As long as you act civil, I think the other patrons of the store would see 500 unhappy people with the store and wonder if maybe there wasn't something to it.
You can't negotiate cheaper prices for anything in a medium or large-sized store. In austrailia, can you pull something like that off in say, a McDonalds?
A previous poster mentioned that you can only take advantage of that if you get the store manager (or in best buy's case, maybe someone a level or two lower).
Regardless of the temptation to look good by bringing in lots of sales in your shift, no cashier is going to risk their job by making up a discount all by themselves.
I;ve heard rumors of what seems like flaging customers that returned products in the past.
Is this why they asked for a phone number last time I made a purchase (in cash)? I had to refuse several times, and then since I'd obviously caught the attention of security, had to refuse their search of my bags at the door as well. Not a very pleasant experience.
Ah, I see you equate "not purchasing something" with "causing trouble."
As I recall, the specific instructions the group had were to dress up like best buy employees, head to different departments in the store, and try their best to answer if a customer asked them something.
Don't get me wrong. This whole ice/foam busting up the shuttle on liftoff sounds like a serious thing, requiring -- as many other posters have suggested -- moving the re-entry module above the fuel tanks. That's the sort of precaution that seems worth throwing time and money at.
But these "we can't launch the shuttle today because of..." shakes-the-magic-eight-ball excuses seem to be happening because of only a select few non-issues:
1) Covering their own ass ("we TOLD you not to launch!")
2) Building anticipation, either consciously or unconsciously (by themselves or from the boss)
3) Hey, they only cover us physicists' and engineers' jobs once a year!
4) Fearfearterrafearterra
There were a great deal of Atari Games that you could pop in several times a week as a kid, wander around for an hour, and never get the slightest bit closer to any form or semblence of progress or completion. ET, Starmaster, Swordquests Earthworld and Fireworld... I could write pages describing them, but you have to wonder exactly what the people who wrote these things were thinking.
If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe its time to go home and crawl back under your bed. It's not safe out here. The galaxy is wonderous -- with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross -- but it's not for the timid..."
I still don't get this. Space shuttles launch igniting a large amount of fuel. What is cold enough to produce ice? Isn't the whole thing an example in "professor... lava...hot!"
Of course there may be consequences for things you say. In fact, thats really the only reason for speaking in the first place.
I think you're confusing "consequences from government" with "consequences from private citizens/businesses". Yes, your boss can fire you just for telling a racist joke (assuming you don't work for the state) The government cannot fine or imprison you for telling a cop to fuck off (in theory).
Please highlight for me the text saying you have freedom from consequences regarding speech.
Is there any other way for the government to impose consequences (ie, punishment) than to make something against the law? Are you really arguing they should be able to apply force against actions that are not illegal?
So what you are saying is that everybody gets a free pass untill they've done something so that they HAVE a history.
No, I pointed out that it should certainly one of the criteria taken into account when deciding to punish someone.
It was *reasonable* for the teacher to have been worried about his safety, given what's been happening in schools the last few years.
It was *reasonable* for the school to be worried about the threat against a staff member.
And it was VERY reaonsable for the school to suspend him for a term to teach him that threatening his teachers is NOT acceptable.
When is a broad and loose term like reasonable ever grounds from the government for punishment? This is a state-run school, remember? They could just as well say it's "reasonable" to expel any (insert foreign ethnicity here) student from the school as well.
So we clearly use the ends - saving your family - to justify the means - murder.
I don't think you understand the magnitude of the expression "the ends justify the means." It applies to all instances of a type of situation -- like in the above case where "anyone who makes deadly threats should be punished"
In your specific example, it would mean that any murder justifies saving your family, even if you were a family of criminals killing the lawmen attempting to bring you to justice.
I believe ends can never justify means because there is a myriad number of paths from action A and logically only some of them will lead to any specific effect. You have to judge based on each example, as you did in your example. Killing that home intruder would be just because you have no other reasonable alternative to stopping him and it is clear that your death will be the result of not doing so.
GF Poster's arguement was essentially "a kid who makes a threat of this nature should be suspended because other kids have made threats and then killed people." Defending that this punishment should be meted out solely to prevent a possible outcome is not a just act.
Saying "based on this individual kid's history, by talking to him as well as his parents and peers, and psychological evaluation by a professional (all reasonable steps taken when an adult does this), he should be suspended because the school board is convinced that he will definitely attempt to kill his teacher if he remains here" is far more acceptable.
Correct. It's obvious by reading the news that laws are not always constitutional, but they are passed and enforced because it's easier/politically safer than changing the goddamn piece of paper every time we want to do something it prohibits.
If everyone really wants the legal authority to punish people who shout fire, or to deny "terrorists" the right to a trial, we already have a system for doing so. Draft an amendment and get it passed.
Likewise, I agree with you. Perhaps my comment should have read "Ends do not justify means in and of themself" -- which is what the grandfather poster appeared to suggest.
And narrowminded simplifications may not justify being overrated (either on intraweb arguements or in the political theatre), but they certainly help get the point across.
That would have to be a fancy Shimmering Cloak of Evasion to be worth even the price of a non-magical sword. Come on, they're in completely different value classes!
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from repercussions
What?
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Does freedom of speech mean freedom from (government) consequences? YES! If you have to worry about being imprisoned for speech, then it is not free.
It doesn't mean you can say whatever the hell you want
Actually, that's exactly what it means. Again:
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..."
And of course, the 14th amendment has been interpreted to apply the Bill of Rights to the states as well. Since the first amendment has never been altered, any state laws to the contrary are unconstitutional.
where is this a political critique of the institutions of government? That's what the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution is there to protect
O rly?
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech."
Doesn't say anything about not abridging political speech. It says all speech. Of course in practice, speech which falls in the libel or threat category gets you punished. I'm just saying those laws are unconstitutional as the first amendment is written.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as you act civil, I think the other patrons of the store would see 500 unhappy people with the store and wonder if maybe there wasn't something to it.
You can't negotiate cheaper prices for anything in a medium or large-sized store. In austrailia, can you pull something like that off in say, a McDonalds?
moving more inventory
Isn't that a bad thing? I mean, the more stuff you move, the more you have to pay in shipping and stocking fees, right?
A previous poster mentioned that you can only take advantage of that if you get the store manager (or in best buy's case, maybe someone a level or two lower).
Regardless of the temptation to look good by bringing in lots of sales in your shift, no cashier is going to risk their job by making up a discount all by themselves.
I;ve heard rumors of what seems like flaging customers that returned products in the past.
Is this why they asked for a phone number last time I made a purchase (in cash)? I had to refuse several times, and then since I'd obviously caught the attention of security, had to refuse their search of my bags at the door as well. Not a very pleasant experience.
Ah, I see you equate "not purchasing something" with "causing trouble."
As I recall, the specific instructions the group had were to dress up like best buy employees, head to different departments in the store, and try their best to answer if a customer asked them something.
Don't get me wrong. This whole ice/foam busting up the shuttle on liftoff sounds like a serious thing, requiring -- as many other posters have suggested -- moving the re-entry module above the fuel tanks. That's the sort of precaution that seems worth throwing time and money at.
But these "we can't launch the shuttle today because of..." shakes-the-magic-eight-ball excuses seem to be happening because of only a select few non-issues:
1) Covering their own ass ("we TOLD you not to launch!")
2) Building anticipation, either consciously or unconsciously (by themselves or from the boss)
3) Hey, they only cover us physicists' and engineers' jobs once a year!
4) Fearfearterrafearterra
There were a great deal of Atari Games that you could pop in several times a week as a kid, wander around for an hour, and never get the slightest bit closer to any form or semblence of progress or completion. ET, Starmaster, Swordquests Earthworld and Fireworld... I could write pages describing them, but you have to wonder exactly what the people who wrote these things were thinking.
Oh, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining it to me.
If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe its time to go home and crawl back under your bed. It's not safe out here. The galaxy is wonderous -- with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross -- but it's not for the timid..."
-Q, "Q Who?"
I still don't get this. Space shuttles launch igniting a large amount of fuel. What is cold enough to produce ice? Isn't the whole thing an example in "professor... lava...hot!"
Of course there may be consequences for things you say. In fact, thats really the only reason for speaking in the first place. I think you're confusing "consequences from government" with "consequences from private citizens/businesses". Yes, your boss can fire you just for telling a racist joke (assuming you don't work for the state) The government cannot fine or imprison you for telling a cop to fuck off (in theory). Please highlight for me the text saying you have freedom from consequences regarding speech.
Is there any other way for the government to impose consequences (ie, punishment) than to make something against the law? Are you really arguing they should be able to apply force against actions that are not illegal?
So what you are saying is that everybody gets a free pass untill they've done something so that they HAVE a history.
No, I pointed out that it should certainly one of the criteria taken into account when deciding to punish someone.
It was *reasonable* for the teacher to have been worried about his safety, given what's been happening in schools the last few years.
It was *reasonable* for the school to be worried about the threat against a staff member.
And it was VERY reaonsable for the school to suspend him for a term to teach him that threatening his teachers is NOT acceptable.
When is a broad and loose term like reasonable ever grounds from the government for punishment? This is a state-run school, remember? They could just as well say it's "reasonable" to expel any (insert foreign ethnicity here) student from the school as well.
So we clearly use the ends - saving your family - to justify the means - murder.
I don't think you understand the magnitude of the expression "the ends justify the means." It applies to all instances of a type of situation -- like in the above case where "anyone who makes deadly threats should be punished"
In your specific example, it would mean that any murder justifies saving your family, even if you were a family of criminals killing the lawmen attempting to bring you to justice.
I believe ends can never justify means because there is a myriad number of paths from action A and logically only some of them will lead to any specific effect. You have to judge based on each example, as you did in your example. Killing that home intruder would be just because you have no other reasonable alternative to stopping him and it is clear that your death will be the result of not doing so.
I did not know that. Thanks for teaching me something today!
Justice.
GF Poster's arguement was essentially "a kid who makes a threat of this nature should be suspended because other kids have made threats and then killed people." Defending that this punishment should be meted out solely to prevent a possible outcome is not a just act.
Saying "based on this individual kid's history, by talking to him as well as his parents and peers, and psychological evaluation by a professional (all reasonable steps taken when an adult does this), he should be suspended because the school board is convinced that he will definitely attempt to kill his teacher if he remains here" is far more acceptable.
Correct. It's obvious by reading the news that laws are not always constitutional, but they are passed and enforced because it's easier/politically safer than changing the goddamn piece of paper every time we want to do something it prohibits.
If everyone really wants the legal authority to punish people who shout fire, or to deny "terrorists" the right to a trial, we already have a system for doing so. Draft an amendment and get it passed.
Likewise, I agree with you. Perhaps my comment should have read "Ends do not justify means in and of themself" -- which is what the grandfather poster appeared to suggest.
And narrowminded simplifications may not justify being overrated (either on intraweb arguements or in the political theatre), but they certainly help get the point across.
That would have to be a fancy Shimmering Cloak of Evasion to be worth even the price of a non-magical sword. Come on, they're in completely different value classes!
Yeah, well he's dead now. Let's discuss it again.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from repercussions
What?
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Does freedom of speech mean freedom from (government) consequences? YES! If you have to worry about being imprisoned for speech, then it is not free.
It doesn't mean you can say whatever the hell you want
Actually, that's exactly what it means. Again:
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..."
And of course, the 14th amendment has been interpreted to apply the Bill of Rights to the states as well. Since the first amendment has never been altered, any state laws to the contrary are unconstitutional.
where is this a political critique of the institutions of government? That's what the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution is there to protect
O rly?
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech."
Doesn't say anything about not abridging political speech. It says all speech. Of course in practice, speech which falls in the libel or threat category gets you punished. I'm just saying those laws are unconstitutional as the first amendment is written.
Ends never justify means.
That was the fucking point.
And if your friend protests, she is obviously a pedo and terorrist sympathiser and thus can be executed. Hail Victory.