Not really. Why choose a "consistent" policy that doesn't work when you could choose a compromise policy that does work (or works better)?
What is the argument for an "internally consistent" policy, for anything, in any situation, over another policy that's less consistent but better suited to the diverse groups of people affected by the policy?
How are these "if you want to be consistent" arguments not just another set of strawmen?
(Seriously. I never did understand the purpose of "internal consistency". It seems to be valued by academics for some reason...)
in 1994 when the republicans took over congress, we have systematically taken away governmental regulatory powers over the economy and wall street. the result is the financial meltdown in 2008
In 2003, Futurama was cancelled. "The result is the financial meltdown in 2008." In 2001, the World Trade Center was attacked. "The result is the financial meltdown in 2008." In 1992, we elected Bill Clinton. "The result is the financial meltdown in 2008." In 1947, we invented the transistor. "The result is the financial meltdown in 2008." In 1945, we won WW2. "The result is the financial meltdown in 2008." In 1903, Pope Pius X succeeded Pope Leo XIII . "The result is the financial meltdown in 2008." etc.
Gosh, one last thing: an internally consistent libertarian would have to reject environmental regulations in favor of torts.
What's your point? You don't like one extreme, therefore the only conceivable alternative to you is the other extreme?
You're arguing against something that hasn't been suggested.
Who decided they wanted "an internally consistent" anything? Has anyone established that internal consistency has some sort of value? It doesn't seem to.
And what will you do when some of these localities start bringing back segregation, or other policies abhorrent to the nation as a whole?
Make some sort of minor, marginal change to specifically fix the new issue. Or just concede that perfection is impossible and try to live as best we can with as much freedom as we can.
Your point seems to be that we can't change anything, no matter how broken it is, because something might go wrong during or after the changes. That's nonsense. "What if something bad happens" is an argument to be careful and flexible. We don't need to be paralyzed until we can mathematically prove a solution will produce a utopia.
We're awash in chemicals all day. Why do we have to vilify certain ones?
Because we can't blame our problems on "magic" or "evil spirits" any more, so we pick something else equally as unknown to most of us. Next time you hear someone demonizing some common substance, that's all they're doing.
Why do you think religious folks say grace before meals? Food used to be a lot more likely to make you sick (from parasites, etc.) back when these traditions began thousands of years ago. But forgoing food isn't an option. Some sort of divine blessing was clearly in order.
(Also, if you convince people you have some sort of inside knowledge on the "evil spirits" or "toxic" substances in common items, you can gain status, advantages, and potentially wealth or power. This has not changed.)
Maybe she does not have insurance. How do you expect her to pay for the medical costs?
Someone might not be able to afford medical costs, therefore innocent people in our society should agree to be stolen from endlessly.
No. We should say no. What will happen? What kind of society will we have as a result of saying no? I'm not sure. But I'm willing to take the chance rather than install injustice as a permanent and purposeful fixture in our society.
Common sense doesn't pay off for lawyers. Being of no value (or actually negative value) to them, it was abolished. It has been replaced with greed and envy which are justified using grievance politics.
The Grievance Industry used "empathy" as a wedge to manipulate Americans and gain wealth and power without producing anything or having any particular merit.
Americans are wising up and becoming immune to this form of manipulation. Those who seek victim status are now increasingly looked on with suspicion and mistrust. Too bad for the genuine victims. It probably will lead to a meaner society. I hope the Grievance Industry is happy with the results they've achieved.
Honestly? You think you're the only one who has noticed that?
Have you heard of the Tea Parties? You know, potentially one of the most significant developments in modern US political history? Google it if you haven't heard of them. They are a response to the anti-Capitalist, huge-government policies.
For some reason, the United States is the only country on Earth where accidents don't happen – it's always somebody's fault, and you can sue that somebody for neglect.
Only when "somebody" has money. When "somebody" is poor, or when "somebody" is the government and can't be sued, then it's really the fault of society and it can only be resolved by raising taxes on somebody else with money.
Watch out Google and Facebook. One of the most crooked congressmen of modern times wants your "cooperation". He can't use his government staff as personal valets anymore since he got caught. And his wife was recently sentenced to 3 years in prison for taking bribes.
If he asks you for a private meeting, you'll want to either bring a checkbook or a tape recorder.
When their "most prolific users" no longer cause a bandwidth problem, what would be the point of limiting them further? Do you really think they intend to go to lower and lower amounts of aggregate bandwidth on their network as time passes? Why?
They want to offer a good service to people for a high (profitable) price. They're just limiting the fringe cases.
I would limit them too. Maybe it's 3 houses sharing a connection and they'll have to stop and sign up for 3 connections. Maybe it's a business user and he'll be willing to pay for business service. Maybe it's something illicit that you'd rather not be on your network. Or maybe it's just someone using as must bandwidth as 100 ordinary subscribers and you want the 100 subscribers to get better service at the expense of the one.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. Why choose a "consistent" policy that doesn't work when you could choose a compromise policy that does work (or works better)?
What is the argument for an "internally consistent" policy, for anything, in any situation, over another policy that's less consistent but better suited to the diverse groups of people affected by the policy?
How are these "if you want to be consistent" arguments not just another set of strawmen?
(Seriously. I never did understand the purpose of "internal consistency". It seems to be valued by academics for some reason...)
in 1994 when the republicans took over congress, we have systematically taken away governmental regulatory powers over the economy and wall street. the result is the financial meltdown in 2008
In 2003, Futurama was cancelled. "The result is the financial meltdown in 2008."
In 2001, the World Trade Center was attacked. "The result is the financial meltdown in 2008."
In 1992, we elected Bill Clinton. "The result is the financial meltdown in 2008."
In 1947, we invented the transistor. "The result is the financial meltdown in 2008."
In 1945, we won WW2. "The result is the financial meltdown in 2008."
In 1903, Pope Pius X succeeded Pope Leo XIII . "The result is the financial meltdown in 2008."
etc.
Relax. They're just trolling. (And if not, they're too stupid to discuss anything with anyway.)
All the amendments are special cases.
Gosh, one last thing: an internally consistent libertarian would have to reject environmental regulations in favor of torts.
What's your point? You don't like one extreme, therefore the only conceivable alternative to you is the other extreme?
You're arguing against something that hasn't been suggested.
Who decided they wanted "an internally consistent" anything? Has anyone established that internal consistency has some sort of value? It doesn't seem to.
And what will you do when some of these localities start bringing back segregation, or other policies abhorrent to the nation as a whole?
Make some sort of minor, marginal change to specifically fix the new issue. Or just concede that perfection is impossible and try to live as best we can with as much freedom as we can.
Your point seems to be that we can't change anything, no matter how broken it is, because something might go wrong during or after the changes. That's nonsense. "What if something bad happens" is an argument to be careful and flexible. We don't need to be paralyzed until we can mathematically prove a solution will produce a utopia.
We're awash in chemicals all day. Why do we have to vilify certain ones?
Because we can't blame our problems on "magic" or "evil spirits" any more, so we pick something else equally as unknown to most of us. Next time you hear someone demonizing some common substance, that's all they're doing.
Why do you think religious folks say grace before meals? Food used to be a lot more likely to make you sick (from parasites, etc.) back when these traditions began thousands of years ago. But forgoing food isn't an option. Some sort of divine blessing was clearly in order.
(Also, if you convince people you have some sort of inside knowledge on the "evil spirits" or "toxic" substances in common items, you can gain status, advantages, and potentially wealth or power. This has not changed.)
Maybe she does not have insurance. How do you expect her to pay for the medical costs?
Someone might not be able to afford medical costs, therefore innocent people in our society should agree to be stolen from endlessly.
No. We should say no. What will happen? What kind of society will we have as a result of saying no? I'm not sure. But I'm willing to take the chance rather than install injustice as a permanent and purposeful fixture in our society.
Whoever has the most money.
What ever happened to common sense.
Common sense doesn't pay off for lawyers. Being of no value (or actually negative value) to them, it was abolished. It has been replaced with greed and envy which are justified using grievance politics.
You forgot to also call them a bunch of poopy-heads with cooties.
You are correct.
The Grievance Industry used "empathy" as a wedge to manipulate Americans and gain wealth and power without producing anything or having any particular merit.
Americans are wising up and becoming immune to this form of manipulation. Those who seek victim status are now increasingly looked on with suspicion and mistrust. Too bad for the genuine victims. It probably will lead to a meaner society. I hope the Grievance Industry is happy with the results they've achieved.
Honestly? You think you're the only one who has noticed that?
Have you heard of the Tea Parties? You know, potentially one of the most significant developments in modern US political history? Google it if you haven't heard of them. They are a response to the anti-Capitalist, huge-government policies.
Real life is different from TV.
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/top10-percent-income-earners
The IRS wants to know all about your online transactions. And unlike Facebook, the IRS will definitely use the information against you.
But where are all the people who love to complain about their precious privacy?
So what? Limiting the super high bandwidth users makes sense even when there's no bandwidth problem. (Assuming that's even true.)
For some reason, the United States is the only country on Earth where accidents don't happen – it's always somebody's fault, and you can sue that somebody for neglect.
Only when "somebody" has money. When "somebody" is poor, or when "somebody" is the government and can't be sued, then it's really the fault of society and it can only be resolved by raising taxes on somebody else with money.
Watch out Google and Facebook. One of the most crooked congressmen of modern times wants your "cooperation". He can't use his government staff as personal valets anymore since he got caught. And his wife was recently sentenced to 3 years in prison for taking bribes.
If he asks you for a private meeting, you'll want to either bring a checkbook or a tape recorder.
Why would they bother?
When their "most prolific users" no longer cause a bandwidth problem, what would be the point of limiting them further? Do you really think they intend to go to lower and lower amounts of aggregate bandwidth on their network as time passes? Why?
They want to offer a good service to people for a high (profitable) price. They're just limiting the fringe cases.
I would limit them too. Maybe it's 3 houses sharing a connection and they'll have to stop and sign up for 3 connections. Maybe it's a business user and he'll be willing to pay for business service. Maybe it's something illicit that you'd rather not be on your network. Or maybe it's just someone using as must bandwidth as 100 ordinary subscribers and you want the 100 subscribers to get better service at the expense of the one.
Magazines don't have a future. Magazines suck. Just about every other information delivery mechanism has huge advantages over magazines.
Screw you. It's For The Earth. When it's For The Earth, you will obey the authorities.
But what if I don't want my car to shut off at a stop light.
If you know what's good for you, you'll learn to say you want it.
If the numbers are small enough, the number of lifetimes spent seeking the link will be fewer than the number of lives lost to cancer.
That's still quite a low risk. That's the point.
If the number went from 1% to 100% or even to 10%, the studies would not be inconclusive. Everyone would worry.
But it doesn't. It goes up an amount small enough that we can't tell for sure whether it's even a positive result.
No people were harmed in that story. How is it even remotely related to the topic?