I'm not sure what's been done about this particular issue, but let's not act as if the Republicans haven't played their part in our current government being stagnant. With a year left to go, the Republicans already have the most filibusters in the history of the US, and they blantantly admit that they're blocking votes on stuff to make the democrats look bad. Here's a quote from Trent Lott (the guy who was all about how unfair it was for the Democrats to not give an "up or down" vote for Gonzales): "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. So far it's working for us. The Democrats are the ones taking the blame for not getting anything done."
They even introduce bills and when it gets to the floor, they block it:
The Democrats "taking back congress" isn't as succinct as you insinuate.
Re:Not this crap again
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"Bush won because many voters, myself included, thought Bush was responsible for cleaning up his own mess, and that Kerry had absolutely no ability to do so."
While you may feel Bush was responsible for cleaning up his messes, do you feel like he actually took responsibility? If so, how do you feel that's panning out?
So you either feel Bush is meeting the expectations you had for him, or he's not. If he is, and you actually think Kerry would have done worse, then I guess that's your perogative. If he isn't meeting your expectations, I guess the real reason Bush won is because both are assholes but Bush fooled you into thinking he's not as much of one.
If I make a product that screws up something in a typical environment that it's supposed to be in, then it's my fault and no one else's, no matter how cruddy that environment is. This isn't like an unknown flaw or something that's unforseen. Windows is what it is, and if a known shortcoming isn't worked around by your product, then your product is at fault.
The difference in your analogy being that there is more of an issue than the law itself. If it's true that P2P sharing helps music sales, then the reason why music copyright law exists - to ensure the owners are compensated for their work - is negated. How is the violation of the consumer's treatment in your analogy ever negated for the consumer?
And here's a question: if it were viable to seek legal rights to force people into buying CD's at gunpoint, do you really think they'd have an issue with it?
For me, I think that there should be (but probably isn't), a legal stance of ignoring a law if its purpose of existence is negated when it's broken.
I disagree. While I will vote down anything that has to do with a smoking ban, since I do feel that it is my responsibility to make the choice of whether or not I want to go in a place where people smoke, the information given to the people as to why the lobbyists are against it is based upon fact. Secondhand smoke really is dangerous, it really does cause cancer, and it really does cause pregnancy risks.
And now let's compare that to the information given to the people as to why the lobbyists are against evolution:
- it's still a theory. Well, yeah, so is most other pieces of science. Theory isn't a word in science used for thing simply not known; it's for anything that cannot be proven 100% of the time, which is just about everything. They're insinuating that it's still up in the air like a flip of a coin, and that simply isn't true.
- they want fair time for all ideas. No they don't. There's every bit of scientific evidence that aliens came down and populated us as much as there is for intelligent design, but they have no desire whatsoever to give it time in science class.
- intelligent design is science. No it isn't. It was not found by the scientific method, it's not testable, it's based upon false positives, it's not science.
Now, you're correct in that it's an emotional issue. In reality, yeah, banning beach campfires makes just about as much sense (at least in my opinion). But it is incorrect to act as if encouraging basing decisions on things derived with non-political science will affect smoking bans like it will intelligent design. Smoking bans is propaganda by not showing the big picture. Intelligent design is based upon distortion and lying.
I got into a similar debate about this, and it breaks down in the hypothetical scenario of should it be illegal to disallow the rest of the body attached to a brain-dead person to die because the brain doesn't work, if there was the ability in the future to regrow the brain. It would be a different person, of course, but should it be considered murder if that technology available?
Of course it shouldn't be illegal. And that's an acknowledgement that, even if it can potentially be grown into another being living of its own accord, it's still not considered a full-fledged person until the brain activity starts.
Something that can give insight, though, is how they feel about someone dying. Many pro-lifers consider a person dead if they're brain-dead, even if brain cells exist and the rest of the body is doing just fine (and that's going to the lowest common denominator, past sentience and other standards of whether or not they're "living"). Yet they'll consider a fetus alive with just one cell living, regardless if it's the equivalent of brain-dead or not.
So although I disagree with pro-lifers, I can at least understand the ones that will draw that equivalent line on both sides. Trouble is, most of the ones that make their voices the loudest do not - hence the stereotype of "a bunch of religious zealots" (and hyprocrites at that).
Look, from someone in the business, you have it all wrong.
1) Retailers are rarely the rebate providers. It's the manufacturers most of the time. So no, Best Buy has probably never scammed you on a rebate.
2) The reason you have to turn in an original UPC, a copy of the receipt, etc, is to prevent fraud. Fraud still happens all of the time, but this stuff is simply in place because if not, people will manufacture a ton of fraudulent submissions. And even with that, over half of our clients elect the "just pay if they call" philosophy, where if someone has bothered to call about their rebate, they will be given it.
3) If it were up to the people fulfilling the rebates, they'd validate everything sent in. Not only is there is a higher charge for valids compared to invalids, most of the time a fulfillment house is negotiating a contract, the first X customer service calls per month are free, so making the customer happy = less customer service calls = more savings for the fulfillment house.
4) Rebates give about 3 to 6 times as much reward as a simple discount does. Not only do a lot of people not bother to turn in a rebate form, it produces more sales, and it gives the manufacturer more demographic reports to do specialized advertising. Their marketing departments use the budget given to them that would be used for the simple discount to then use it for this other stuff.
If you don't want to fill out the rebate form and fill it in, fine; but it's not as if you're going to be saving anywhere near as much anyway. Really, you're talking about a $100 item being repriced at $95 instead of getting a rebate for $20. How much is that extra $5 off going to make for people deciding whether to buy or not?
Now how many people would if it were $80 after rebate?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but their print layout is measured in the good ol' imperial system of points. Dun dun dunnnnn!
I'm not sure what's been done about this particular issue, but let's not act as if the Republicans haven't played their part in our current government being stagnant. With a year left to go, the Republicans already have the most filibusters in the history of the US, and they blantantly admit that they're blocking votes on stuff to make the democrats look bad. Here's a quote from Trent Lott (the guy who was all about how unfair it was for the Democrats to not give an "up or down" vote for Gonzales): "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. So far it's working for us. The Democrats are the ones taking the blame for not getting anything done."
They even introduce bills and when it gets to the floor, they block it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/washington/12cong.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
The Democrats "taking back congress" isn't as succinct as you insinuate.
"Bush won because many voters, myself included, thought Bush was responsible for cleaning up his own mess, and that Kerry had absolutely no ability to do so."
While you may feel Bush was responsible for cleaning up his messes, do you feel like he actually took responsibility? If so, how do you feel that's panning out?
So you either feel Bush is meeting the expectations you had for him, or he's not. If he is, and you actually think Kerry would have done worse, then I guess that's your perogative. If he isn't meeting your expectations, I guess the real reason Bush won is because both are assholes but Bush fooled you into thinking he's not as much of one.
If I make a product that screws up something in a typical environment that it's supposed to be in, then it's my fault and no one else's, no matter how cruddy that environment is. This isn't like an unknown flaw or something that's unforseen. Windows is what it is, and if a known shortcoming isn't worked around by your product, then your product is at fault.
The difference in your analogy being that there is more of an issue than the law itself. If it's true that P2P sharing helps music sales, then the reason why music copyright law exists - to ensure the owners are compensated for their work - is negated. How is the violation of the consumer's treatment in your analogy ever negated for the consumer?
And here's a question: if it were viable to seek legal rights to force people into buying CD's at gunpoint, do you really think they'd have an issue with it?
For me, I think that there should be (but probably isn't), a legal stance of ignoring a law if its purpose of existence is negated when it's broken.
I disagree. While I will vote down anything that has to do with a smoking ban, since I do feel that it is my responsibility to make the choice of whether or not I want to go in a place where people smoke, the information given to the people as to why the lobbyists are against it is based upon fact. Secondhand smoke really is dangerous, it really does cause cancer, and it really does cause pregnancy risks.
And now let's compare that to the information given to the people as to why the lobbyists are against evolution:
- it's still a theory. Well, yeah, so is most other pieces of science. Theory isn't a word in science used for thing simply not known; it's for anything that cannot be proven 100% of the time, which is just about everything. They're insinuating that it's still up in the air like a flip of a coin, and that simply isn't true.
- they want fair time for all ideas. No they don't. There's every bit of scientific evidence that aliens came down and populated us as much as there is for intelligent design, but they have no desire whatsoever to give it time in science class.
- intelligent design is science. No it isn't. It was not found by the scientific method, it's not testable, it's based upon false positives, it's not science.
Now, you're correct in that it's an emotional issue. In reality, yeah, banning beach campfires makes just about as much sense (at least in my opinion). But it is incorrect to act as if encouraging basing decisions on things derived with non-political science will affect smoking bans like it will intelligent design. Smoking bans is propaganda by not showing the big picture. Intelligent design is based upon distortion and lying.
I got into a similar debate about this, and it breaks down in the hypothetical scenario of should it be illegal to disallow the rest of the body attached to a brain-dead person to die because the brain doesn't work, if there was the ability in the future to regrow the brain. It would be a different person, of course, but should it be considered murder if that technology available?
Of course it shouldn't be illegal. And that's an acknowledgement that, even if it can potentially be grown into another being living of its own accord, it's still not considered a full-fledged person until the brain activity starts.
Something that can give insight, though, is how they feel about someone dying. Many pro-lifers consider a person dead if they're brain-dead, even if brain cells exist and the rest of the body is doing just fine (and that's going to the lowest common denominator, past sentience and other standards of whether or not they're "living"). Yet they'll consider a fetus alive with just one cell living, regardless if it's the equivalent of brain-dead or not.
So although I disagree with pro-lifers, I can at least understand the ones that will draw that equivalent line on both sides. Trouble is, most of the ones that make their voices the loudest do not - hence the stereotype of "a bunch of religious zealots" (and hyprocrites at that).
Look, from someone in the business, you have it all wrong.
1) Retailers are rarely the rebate providers. It's the manufacturers most of the time. So no, Best Buy has probably never scammed you on a rebate.
2) The reason you have to turn in an original UPC, a copy of the receipt, etc, is to prevent fraud. Fraud still happens all of the time, but this stuff is simply in place because if not, people will manufacture a ton of fraudulent submissions. And even with that, over half of our clients elect the "just pay if they call" philosophy, where if someone has bothered to call about their rebate, they will be given it.
3) If it were up to the people fulfilling the rebates, they'd validate everything sent in. Not only is there is a higher charge for valids compared to invalids, most of the time a fulfillment house is negotiating a contract, the first X customer service calls per month are free, so making the customer happy = less customer service calls = more savings for the fulfillment house.
4) Rebates give about 3 to 6 times as much reward as a simple discount does. Not only do a lot of people not bother to turn in a rebate form, it produces more sales, and it gives the manufacturer more demographic reports to do specialized advertising. Their marketing departments use the budget given to them that would be used for the simple discount to then use it for this other stuff.
If you don't want to fill out the rebate form and fill it in, fine; but it's not as if you're going to be saving anywhere near as much anyway. Really, you're talking about a $100 item being repriced at $95 instead of getting a rebate for $20. How much is that extra $5 off going to make for people deciding whether to buy or not?
Now how many people would if it were $80 after rebate?