Until about a decade ago, I subscribed to the Austrian model, or what I knew of it from popular culture. Then I became a closet pragmatist. I certainly didn't know anyone who would accept that governments excelled in anything besides oppression and incompetence. And now, I'm a bit of a pinko and I've got an admittedly bad habit of body-checking folks such as yourself. Sorry. I just wanted you to know that I exist, and I have thought about my position as well.
I have taken your position before, and I suffered for my heresy when I began to see the flaws in the minarchist narrative of the events of the 20th century. Now it's kind of liberating to stand up and present a left-of-center (for the U.S.) view. I'm like a recovering catholic; that's probably where the dogma comment came from.
Neither of us have the preponderance of evidence about the causes of the Great Depression. However, if we're comparing philosophies, I think that I have an edge in this: Even with what you may view as New Deal ballast and monetarist blunders, this economy still became the world's largest, by far. Additionally, more managed economies than this have stubbornly refused to collapse, and in fact many are trending better than our almost totally unregulated market capitalism.
And it is, objectively, unregulated. See testimony from Stephen Johnson of the EPA or Christopher Cox of the SEC. They are actually quite proud of their inaction and small department budgets. And they are, by any measure, true Scotsmen.
Hmm. Still technically a minority view, at that. Maybe I wasn't clear; what I was trying to convey was that it is not in any way settled.
I also didn't mean to dismiss him as a kook, really. The Ron Paul thing was a jab. I've come to associate the casual references to fractional reserve banking with Congressman Paul's devotees. FWIW, he seems like a smart human, as do you.
I still stand by my assertion that minarchists, of both the Chicago and Austrian orthodoxy, frequently fall prey to that logical fallacy. Even to this day and to this administration.
Your devotion to your ideology is religious. Judging by your sig, I guess there's not much I can say to change your mind. But just for kicks, I want to say this: I think you may be well-served by entertaining the possibility that your heroes could have been wrong.
Spammers treat legislation like damage and route around it...
That's actually pretty interesting. When I use the "route" quote, I'm thinking of the internet as full of useful free expression and accurate data. But the miasma routes around damage, too.
The rest of your comment is pretty far off of the mark, but that sentence is something.
That wing of the party left with George Wallace after passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Nixon was only too happy to pick up the so-called "States' Rights" voters, and pander to racists with his "the first civil right is safety [from black people]" rhetoric. Kennedy and Johnson's bravery in abandoning that voting block to the Republicans was heroic, and the South is majority Republican to this day.
Your assertion that the Democratic party is the party of racists is moronic. You should listen to less opinion radio.
Eugenics. That didn't work out so well at the beginning of the 20th century. Not only were millions of capable, intelligent, and decent human beings maimed or killed for no good reason, but human stupidity remained entirely unaffected (self-evident).
Not only is it screwed up (those proposing sterilization are never the subject of the policy), but it's pseudoscience.
And why would you be against Lovecraft fans having children?
Google doesn't give a shit about my semantic markup so it wont improve my search engine rankings. [...] I dont give a flying fuck about supporting people who want to leech my content by describing the content better, so I'd rather not make it easy for them either.
You are against the core philosophies of the web, whether you realize it or not.
[...] I see the future as Flex & Silverlight.
Your vision of the future of the web is my worst nightmare.
For some reason, I get the feeling that it is your "particular view" that is novel.
If your opinion is the exact opposite of the opinions expressed in the links above (i.e., you think that ISPs and backbones have a god-given right to inspect and molest traffic, and "net neutrality" means no regulation), then you are, in fact, against NN. That is, of course, unless you change the semantics to mean the exact opposite of what they are accepted to mean.
I wasn't really correcting you. I've seen your comments in the past, and I know that you're not ignorant as to what NN is or isn't. I was suggesting that you were being less than genuine.
You know very well what we're talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#Definitions_of_network_neutrality . It's a silly list, really. In particular, "Access to all legal content, but not via means that violate agreed-upon terms of service" is not any kind of net neutrality at all. The only two that are legitimately Net Neutrality are what the article calls "Absolute Non-Discrimination", and "Limited Discrimination and Tiering", where you can charge for a given QoS but you can't negotiate exclusive terms. These could just be called the strong and weak forms. Everything else that is trying to hijack the definition has something in common: DPI.
[...] for if net neutrality is lost, they will be at the mercy of the teleccoms companies - remember that they have been pouring too much investment and time into internet related products.
I'm not sure if this is accurate any longer. I've noticed new themes in the astroturfing on slashdot lately that stress the "approved application" model made famous by the smashing success that is Verizon's VCast.
Putting on my tinfoil for a moment, here's a scenario:
Microsoft negotiates a deal with the telecoms. The telecoms and Microsoft develop some new trusted computing abomination. Microsoft has then positioned itself on high ground for a coming crapflood of ISP lockdown software, being a platform for "trusted applications" that aren't "dangerous for the network" (hacker tools like encryption; Hi Brett!;) ).
Microsoft "buries" Google, as Google has to negotiate individual and separate contracts with all the ISPs (which would have no requirement for fairness), telecoms get to collect tolls (and use the contract terms as bargaining chips in negotiations with Microsoft and the big four media).
As a bonus, this would destroy all open software on the internet, as FOSS couldn't implement whatever patent-encumbered-proprietary-secured-by-obscurity crapware that will be required to work with ISPs, and remain free as in speech.
I am no longer sure at all that Microsoft has anything to fear from the anti-net-neutrality club.
I'm not asking for your sympathy. I'm asking you to drive the speed limit.
It's obvious from the 20 or so "overrated" down-moderations that I touched a nerve. It's also obvious that what I said is non-controversial. Survivability drops off steeply with speed. The argument that driving the posted speed limit is dangerous is dangerous in itself. It looks like it's just a complex rationalization for everyone's love of speed; I love speed, too, but everyone should know that it doesn't necessarily get you to your destination faster, and that it kills people with alarming regularity. (No, it's not just a "run of bad cards.").
Convincing you to slow down may be impossible, but maybe you can stop telling people that driving the speed limit is dangerous? Because it isn't true.
It shows your incredible arrogance that you rely on the metal sign and the government guns which back it up rather than any kind of logic or truth.
I'm tired of seeing body parts on the side of 281. I wish I didn't know that my friend died slowly. I wish my sister was still alive. And I'm not alone.
I'm not "pro"-social in my car because I'm a communist. I drive safe because I couldn't live with killing someone.
You don't have the right to pick your own speed limit. I hope you become a better person someday.
You should read the paper you referred to again. It does not say what you say it says. Even then, I think you know that you're cherry-picking one obscure study, from 1992, which doesn't really address the question at hand. And the "here's a clue" thing makes you look like an ass.
Greater speed leads to greater a greater chance of fatalities. Inappropriate speed is anti-social. You want to make yourself the sole arbiter of what the safe speed of a road is. I think you're wrong, and I've got the law and that big fucking metal sign on my side.
Just think about it. Seriously. Have you had a loved one killed in a auto accident? Can you imagine what it's going to feel like when you kill someone because you think you're entitled to go 15% above?
On behalf of everyone who understands the forces involved in a car collision, I'm asking you to just please just slow down and get to your destination 5 minutes later (or at exactly the same time because traffic lights regulated the flow).
Also, ceasing telling people that driving the speed limit is dangerous would be nice, too.
Speed variance is a bigger killer than raw speed, but our speed limits are generally set lower than most drivers can handle.
If you really think about this statement, I think you'll find it to be demonstrably false.
It sucks that you get so many tickets for speeding. To avoid this, you should slow down. I suspect your argument comes from your perception of what the "flow of traffic" and "reasonable speed" is, which apparently can do with some recalibration.
...Though I still think your analogy is flawed. And your opinions are much more moderate than tablizer's, which you appeared to support with your anecdotes (~"I can't count the number of times"). That is probably what set me off... I was slighly annoyed by someone feigning interest in what I had to say to try to evangelize me.
FWIW, I don't really disagree with anything in your last comment.
Slashdot Mirror
Until about a decade ago, I subscribed to the Austrian model, or what I knew of it from popular culture. Then I became a closet pragmatist. I certainly didn't know anyone who would accept that governments excelled in anything besides oppression and incompetence. And now, I'm a bit of a pinko and I've got an admittedly bad habit of body-checking folks such as yourself. Sorry. I just wanted you to know that I exist, and I have thought about my position as well.
I have taken your position before, and I suffered for my heresy when I began to see the flaws in the minarchist narrative of the events of the 20th century. Now it's kind of liberating to stand up and present a left-of-center (for the U.S.) view. I'm like a recovering catholic; that's probably where the dogma comment came from.
Neither of us have the preponderance of evidence about the causes of the Great Depression. However, if we're comparing philosophies, I think that I have an edge in this: Even with what you may view as New Deal ballast and monetarist blunders, this economy still became the world's largest, by far. Additionally, more managed economies than this have stubbornly refused to collapse, and in fact many are trending better than our almost totally unregulated market capitalism.
And it is, objectively, unregulated. See testimony from Stephen Johnson of the EPA or Christopher Cox of the SEC. They are actually quite proud of their inaction and small department budgets. And they are, by any measure, true Scotsmen.
Hmm. Still technically a minority view, at that. Maybe I wasn't clear; what I was trying to convey was that it is not in any way settled.
I also didn't mean to dismiss him as a kook, really. The Ron Paul thing was a jab. I've come to associate the casual references to fractional reserve banking with Congressman Paul's devotees. FWIW, he seems like a smart human, as do you.
I still stand by my assertion that minarchists, of both the Chicago and Austrian orthodoxy, frequently fall prey to that logical fallacy. Even to this day and to this administration.
There is more to economics than Ron Paul.
In your first sentence, you are saying that a True Scotsman's capitalism would have prevented the collapse.
You have a minority view of the causes of the Great Depression.
There is no evidence at all for your statements about the New Deal (dogma notwithstanding).
You say that like it's true.
Your devotion to your ideology is religious. Judging by your sig, I guess there's not much I can say to change your mind. But just for kicks, I want to say this: I think you may be well-served by entertaining the possibility that your heroes could have been wrong.
Just sowing seeds...
Where is this astroturf bullshit coming from?
I'm not afraid to say that I support net neutrality regulation. Why are opponents afraid to state their position in such clear terms?
If you're against net neutrality regulation, just say so. This manipulative bullshit has to stop.
That's actually pretty interesting. When I use the "route" quote, I'm thinking of the internet as full of useful free expression and accurate data. But the miasma routes around damage, too.
The rest of your comment is pretty far off of the mark, but that sentence is something.
You're either misguided or disingenuous.
That wing of the party left with George Wallace after passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Nixon was only too happy to pick up the so-called "States' Rights" voters, and pander to racists with his "the first civil right is safety [from black people]" rhetoric. Kennedy and Johnson's bravery in abandoning that voting block to the Republicans was heroic, and the South is majority Republican to this day.
Your assertion that the Democratic party is the party of racists is moronic. You should listen to less opinion radio.
But seriously... Posting AC in a discussion you moderated (badly) is way more annoying than signing an AC post.
And FWIW, GP was a pretty great read.
- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property
(Not really... Just in spirit)
Eugenics. That didn't work out so well at the beginning of the 20th century. Not only were millions of capable, intelligent, and decent human beings maimed or killed for no good reason, but human stupidity remained entirely unaffected (self-evident).
Not only is it screwed up (those proposing sterilization are never the subject of the policy), but it's pseudoscience.
And why would you be against Lovecraft fans having children?
Or maybe IHBT.
You are against the core philosophies of the web, whether you realize it or not.
Your vision of the future of the web is my worst nightmare.
This is the second time in the discussion (that I can tell) that you've made this appeal. Count me out. Silverlight is not what I am looking for.
And while you're at it, stop this "Silverlight exists for developers" stuff. Silverlight exists to break the web and help Microsoft, afaict.
What is your opinion on NN, as it is defined in the two definitions I called "legitimate"?
My "particular view" is rather common. I can't take credit for it.
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq
http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html
http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/cerf-020706.pdf[pdf]
For some reason, I get the feeling that it is your "particular view" that is novel.
If your opinion is the exact opposite of the opinions expressed in the links above (i.e., you think that ISPs and backbones have a god-given right to inspect and molest traffic, and "net neutrality" means no regulation), then you are, in fact, against NN. That is, of course, unless you change the semantics to mean the exact opposite of what they are accepted to mean.
I wasn't really correcting you. I've seen your comments in the past, and I know that you're not ignorant as to what NN is or isn't. I was suggesting that you were being less than genuine.
You know very well what we're talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#Definitions_of_network_neutrality . It's a silly list, really. In particular, "Access to all legal content, but not via means that violate agreed-upon terms of service" is not any kind of net neutrality at all. The only two that are legitimately Net Neutrality are what the article calls "Absolute Non-Discrimination", and "Limited Discrimination and Tiering", where you can charge for a given QoS but you can't negotiate exclusive terms. These could just be called the strong and weak forms. Everything else that is trying to hijack the definition has something in common: DPI.
I'm accusing you of muddying the waters.
?
No, it can't.
I think you're either confused, or you're being disingenuous. If it's the former, google is your friend.
I'm not sure if this is accurate any longer. I've noticed new themes in the astroturfing on slashdot lately that stress the "approved application" model made famous by the smashing success that is Verizon's VCast.
Putting on my tinfoil for a moment, here's a scenario:
Microsoft negotiates a deal with the telecoms. The telecoms and Microsoft develop some new trusted computing abomination. Microsoft has then positioned itself on high ground for a coming crapflood of ISP lockdown software, being a platform for "trusted applications" that aren't "dangerous for the network" (hacker tools like encryption; Hi Brett! ;) ).
Microsoft "buries" Google, as Google has to negotiate individual and separate contracts with all the ISPs (which would have no requirement for fairness), telecoms get to collect tolls (and use the contract terms as bargaining chips in negotiations with Microsoft and the big four media).
As a bonus, this would destroy all open software on the internet, as FOSS couldn't implement whatever patent-encumbered-proprietary-secured-by-obscurity crapware that will be required to work with ISPs, and remain free as in speech.
I am no longer sure at all that Microsoft has anything to fear from the anti-net-neutrality club.
Is that some sort of koan?
I'm not asking for your sympathy. I'm asking you to drive the speed limit.
It's obvious from the 20 or so "overrated" down-moderations that I touched a nerve. It's also obvious that what I said is non-controversial. Survivability drops off steeply with speed. The argument that driving the posted speed limit is dangerous is dangerous in itself. It looks like it's just a complex rationalization for everyone's love of speed; I love speed, too, but everyone should know that it doesn't necessarily get you to your destination faster, and that it kills people with alarming regularity. (No, it's not just a "run of bad cards.").
Convincing you to slow down may be impossible, but maybe you can stop telling people that driving the speed limit is dangerous? Because it isn't true.
Traffic is fascinating.
Totally agree with you on the main issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Bedard&oldid=214328637
It's pretty clear you don't know anything at all about logic. Or humanity.
That just speaks for itself, doesn't it?
I'm tired of seeing body parts on the side of 281. I wish I didn't know that my friend died slowly. I wish my sister was still alive. And I'm not alone.
I'm not "pro"-social in my car because I'm a communist. I drive safe because I couldn't live with killing someone.
You don't have the right to pick your own speed limit. I hope you become a better person someday.
The operative word in GGP was "kills".
You should read the paper you referred to again. It does not say what you say it says. Even then, I think you know that you're cherry-picking one obscure study, from 1992, which doesn't really address the question at hand. And the "here's a clue" thing makes you look like an ass.
Greater speed leads to greater a greater chance of fatalities. Inappropriate speed is anti-social. You want to make yourself the sole arbiter of what the safe speed of a road is. I think you're wrong, and I've got the law and that big fucking metal sign on my side.
Just think about it. Seriously. Have you had a loved one killed in a auto accident? Can you imagine what it's going to feel like when you kill someone because you think you're entitled to go 15% above?
On behalf of everyone who understands the forces involved in a car collision, I'm asking you to just please just slow down and get to your destination 5 minutes later (or at exactly the same time because traffic lights regulated the flow).
Also, ceasing telling people that driving the speed limit is dangerous would be nice, too.
If you really think about this statement, I think you'll find it to be demonstrably false.
It sucks that you get so many tickets for speeding. To avoid this, you should slow down. I suspect your argument comes from your perception of what the "flow of traffic" and "reasonable speed" is, which apparently can do with some recalibration.
Slow down.
(Please?)
As the devil's advocate, the first example that comes to mind: Material physics labs.
Note: I support unmanned exploration of the solar system and wish it to be expanded.
Fair enough.
...Though I still think your analogy is flawed. And your opinions are much more moderate than tablizer's, which you appeared to support with your anecdotes (~"I can't count the number of times"). That is probably what set me off... I was slighly annoyed by someone feigning interest in what I had to say to try to evangelize me.
FWIW, I don't really disagree with anything in your last comment.