I don't think we agree on quite so much as you assume.

I could see it happening on Amazon eventually.

In case that link breaks, it's a list of the states to which sellers of both domestic and international wines are allowed to ship.

So then why should the individuals be the ones to dictate the terms of the job? If I had 5 job openings and 100 qualified candidates I would expect people to work the way I want them to work, I wouldn't feel like I need to bend to their needs. If they really want a job, and there are a ton of other candidates, then it's up to them to make themselves as appealing as possible to the potential employer. Hopefully they learned that in their middle-school-level economics classes.

Saying "pot smokers think it is a right to smoke anywhere they damn well please and fuck everyone else" is a little different than saying "I've seen pot smokers who don't care who is around them." It's kind of like saying that everyone who drinks alcohol also drives drunk. Sure, some people don't give a shit. That doesn't mean that all (or even the vast majority) behave that way. There are always going to be inconsiderate assholes regardless of what they're doing.

The part about you projecting was about you saying that BVis suggested something that he did not suggest. That you read it that way indicates that you are projecting, because you already (clearly) have a bias or perception that pot smokers don't care about who they're around just because you've seen some people display that kind of attitude. It doesn't mean that's the general attitude.

I think you're projecting. He didn't suggest anything like that. What he suggested is that you could go over to someone's house, they might be smoking pot in some room, you walk through or spend some time in the room (which is your choice), and maybe you'll show up as positive on a test. If you think that "being around people smoking" somehow equates to "a right to smoke anywhere they damn well please and fuck everyone else", then you might have a bit of a bias.

What's the problem, are the people not free to fuck off if they don't like the terms of the job? Is that the only job available? What you quoted is one particularly hard-line negotiation. It's still a negotiation. The person can always offer different terms, or else go find another job, right?

The engine and fuel system were relatively intact, they had not exploded. It wasn't a failure of the fuel or engine system.

I'm not familiar with Bud Lee, but you sound like you could be a New Times reporter.

I didn't realize the dispensaries had to be NPOs, I just figured that the lawmakers were trying to make it as difficult as possible to implement the results of the vote. I know a guy who used to be a legal grower, but when a dispensary opened somewhere in his area, now he's not legal. I remember a bunch of grow shops that sprouted up right after the law passed anticipating new business, then they got to wait several years until everything actually started becoming legal.

It sounds to me like they're being weasels about it though. They claimed that the job posting was for an AIG employee, who will have the job of designing the park. Not an employee of the park. Sounds a little shady, but whatever. I doubt the park exists at this point in much more than name anyway, they wouldn't really be able to pay their employees I assume.

Hey, we voted for those. Granted, it took several years for them to actually go into practice because of other laws, but we did vote for their existence. There's one up on Cave Creek road I know about, not sure where else.

The distinction is that, as a religious organization, Answers In Genesis can in fact (and does) discriminate hiring based on religion. The theme park, as a for-profit corporation, cannot discriminate. The lawyers are trying to argue that the job posting was for Answers In Genesis, not the theme park, and the board wants assurances that the theme park will not discriminate in hiring.

This issue has zero to do with the separation between church and state. The theme park is not a religious organization, it is a for-profit corporation. It is owned by a non-profit religious organization, sure, but the park itself is a separate legal entity.

Why wouldn't they? It's a tourist draw, just like the museum. They want tourist dollars, which is why they have laws to help new tourist attractions get funding. You can argue about whether or not people would actually want to go there, but all you need to do is look at the attendance for the museum. Having 2 similar attractions in the same area would probably increase tourism overall, in fact. Why just go to the museum when they could go to the museum and then the theme park? Having the theme park would most likely increase museum attendance also.

Yeah, it's a bad example because you threw in the phrase "really slow peanuts". If they advertise unlimited peanuts, and you ask for more peanuts, and they don't give you more peanuts, or they give you fewer peanuts than you can consume, then it is not unlimited peanuts. Where's the confusion? They aren't advertising "infinite" peanuts, they're saying "unlimited". Without a limit. All you can eat, as fast as you can eat them. Now enough with the peanuts.

That is not the issue here. If you want to compare against dialup, then consider a service that offers "unlimited" dialup which will give you a 52k connection, and then they sends out data at only 2400 bps. It's not a question of the absolute number of bytes you can receive or transfer, it is a question of whether the carrier is artificially limiting the throughput. The technical limitations of the protocol or transmission are not a part of that equation. It is an artificial limit that is in question.

That's why I came in this thread - one of the reasons I like building my own machines is the complete lack of bloatware. How are Alienware machines in that regard, since they're controlled by Dell are they packed with useless shit I don't want or need? Is it finally time for me to order something pre-built, or is the landscape still basically the same?

...which the manufacturer sets. So, if the manufacturer did not want their hardware to use the driver for the particular device that they are claiming to be, then why are they using that device's VID?