Are you seriously claiming that it's easier from a UI standpoint to buy things on eBay than Amazon? There are certainly complaints to be made about Amazon's UI, but "hard to get from a product page to a completed sale" is not one of them.
Your Target delivers same-day? For free? If not you're comparing apples to orchards.
Don't forget the costs of buying locally -- transportation and time.
There are plenty of high-power electric drive systems. Trains and busses have been using them for decades. Walmart recently demoed a turbine-powered hybrid 18 wheeler with 100% electric drive power. The reason Tesla doesn't have an 800 HP electric drive is not that they don't exist, it's that they're big and expensive, just like 800 HP hydrocarbon engines.
So if you lease a car the owner is entitled to run it whenever they want so long as they compensate you for gas? Or to install advertising on it? If not, why can the cable company do the same thing with the modem you lease from them?
I agree it's unlikely that these routers are being configured with a second public IP. But since Comcast controls the upstream network they don't need one -- they just eventually need to NAT before routing you to the Internet. Which they are interested in doing because they aren't running a portal/auth on all these individual routers -- they're forwarding all the related traffic to a central pool and dealing with it there.
It would make for the same routing rules in any machine with 3 or more logical interfaces (i.e. most non-SOHO routers). And a relatively simple configuration at that, as the routes are completely isolated at the IP layer.
BitCoin already works perfectly fine with offline, encrypted wallets. It's just that people keep putting their coins into these unsecured, uninsured exchanges.
We seem to be okay with the mandate to feed children, and to provide at least a minimum level of medical care for them, even against the wishes of their parents. It's not clear how vaccinations are fundamentally different from those existing mandates.
Plus we have a long history of promoting public health over individual freedom in a whole slew of contexts, sometimes including confinement.
What part of the constitution allows parents to compel their children not to get vaccinated (or to get vaccinated, for that matter)? If we're going to talk about this in terms of individual freedom, shouldn't we consider the individuals actually affected?
So maybe we shouldn't create situations where members of society have nothing to lose? It's bad enough that such situations might arise in the world at large -- we certainly don't have to create them as a matter of law.
A) They're not discriminating against people who hold a permit, just people currently exercising it -- you have a right to defecate, but I bet you'll only eat at restaurants who throw out people who do it on the table.
B) Your gun is not a person and cannot itself be discriminated against
C) Anti-discrimination laws only apply to immutable and difficult-to-change attributes; you can easily disarm yourself and suffer no direct harm as a result
The only restrictions in the AZ law are that the interaction cannot be trivial or technical. Those two terms are not well defined, and would probably need to be settled via case law. I'd like to think that a PoS transaction is pretty trivial, but it's hard to say what a court would decide.
But honestly it doesn't matter. The line isn't (or at least shouldn't be) "how involved the seller feels" it's "are you offering services to the public". If you're offering services to the public, you must serve the entire public, even the parts you disapprove of. If you only offer services to members then you don't have to worry about these rules. As such a pastor who only performs ceremonies for members of his church is free to discriminate as he sees fit, but a for-rent chapel that's open to the public would not be in a position to refuse.
Please stop pretending this is a new and open question -- it's been settled both legislatively and in the courts for decades, and the only difference here is the specific group being discriminated against. You either know that and are trolling, or you're not informed enough to participate in the debate.
You can choose who you serve without interference from the government, even if you want to exclude protected classes. You just can't claim to be open to the public while refusing service to certain groups -- either you serve the entire public, or you're a members-only club.
Just FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...