Fact: Too many "Christians" would have emptied their gun on the thief, and then prayed thanksgiving to God over the thief's blood-soaked body for the 2nd amendment.

It is a good thing you labeled this as "fact"... Otherwise we would have thought you were just another bigoted dick with ridiculous stereotypes about another race/religion who happen to fall in the crosshairs of your own personal hate philosophy.

Geez, it doesn't really bother me that you are a bigot, but that you are such a typified stereotype yourself! Does every bigot have to be so uncreative?

I'm actually a big proponent of gun rights (though I don't own one myself), and I still think that people should have to jump through plenty of hoops to get them.

Except the hoops that people are required to jump through are often times racist.

An example: In the post-civil war South, in order to keep blacks from voting, they instituted poll-taxes and literacy requirements.

Since most blacks where denied an education when they were slaves, they were not able to meet the literacy requirements and prevented from voting. Since most blacks were former slaves and therefore quite poor, they were not able to pay the poll tax.

Even though the law didn't outright say "Blacks are not allowed to vote", those requirements for voting effectively took away black people's right to vote.

The first gun-control laws in America began the same way - Creating some arbitrary restriction on gun-ownership that was easy for wealthy white people to meet, but difficult for poor black people to meet. In many cases, for blacks who were attacked and abused at the hands of racist law enforcement for so many generations, the fact that they had to go to the law to get a licence was enought to keep them disarmed.

While modern day America is a far cry from the post Civil War South, any reasonable person should understand that requiring long expensive classes to exercise a right is going to be a disproportionate burden on the poor - or even visiting a police station to get permission, is going to be a much more difficult task to someone who has been a victim of police racism and brutality than it would be for a privledged white person.

If any gun control law doesn't include very strong and very specific protections to make sure it doesn't discriminate against minorities and the poor, then the effect of the law is likely to be racist. (Just look at the war-on-drugs for an example of laws, that while not explicitly racist, seem to be mostly just an excuse for mass-jailing black men).

Well, you realize that this story is about culture and class.

Nearly every day when I am walking in the city of Toronto, I have to dodge idiots behind the wheels of a car who recklessly endanger my life. Every day in Toronto, like any major city, idiots who aren't paying attention will *KILL* several people. That is every single day! Nearly every single day in any big city a child is horribly killed, and a couple more crippled for life, by reckless automobile drivers.

The difference between guns and cars, though, is that guns are associated with the lower classes in North America (either "stupid rural red-neck white trash", or "inner city black criminal thugs", or possibily both depending on your own prefered forms of bigotry). Where as an upper-class respectable white person can drive a car like an idiot - driving an automobile carries no class-stigma, unlike owning a gun.

For the European folks, it gives an extra kick of ethnic and cultural superiority (we are better than those Americans) to the thrill of class superiority (we are better than those poor people).

There is some really ugly deep-rooted bigotry in Western culture that people need to deal with. You might not be a follower of the old school racist stereotype of a bigot (as race is no longer an indicator of social class, old school forms of hatred like the KKK or Nazis are a bit outdated)... but there is still a lot of hate and judgement coming from people in these message boards.

They have their business model all wrong. They are offering an enhanced experience over the multiplex for a premium price. In reality, they are competing with cut price DVDs and home theatre setups that offer everything that they do only substituting in the in seat service button instead of the pause button and a walk to the refrigerator.

Except that some of us find it fun to leave the house to do things. Some of us enjoy the idea of going out to an event, even if it is only a movie.

That is why TV hasn't replaced the theatre, and why people still go to concerts when they could just listen to the music on their stereo.

Do any of the current super-premium theaters offer a restroom at the back of each screening room with piped in audio from the movie?

I went to one in Michigan that offered that, so yes.

Holy cow, did anybody notice how much they intend to CHARGE for this absurdity?? From their page on the "Quantum Lite Sleeper" (which would "only" be 1/2 - 1/8th the price): The average cost of the Quantum Sleeper is estimated at about $160,000.00 ...

I think that might be a new buisness model. Think up crazy-ass products, post a press-release and photoshop up some mockups for your website - and give it an insanely high price.

On the odd chance that anyone is both that rich and stupid to actually buy the thing, you hire someone to throw one together and keep the difference. Otherwise, you just sit back and laugh not having invested anything more than an afternoons worth of work.

#2

I don't mind that rich people eat nice food. I eat pretty good food myself without guilt.

I hate it though, that the rich are turning their consumption choices, which *BY DESIGN* are unattainable by all but a very small elite well-off class of people, into a moral statement. They want to claim the moral high-ground for having the money to buy hand-made expensive stuff.

The slow-food movement gives rich people the chance to buy a sense of moral superiority. They get to eat a bunch of fancy food, and at the same time condemn people who can't afford to make the same lifestyle choice.

Naturally, this is going to piss off a lot of people who normally aren't particularly anti-rich.

If you consider the slow-food to be a fun luxury, fine - I have no problem with you enjoying slow food. But presenting this sort of luxury consumption as some sort of progressive people-oriented social movement is a deception.

What they are really doing is creating items of conspicuous consumption that will never be affordable by the masses! This isn't about "anti-globalization" or "anti-capitalism" - This is about upper middle class and above white folk creating a class-culture esthetic that can't be imitated by the lower middle class and poor!

It allows rich white people to clearly deliniate themselves as "upper class", and at the same time to berate the "lower classes" for not making consumption decisions that they can't afford. Class warfare against the poor disguised as "progressive" ideology.

Anyone who thinks this crap is smart, or cool, or "responsible" and "green", is just another rich yuppy twit.

Perhaps the police can work up a Phrenological profile of the criminal.

Don't you folks know, here are the rules about this sort of thing in the boing boing crowd:

It is only cool to laught at Creationists and Christian superstitious idiocy! You see, creationists tend to be declasse American rednecks, and it is very important to posture against creationism, to show people that you are not white trash!

However, Tantricks are a little bit 'ethnic', and a little bit 'new agey'. By believing in this type of crap, you can show other members of the white upper class that you are 'multicultural' and 'educated' because you know about 'exotic' religious traditions... and polytheistic traditions are more easily assimiliated into New Age low-commitment 'buy my book' consumer capitalist 'spirituality'.

Is making it out of cardboard really that enviornmentally friendly?

I suppose the cardboard version *IS* for enviornmentally friendly if you assume that a kid is going to get bored or the parents are going to throw it out.

But before our disposable culture, people used to make toys that would last for years and years, be passed on to younger siblings, and even younger generations.

Wouldn't it be better to make something like this out of nylon with rigid plastic corders, or something flexible yet waterproof and lasts a long time? That way it will last more than a few weeks one summer?

but not ok to show mercy to someone who actively wants to die.

I think the reason for this is because a lot of families might put a bit too much pressure on grandma to off herself, in order to get the inheritance. (or "euthanise" grandma and claim that grandma wanted it in order to get the inheritance)

Perhaps, if by choosing to kill yourself you forfeit all your property and no one inherets anything, that would make suicide and euthenasia more acceptable legally.

I just want to point out that nobody makes songs like this about PCs. This Means Something.

No one sings gospel tunes about atheism, either. Being a cynic is just not as fun as being a true-believer.

Brand loyalty is for suckers. If the Mac is the better tool for the job, by all means use the Mac... but loyalty is something you feel towards other human beings, not corporate entities. Rest assured that the shareholders of Apple have no great feelings of love or loyalty toward you.

People don't become zealous and religious when there are clear, overwelming differences between two products. With easily distinguishable differences, they can compare rationally and reconcile differences in needs and taste with other people. People become zealous and crazy when there are extremly minor and superficial differences between two things.

Hence, there will be a more heated debate about two nearly identical products (Pepsi vs. Coke, Mac vs. PC, Catholic vs. Anglican, Xbox 360 vs. PS3), versus two clearly differentiated products (Single malt scotch vs. Colt 45, for example)

Medical equipment is expensive because of the engineering that goes into it. For example, a neurosurgery drill has a bunch of features a power dill doesn't. Precise depth stops, controlled speed, much higher reliability, seals to prevent contamination, and parts that can be autoclaved are just a few... but yeah, a power drill accomplishes the same thing, even if there is more risk to the patient.

What we are arguing is that the extra engineering is unnessicary, or inefficient.

There are limited resources to provide health care. There simply isn't enough health care resources to go around.

A $30,000 drill might be marginally safer than a $100 drill, but how much safer? We may find out, in fact, that the extra $29,900 saved might be spent on other things that will save more lives-per-dollar than a $30,000 drill.

For example, lets say I can either manufacture 10,000 treatments for a rare heart condition, but one out of 100 of those people will die due to flaws in the manufacturing. Or for the same cost I can manufacure 1000 treatments for the heart condition, and no-one treated will die due to flaws in manufacturing.

For option A, 10,000 people will recieve treatment, and 100 will die due to product failure. A total of 9,900 lives will be saved. For option B, 1000 people will be saved, and 9,000 will die for lack of treatment. Clearly, option A saves way more lives, however in real life we would go for option B, because people can sue for product failure but can't sue for dying on a waiting list to get treatment.

When people look at the costs of medical equipment and treatments, they tend to completly ignore the opportunity costs. It may be that way more lives can be saved by providing a large supply of low-quality health care as opposed to a small quantity of high-quality health care.

No, inflation is -- by definition -- the increase in supply of money and credit.

Yes, inflation IS the increase in supply of money and credit... but you are the only one talking about inflation!

The rest of us are talking about the falling value of the U.S. dollar compared to other currencies. The two issues can be related, but they are two seperate issues.

No one here is argueing for an increase of the money supply, your arguement is a strawman.

It's simple supply and demand. If you create more money, you dilute its value.

Who said anything about creating more money? That is a completly different topic. We are talking about the value that the dollar is exchanged at on the world market... inflationary money supply is a totally different issue. Stop with the strawman arguements already.

This distorts the function of money carrying information about the value it exchanges,

An OVERVALUED dollar distorts the function of money. The dollar returning to a value that accuratly reflects the U.S. position in world trade, from a value that was artificially high because the U.S. dollar was considered a "reserve currency" for cold-war political reasons, makes trade information more accurate.

The weak dollar is great for US exports...which would be nice if we, you know, still had any. Also, if we were still making things within our borders, the weak dollar would do less to hurt our purchasing power.

The U.S. is the #1 exporter in the world. The U.S. exports around $1.4 trillion dollars a year. I don't know where people get the idea that the U.S. doesn't export anything.

The big problem is that while the U.S. is the worlds largest exporter, it is also the worlds most insanely large importer... it imports $2.2 trillion dollars a year. The U.S. is "borrowing" the difference.

You've essentially argued that "God harms in order to heal". People losing the value of their savings and paychecks, so that they can work to earn more money to regain the value they lost due to inflation is still a net loss (an opportunity cost, to be precise).

"Inflation creates growth." is a lie on par with "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."

Wrong. Currency != real wealth. Currency = medium of exchange. Nothing is destroyed by the natural devaluation of the U.S. dollar. The broken window fallacy does not apply.

And I didn't argue that inflation creates growth. You pulled that out of nowhere. I argued that a lower value dollar boosts U.S. exports, which it does. Obviously if the U.S. government chooses an inflationary monetary policy, the U.S. can squander the opportunities presented by a lower value dollar. But that isn't a problem with a low dollar in itself.

#10

Word. My wife and I desperatly tried to exchange some Canadian money in several flyover states a few years ago, and it is pretty much impossible to do any sort of currency exchange anywhere except at an airport. You can exchange money extremly easy in the big cities and in tourist locations, but foreign tourists aren't big on Idaho, or Indiana, or such places - which means the banks there don't know how to exchange currency. If you have an account, they can exchange your money and deposit into your account in 2-4 weeks... but they are useless for tourists.

The states between Ohio and Wyoming, don't expect to get any currency exchanged there.

The sliding dollar will help the U.S... For many years, the dollar has been way overvalued, and this has caused U.S. exports to be artificially expensive. As the U.S. dollar slides down, U.S. goods and services become extremly cheap, and this boosts the domestic economy of the U.S..

Not only that, but as the dollar slides, U.S. foreign debt is reduced. Those big trillion dollar I.O.U.s the U.S. wrote out are suddenly worth a whole lot less goods and services.

There is still the problem of a low dollar making oil more "expensive"... however, compared to the E.U., China, Japan, India, and all the big players, the U.S. is the most oil self-sufficient. When Alan Greenspan is making speeches to OPEC asking them to stop pegging oil prices to the U.S. dollars, the whole "petrodollar" conspiracy theory doesn't hold much weight. The U.S. is extremly wasteful with oil, and the economic costs of a modest boost of mass-transit combined with replacing gas-guzzling SUVs with small Euro style automobiles will easily be made up for in jobs/exports.

The biggest worry isn't the dollar sliding (the dollar desperatly needs to slide). The biggest worry is the dollar sliding too quickly. Even positive change, if it happens too quickly, could trigger some sort of nasty global economic crisis. If it does, it is going to be global and hurt everyone, so don't be so smug about the dropping dollar.

But the people most worried about the sliding dollar right now are Europeans (whose goods and services are becoming much more expensive, reducing exports - U.S. tourists not being able to exchange money, for example, is costing Europe tourist income and hurting European buisnesses as much as American tourists), and China (who gave the U.S. lots of cheap plastic shit in exchange for an I.O.U. of U.S. dollars... and their nest egg is now suddenly becoming worthless).

#8,

I don't know if organic bean curds are saving the world. I suspect the effect is minimal at best. I suspect the following things are much better methods at conservation than going "organic":

1. Preparing your own food, as opposed to purchasing pre-prepared items.

2. Going vegetarian or vegan.

3. Purchasing foods that don't require refridgeration.

4. Purchasing foods that are dried (i.e. bulk dried lentils vs. lentils in a can).

However, if you assume that organic food is better, in and of itself, then mass-marketification of organic foods is a good thing. Wouldn't you want all-natural organic foods to be as avialable as Walmart or Starbucks, if you think they are benificial?

If there is a lack of black tech bloggers, wouldn't that imply some sort of institutional racism against black tech bloggers?

I suppose most bloggers aren't making a living at it so it is irrelevent for most people, but wouldn't the law require professional for-profit tech blogs to take affirmative action to remedy a lack of black tech bloggers? Or are more "freelance" situations like blogs exempt from that sort of legal protections? And if so, why?

If you are truly concerned about the enviornment, and you truly believe that organic food is positive for the enviornment, then you wouldn't have any problem with the mass-marketification of organic foods.

Of course, if you are purchasing organic foods as a way to boost your social status and "green cred" with other shallow urban hipsters and/or crunchy types, then you are probably pretty pissed off.

No problem though, just go macrobiotic, and that will give you many more years of indignant smugness before it goes mass-market.