Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
(The one Biker who knows what Glass is couldn't make it out if his mother's basement because he's too hammered)
I have never met a bigot that I thought was encumbered by too much intelligence. I'm glad to see that my own bias' against retards that equate appearance (or hobby) to IQ hasn't been scuffed.
Agreed. Honestly, AFAIC if you're contributing to the conversation, even a little, there's no reason not to post your own links to your own site(s). It's the "posting just to advertise" that people hate.
playing games with the definition to avoid technically having declared war by action on every nation on earth?
Why not? It's been pretty effective so far.
That's kinda hard to do once the genie is out of the bottle and facts are on the ground. Take gay military service: sure, the next president is free to kick gays out of the military again, since Obama's weak-sauce "repeal" had no anti-discrimination language.
But the next president will have to work against a 4 year long record of gay service.
No, the next president will have to work against 20 years of recorded gay service. Bill Clinton enacted "don't ask, don't tell" back in the early 90's as a way to allow homosexuals to serve. After 20 years, and considering that the US Military has been complaining about the low IQ's of recent grads, they'll continue to accept anyone that'll do the job.
Weed is a different issue entirely. So far, we've had 8 years of Obama (more or less) not prosecuting, true enough, but we've also watched him flip flop on that very same topic at least twice. During his initial campaign he implied that he would push to legalize weed...as soon as he was in office he claimed that he just wanted to maintain the status quo. During his second election it didn't come up, but there have been quite a few petitions at Whitehouse.gov about it and so far the only official response from the WhiteHouse is that they "trust in the science that they already have", which means that they trust in the propaganda that was spouted in the 30's.
His decision to not prosecute patients (and to not prosecute Washington/Colorado residents) is totally at his discretion. When the Republicans are back in the white house (which I totally expect considering how poorly Obama has done), weed doesn't have a chance.
President Jeb Bush could also go back to persecuting marijuana users, but would still have to work against the fact on the ground that marijuana isn't a dangerous drug.
It's not about saving lives, it's about filling prisons. If it were about saving lives booze would be classified at a much higher risk than weed.
While I agree with the sentiment, I'm really glad that the Internet didn't go in this direction to begin with. Why? Well, it doesn't matter how much I'm paying for security if the NSA (or whoever else in the Government feels like taking a peek) can still read all of my shit.
Either that or they'd just merge the accounts...I've had this happen before I *think* with Google, but not certain. Regardless, they are under no obligation to remove your content...really the only decision that YOU get to make is whether or not you log in.
In an effort to continue arguing with everyone I have stumbled across the following:
As do the Post Office departments in many countries, the United States Postal Service has a legal monopoly on delivery of non-overnight letters.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_monopoly (yeah, not the best but good enough for me).
Soooo....I'm afraid that I must admit defeat or else become a Government employee. Since they aren't fans of pot smokers, I will tuck my tail between my legs and shamefully exit this thread
I was arguing that the USPS isn't a monopoly because 1) there are other businesses that provide the same service and 2) other businesses CAN provide the same service. If they don't, that's not the fault of the USPS. The USPS has no exclusivity for taking a letter from point A and taking it to point B...what they do have is a lot more Government oversight that prevents them from competing on the same level as the actual businesses that could provide the service. I do agree with you that the category of service is always changing and that nailing anything down according to those definitions is pretty point. The other side of my correction was that you stated they could "charge whatever they want", which is also completely false. If they could charge whatever they wanted they would not be having the financial problems that they've been having for the last 20 years. That's all - no more, no less. But since this entire discussion seems to be about a difference in opinion as to the definition of "monopoly", we can take a look at that:
noun: monopoly;plural noun: monopolies;noun: Monopoly
the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.
"his likely motive was to protect his regional monopoly on furs"
Can we at least agree that what they are providing is a service as opposed to a commodity? Good.
As a SERVICE, what is it that the US Government provides to the USPS that is a barrier for entry for any other entity? From the definition, I don't see any barrier to entry...anyone with the drive and desire to provide a better service than the USPS is welcome to do so.
Are you trying to say “Monopolies” are a synonym for “Bloodthirsty pirates who are only interested in booty?” because that is not what monopoly means. There are a lot of monopolies out there that lose money.
No, actually, I was correcting you where you were wrong. Namely when you said "The USPS has a monopoly on letter delivery" - which is demonstrably false. You can send your letters via FedEx and UPS if you like. Also "and can charge whatever price they want", which is also demonstrably false since the USPS has to petition Congress in order to raise rates. I could have corrected you on this: "In areas where they don’t have a monopoly – like next day mail – they have to charge a lower “competitive” price to match FedEx, et. al." but figured I didn't need to bother...stamps cost the same price, regardless of what city/state in the US you're in.
Now, if you're talking specifically about "special pricing" for major companies, I know that this has historically been the case. Sears and Monky Wards catalogs, for example, used to cost the USPS an absolute fortune in shipping due to mass and weight. IIRC there were "special prices" for them because they were driving the economy - essentially, Government blessed. I don't see how the Netflix (or GameSpy) models are relevant in regards to that, as the circumstances as well as the difficulties in shipping are vastly different...apples to oranges. Did Netflix get special pricing? I don't know, but IIRC the last time the USPS was in front of Congress asking for money they had stated that one of the only reasons they were even able to CONTINUE doing their work was because of the amount of money they were getting from DVD rental services. I could be wrong on some of these points though - memory is a funny thing...
Case in point, USPS. In exchange for a monopoly they are heavily regulated. I am a free marketer and I think the USPS service does a decent job for the money. There are a lot of other cases out there like that.
I'm not sure what point you're actually trying to make here, but if you read the last paragraph of my last post you'll see that I agree with you on this point.
Reading the summary, but not the article, I got the impression it would be less. The USPS has a monopoly on letter delivery and can charge whatever price they want. In areas where they don’t have a monopoly – like next day mail – they have to charge a lower “competitive” price to match FedEx, et. al.
If this were even remotely true then the USPS going bankrupt a few years back is bullshit. Since they were in fact going bankrupt and since they had to get Congressional approval to raise their rates, I would say that calling them a "monopoly" is disingenuous at best. Their prices are fixed, their costs are not. They have an expectation to provide a service at a rate that is significantly lower than FedEx or UPS - this is what has been causing them so much grief in recent years. UPS and FedEx are making money hand over fist and still are able to come close to the price of USPS with far better service. If the USPS raises their rates, they lose even more money.
I'm no supporter of Government programs by and large, but the USPS is one of the most well designed Government programs in existence. If only we could have maintained that standard with literally ALL of the other Government programs, we wouldn't (as a country) be broke right now.
Been getting around 5 disks from Netflix a month for a few years (sometimes more, sometimes less - their streaming service makes it so that the DVD service isn't as critical for me). During that time I've gotten 1 broken disk - had a crack from the edge almost to the center. I returned it, notified Netflix on their site, and was sent an extra disk from my queue in compensation while they rushed me a new copy of the broken disk.
There have been a few times when I've gotten a disk that was badly scratched...but only a couple, definitely well under the 1% mark.
As far as the "gunk"...yeah, I've gotten disks with jelly on them and other things, but again, not frequently. Maybe 1 out of 20 disks? Not terrible IMO considering the volume of disks that they're supposed to process every day.
Nice merger of reality & Diskworld...if I had mod points I'd do more than commend you, but as it stands you're stuck with some photons on a screen.