 | | Re: Bicentennial Man and Immortality (was Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
|
(...) I haven't seen the movie (yet), so I hadn't been taking it into consideration. I'd consider it a bad trade, too - but then it wasn't me making the choice. To him, it may have been worth it (and I'll shut up now - at least until I see it). (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
(...) I have little sympathy for stupid consumers. I see too many of them at my second job for that. "This was supposed to be 80% off, there was a sign." Lets say they have a Christmas sweater. (Actual example) I went back there to see, and it was (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
(...) Hear hear. Trash fees DON'T cover costs because the government runs most landfills, and regulates the rest. That regulation, by imposing standards instead of using strict negligence, allows landfill operators to meet the standards (of (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Bicentennial Man and Immortality (was Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
|
(...) You say that as a mortal. :-) I don't want to .debate this, but I do want to highlight (and I guess I may be spoiling some of the plot here) that this character already WAS immortal, practically. He was faced with the choice of trading it away (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
(...) I think that it's not so much a case of the consumer wanting more packaging, than that the companies perceive that larger packages sell better because the stupid consumer thinks he's getting a better deal. As far as government regulation of (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
John, (...) Oh, I agree with the concept of them doing what they are supposed to do. Having them in the first place, on the other hand.... Don't worry, John, I am having a case of me overgoverning again, and it just booms out of me every now and (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
Scott E. Sanburn wrote in message <386A025E.278F00DF@c...eb.net>... (...) A quick search on the net found that Japan and Germany have laws such as I mentioned, and, voila! so does the US, many of them in fact. Maybe you missed this pork while the (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Since Larry is the most eloquent than I can ever be, I will just agree with him and be done with this. Scott Larry Pieniazek wrote: < Snipped the Larry & Jasper commentary > ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn -> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Work Email -> (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
< Cross posted to off.topic.debate > (...) Well, all packages contain what they have in there (i.e. 5.5 oz, etc.) The packages may need downsizing, which I can agree with, but the government taking action against them? What agency should look at (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Why? Is it OK to break the law if it was long enough ago and you didn't get caught? That seems to be George W's perspective. Hogwash. It is either wrong and the law should be changed, or it isn't. (...) What do you mean? Quayle came right out (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) That one is actually beyond the statute of limitations and thus irrelevant. (...) That one is not proved and not provable, AFAIK. (...) And here you're agreeing with me. I don't however think Clinton is any worse than the alternative. Jasper (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Agreed. One cannot ignore a law because one feels it is unjust if one is a politician. One must stand up and say "I think this law is wrong and I will work to get it changed" and take the lumps, not secretly disobey it. If one cannot support (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Just a quickie here: This definition isn't "bloody": (URL) but I didn't see 80% mentioned in it. Rather, I saw the use of "exclusive" pretty much exclusively. 80% isn't exclusive, it isn't even close. So 80% share is NOT a monopoly. It's (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Microsoft has 80%+ market share in the consumer OS market. It is _by_bloody_definition_ a monopoly. (...) Amendment, BTW. (...) Kenn Starr should have been fired a long time before all the trouble started. If I didn't know better, I'd think he (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Direct Questions
|
|
(...) We're not lucky, just more market oriented. Not to mention smarter and handsomer. Seriously, you can't have it both ways. Of COURSE stuff is generally cheaper here (not just in dollar to dollar terms, but in terms of the time it takes to earn (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Really? I hadn't guessed! (...) Well, it seems apparent enough to me. If you disagree, that's fine, of course; we just see Al's analogy in two different ways. (...) I can see where a former actor, skilled in portraying himself in a number of (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) IIRC (and I am pretty darn sure I am), he had them demonstrate how a computer could function/not function with out IE installed. Again, IIRC, the Microsoft attorneys couldn't demonstrate conclusively that removing IE had any adverse effects. (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Dave, (...) Moderate? Boy, I can't wait (I being a proud partisan, BTW!) (...) No, not obviously. (...) Reagan and Bush had a million times more qualifications to man the nuclear arsenal than Al Gore or Bill, IMHO. Badly, as always. It isn't just a (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) You used this as your SIG at one point, and I commented on it elsewhere, but since you bring it up here I thought I'd throw in an observation from a Moderate's viewpoint. Obviously Al is alluding to the nuclear "red button" of the Cold War (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Jasper, (...) Well, considering the law in this case is something crafted against monopolies, which IMHO, Microsoft did not do. When you lower prices on items, and produce a product, instead of raising prices, it is bad law. I think this whole case (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
