture. But I do not believe it has anything to do INTRINSICALLY with their race.
It has to do with expectations and opportunity.
AS A GROUP, I suspect most black people have low-paying, unskilled jobs. There are probably, for example, a lot more black janitors than black doctors. What this does is two important things:
First, it sets up a poor level of personal expectation from the children of such people. When your father or mother is a janitor or convenient store clerk this is going to be the metric by which many judge their own success in life.
Second, it sets up a feeling of despair, as when they look around for successful black roll models they find that they are very few and far between. Thus many black kids simply feel that it is not possible to achieve success and they give up or settle for less. Or worse, they harbor feels of resentment and actively reject opportunities for success.
Both of these things are reasons why I have come to grudgingly accept affirmative action. Though I abhor the idea of giving things away based on race, the simple fact is the pump needs to be primed. We need to get enough black people into positions of success until being a successful black person doesn't seem like an impossibility and in fact seems as common as any other color of successful person.
Until then, too many black youths will have no reason to aspire for better.
>To ridicule those that value religion, you are rejecting that which
>preventss them from forcing you into their "hocus pocus sham".
Crock. Of. Shit. Freedom OF religion also means freedom FROM religion. The Bill of Rights does not enshrine religion, it neuters it, and rightfully so.
Yes, you have the right to worship whatever you like. Of course I also have the right to point out it's all fairy tales and magic worship.
By Godwin's Law, you lose the argument.
I will wear the distinction proudly.
Religion = hocus pocus sham.
>The translation is: "You are hateful bigot who can't accept the idea that some people have opinions
> that are different than your own. You make yourself hate them rather than even consider that maybe,
> just maybe, their ideas have merit. You are unable to promote your own ideas with any intelligence,
> so you rely on belittling those who differ from you in a lame attempt to promote yourself."
I have no problem with people who have opinions that are different than my own.
As long as they aren't based in mysticism and superstition. Those opinions deserve nothing but scorn and laughter.
>The truth is, Bush didn't ban stem cell research. Bush didn't even ban embryonic stem cell research.
>He only banned federal level funding for it. The States and the private sector were free to do as they pleased.
I'm so tired of this Bush apologizing.
The translation is, "He was a backward fuckwad pandering to religious nuts, but hey, at least his reach exceeded his grasp!"
>In other words, in 20 years' time the world is going to be full of 80-year-old people
>with firm skin, perky tits, big throbbing erections, and absolutely no fucking memory of what to do with them.
A world full of fit virgins!