A better question is why do people stay in Roxbury if it's run down and crime-ridden and hopeless?
If you look around for a new place, there's always somewhere else to go eventually. My only guess is that the people there are trapped by subsidy checks that will be taken away from them if they improve anything. Perhaps you have a better guess?
People who do valuable things for others can afford to hire others to do valuable things for them. Meanwhile, people who just sit at home watching TV during the day, doing nothing for anyone, have fewer opportunities.
You seem to think non-workers should have a whole range of valuable service choices to choose from, even when they don't provide any service to anyone themselves. Why is that?
Perhaps talk about "fixing" poverty demonstrates a poor understanding of poverty. Since nothing has ever fixed it or come close, it would be easy to make the case that poverty is a permanent part of the human condition and that offering opportunities like education and some basic government services to avoid some of the worst tragedies is a sufficient policy for a society.
Yeah. Why would we want people who work and earn a paycheck to benefit from that work? People who don't work should benefit just as much. For fairness or justice or something.
No, the ethic is: bullying is bad. Unless the government is doing the bullying. Then it's good. So all this guy needs to do is donate to the right campaign and have his local government official get the cops to bully this guy. Then he's the most ethical person in the world. Because government!
...you mentioned science and reason above and neglected to consider probabilities and increased odds
No, that's specifically why I mentioned "science and reason" and "evidence" and "proof". The alternative is regulating against spooky stories and bogeymen. Are you in favor of using science and evidence, or do you want regulations based on which side has the most dramatic storytelling?
A "dangerous driving" charge should require the government prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct was dangerous and that an ordinary driver would know that. Then sure.
Actually, if regulations in general had anywhere close to this level of required proof, then there would be almost zero valid complaints about regulations. Many regulations require zero proof.
So regulations should be narrowly tailored. "Something bad might happen" should never be used as a justification. Regulate specific things to prevent specific problems -- problems that have been shown to really be problems, not imaginary storytelling.
You don't need some crazy quintuple-hulled tanker truck to prevent guys with 50 gas cans tied to a rusty Datsun pickup from operating. Just require a secure container, some limit on the quantity of fuel held on each truck, and some system to avoid spills.
...the guy who cheaps out either escapes to the Cayman islands or gets cooked by his own gasoline.
Won't somebody think of the children!!!?
Seriously, let's reason based on science and evidence, not dramatic imaginary stories.
bunch of shady assholes looking to make a quick buck...
Also known as a guy who perhaps works retail and wants a chance at a better life for himself and his family. He knows how to pump gas, and people want to pay him to deliver it to them. He shouldn't need 100s of hours of certification training and a million dollar truck.
I listened to the Neil Gaiman hype once and watched MirrorMask. I didn't like it. I don't understand why his fans like his work.
They are absolutely welcome to like it and be happy, of course. But non-fans of Gaiman (and independent bookstores, and books made of paper) are left to wonder who any of this is really for.
Author of niche-interest fiction hypes small providers of a formerly popular type of entertainment media. It's ironic that science fiction fans are so attached to the past.
No. Regardless of what the FCC does. No one is going to make a useless box. Any cable company that requires one won't be able to compete with PlayStation Vue or Sling TV or Apple's cable replacement service or Amazon's cable replacement service.
No, it's just some lights to warn people off the tracks.
When did Slashdot commenters lose their humanity? Trains are for transportation, not some sort of bloodsport obstacle to entertain know-it-all douchebags.
This comment is a great negative example. You completely missed the point -- the point was: people treat each other badly -- and then you get nasty and call people "entitled brats" because their lives are better than Holocaust victims.
Who is "entitled" to be treated better than Holocaust victims? Everyone.
Do you look at the rising suicide rate and tell yourself "mission accomplished"?
Slashdot Mirror
Prison procedures are less nerdy than just about any other topic. What's Slashdot's mission these days?
A better question is why do people stay in Roxbury if it's run down and crime-ridden and hopeless?
If you look around for a new place, there's always somewhere else to go eventually. My only guess is that the people there are trapped by subsidy checks that will be taken away from them if they improve anything. Perhaps you have a better guess?
People who do valuable things for others can afford to hire others to do valuable things for them. Meanwhile, people who just sit at home watching TV during the day, doing nothing for anyone, have fewer opportunities.
You seem to think non-workers should have a whole range of valuable service choices to choose from, even when they don't provide any service to anyone themselves. Why is that?
There are no Maserati dealers in poor areas either. I wonder why not?
Perhaps talk about "fixing" poverty demonstrates a poor understanding of poverty. Since nothing has ever fixed it or come close, it would be easy to make the case that poverty is a permanent part of the human condition and that offering opportunities like education and some basic government services to avoid some of the worst tragedies is a sufficient policy for a society.
What does "fix" poverty? Please give us some examples where something was done and the result was no poverty any more.
Yeah. Why would we want people who work and earn a paycheck to benefit from that work? People who don't work should benefit just as much. For fairness or justice or something.
No, the ethic is: bullying is bad. Unless the government is doing the bullying. Then it's good. So all this guy needs to do is donate to the right campaign and have his local government official get the cops to bully this guy. Then he's the most ethical person in the world. Because government!
How do we know the fruit isn't poisoned? Or haunted? Regulations will solve this. So what if they hurt a poor person?
...you mentioned science and reason above and neglected to consider probabilities and increased odds
No, that's specifically why I mentioned "science and reason" and "evidence" and "proof". The alternative is regulating against spooky stories and bogeymen. Are you in favor of using science and evidence, or do you want regulations based on which side has the most dramatic storytelling?
And you want to arrest innocent people any time someone makes up a scary story.
A "dangerous driving" charge should require the government prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct was dangerous and that an ordinary driver would know that. Then sure.
Actually, if regulations in general had anywhere close to this level of required proof, then there would be almost zero valid complaints about regulations. Many regulations require zero proof.
So regulations should be narrowly tailored. "Something bad might happen" should never be used as a justification. Regulate specific things to prevent specific problems -- problems that have been shown to really be problems, not imaginary storytelling.
You don't need some crazy quintuple-hulled tanker truck to prevent guys with 50 gas cans tied to a rusty Datsun pickup from operating. Just require a secure container, some limit on the quantity of fuel held on each truck, and some system to avoid spills.
...the guy who cheaps out either escapes to the Cayman islands or gets cooked by his own gasoline.
Won't somebody think of the children!!!?
Seriously, let's reason based on science and evidence, not dramatic imaginary stories.
bunch of shady assholes looking to make a quick buck...
Also known as a guy who perhaps works retail and wants a chance at a better life for himself and his family. He knows how to pump gas, and people want to pay him to deliver it to them. He shouldn't need 100s of hours of certification training and a million dollar truck.
We need to regulate/prohibit [anything] because [something bad might happen]. Regulations make it so nothing bad can ever happen.
The true cost of [anything] is infinite because [something bad might happen someday].
Gaiman is extremely successful
I listened to the Neil Gaiman hype once and watched MirrorMask. I didn't like it. I don't understand why his fans like his work.
They are absolutely welcome to like it and be happy, of course. But non-fans of Gaiman (and independent bookstores, and books made of paper) are left to wonder who any of this is really for.
Author of niche-interest fiction hypes small providers of a formerly popular type of entertainment media. It's ironic that science fiction fans are so attached to the past.
No. Regardless of what the FCC does. No one is going to make a useless box. Any cable company that requires one won't be able to compete with PlayStation Vue or Sling TV or Apple's cable replacement service or Amazon's cable replacement service.
Cable TV is going to be an app on your TV or your PlayStation or a Roku-like device. The boxes have no future.
No, it's just some lights to warn people off the tracks.
When did Slashdot commenters lose their humanity? Trains are for transportation, not some sort of bloodsport obstacle to entertain know-it-all douchebags.
Nice to see a government that cares about keeping people safe rather than just taking their money and scolding them.
People on the Internet are angry about something? Amazing.
This comment is a great negative example. You completely missed the point -- the point was: people treat each other badly -- and then you get nasty and call people "entitled brats" because their lives are better than Holocaust victims.
Who is "entitled" to be treated better than Holocaust victims? Everyone.
Do you look at the rising suicide rate and tell yourself "mission accomplished"?
You owe it to owners of beach houses.
Because the rest of the world helps the US so much.