Yes, this is a lot like universal healthcare: it's a government unreasonably telling private people what transactions they CANNOT engage in
No. It's the government reasonably limiting what private corporations who generally collude to eliminate real competition can do to restrict consumers' right to make choices in the marketplace.
Assuming you mean the cell phone thing, not the healthcare thing, since this obviously doesn't apply to healthcare in Canada: no, this law restricts consumers' choices. It means I cannot pay less to get a permanently locked phone.
(private insurance in Canada is illegal).
Just plain wrong and stupid. I have private insurance, through my employer, as does pretty much every other Canadian.
I think it was obvious that I was not referring to supplemental insurance.
This will, of course, increase the cost of cell phones for most people... the reason prices are low is because they know that you're locked in when they sell it to you.
No
Yes.
it will force the industry to provide a wider variety of services at a variety of prices
No. The industry can do that NOW. What this law will do will -- like universal health care -- limit variety and services and prices.
which is exactly the way a free market works
It's amazing that you can take an obviously and definitionally false statement and act like it's true. This is the OPPOSITE of the free market. Can you really not see that? Telling a company it MUST provide a product in a certain way... that is literally not the free market.
It's like the new iPhone, which is being offered in Canada as a choice: either locked at a discount price, or unlocked at a higher price.
Yes, that is choice. That is the free market. Forcing them to unlock it is not choice. It's not the free market.
Elsewhere, there is no choice. It's locked, period. This means Canadians are allowed to make choices.
Wow. This is obviously false. They have the choice of buying a DIFFERENT PHONE that IS unlocked.
But forcing consumer and business to exchange money for an unlocked phone? Idiocy.
Nobody's being forced to exchange anything.
If they want to buy a phone, it MUST BE -- by force -- for an unlocked (or unlocked-to-be) phone. Please don't deny this obviously true statement; it just hurts your credibility.
It's how capitalism is supposed to work.
It's really not, no. I suggest you really need to read "Free to Choose" by Milton Friedman before you contine to so drastically, incorrectly, describe how capitalism works.
You ever stop and think about WHY healthcare is public?
Of course. It's because many people don't understand, or appreciate, the free market and liberty, and would rather sacrifice those things for the easy, and less-free, way out.
When you allow people with more money to have better healthcare you are putting their lives at a greater value than those less fortunate.
Absolutely untrue. That doesn't begin to make sense. That's like saying when you allow people with more free time to exercise more, you are putting their lives at a greater value than those with less free time who can't exercise more.
Bill Gates could spend billions of dollars keeping himself alive, that most people could not do (and that Canada's health system won't do). That is not putting his life at a greater value: it's allowing him to use his resources as he sees fit.
It's insipidly stupid to think that just because someone can use their own resources to benefit themselves, that this somehow hurts anyone else. It doesn't hurt you, in any way, if Bill Gates buys himself better health care. It has nothing to do with you. You're being a selfish, greedy, envious, whiner.
The first case we had of someone being able to pay more for better healthcare was last year I think. I'm not sure what loophole they used to legally do this. There was a social uproar about it.
Yes, because people in a society are stupid. They do not understand freedom, nor "fairness."
Yes, this is a lot like universal healthcare: it's a government unreasonably telling private people what transactions they CANNOT engage in (private insurance in Canada is illegal).
Actually, yes. I was -- obvious to people familiar with Canada's system and the debate, including legal disputes, around it -- recognize I was referring to normal insurance. You linked to supplemental insurance, which, yes, is legal.
They're not the same. Most countries with universal healthcare still allow private healthcare/insurance, Canada is an exception.
The poster brought up Canada, and so I was talking about Canada.
This will, of course, increase the cost of cell phones for most people... the reason prices are low is because they know that you're locked in when they sell it to you.
But after 12 months (when the contract ends, so presumably the phone is now paid for) the phone is still locked.
Except the same principle applies: right now, for locked phones, if someone wants to keep their phone, they need to renew their contract, which a lot of people do, which makes companies able to sell the phones for less.
I mean come on... the company obviously has a business interest in locking the phone, or they wouldn't bother. So saying that there's no cost associated with unlocking the phones -- not even including the customer service costs to be incurred at the point of unlocking -- is silly.
Between laws like this, universal healthcare, low crime, etc. I'm considering hiring a coyote to smuggle me and my family across the border.
Yes, this is a lot like universal healthcare: it's a government unreasonably telling private people what transactions they CANNOT engage in (private insurance in Canada is illegal). This will, of course, increase the cost of cell phones for most people... the reason prices are low is because they know that you're locked in when they sell it to you.
I am all for consumer information, so I love the part about informing consumers that the phone must only be used with their service. But forcing consumer and business to exchange money for an unlocked phone? Idiocy.
That is, in fact, irrelevant to what I said. Calling someone a "sad, sad person" is not a statement relating to anyone's emotional state.
However, I will note that if you think making random children act like adults is cute, that makes you even sadder than the fact that you inanely think that anyone else should. There's nothing "cute" about it, especially since -- inevitably -- it is someone trying WAYYYY too hard.
Kids are cute on their own. They don't need moronic adults screwing it up.
And not a particularly productive one at that---we've all read/participated in arguments on the Internet, and it's a fair guess that when someone starts going quote-by-quote in an effort to "tear up" the previous post, they're not really interested in exchanging ideas, they just want to score points.
No. Sorry, that's just stupid. It just happens to be an efficient way of addressing what the other person says. Yes, that form is used by SOME people to just "score points," but it is also a sign of respect for the other person, that you're willing to address his actual statements. On the contrary, when someone just responds in large blocks of text, without quotes, it usually means the person is just interested in making his own point, and not considering the other person's views.
So here's a million points. You win the Internet.
I do win, but not because I respond to quotes. I win because of this:
Well, here I am trying to start a meta-argument, and I end up with an actual argument.
The first article doesn't address the notion that these changes in thought patterns could lead to greater intellectual abilities down the road. The author says:
Only when we pay deep attention to a new piece of information are we able to associate it "meaningfully and systematically with knowledge already well established in memory"
but maybe that's subject to change over time, as more and more humans don't pay deep attention. Or maybe we will adapt to be able to more easily pay attention deeply to the most important details.
Additionally, even if that doesn't happen (soon, or ever), maybe humanity as a whole is better served this way. Maybe we don't need everyone to be a deep thinker. Maybe we can benefit from a large segment of people who can think quickly, but not as deeply.
In other words... Idiocracy is funny, but unlikely. We will adapt and move forward over time, as we always -- given sufficient time -- have.
The original point of the post was not to say that the feeling is correct
Right. Just inferior, culturally and morally. I never stated or implied you said it was "correct." You are arguing a position that does not exist, creating an obviously false claim and arguing against it. Why do you hate science?
1) I have food preferences
Granted.
2) I am inclined to believe that my food preferences make me a morally superior being
While this is true -- that you are inclined to believe that -- the belief itself is irrational and anti-science.
3) I am fully aware that this lies on a very shaky foundation, and so as a rational-minded person, I am inclined to disregard the feeling 4) Nonetheless, the feeling persists
Yes, it persists, because, in point of fact, you are NOT rationally minded. That the feeling persists proves this. So again: why do you hate science?
It's an interesting phenomenon, and, I think, generalizable to a broad category of people. For instance, if you replaced "food preferences" with "skin color," it would be a particularly interesting way to look at racism.
Yes, there are many anti-science, irrational, people in the world.
No, I like science, and I'm making an observation, not a normative claim.
You're not making an observation. There is no way to "observe" that you are a "morally elevated being." That is a conclusion, with no basis in reason or fact or evidence.
I'm not saying that my food preferences make me superior--that would be silly--it's just that I have an unshakable feeling that they do.
Yes, a feeling not based on anything observable. It's anti-science.
I'm not going to drag you to Ethiopian restaurants, but it's interesting to base a more general theory of human behavior on that model; George Bush wearing a cowboy hat versus John Kerry windsurfing. And so on.
But the "behaviors" are not behaviors, but genetic/biological... therefore, you still hate science.
I suspect I am. Don't drink coffee or beer. I'm a supertaster. Like ice cream and pie. I'm a supertaster.
It's not as though they decided they wanted to only eat a few bland foods for the rest of their life
I don't eat any bland foods. A baked potato with butter and salt isn't bland, it's delicious.
I suspect more strongly that I am not a supertaster, though; I simply recognize the fact that vegetables and spicy foods taste awful.:-)
The supertasters I know are jealous of people who can eat vegetables.
I'm totally not jealous. I love the foods I eat. I have nothing to be jealous about (except people younger than me, who can eat a lot more fatty and sweet foods than I can).
Oh, also, I hate travel. Even if I could use a teleporter to get around the globe, I just have no desire to GO to most places. I am uninterested in being places I've never been, doing things I've never done, seeing things I've never seen, or eating things I've never eaten (not that I never want to do something new, but not BECAUSE it's new, but because I have some specific reason to want to do it).
Rather, I prefer thinking things I've never thought, and leaving most of the rest pretty static.
I mention this because it's something else people don't get. People who love to travel sometimes feel sorry for me; they just don't get it. They value doing things they've never done, so they pity someone who doesn't new things. I value thinking things I've never thought, so I pity someone who doesn't understand the thought that I simply don't care to do things I've never done.
And I feel smugly superior to you because I believe that my preferences for a wider variety of food reflects a more cosmopolitan attitude, which I view as having a more "sophisticated" quality.
Yes, you do view it that way. Unfortunately, your view is not based on any sort of facts, or reality. Why do you hate science?
That made so much money it pulled John Travolta out of obscurity
Yes, one of that film's many crimes.
... and made Bruce Willis a culture icon.
No, it didn't.
Even so, a decent sequal
... never existed. A sequel more horrific than the original did happen, though.
The roller skate commercial for avionics water put to MJ's Billy Jean is already classic.
"Classic" in the sense of "one of the most awful things ever."
If everyone else likes it, you don't.
Nonsense. I like baseball and football. I like the Red Sox and Celtics and Patriots. I like The Beatles. And so on.
Talking dogs, fish, animals and moons will always be around along with talking babies.
To the detriment of all humanity.
Get over it an move on.
People who dislike things, and say so, will always be around. Get over it and move on and grow up. (Yes, I am pointing out the fact that you are a hypocrite.)
I look for low density and a lack of diversity in restaurants.
You laugh, but low population density has a lot of advantages...
Actually, no, I was absolutely serious. I live in a rural area, and I love it. I hate the congestion of the city. And I don't eat a wide variety of foods, so the more diversity of restaurants, a. the more likely it is someone I am with will want to go to one of them, and b. the less likely it is that there will even be a restaurant I want to go to, since the total number of restaurants is population-limited.
So, no, I really DO want low density and lack of restaurant diversity. (And yes, I mostly eat at home, with home-cooked meals.)
I look for low density and a lack of diversity in restaurants. I am quite happy that you, and many other people, want something different than me, as it makes it easier to find what I am looking for.
Re:Stup The Hell Up, Haters
on
Iron Baby
·
· Score: 1
Wow, you just regurgitated his post back you him. That's bloody brilliant.
"Brilliant" is the wrong word. "Sufficient" is the correct one.
Re:Stup The Hell Up, Haters
on
Iron Baby
·
· Score: 1
telling someone to stop polluting the comment section whilst telling someone they don't have to participate is not hypocritical.
Correct.
However, telling someone to not whine, while whining; telling them to not watch and comment something they don't like, while reading and commenting on something they don't like; etc.... that obviously is hypocritical. Let's be adults and not pretend otherwise, mmmmkay?
if you don't like idle...
I never implied, in any way whatsoever, I didn't like idle. Indeed, I read idle often, and thus it is entirely analagous to the comments. I can't know a particular idle story/video/link/etc. will be dumb until I've read/watched it.
Nor did I even imply I didn't like this particular story. What I said is that I didn't like the movie the story linked to. I think the story is fine, as it gives me the opportunity to say how much I hate the movie.
The little movie is technically proficient, and of very good quality. But it's DUMB and ANNOYING. Babies doing adult things is stupid. Look Who's Talking is the most evil film of all time because it gave us talking babies and the rebirth of John Travolta.
Re:Stup The Hell Up, Haters
on
Iron Baby
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, this is a lot like universal healthcare: it's a government unreasonably telling private people what transactions they CANNOT engage in
No. It's the government reasonably limiting what private corporations who generally collude to eliminate real competition can do to restrict consumers' right to make choices in the marketplace.
Assuming you mean the cell phone thing, not the healthcare thing, since this obviously doesn't apply to healthcare in Canada: no, this law restricts consumers' choices. It means I cannot pay less to get a permanently locked phone.
(private insurance in Canada is illegal).
Just plain wrong and stupid. I have private insurance, through my employer, as does pretty much every other Canadian.
I think it was obvious that I was not referring to supplemental insurance.
This will, of course, increase the cost of cell phones for most people ... the reason prices are low is because they know that you're locked in when they sell it to you.
No
Yes.
it will force the industry to provide a wider variety of services at a variety of prices
No. The industry can do that NOW. What this law will do will -- like universal health care -- limit variety and services and prices.
which is exactly the way a free market works
It's amazing that you can take an obviously and definitionally false statement and act like it's true. This is the OPPOSITE of the free market. Can you really not see that? Telling a company it MUST provide a product in a certain way ... that is literally not the free market.
It's like the new iPhone, which is being offered in Canada as a choice: either locked at a discount price, or unlocked at a higher price.
Yes, that is choice. That is the free market. Forcing them to unlock it is not choice. It's not the free market.
Elsewhere, there is no choice. It's locked, period. This means Canadians are allowed to make choices.
Wow. This is obviously false. They have the choice of buying a DIFFERENT PHONE that IS unlocked.
But forcing consumer and business to exchange money for an unlocked phone? Idiocy.
Nobody's being forced to exchange anything.
If they want to buy a phone, it MUST BE -- by force -- for an unlocked (or unlocked-to-be) phone. Please don't deny this obviously true statement; it just hurts your credibility.
It's how capitalism is supposed to work.
It's really not, no. I suggest you really need to read "Free to Choose" by Milton Friedman before you contine to so drastically, incorrectly, describe how capitalism works.
You ever stop and think about WHY healthcare is public?
Of course. It's because many people don't understand, or appreciate, the free market and liberty, and would rather sacrifice those things for the easy, and less-free, way out.
When you allow people with more money to have better healthcare you are putting their lives at a greater value than those less fortunate.
Absolutely untrue. That doesn't begin to make sense. That's like saying when you allow people with more free time to exercise more, you are putting their lives at a greater value than those with less free time who can't exercise more.
Bill Gates could spend billions of dollars keeping himself alive, that most people could not do (and that Canada's health system won't do). That is not putting his life at a greater value: it's allowing him to use his resources as he sees fit.
It's insipidly stupid to think that just because someone can use their own resources to benefit themselves, that this somehow hurts anyone else. It doesn't hurt you, in any way, if Bill Gates buys himself better health care. It has nothing to do with you. You're being a selfish, greedy, envious, whiner.
The first case we had of someone being able to pay more for better healthcare was last year I think. I'm not sure what loophole they used to legally do this. There was a social uproar about it.
Yes, because people in a society are stupid. They do not understand freedom, nor "fairness."
I'm Canadian and I have private insurance.
Supplemental insurance. I was referring to buying insurance that replaces the government insurance. It's prohibited.
Yes, this is a lot like universal healthcare: it's a government unreasonably telling private people what transactions they CANNOT engage in (private insurance in Canada is illegal).
Um, no? (One of many.)
Actually, yes. I was -- obvious to people familiar with Canada's system and the debate, including legal disputes, around it -- recognize I was referring to normal insurance. You linked to supplemental insurance, which, yes, is legal.
They're not the same. Most countries with universal healthcare still allow private healthcare/insurance, Canada is an exception.
The poster brought up Canada, and so I was talking about Canada.
This will, of course, increase the cost of cell phones for most people ... the reason prices are low is because they know that you're locked in when they sell it to you.
But after 12 months (when the contract ends, so presumably the phone is now paid for) the phone is still locked.
Except the same principle applies: right now, for locked phones, if someone wants to keep their phone, they need to renew their contract, which a lot of people do, which makes companies able to sell the phones for less.
I mean come on ... the company obviously has a business interest in locking the phone, or they wouldn't bother. So saying that there's no cost associated with unlocking the phones -- not even including the customer service costs to be incurred at the point of unlocking -- is silly.
Between laws like this, universal healthcare, low crime, etc. I'm considering hiring a coyote to smuggle me and my family across the border.
Yes, this is a lot like universal healthcare: it's a government unreasonably telling private people what transactions they CANNOT engage in (private insurance in Canada is illegal). This will, of course, increase the cost of cell phones for most people ... the reason prices are low is because they know that you're locked in when they sell it to you.
I am all for consumer information, so I love the part about informing consumers that the phone must only be used with their service. But forcing consumer and business to exchange money for an unlocked phone? Idiocy.
Snicker. :-)
Why does San Francisco hate science?
Unfortunately, many game developers are seemingly indifferent to the 3D revolution at the moment
Why is that unfortunate?
Like most gamers, I couldn't care less about 3D.
I wonder if you actually KNOW that you're full of crap, or if you're actually as ignorant as you sound.
Actually, I'm a happily married father of 2.
That is, in fact, irrelevant to what I said. Calling someone a "sad, sad person" is not a statement relating to anyone's emotional state.
However, I will note that if you think making random children act like adults is cute, that makes you even sadder than the fact that you inanely think that anyone else should. There's nothing "cute" about it, especially since -- inevitably -- it is someone trying WAYYYY too hard.
Kids are cute on their own. They don't need moronic adults screwing it up.
And not a particularly productive one at that---we've all read/participated in arguments on the Internet, and it's a fair guess that when someone starts going quote-by-quote in an effort to "tear up" the previous post, they're not really interested in exchanging ideas, they just want to score points.
No. Sorry, that's just stupid. It just happens to be an efficient way of addressing what the other person says. Yes, that form is used by SOME people to just "score points," but it is also a sign of respect for the other person, that you're willing to address his actual statements. On the contrary, when someone just responds in large blocks of text, without quotes, it usually means the person is just interested in making his own point, and not considering the other person's views.
So here's a million points. You win the Internet.
I do win, but not because I respond to quotes. I win because of this:
Well, here I am trying to start a meta-argument, and I end up with an actual argument.
pwn3d.
You're a sad, sad, person.
The first article doesn't address the notion that these changes in thought patterns could lead to greater intellectual abilities down the road. The author says:
but maybe that's subject to change over time, as more and more humans don't pay deep attention. Or maybe we will adapt to be able to more easily pay attention deeply to the most important details.
Additionally, even if that doesn't happen (soon, or ever), maybe humanity as a whole is better served this way. Maybe we don't need everyone to be a deep thinker. Maybe we can benefit from a large segment of people who can think quickly, but not as deeply.
In other words ... Idiocracy is funny, but unlikely. We will adapt and move forward over time, as we always -- given sufficient time -- have.
You misunderstand.
I don't.
The original point of the post was not to say that the feeling is correct
Right. Just inferior, culturally and morally. I never stated or implied you said it was "correct." You are arguing a position that does not exist, creating an obviously false claim and arguing against it. Why do you hate science?
1) I have food preferences
Granted.
2) I am inclined to believe that my food preferences make me a morally superior being
While this is true -- that you are inclined to believe that -- the belief itself is irrational and anti-science.
3) I am fully aware that this lies on a very shaky foundation, and so as a rational-minded person, I am inclined to disregard the feeling
4) Nonetheless, the feeling persists
Yes, it persists, because, in point of fact, you are NOT rationally minded. That the feeling persists proves this. So again: why do you hate science?
It's an interesting phenomenon, and, I think, generalizable to a broad category of people. For instance, if you replaced "food preferences" with "skin color," it would be a particularly interesting way to look at racism.
Yes, there are many anti-science, irrational, people in the world.
No, I like science, and I'm making an observation, not a normative claim.
You're not making an observation. There is no way to "observe" that you are a "morally elevated being." That is a conclusion, with no basis in reason or fact or evidence.
I'm not saying that my food preferences make me superior--that would be silly--it's just that I have an unshakable feeling that they do.
Yes, a feeling not based on anything observable. It's anti-science.
I'm not going to drag you to Ethiopian restaurants, but it's interesting to base a more general theory of human behavior on that model; George Bush wearing a cowboy hat versus John Kerry windsurfing. And so on.
But the "behaviors" are not behaviors, but genetic/biological ... therefore, you still hate science.
Maybe GP is a supertaster.
I suspect I am. Don't drink coffee or beer. I'm a supertaster. Like ice cream and pie. I'm a supertaster.
It's not as though they decided they wanted to only eat a few bland foods for the rest of their life
I don't eat any bland foods. A baked potato with butter and salt isn't bland, it's delicious.
I suspect more strongly that I am not a supertaster, though; I simply recognize the fact that vegetables and spicy foods taste awful. :-)
The supertasters I know are jealous of people who can eat vegetables.
I'm totally not jealous. I love the foods I eat. I have nothing to be jealous about (except people younger than me, who can eat a lot more fatty and sweet foods than I can).
Oh, also, I hate travel. Even if I could use a teleporter to get around the globe, I just have no desire to GO to most places. I am uninterested in being places I've never been, doing things I've never done, seeing things I've never seen, or eating things I've never eaten (not that I never want to do something new, but not BECAUSE it's new, but because I have some specific reason to want to do it).
Rather, I prefer thinking things I've never thought, and leaving most of the rest pretty static.
I mention this because it's something else people don't get. People who love to travel sometimes feel sorry for me; they just don't get it. They value doing things they've never done, so they pity someone who doesn't new things. I value thinking things I've never thought, so I pity someone who doesn't understand the thought that I simply don't care to do things I've never done.
And I feel smugly superior to you because I believe that my preferences for a wider variety of food reflects a more cosmopolitan attitude, which I view as having a more "sophisticated" quality.
Yes, you do view it that way. Unfortunately, your view is not based on any sort of facts, or reality. Why do you hate science?
Babies doing grown up things are always cute.
I cannot agree.
Look at the smash hit "Look Who's Talking."
I try my best to not. Awful movie.
That made so much money it pulled John Travolta out of obscurity
Yes, one of that film's many crimes.
... and made Bruce Willis a culture icon.
No, it didn't.
Even so, a decent sequal
... never existed. A sequel more horrific than the original did happen, though.
The roller skate commercial for avionics water put to MJ's Billy Jean is already classic.
"Classic" in the sense of "one of the most awful things ever."
If everyone else likes it, you don't.
Nonsense. I like baseball and football. I like the Red Sox and Celtics and Patriots. I like The Beatles. And so on.
Talking dogs, fish, animals and moons will always be around along with talking babies.
To the detriment of all humanity.
Get over it an move on.
People who dislike things, and say so, will always be around. Get over it and move on and grow up. (Yes, I am pointing out the fact that you are a hypocrite.)
I look for low density and a lack of diversity in restaurants.
You laugh, but low population density has a lot of advantages ...
Actually, no, I was absolutely serious. I live in a rural area, and I love it. I hate the congestion of the city. And I don't eat a wide variety of foods, so the more diversity of restaurants, a. the more likely it is someone I am with will want to go to one of them, and b. the less likely it is that there will even be a restaurant I want to go to, since the total number of restaurants is population-limited.
So, no, I really DO want low density and lack of restaurant diversity. (And yes, I mostly eat at home, with home-cooked meals.)
I completely disagree with every word of the above post.
LIAR!
I look for low density and a lack of diversity in restaurants. I am quite happy that you, and many other people, want something different than me, as it makes it easier to find what I am looking for.
Wow, you just regurgitated his post back you him. That's bloody brilliant.
"Brilliant" is the wrong word. "Sufficient" is the correct one.
telling someone to stop polluting the comment section whilst telling someone they don't have to participate is not hypocritical.
Correct.
However, telling someone to not whine, while whining; telling them to not watch and comment something they don't like, while reading and commenting on something they don't like; etc. ... that obviously is hypocritical. Let's be adults and not pretend otherwise, mmmmkay?
if you don't like idle ...
I never implied, in any way whatsoever, I didn't like idle. Indeed, I read idle often, and thus it is entirely analagous to the comments. I can't know a particular idle story/video/link/etc. will be dumb until I've read/watched it.
Nor did I even imply I didn't like this particular story. What I said is that I didn't like the movie the story linked to. I think the story is fine, as it gives me the opportunity to say how much I hate the movie.
The little movie is technically proficient, and of very good quality. But it's DUMB and ANNOYING. Babies doing adult things is stupid. Look Who's Talking is the most evil film of all time because it gave us talking babies and the rebirth of John Travolta.
For reals.