Perhaps when a committee of scientific experts make a formal statement about something that you disagree with, perhaps you should consider the following. Is it more likely that you are right or a group of educated individuals that study the field? I find it incredibly arrogant and egregiously wrong to think that it is more likely that you are correct. Next time question your "common sense" when it is challenged by experts, especially when it is something you don't know much about.
No. If this "expertise" is so obfuscating, distracting, narcissistic, and power hungry that it causes the "experts" to rule that water doesn't prevent dehydration then we'll trust ourselves rather than them.
And people who threaten you with jail time for disagreeing with them should never be trusted by anyone.
"Lies" like "water prevents dehydration". Those lying liars are monstrous indeed.
Here's an idea for Eurocrats who don't want to be "lied" about like this: Don't send 21 scientists to Italy to decide water doesn't prevent dehydration. Just don't. Then those "liars" won't be able to truthfully report that you did. Find something useful to do instead.
the US system would come up with the exact same ruling.
#1. You have made a prediction of the future. It is seemingly based on sound reasoning. Predictions of the future, no matter how sound your reasoning is, have a tendency to be wrong quite frequently. You don't know the future.
#2. So the US government food and drug regulation nonsense may be just as stupid as the EU government food and drug labeling nonsense. Was anyone disputing that? Congrats to the EU for getting there first and setting the standard though.
You're saying that relieving stress in one spot could cause the next spot down the line to have more. So while an earthquake is inevitable, but it could happen in a different location where it wouldn't otherwise happen. Correct?
I guess that's a problem if the earthquake gets moved closer to populated areas. And it's a good thing if the earthquake gets moved away from populated areas.
It would be good to be able to manage this phenomenon.
Actually, it does. Snorting coke didn't cause the heart condition. If I have a latent heart problem, it's in my interest to find out when I'm young and healthy so I can survive the first event. Then I can manage the condition to live a long life rather than dropping dead at 46 years old.
I think "exercise" is more analogous than "snorting coke", but whatever...
What if it did? Earthquakes can't be avoided. The longer that seismic pressure builds, the bigger the quake. Relieving this pressure early by causing minor quakes should help avoid massive, deadly earthquakes in the future.
Good idea. They'll learn, once and for all, that you're entitled to "unlimited" performance on every packet. What else could "unlimited" possibly mean? Obviously, it means you get what you want.
Are you saying you're entitled because creators are bad? Because I think most people consider themselves entitled without regard to anyone else being good, bad, or indifferent.
But hey, whatever gets you the things you're entitled to, that's what matters.
Once these ISPs learn that we're entitled to everything we want, they'll finally have to stop throttling us. Then we can continue to consume content without paying the people who spent their lives creating it.
Ah, I thought you were conservative, in which case you steal from those who don't have it to give it to those who do have it.
See, this is more of that crazy talk. It's impossible to take a dollar from a person who doesn't have a dollar. This is clear to sane people over the age of about 5 years old. Hopefully you understand now that I've explained that.
To take from those who don't need it and wouldn't have made it if not for favorable treatment from the government, to pay for the government that disproportionately benefits them.
It would be a lot easier and more just to simply cut the "government that disproportionally benefits them". Let's do that instead. Because stealing is generally considered wrong. Even if you also hate the people you want to steal from.
I just restated the crazy stuff in your argument. If you don't want to sound crazy, then stop saying crazy things. Obviously, we're not one or two regulations away from rivers starting on fire. Why did you imply that we are? It makes you sound crazy.
Did you think I was proposing that we go back in time and un-create the EPA? I wasn't. Time moves forward. It's impossible to go back. Sane people acknowledge that.
We can make some reasonable, thoughtful compromises on environmental costs to business. This will lead to more jobs. We'll end up with a better environment, because we'll have a more prosperous country. Prosperous people can afford environmental protection. Poor people can't (or at least they can't afford as much).
But we can't have any thoughtful discussions about anything when guys like you claim, directly or by implication, that any change at all will result in rivers starting on fire. Because a claim like that isn't thoughtful. It's crazy.
Besides, you don't understand how super-duper-smart and uncorruptible our bureaucrats will be. They'll also have good luck, unlike their soviet forebears.
Really, this plan has a chance of solving almost every problem humanity has ever suffered from. Why do you have to be so sarcastic and negative?
Some things would be more expensive due to the wage differences, but I would rather pay more for a product my neighbor made than pay for his unemployment checks.
Honestly, I'd much rather buy from the foreign manufacturer. The foreign guy just wants an honest transaction. He wants to build something, and he wants me choose to willingly, voluntarily pay for it. He's offering me the best product he can, at the price I'm willing to pay. I'm being treated like a valued customer.
Meanwhile, "my neighbor" wants my tax money taken from me, by force, against my will to subsidize his lifestyle. This is in no way, a voluntary and honest transaction. I'm being treated like a burglar treats a house when the homeowner is on vacation.
So you want the US government to micro-manage essentially all production and commerce worldwide, using an army of super-smart, infallible bureaucrats to make (or second guess) every decision. Then The Right Thing will always happen.
This is wise. It's great that we live in a world where something like this can never go wrong, governments never make mistakes, and all choices are consequence-free.
Thanks. I'll be sure to remember to include this in the list of counter arguments next time:
- No! If we relax a single regulation then rivers will immediately burst into flames and workers will get chewed up by buzz saws every day in every factory.
Obviously we mustn't "do something". Your warning came just in time.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps when a committee of scientific experts make a formal statement about something that you disagree with, perhaps you should consider the following. Is it more likely that you are right or a group of educated individuals that study the field? I find it incredibly arrogant and egregiously wrong to think that it is more likely that you are correct. Next time question your "common sense" when it is challenged by experts, especially when it is something you don't know much about.
No. If this "expertise" is so obfuscating, distracting, narcissistic, and power hungry that it causes the "experts" to rule that water doesn't prevent dehydration then we'll trust ourselves rather than them.
And people who threaten you with jail time for disagreeing with them should never be trusted by anyone.
"Lies" like "water prevents dehydration". Those lying liars are monstrous indeed.
Here's an idea for Eurocrats who don't want to be "lied" about like this: Don't send 21 scientists to Italy to decide water doesn't prevent dehydration. Just don't. Then those "liars" won't be able to truthfully report that you did. Find something useful to do instead.
the US system would come up with the exact same ruling.
#1. You have made a prediction of the future. It is seemingly based on sound reasoning. Predictions of the future, no matter how sound your reasoning is, have a tendency to be wrong quite frequently. You don't know the future.
#2. So the US government food and drug regulation nonsense may be just as stupid as the EU government food and drug labeling nonsense. Was anyone disputing that? Congrats to the EU for getting there first and setting the standard though.
I swear this is the world's most boring Penthouse Forum letter.
That was hard to follow.
You're saying that relieving stress in one spot could cause the next spot down the line to have more. So while an earthquake is inevitable, but it could happen in a different location where it wouldn't otherwise happen. Correct?
I guess that's a problem if the earthquake gets moved closer to populated areas. And it's a good thing if the earthquake gets moved away from populated areas.
It would be good to be able to manage this phenomenon.
Actually, it does. Snorting coke didn't cause the heart condition. If I have a latent heart problem, it's in my interest to find out when I'm young and healthy so I can survive the first event. Then I can manage the condition to live a long life rather than dropping dead at 46 years old.
I think "exercise" is more analogous than "snorting coke", but whatever...
What if it did? Earthquakes can't be avoided. The longer that seismic pressure builds, the bigger the quake. Relieving this pressure early by causing minor quakes should help avoid massive, deadly earthquakes in the future.
You misspelled "what we paid for".
Perfect performance on every single packet. Or it's false advertising and the ISPs are evil.
Short answer:
Throttling is an outrage against the entitlement mentality of people interested in this news. Otherwise, why would anyone care much?
But this is about packet throttling. We're entitled to un-throttled packets.
Content creators are just bystanders. Content creators can't be given credit for why we're entitled to un-throttled packets.
Why is this being modded "Troll"? I'm not trolling. People really do think they're entitled. It couldn't be more obvious.
Throttling bittorrent is an outrage against our entitlement.
Good idea. They'll learn, once and for all, that you're entitled to "unlimited" performance on every packet. What else could "unlimited" possibly mean? Obviously, it means you get what you want.
Are you saying you're entitled because creators are bad? Because I think most people consider themselves entitled without regard to anyone else being good, bad, or indifferent.
But hey, whatever gets you the things you're entitled to, that's what matters.
Who cares about "content creators"? You're entitled. What does that have to do with them?
Hey, I completely get it. You're entitled, entitled, entitled.
So you want them arrested for disagreeing with you on the meaning of "unlimited"? Or do you just want them fined?
That attitude doesn't validate our entitlement.
No one said you weren't entitled to some perfect level of Internet performance on torrents, regardless of anything. Perish the thought!
Once these ISPs learn that we're entitled to everything we want, they'll finally have to stop throttling us. Then we can continue to consume content without paying the people who spent their lives creating it.
Ah, I thought you were conservative, in which case you steal from those who don't have it to give it to those who do have it.
See, this is more of that crazy talk. It's impossible to take a dollar from a person who doesn't have a dollar. This is clear to sane people over the age of about 5 years old. Hopefully you understand now that I've explained that.
To take from those who don't need it and wouldn't have made it if not for favorable treatment from the government, to pay for the government that disproportionately benefits them.
It would be a lot easier and more just to simply cut the "government that disproportionally benefits them". Let's do that instead. Because stealing is generally considered wrong. Even if you also hate the people you want to steal from.
I just restated the crazy stuff in your argument. If you don't want to sound crazy, then stop saying crazy things. Obviously, we're not one or two regulations away from rivers starting on fire. Why did you imply that we are? It makes you sound crazy.
Did you think I was proposing that we go back in time and un-create the EPA? I wasn't. Time moves forward. It's impossible to go back. Sane people acknowledge that.
We can make some reasonable, thoughtful compromises on environmental costs to business. This will lead to more jobs. We'll end up with a better environment, because we'll have a more prosperous country. Prosperous people can afford environmental protection. Poor people can't (or at least they can't afford as much).
But we can't have any thoughtful discussions about anything when guys like you claim, directly or by implication, that any change at all will result in rivers starting on fire. Because a claim like that isn't thoughtful. It's crazy.
McCarthyism!!!
Besides, you don't understand how super-duper-smart and uncorruptible our bureaucrats will be. They'll also have good luck, unlike their soviet forebears.
Really, this plan has a chance of solving almost every problem humanity has ever suffered from. Why do you have to be so sarcastic and negative?
Some things would be more expensive due to the wage differences, but I would rather pay more for a product my neighbor made than pay for his unemployment checks.
Honestly, I'd much rather buy from the foreign manufacturer. The foreign guy just wants an honest transaction. He wants to build something, and he wants me choose to willingly, voluntarily pay for it. He's offering me the best product he can, at the price I'm willing to pay. I'm being treated like a valued customer.
Meanwhile, "my neighbor" wants my tax money taken from me, by force, against my will to subsidize his lifestyle. This is in no way, a voluntary and honest transaction. I'm being treated like a burglar treats a house when the homeowner is on vacation.
So you want the US government to micro-manage essentially all production and commerce worldwide, using an army of super-smart, infallible bureaucrats to make (or second guess) every decision. Then The Right Thing will always happen.
This is wise. It's great that we live in a world where something like this can never go wrong, governments never make mistakes, and all choices are consequence-free.
Thanks. I'll be sure to remember to include this in the list of counter arguments next time:
- No! If we relax a single regulation then rivers will immediately burst into flames and workers will get chewed up by buzz saws every day in every factory.
Obviously we mustn't "do something". Your warning came just in time.