it doesnt say because the concept was that every citizen was the militia. There WAS NO ARMY. There WAS NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE A STANDING ARMY. The government CANNOT turn against the people if the HAVE NO ARMY. The people were supposed to be trained to defend the country and to be the militia, the call to arms. So yes, we, the people, were supposed to have unfettered access to all types of 'arms'.
then tell all the libtards to stop blocking the training programs that everyone else wants. Only libtards see gun safety classes as a threat to their authority. Well regulated means 'trained'. So stop finger-banging your bung-hole with a gerbil and let the populus insist on training everyone.
that was my impression too. They have just as many guns as we do possibly. They just dont have the hostility and violence we do. Its not the guns... its something else creating the anger and hate.
its only un-regulated because of all the libtards that insisted on things like gun safety stopped being taught in schools. The boyscouts, when it was first founded, was every bit a training program of independence and the equivelant of a militia. they were the minutemen of the 20th century.
dont quote the line if you have no clue what that line actually means. IF your going to play constitution, then disband the FBI, ATF, and all the police. The army clause in the constitution said no more than TWO YEARS. Every single swinging dick in the USA - IS THE MILITIA. Thats exactly how it was explained in The Federalist papers. It was every citizens responsibility to be the militia. If 'we the people' are the militia and there is no army then the government can NEVER turn on -the people-. I suggest reading a bit more before deciding that the founders never intended the citizens to be armed. It was EXACTLY the opposite. They did not want the government armed. Disarm the FBI, and Police and THEN, MAYBE, we will talk about disarming the public.
most US casualties in Iraq were not from guns. It was from some brainwashed inbred making some kind of kitchen improvised explosion that detonated as you drove by. Evil is going to Evil, regardless of what limitation you try to invent. Your efforts should be directed at the cause of the evil rationing, not the instrument of destruction.
i think the problem is that most of these incidents involve people that exactly fit this description. Unfortunately people do not identify them until the damage is done. If its fair to demand a ban on guns becomes less than 0.001% of the population cannot handle the responsibility and commits a mass shooting, then by the same logic, all games will get banned because the same, or possibly larger, percentage cannot tell the difference and will be subject to violent acts. Until we get into the psychology of what causes these people to 'snap' like that, its just going to be a game of shift-the-blame.
what make school shootings any different than any other shooting? Is it because in a school shooting mostly white kids are shot? In the grand scope, the number of people killed outside a mass-shooting situation, in a single year, will dwarf every school shooting since the beginning of time. Unfortunately the overwhelming majority of shootings in the US are black-on-black crime. This often goes understated. Its an epidemic that deserves just as much attention as any other incident like a school shooting. But why bother, right? I mean its just 2 black people killing each other right? Who cares? (intentional sarcasm).
The reason people are reluctant to 'follow the masses' about what they claim will solve the problems, is they recognize when they're being herded like sheep. When you _actually_ want to do something to reduce a epidemic, you start with the moves that have the largest effect first. First you look at murders, ALL murders, and figure out what the greatest common denominator is among them. Then you work on solving that. When that has an effect, then you whittle it down to the next item. Deciding to start with ban on something that is responsible for less than 1% of all murders in any given year is putting lipstick on a pig. Start with things that logically will actually have a real impact, not some pat-yourself-on-the-back legislation that will have zero effect in the long term.
If you had a trillion dollars and were told to invest it in medical research, do you spend it all investing in a treatment for progeria? Or do you invest it in heart disease? which one is going to save more lives? No one is going to argue that watching the 12 kids die per year of progeria is a terrible thing, but by the same token, every year a quarter million people die from heart disease.
There is no question, we in the US have a problem with the culture of violence. Removing one weapon really isnt going to solve anything. Its only going to resort in a temporary pause until violence regroups and finds a new way. Just look at london. They were so convinced they solved crime with a ban that prevented just about everyone from having a gun. Eventually their murder rate still exceeded NYC. Because evil is just going to be evil, even if they have to find a new way. So england's solution is tantamount to the violation of our 4th amendment right to be free of illegal search and seizure. Now they stop and frisk everyone, treat them like criminals, and arrest them for anything they happen to find.
to stop school shootings, or any shootings, you have to tackle this from more than one approach. Do you really think, that if you could snap your fingers and make every gun disappear tomorrow, that somehow, all the violence in the world would just end? There is way too much glorification of violence. The media makes excuses for it in some cases, and condemns it in others. Thats a very confusing signal to a pre-adult whose brain is still developing. What makes the sick and discusting violence by groups like Antifa OK but other forms of practically the same thing, not OK? Thats Hippocrasy at its finest. The Columbine kids, we later learned, had made custom FPS maps of their school and would constantly fantasize about shooting up the school. One day they acted on those fantasies.
Everything in moderation. Sometimes things just cross a line. I have the same theory about porn. Fantasies are fine, they give you this excitement about the edge of your comfort zone. But what happens when you act out and fulfil that fantasy? Its not as exciting the second or third time. So you replace it with something even more edgy, something darker. If you keep acting out on your fantasies and filling it with something darker, eventually you're not going to be aroused unless youve got a hot pepper shoved in your ass, vice grips on your nuts, and a dead racoon at the foot of your bed (obviously an extreme exaggeration). Sometimes fantasies should stay just that. Its important to keep boundaries and live by the idea of moderation.
Because you had to mail in proof of purchase seals just to get the action figure. Later on, when re-released for retail the boba fett character was one of the highest grossing characters.
Excert from Robot Chicken: The Empererâ(TM)s Return
Anakin laughs and pans over to the Geonosian arena. Jango Fett's head has been cut off by Mace Windu and bounces over to young Boba Fett. Boba Fett picks up his dad's severed head and a lady comes over and covers him with a blanket. She takes the head and gives Boba a doll.
Lady: I know you don't believe me now. But, I promise, It's all going to be okay.
Palpatine (Voice Over): Apparently, we're contractually obligated to follow that dumb kid's story, too.
Camera pans down to Gary the Stormtrooper's room.
Palpatine (Voice Over): That's what happens when you sell the most action figures! Thank you, fanboys!
microphones on cell phones aren't all that great actually. That's why when your on speakerphone the pickup is relatively poor compared to having the phone right next to you. Inside your pocket would be even worse for audio pickup.
see my previous post about disclosing the metrics that determine fraudulent use only allows the very people your trying to prevent from defrauding you to avoid detection. Amazon is in the business of making money. They are not going to ban someone they clearly are making money off of. Rest assured that the people getting banned are either committing fraud (returning something besides the actual purchased item), or returning so many items that it is costing more than the amount amazon is making. As long as the amount of profits gained from you exceed expenses spent on returns and lost revenue, you are extremely unlikely to get banned over a return policy.
and more importantly lets say there was a hard ratio. Disclosing that ratio only enables fraudulent people to walk right up to that line without actually crossing it. If the ratio is 'if you return 3 items for every 1 you retain' you can still commit a relatively large amount of fraud by ensuring you continue to buy, and keep, other items in order to continue to defraud the sellers.
without knowing who got banned and why, can you even make such a statement? Someone doing shady shit and getting banned is just as likely to lie about the reason for getting banned for a return. Unless you know of someone who got banned, and can reasonably be assured they were not abusing the system or outright fraudulently using the system to commit theft, its entirely speculation. I return things from time to time. I never get banned. My non-returned items outpace my returned items 100:1. My returns are usually exchanges.
If someone made 100 purchases and had 95 straight-up returns, not exchanges, got banned, I dont see this as a bad thing. A returned item can never be sold as new and costs the seller for the shipping, return shipping, and profit differences between a new item and a used/open-box one. At some point this becomes fraudulent if the intent is to avoid actually paying for items while retaining use of them. I am sure there is a metric to determine when enough is enough. Lawsuits and legal action is expensive. Its a lot cheaper to just ban and take the loss to avoid future losses.
its not even amazon's policy. The sellers are listing counterfeits using part numbers of legitimate items. Then they sell it for a few pennies more so they become the seller that gets picked first when you select 'buy now' or 'add to cart'. The only way to select a specific vendor is to select the link that says 'other sellers on amazon' or 'new & used (x) from $price'. I think amazon is going to have to start adding the seller in the reviews for verified purchases. They are already verifying the review came from someone who actually purchased a product, it would be trivial to track the seller and list it in the review.
I would be careful about babyfood due to the counterfeit problem. 5years ago I watched a news video about the counterfeiting issue _within_ china. They were counterfeiting shit like toothpaste and baby formula. Some parents had their babies die because the formula they bought had no nutritional value and the babies starved to death. Given the way counterfeiters are exploiting the listings of legitimate products by listing their fake at a lower price to get the sale, you run a risk of toxins or something of no nutritional value.
I have suggested that they have two icons for prime. AmazonPrime in blue, if its in stock in a warehouse where you can get it within 2 days. And AmazonPrime in grey if its still free shipping, but due to the nearest warehouse, it might take an extra day or two. It can be confusing to select free 2 day shipping, but it not arrive in 2 days, only to discover the 'guaranteed delivery by' statement was actually 4 days later. So much stuff arrives in 2 days (hell sometimes even within 1) that I just assume it will be in the day after next.
its not amazon technically. In fact when you bought the item, I can probably guarantee that at least one, if not more, of the sellers were actually selling the real product. Recently some 3rd party sellers are listing counterfeits with the same part numbers so they get listed under the real item and benefit from the real item reviews. I think, going forward, its important to list the name of the seller in the reviews. That way people can avoid that seller as long as they utilize the 'from other sellers, possibly without free prime shipping' link that will list all the sellers (and which ones are prime shipping).
what about used shit? does it still apply? Selling a used piece of furniture thats advertised as 'some wear' and then 'no refunds, no returns' would be a reasonable gamble. I would not expect to be able to demand a return because the chair had some scratches in it. Only if the chair was in pieces or missing a leg, unable to actually function as a chair, would I expect to return a clearly worn and used item. Especially if there were pictures that showed every angle and surface.
I have run into this a lot lately. When I am looking at an item I am unfamiliar with, I read the reviews. I especially focus on the 1 and 2 star reviews. Anyone can fake a few hundred good reviews. I try to see what they complain about and see if its something I might experience, or if the person is just a general complainer type. Recently I have noticed that sometimes there is a discrepancy because another seller is selling a _similar_ but not same item which essentially makes it a counterfeit. Im not even talking name brand shit either. I recently bought a pair of lapel microphones there were of chinese manufacture, but even this brand was being counterfeit. Looking at the pics, the original manufacturer replaced one image with a warning of counterfeit and said 'if you didn't buy it for $28.88, you aren't getting a PowerDeWise brand, you are getting a knock-off" which helped explain the 1star reviews that said it arrived in packaging nothing like the pictures. The counterfeiter was listing it for $27.99 to exploit how amazon's system works. You have to select 'see all sellers' and find the PowerDeWise seller to get the real one.
The end of the story was that I likely avoided a half-assed knock-off and a returned item hastle. I might have even assumed that the product listed, itself, was bad, if I wasn't aware there was a counterfeiter doing this. BTW the mic worked better than expected. The clarity of my voice when filming from my phone, when its several feet away on a tripod, is amazing. No background noises, no obvious sound quality issues that come from audio being recorded at a distance.
those buffets actually just have a problem with wasting food. If someone were eating it I think they'd be fine. My wife has one of those relatives that goes to a buffet and fills their goddamn plate with shit and then decides they don't like the taste of something so they leave the plate on their table and try something else. I've literally seen this person have 3 full plates of discarded food on the table as they went back to the line _again_. It makes me want to slap the parents that raised this person. If they weren't sure if they were going to like something, try a damn tiny amount before committing yourself to a whole fucking plate. Its not like you only get to make one trip to the line.
Slashdot Mirror
or just thorough training and proper brainwashing, err, motivational classes so they dont do something stupid.
it doesnt say because the concept was that every citizen was the militia. There WAS NO ARMY. There WAS NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE A STANDING ARMY. The government CANNOT turn against the people if the HAVE NO ARMY. The people were supposed to be trained to defend the country and to be the militia, the call to arms. So yes, we, the people, were supposed to have unfettered access to all types of 'arms'.
then tell all the libtards to stop blocking the training programs that everyone else wants. Only libtards see gun safety classes as a threat to their authority. Well regulated means 'trained'. So stop finger-banging your bung-hole with a gerbil and let the populus insist on training everyone.
that was my impression too. They have just as many guns as we do possibly. They just dont have the hostility and violence we do. Its not the guns... its something else creating the anger and hate.
its only un-regulated because of all the libtards that insisted on things like gun safety stopped being taught in schools. The boyscouts, when it was first founded, was every bit a training program of independence and the equivelant of a militia. they were the minutemen of the 20th century.
dont quote the line if you have no clue what that line actually means. IF your going to play constitution, then disband the FBI, ATF, and all the police. The army clause in the constitution said no more than TWO YEARS. Every single swinging dick in the USA - IS THE MILITIA. Thats exactly how it was explained in The Federalist papers. It was every citizens responsibility to be the militia. If 'we the people' are the militia and there is no army then the government can NEVER turn on -the people-. I suggest reading a bit more before deciding that the founders never intended the citizens to be armed. It was EXACTLY the opposite. They did not want the government armed. Disarm the FBI, and Police and THEN, MAYBE, we will talk about disarming the public.
most US casualties in Iraq were not from guns. It was from some brainwashed inbred making some kind of kitchen improvised explosion that detonated as you drove by. Evil is going to Evil, regardless of what limitation you try to invent. Your efforts should be directed at the cause of the evil rationing, not the instrument of destruction.
i think the problem is that most of these incidents involve people that exactly fit this description. Unfortunately people do not identify them until the damage is done. If its fair to demand a ban on guns becomes less than 0.001% of the population cannot handle the responsibility and commits a mass shooting, then by the same logic, all games will get banned because the same, or possibly larger, percentage cannot tell the difference and will be subject to violent acts. Until we get into the psychology of what causes these people to 'snap' like that, its just going to be a game of shift-the-blame.
what make school shootings any different than any other shooting? Is it because in a school shooting mostly white kids are shot? In the grand scope, the number of people killed outside a mass-shooting situation, in a single year, will dwarf every school shooting since the beginning of time. Unfortunately the overwhelming majority of shootings in the US are black-on-black crime. This often goes understated. Its an epidemic that deserves just as much attention as any other incident like a school shooting. But why bother, right? I mean its just 2 black people killing each other right? Who cares? (intentional sarcasm).
The reason people are reluctant to 'follow the masses' about what they claim will solve the problems, is they recognize when they're being herded like sheep. When you _actually_ want to do something to reduce a epidemic, you start with the moves that have the largest effect first. First you look at murders, ALL murders, and figure out what the greatest common denominator is among them. Then you work on solving that. When that has an effect, then you whittle it down to the next item. Deciding to start with ban on something that is responsible for less than 1% of all murders in any given year is putting lipstick on a pig. Start with things that logically will actually have a real impact, not some pat-yourself-on-the-back legislation that will have zero effect in the long term.
If you had a trillion dollars and were told to invest it in medical research, do you spend it all investing in a treatment for progeria? Or do you invest it in heart disease? which one is going to save more lives? No one is going to argue that watching the 12 kids die per year of progeria is a terrible thing, but by the same token, every year a quarter million people die from heart disease.
There is no question, we in the US have a problem with the culture of violence. Removing one weapon really isnt going to solve anything. Its only going to resort in a temporary pause until violence regroups and finds a new way. Just look at london. They were so convinced they solved crime with a ban that prevented just about everyone from having a gun. Eventually their murder rate still exceeded NYC. Because evil is just going to be evil, even if they have to find a new way. So england's solution is tantamount to the violation of our 4th amendment right to be free of illegal search and seizure. Now they stop and frisk everyone, treat them like criminals, and arrest them for anything they happen to find.
to stop school shootings, or any shootings, you have to tackle this from more than one approach. Do you really think, that if you could snap your fingers and make every gun disappear tomorrow, that somehow, all the violence in the world would just end? There is way too much glorification of violence. The media makes excuses for it in some cases, and condemns it in others. Thats a very confusing signal to a pre-adult whose brain is still developing. What makes the sick and discusting violence by groups like Antifa OK but other forms of practically the same thing, not OK? Thats Hippocrasy at its finest. The Columbine kids, we later learned, had made custom FPS maps of their school and would constantly fantasize about shooting up the school. One day they acted on those fantasies.
Everything in moderation. Sometimes things just cross a line. I have the same theory about porn. Fantasies are fine, they give you this excitement about the edge of your comfort zone. But what happens when you act out and fulfil that fantasy? Its not as exciting the second or third time. So you replace it with something even more edgy, something darker. If you keep acting out on your fantasies and filling it with something darker, eventually you're not going to be aroused unless youve got a hot pepper shoved in your ass, vice grips on your nuts, and a dead racoon at the foot of your bed (obviously an extreme exaggeration). Sometimes fantasies should stay just that. Its important to keep boundaries and live by the idea of moderation.
youre exactly my kind of cynic. love it.
Because you had to mail in proof of purchase seals just to get the action figure. Later on, when re-released for retail the boba fett character was one of the highest grossing characters.
Excert from Robot Chicken: The Empererâ(TM)s Return
Anakin laughs and pans over to the Geonosian arena. Jango Fett's head has been cut off by Mace Windu and bounces over to young Boba Fett. Boba Fett picks up his dad's severed head and a lady comes over and covers him with a blanket. She takes the head and gives Boba a doll.
Lady: I know you don't believe me now. But, I promise, It's all going to be okay.
Palpatine (Voice Over): Apparently, we're contractually obligated to follow that dumb kid's story, too.
Camera pans down to Gary the Stormtrooper's room.
Palpatine (Voice Over): That's what happens when you sell the most action figures! Thank you, fanboys!
anyone want to bet that they start getting amazon ads on webpages with hardwood floors as the product?
translation - we have no idea why it accidentally sent it to one of your contacts when these recordings are supposed to be sent to us.
microphones on cell phones aren't all that great actually. That's why when your on speakerphone the pickup is relatively poor compared to having the phone right next to you. Inside your pocket would be even worse for audio pickup.
see my previous post about disclosing the metrics that determine fraudulent use only allows the very people your trying to prevent from defrauding you to avoid detection. Amazon is in the business of making money. They are not going to ban someone they clearly are making money off of. Rest assured that the people getting banned are either committing fraud (returning something besides the actual purchased item), or returning so many items that it is costing more than the amount amazon is making. As long as the amount of profits gained from you exceed expenses spent on returns and lost revenue, you are extremely unlikely to get banned over a return policy.
and more importantly lets say there was a hard ratio. Disclosing that ratio only enables fraudulent people to walk right up to that line without actually crossing it. If the ratio is 'if you return 3 items for every 1 you retain' you can still commit a relatively large amount of fraud by ensuring you continue to buy, and keep, other items in order to continue to defraud the sellers.
without knowing who got banned and why, can you even make such a statement? Someone doing shady shit and getting banned is just as likely to lie about the reason for getting banned for a return. Unless you know of someone who got banned, and can reasonably be assured they were not abusing the system or outright fraudulently using the system to commit theft, its entirely speculation. I return things from time to time. I never get banned. My non-returned items outpace my returned items 100:1. My returns are usually exchanges.
If someone made 100 purchases and had 95 straight-up returns, not exchanges, got banned, I dont see this as a bad thing. A returned item can never be sold as new and costs the seller for the shipping, return shipping, and profit differences between a new item and a used/open-box one. At some point this becomes fraudulent if the intent is to avoid actually paying for items while retaining use of them. I am sure there is a metric to determine when enough is enough. Lawsuits and legal action is expensive. Its a lot cheaper to just ban and take the loss to avoid future losses.
its not even amazon's policy. The sellers are listing counterfeits using part numbers of legitimate items. Then they sell it for a few pennies more so they become the seller that gets picked first when you select 'buy now' or 'add to cart'. The only way to select a specific vendor is to select the link that says 'other sellers on amazon' or 'new & used (x) from $price'. I think amazon is going to have to start adding the seller in the reviews for verified purchases. They are already verifying the review came from someone who actually purchased a product, it would be trivial to track the seller and list it in the review.
I would be careful about babyfood due to the counterfeit problem. 5years ago I watched a news video about the counterfeiting issue _within_ china. They were counterfeiting shit like toothpaste and baby formula. Some parents had their babies die because the formula they bought had no nutritional value and the babies starved to death. Given the way counterfeiters are exploiting the listings of legitimate products by listing their fake at a lower price to get the sale, you run a risk of toxins or something of no nutritional value.
I have suggested that they have two icons for prime. AmazonPrime in blue, if its in stock in a warehouse where you can get it within 2 days. And AmazonPrime in grey if its still free shipping, but due to the nearest warehouse, it might take an extra day or two. It can be confusing to select free 2 day shipping, but it not arrive in 2 days, only to discover the 'guaranteed delivery by' statement was actually 4 days later. So much stuff arrives in 2 days (hell sometimes even within 1) that I just assume it will be in the day after next.
its not amazon technically. In fact when you bought the item, I can probably guarantee that at least one, if not more, of the sellers were actually selling the real product. Recently some 3rd party sellers are listing counterfeits with the same part numbers so they get listed under the real item and benefit from the real item reviews. I think, going forward, its important to list the name of the seller in the reviews. That way people can avoid that seller as long as they utilize the 'from other sellers, possibly without free prime shipping' link that will list all the sellers (and which ones are prime shipping).
what about used shit? does it still apply? Selling a used piece of furniture thats advertised as 'some wear' and then 'no refunds, no returns' would be a reasonable gamble. I would not expect to be able to demand a return because the chair had some scratches in it. Only if the chair was in pieces or missing a leg, unable to actually function as a chair, would I expect to return a clearly worn and used item. Especially if there were pictures that showed every angle and surface.
I have run into this a lot lately. When I am looking at an item I am unfamiliar with, I read the reviews. I especially focus on the 1 and 2 star reviews. Anyone can fake a few hundred good reviews. I try to see what they complain about and see if its something I might experience, or if the person is just a general complainer type. Recently I have noticed that sometimes there is a discrepancy because another seller is selling a _similar_ but not same item which essentially makes it a counterfeit. Im not even talking name brand shit either. I recently bought a pair of lapel microphones there were of chinese manufacture, but even this brand was being counterfeit. Looking at the pics, the original manufacturer replaced one image with a warning of counterfeit and said 'if you didn't buy it for $28.88, you aren't getting a PowerDeWise brand, you are getting a knock-off" which helped explain the 1star reviews that said it arrived in packaging nothing like the pictures. The counterfeiter was listing it for $27.99 to exploit how amazon's system works. You have to select 'see all sellers' and find the PowerDeWise seller to get the real one.
The end of the story was that I likely avoided a half-assed knock-off and a returned item hastle. I might have even assumed that the product listed, itself, was bad, if I wasn't aware there was a counterfeiter doing this. BTW the mic worked better than expected. The clarity of my voice when filming from my phone, when its several feet away on a tripod, is amazing. No background noises, no obvious sound quality issues that come from audio being recorded at a distance.
No soup for you!
those buffets actually just have a problem with wasting food. If someone were eating it I think they'd be fine. My wife has one of those relatives that goes to a buffet and fills their goddamn plate with shit and then decides they don't like the taste of something so they leave the plate on their table and try something else. I've literally seen this person have 3 full plates of discarded food on the table as they went back to the line _again_. It makes me want to slap the parents that raised this person. If they weren't sure if they were going to like something, try a damn tiny amount before committing yourself to a whole fucking plate. Its not like you only get to make one trip to the line.