The fee would be inconsequential to my feelings. If firefighters stood around and blithely witnessed the death of humans, then I would think that was bad. If they tried to help and couldn't, I would think that was sad but fine.
My feelings happen to align with the law in this case: human life is different than all other things, so I am willing to accept that firefighters blithly stand around watching a house burn in places where free people have democratically decided that that should be the lawful course of action for firefighters. (Although I personally prefer big government paid for by high taxes.)
Indeed, nor should it be. Most of us recognize human life as a specially valuable thing, more than pretty much any other thing, such as a double-wide trailer (or any personal property). Our society long ago set up structures to protect human life, and those structures execute categorically, by which I mean an EMT will save any human life at any time no matter what. We also set up structures (such as fire departments) to protect personal property, but some backwards places decided they didn't want them -- and that's the case in Tennessee.
Basically my point is that human life is different, and it's different for a reason.
Yeah, and then we'd have two problems (a burned down house AND a lawsuit to deal with) instead of no problems (a house saved by the publicly funded fire department). Some people prefer to have problems because they are required by their ideology. I prefer to change the ideology to not have the problems. But, I guess that means it's not an ideology.
Yeah, okay, but a couple points. First of all, the firefighters would have saved any humans in the house. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and we draw it around human life. Outside the line is animal life and personal property. Second of all, "even if it were $1500" isn't right -- it would be more like $15,000. Fighting fires is expensive.
Once, I was visiting a friend. I logged into his apartment wireless, and it was really slow. He and I are both tech workers, so we sniffed the signal to see what was the problem. Boy, it sure looked like some connected computer was rooted and spewing out spam. Just then, in walks the clueless roommate. We ask him if his Windows computer has been acting funny recently, or going really slow. He was surprised: yes, he said, indeed it has. We told him he was bonked and needed to fix it. His response, which floored me, was that no he didn't care enough to fix it, and he would just keep using it the way it was.
Screw that guy and anyone who thinks that way. Cut off his internet. (My friend should have cut him off; it was his apartment.)
If you claim to be for "free markets" and yet support this government action, you are a hypocrite. Regulation of billing practices and customer remuneration is a market regulation; free markets are markets with zero regulations; this kind of enforcement action is absolutely anathema to free markets.
YOU DON'T?!? Fer fuck's sake, what will it take to get through to people like you? You sit there and rant about bad corporate behavior, you recognize that government is the solution to the problem, and then you state that you don't favor more regulation. There is this asinine anti-regulation ideology in America for which we all suffer, and it's a big pain to deal with.
I am so much happier having paid for my computer and internet connection, than having gotten my phone for free and paying for phone service. My phone costs about double my internet, my internet is approximately ten bajillion times more useful, and also by the way fuck AT&T with a pointy stick.
So, not to you personally, but to anyone who tries to make that argument for real, eat me.
I have actually been trying to buy a phone since the beginning of Bush's second term, and so far no store has been willing to sell me one. People on the internet are willing, but I want to touch and try a phone before shelling out for it, and literally 100% of phone stores refuse to sell me a phone for cost of production + reasonable profit (somewhere in the range of 5%-50%). So fuck 'em. Fuck the whole industry. I wish I could spend hundreds of dollars on a fancy phone, but no, their stupid fucking shenanigans mean I am still using a dumb phone from 2002.
Whoops! The error was getting caught. Actually, they always get caught; the error was getting caught badly enough for Big Government to come in and save the day.
Very close to evil? Sheesh, you are a lot more forgiving than I am. I think it's evil to fail to provide straight-up easy plain non-bundled prices for each individual product in your line. It's hard to find any companies which offer that, and impossible for communications companies. But, eh, I'm sort of a hater that way.
Doing the right thing? Hey, it's a sliding scale, but the minimum would be to include nominal interest along with the refund. Are they doing that? If not I'd personally be wary of calling it "right". Also, a sincerely worded letter bearing the CEO's signature would be part of the minimum.
Changing the entire way they do business would be better than minimum, and easier to call "right". But, hey, it's a sliding scale.
I definitely played a sim-movie game, but I don't remember it being quite that old or having quite that name. I may have played a game that ripped off your game.
(I will respond to your post and also your reply to your post.)
Perhaps I should have been more clear in my post. I am not a free-market ideologue. This is a very reasonable, narrow, pro-consumer market regulation which will improve the world for almost all people. You exactly nailed the reason why free-market ideology fails: because it does not correctly predict the behaviors of actors in the market system. Free market theory, as you say, would predict that this problem would be self-correcting because consumers would reject loud commercials, thus TV stations would not play them. To anyone with half a brain, that is complete nonsense; but free-market ideologues don't really seem to think things like that through. Free market theory is wrong because its premises about human behavior are wrong.
As for your reply, I want to encourage you to drop your "pro-free-market" label. Free markets are markets with zero regulation, where consumer behavior is the only way to affect producer behavior. Free markets are always bad for consumers, because consumers do not, in fact, take the measures required to affect producers. That's the entire reason we have market regulations.
It's nice for people to trumpet how great free markets are, while at the same time speaking in favor of moderate, careful regulation, but that's not a free market, that's called a "market". You should be pro-market, because markets are good; you should be anti-free-market, because free markets are bad. I know, we all love free software, and free beer, and free Tibet, and free Willy... but free markets are bad. We might wish "free market" meant "lightly regulated market", but that isn't what it means: it means "a market with zero regulations". Your wishes and my wishes won't change the definition.
Anyway, and finally, this IS a restriction of consumer options. Consumers now do not have the option of listening to absurdly blaringly loud commercials. I, for one, think the world is a better place without that option, which is why I support this market regulation, this restriction. That makes me anti-free-market.
Whoa, dude. I *do* recognize a middle ground, that's why I said what I did. It's the "free market" ideologues who show no middle ground: a free market is a market with zero regulation, none, not one bit of regulation. Zero. No middle ground, no compromise, NO REGULATION. That's the definition of "free market".
So yeah, it sounds like you and I agree: moderately, carefully regulated markets are the best markets, because they are best for consumers.
Bah! You got me, I'm embarrassed. Thank you for the correction.
But, "AIDS" is an acronym for a disease, but "aids" means "things that help". Of course, aides also are things that help (thus my inexcusable confusion) while AIDS is not helpful.
Great point. I should be more clear: I receive TV shows and movies on DVD, then rip them with handbrake specifically to avoid the FBI warning and other commercials, then watch the files.
If they ever start putting ads into the content of the DVDs, I will not watch those shows.
I hate having to take commercial avoidance into my own hands. I wish we could just legislate 95% of ads out of existence.
You don't watch TV, or you don't watch TV shows? I don't watch TV (like, literally I'm down to maybe less than an hour a month on average, mostly because of the half-day-long Superbowl) but I love to watch TV shows which I enjoy sans commercials on Netflix, torrent, DVD, or however else.
Almost everything on TV is crap, but there is so much total, that there is more good stuff than I have time for. So I pick my favs and enjoy.
TV has commercials? Huh, now that you mention that I can remember commercials, but I'd nearly forgotten because of how many years it's been since I've seen one. The only commercials I see now are the single ones that come on before the stream of The Daily Show over the internet (and I mute that one commercial). All the other TV shows I watch come from DVD or streamed on Netflix.
Once a year I see commercials on the Superbowl, and then I rather enjoy them. It's like a five-hour chance to catch up on all the crap I missed over the previous year (..."I wouldn't say I'm missing it, Bob").
No, it doesn't need a law right now, in 2010. It needed a law fifty years ago. I'm happy enough to have it right now.
Also, you seem to imply that Congress should only tackle one issue, or a small number of issues, at a time. I think with hundreds of congressmen and thousands of aids, we can address many many issues all at the same time.
I agree with the second half of what you said: I have little doubt that the Democrats will find some way to pull the fail rabbit out of the black hat of overwhelming win.
But I disagree with the first half: it is NOT a no-brainer. Any conservative "free market" type of person ought to be against this law. That, or they are a hypocrite.
Slashdot Mirror
The fee would be inconsequential to my feelings. If firefighters stood around and blithely witnessed the death of humans, then I would think that was bad. If they tried to help and couldn't, I would think that was sad but fine.
My feelings happen to align with the law in this case: human life is different than all other things, so I am willing to accept that firefighters blithly stand around watching a house burn in places where free people have democratically decided that that should be the lawful course of action for firefighters. (Although I personally prefer big government paid for by high taxes.)
Indeed, nor should it be. Most of us recognize human life as a specially valuable thing, more than pretty much any other thing, such as a double-wide trailer (or any personal property). Our society long ago set up structures to protect human life, and those structures execute categorically, by which I mean an EMT will save any human life at any time no matter what. We also set up structures (such as fire departments) to protect personal property, but some backwards places decided they didn't want them -- and that's the case in Tennessee.
Basically my point is that human life is different, and it's different for a reason.
Yeah, and then we'd have two problems (a burned down house AND a lawsuit to deal with) instead of no problems (a house saved by the publicly funded fire department). Some people prefer to have problems because they are required by their ideology. I prefer to change the ideology to not have the problems. But, I guess that means it's not an ideology.
Yeah, okay, but a couple points. First of all, the firefighters would have saved any humans in the house. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and we draw it around human life. Outside the line is animal life and personal property. Second of all, "even if it were $1500" isn't right -- it would be more like $15,000. Fighting fires is expensive.
Once, I was visiting a friend. I logged into his apartment wireless, and it was really slow. He and I are both tech workers, so we sniffed the signal to see what was the problem. Boy, it sure looked like some connected computer was rooted and spewing out spam. Just then, in walks the clueless roommate. We ask him if his Windows computer has been acting funny recently, or going really slow. He was surprised: yes, he said, indeed it has. We told him he was bonked and needed to fix it. His response, which floored me, was that no he didn't care enough to fix it, and he would just keep using it the way it was.
Screw that guy and anyone who thinks that way. Cut off his internet. (My friend should have cut him off; it was his apartment.)
Yeah, sim cards, that's great tech. I have AT&T now and love the sim card idea (still hate AT&T). T-Mobile has the same, you say? I didn't know that.
If you claim to be for "free markets" and yet support this government action, you are a hypocrite. Regulation of billing practices and customer remuneration is a market regulation; free markets are markets with zero regulations; this kind of enforcement action is absolutely anathema to free markets.
Markets are good, free markets are bad.
I *don't* think there should be more regulation
YOU DON'T?!? Fer fuck's sake, what will it take to get through to people like you? You sit there and rant about bad corporate behavior, you recognize that government is the solution to the problem, and then you state that you don't favor more regulation. There is this asinine anti-regulation ideology in America for which we all suffer, and it's a big pain to deal with.
I am so much happier having paid for my computer and internet connection, than having gotten my phone for free and paying for phone service. My phone costs about double my internet, my internet is approximately ten bajillion times more useful, and also by the way fuck AT&T with a pointy stick.
So, not to you personally, but to anyone who tries to make that argument for real, eat me.
I have actually been trying to buy a phone since the beginning of Bush's second term, and so far no store has been willing to sell me one. People on the internet are willing, but I want to touch and try a phone before shelling out for it, and literally 100% of phone stores refuse to sell me a phone for cost of production + reasonable profit (somewhere in the range of 5%-50%). So fuck 'em. Fuck the whole industry. I wish I could spend hundreds of dollars on a fancy phone, but no, their stupid fucking shenanigans mean I am still using a dumb phone from 2002.
Whoops! The error was getting caught. Actually, they always get caught; the error was getting caught badly enough for Big Government to come in and save the day.
Very close to evil? Sheesh, you are a lot more forgiving than I am. I think it's evil to fail to provide straight-up easy plain non-bundled prices for each individual product in your line. It's hard to find any companies which offer that, and impossible for communications companies. But, eh, I'm sort of a hater that way.
Doing the right thing? Hey, it's a sliding scale, but the minimum would be to include nominal interest along with the refund. Are they doing that? If not I'd personally be wary of calling it "right". Also, a sincerely worded letter bearing the CEO's signature would be part of the minimum.
Changing the entire way they do business would be better than minimum, and easier to call "right". But, hey, it's a sliding scale.
I definitely played a sim-movie game, but I don't remember it being quite that old or having quite that name. I may have played a game that ripped off your game.
(I will respond to your post and also your reply to your post.)
Perhaps I should have been more clear in my post. I am not a free-market ideologue. This is a very reasonable, narrow, pro-consumer market regulation which will improve the world for almost all people. You exactly nailed the reason why free-market ideology fails: because it does not correctly predict the behaviors of actors in the market system. Free market theory, as you say, would predict that this problem would be self-correcting because consumers would reject loud commercials, thus TV stations would not play them. To anyone with half a brain, that is complete nonsense; but free-market ideologues don't really seem to think things like that through. Free market theory is wrong because its premises about human behavior are wrong.
As for your reply, I want to encourage you to drop your "pro-free-market" label. Free markets are markets with zero regulation, where consumer behavior is the only way to affect producer behavior. Free markets are always bad for consumers, because consumers do not, in fact, take the measures required to affect producers. That's the entire reason we have market regulations.
It's nice for people to trumpet how great free markets are, while at the same time speaking in favor of moderate, careful regulation, but that's not a free market, that's called a "market". You should be pro-market, because markets are good; you should be anti-free-market, because free markets are bad. I know, we all love free software, and free beer, and free Tibet, and free Willy... but free markets are bad. We might wish "free market" meant "lightly regulated market", but that isn't what it means: it means "a market with zero regulations". Your wishes and my wishes won't change the definition.
Anyway, and finally, this IS a restriction of consumer options. Consumers now do not have the option of listening to absurdly blaringly loud commercials. I, for one, think the world is a better place without that option, which is why I support this market regulation, this restriction. That makes me anti-free-market.
Whoa, dude. I *do* recognize a middle ground, that's why I said what I did. It's the "free market" ideologues who show no middle ground: a free market is a market with zero regulation, none, not one bit of regulation. Zero. No middle ground, no compromise, NO REGULATION. That's the definition of "free market".
So yeah, it sounds like you and I agree: moderately, carefully regulated markets are the best markets, because they are best for consumers.
Markets are good, free markets are bad.
Bah! You got me, I'm embarrassed. Thank you for the correction.
But, "AIDS" is an acronym for a disease, but "aids" means "things that help". Of course, aides also are things that help (thus my inexcusable confusion) while AIDS is not helpful.
Great point. I should be more clear: I receive TV shows and movies on DVD, then rip them with handbrake specifically to avoid the FBI warning and other commercials, then watch the files.
If they ever start putting ads into the content of the DVDs, I will not watch those shows.
I hate having to take commercial avoidance into my own hands. I wish we could just legislate 95% of ads out of existence.
Anyone who claims to be pro-free-market and who also supports this law is a hypocrite.
You don't watch TV, or you don't watch TV shows? I don't watch TV (like, literally I'm down to maybe less than an hour a month on average, mostly because of the half-day-long Superbowl) but I love to watch TV shows which I enjoy sans commercials on Netflix, torrent, DVD, or however else.
Almost everything on TV is crap, but there is so much total, that there is more good stuff than I have time for. So I pick my favs and enjoy.
TV has commercials? Huh, now that you mention that I can remember commercials, but I'd nearly forgotten because of how many years it's been since I've seen one. The only commercials I see now are the single ones that come on before the stream of The Daily Show over the internet (and I mute that one commercial). All the other TV shows I watch come from DVD or streamed on Netflix.
Once a year I see commercials on the Superbowl, and then I rather enjoy them. It's like a five-hour chance to catch up on all the crap I missed over the previous year (..."I wouldn't say I'm missing it, Bob").
No, it doesn't need a law right now, in 2010. It needed a law fifty years ago. I'm happy enough to have it right now.
Also, you seem to imply that Congress should only tackle one issue, or a small number of issues, at a time. I think with hundreds of congressmen and thousands of aids, we can address many many issues all at the same time.
I agree with the second half of what you said: I have little doubt that the Democrats will find some way to pull the fail rabbit out of the black hat of overwhelming win.
But I disagree with the first half: it is NOT a no-brainer. Any conservative "free market" type of person ought to be against this law. That, or they are a hypocrite.
acetaminophen!? YOUcetaminophen! oh girl! you have no faith in medicine!
even NetBSD?
Agreed. A dollar per month was what I was thinking.