Why is it that so many people don't understand what free speach really means? Freedom of Speach does NOT mean "I can say whatever I #$%%% well please wherever and whenever I want". http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/amendment.html

More waste would probably only encourage them, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14556755

There's a huge difference between pay-as-you-go and service agreements. Ususally, though, your level of usages makes all the difference in which is better for you. Your House alarm most likely uses very few minutes a month. Prepaid makes sense because you're not paying for unusued minutes. Have a business that makes you spend hours a day on the phone? A monthly unlimited plan makes more sense becasue your price per minute is much lower. Because of that, in the context of this discussion, (being Tmobile's montly agreements versus other providers) pay as you go doesn't really apply.

Note to self : If you include HTML, then you better use <br> line breaks and the PREVIEW button....

Sure, but TMobile has loaded their propriarity remix on android on the phone as well, and they charge for that (depsite the fact that you may not want it and are likely to root the phone as soon as you get home anyway...) Oh, and the crapware they make you pay for too. But in all seriousness, T-Mobile is acting as a reseller and there is no way of knowing what google charges them wholesale for the Nexus 4. PLUS google isn't offering the 0% financing as an incentive. (think of the interest as already being rolled in to the purchase price.) Sure you can get it just by driving over to your nearest Google store.... oh, wait, I forgot, they don't pay brick and mortar overhead. All I'm saying is, yes, you can get it cheaper direct from the source. T-Mobile is not the source and they are expected to mark it up. Maybe marking it up by just over 50% is a bit much, but depending on the retail establishment I've seen markups as much as 150%. All that aside though, the thing about T-Mobile's approach to this that is so different from the other big carriers is the fact that you DO have the option to buy one from Google, and pay less on your monthly bill because of that. ATT, Verizon, et al are going to try to charge you the same thing, regardless of if you get the phone from them or from Google. tl;dr- T-Mobile is a reseller, Google is the source. Expect to pay more if you're not willing to put in the legwork.

The impression I get from your previous post is that you feel you are always right and your word is law, and anyone disagreeing with you about anything at all is not just wrong, they're lying. Now, I at least partially agree with your previous comments about being a Thug for detaining a person for asking what you were looking for, but most of the incidents in TFA were not someone asking 'Were you looking for a bomb or something?" they were people saying "hey, there's a bomb in my bag", something completely different. And yes, I looked through them. Ony 3 out of the 30 seemed to have worded the question 'what if there was a bomb' or 'there could have been a bomb'. The remaining 30 examples in TFA were all someone claiming to have a bomb, gun, or similiar item, or to be a terrorist, or to have knowledge of someone else's bomb on the plane. NONE of these qualify for your What are you looking for, a Bomb or something example. In all of those 30 situations, even if you have already searched, the person who said that just confessed to having contraband that you missed, and more complete search is called for . This is undeniable. For all you know, when they later claim 'it was a joke' they could be trying to cover up an inadvertant slip of the tounge. Sure, Zero Tolerance Policies like this don't leave any room for the agent to intrepret what the person meant. That is kind of the point of a Zero Tolerance Policy. There is no risk of a judgement call being the wrong decision.

Except, that the english language does allow for this. It's called using an Adjunctival Noun, or an adjective used as a noun. There's even a Wiki Page for it

You can't rush these things! That has to evolve in the discussion naturally. Wait for someone to call the other a grammer nazi or something.....

This is why I love Slashdot. somewhat intelligent arguements about how to properly call someone a Dumbass. Dumb Ass.

Sure, there are resources for calculating the sales tax, but there's another factor here. Most small retailers will go from having a single tax ID and a single sales tax filing each month, to having to do 46 of them every month. I work with small businesses a lot in my job, and I know quite a few of the ones that I work with can spend a whole afternoon filing it. One. Single. Form. (Virginia and New York, I'm looking at you right now...) If they had to file 46 six of them, that is going to mean that they will need a whole extra employee who isn't going to be doing much more than filing tax returns. All day. Every Day. And Yoda forbid if you have a high enough sales total that you have to file twice a month....

As I understand Use tax, as least in the State of Texas, you are only liable for use tax for items that you did not pay sales tax on when you purchased them. That may vary state to state, but, at least for the businesses I have worked with here, if they ran down to the corner store for a ream of paper and paid tax on it, then they already paid the tax, but if they used their Tax ID number to purchase a pallet of paper, and didn't pay sales tax, they had to pay use tax on it.

Well, seeing as the courts told Seattle that they couldn't forbid the delivery, he is offering an alternative. Maybe not ideal but at least it is another avenue of attack.

I would say that's a pretty fair argument, but there are some real difficulties in calculating those numbers, not the least of which is how to compare the carbon footprint of the food production for your average, health conscious cyclist to that of your average, overweight american car driver. I will say, though, that I do like the horse idea.

I am sad to report that another source also verified with the lawmaker that he does beleive cyclists are bad for the enviroment... http://seattlebikeblog.com/2013/03/02/state-lawmaker-says-bicycling-is-not-good-for-the-environment-should-be-taxed/ (site is a little slashdotted at the moment but some requests are getting through)

Course, existing peeping tom laws already protect you from the paparazzi taking pictures of you in an area that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.