O rly. I'll just leave this here: Jevons paradox.

I guess Nokia's platform really was burning after all. It's just that it was arson.

"Fallacies (sic) logic and inaccurate claims"? Geekoid, I suggest you consider your own self-referential sig regarding the Dunning-Kruger effect, as once again it applies to your own posted content.

I hope that was sufficiently clear to get through your addled mind.

I can perceive why you might seek out others who are discussing matters logically, as observing those people may allow you to someday learn how to engage in logical discussion yourself.

Enjoy yourself over there with the other people like you. Personally, I don't perceive why you would be trolled when you can just make an insular group of associates and block everyone else.

FWIW, I don't think that having your identity known by others has influenced you to dial back your trolling on this site. Then again, given that it's you, I'm not surprised that you prefer a highly structured social construct with many regulations.

Just an FYI, all those stamps you buy from the APC kiosk at a Post Office have unique serial numbers printed on them and are linked to your credit card and photograph. Couple that with the Mail Covers program the USPS has been running for the government since the 70's, and they know exactly to whom you are mailing that stamped letter (you know, because they literally log every single one of them).

Just look at the QR code-looking eIndicia barcodes on the stamps. Postal documentation indicates they are unique, but each APC printed stamp is obviously different upon close visual inspection.

Oh, and try covering that black plastic window by the keypad when you're using the APC... it will give you a nonspecific error message when you try to complete the transaction if you do that. It wants your photo for the log.

Buy your stamps from the counter or the grocery store.

My wife bought me my dream watch: a Citizen solar powered watch with auto synch with the atomic clock service. I have wanted atomic time synch in a watch since 1996, but only recently found this one.

It's nice that it has a sapphire face, because I want this thing to last me for 20 years and my old watch's face got rather scratched.

My perspective is that if the primary reason one is excited about a possession is its features and capabilities, then it's not a status symbol. It may be a luxury, of course. If this watch is still working/synching in 20 years, I will probably be as happy with it as the day I got it. Happier, probably, because I like durable and reliable possessions.

You know, I have never discussed my watch with anyone in person. Perhaps others who have the same watch are treating it as a status symbol. Maybe it is to them.

Your opinion, publicly stated, might negatively affect commerce, which could have ripple effects in the economy of another state. Ergo, your ability to state your opinion publicly is regulable under the commerce clause. Don't worry: you're free to express your ideas in your mind, so long as you do not communicate them to anyone else in any form.

This line of reasoning is consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in Gonzalez v Raich, Wickard v Filburn, et al.

The Commerce Clause has been blatantly twisted into an unconstitutional interpretation. They baldly lie and say it means something it clearly does not (remember, those decisions I cited defined commerce as including "not commerce"). Once you assert B AND NOT B == TRUE, then you can apply this logical fault to reason to any conclusion you wish.

So, to answer your question: yes, they assert they have this power under the constitution (technically, it's improper to say the government has "rights").

It might even be one of those rare constitutional applications of federal enumerated powers if it were limited to interstate commerce, but we all know that's not the case.

Old and busted. I don't know how you can tolerate listening to the harshness and small sound stage caused by RF shielded optical fiber interconnects that aren't impedance matched as well.

£10 surcharge is equivalent to the tax on £15.63 of fuel... somehow, I am guessing that 2400 L costs more than that.

Unless there is some sort of tax recapture reciprocity/equalization between the UK and the rest of Europe, that fee doesn't do much of anything to level your playing field.

To be fair, the ESA's own site insinuates that this project is a quadcopter for Mars.

"The dramatic conclusion to ESA’s latest StarTiger project: a ‘dropship’ quadcopter steers itself to lower a rover gently onto a safe patch of the rocky martian surface."

Precisely. Don't simply accept their disingenuous talking points. The "subsidies" for fossil fuels are a lie. These people include things like "the cost of road congestion" when they are fabricating their claims.

They refuse to honestly report the direct subsidies to fossil fuels, because their imaginary number is close to $2 trillion per annum, whereas the actual amount is many orders of magnitude less.

Read the IMF's "fossil fuel subsidies" definition and decide for yourself.

You fail reading comprehension.

I swear, I don't understand how people can miss the first sentence of a post and then draw conclusions that blatantly contradict that.

In case you missed the first sentence of the post (again): you fail reading comprehension.

You have an interesting set of definitions, though. If W changed none of his politics, but he officially joined the Democratic party and became a card-carrying Democrat (again, while retaining his well-loved-by-liberals neoconservative values), apparently you would allege No True Scotsman if I claimed he wasn't a Democrat.

Bloomberg was alleged to be a RINO (a term which people here claimed is a No True Scotsman fallacy). Turns out, he wasn't actually a Republican after all.

Oh, hey, in case you missed it before: you fail reading comprehension. I specifically said I wasn't debating Sotomayor's claim of being Catholic.

I see you agree with me, then. As I have stated before, the present national debate context (suppressing employer religious beliefs or employee self-determination wrt contraception) is a false dichotomy predicated on the retarded idea that people should obtain their insurance through their employer.

We have spent 50+ years shoring up this brain-damaged paradigm. I support this Supreme Court ruling while also supporting contraception choice... the real solution is that we need to terminate the employer insurance model with extreme prejudice.

If someone insinuated that people should be practically forced to obtain their housing or groceries via their employer, and in order to ensure people didn't starve or freeze we would pass myriad unconstitutional laws to keep the model even semi-viable, everyone would rightly mock the idea as absurd. The employer health insurance model is no more or less an absurdity.

It needs to end.

How much does the Discordian Society pay for you to post that?

You have insinuated I believe something that I do not.

Your belief about the unexceptional nature of conscience is taken under advisement, and I'm sure you're well aware that your view is a minority position. Feel free to change the culture, then change the Constitution (it won't work any other way). Until then, you are "wrong" in practice: religious beliefs are—and have been—treated as special by our culture and laws; barring fundamental changes in the culture, the system will continue to operate that way, as it always has.

Fair enough. I'm glad you understand that you truly have your work cut out for you if you honestly wish to effect the change you advocate.