Mostly the effects I've seen on my own child have also been acted out in video games (and he's limited to what are supposed to be constructive games). Choices of some strategies that seem more violent than necessary. Enough that I decided to talk to him about it.
It's the cumilative frequency of violent acts more than the context of the individual acts. If you watch them regularly, you get used to seeing them regularly.
I am much less likely to watch a violent film than most people. It might be because I have other things to do, or because I'm at some level a gentile soul. Because I don't do watch this stuff so often, I am at times bothered when I do see it. The fact that people around me are inured to it seems weird and wrong.
We expose people of all ages in our society to violence that they are encouraged to perceive as normal, at least normal to experience as a voyeur rather than a participant. I don't think it's a good way to socialize anyone.
We're about to be immersed in The Hunger Games, because of the movie. I haven't read that, and my 12-year-old has. He optimizes what he reads for a reading score web site that the school district uses, as it's 25% of his grade. So, you can consider that The Hunger Games in this case was recommended by the government!
Ender is a school child who kicks another school child to death in the school bathroom. Nobody has any question that it's happened, but not much seems to happen to Ender because of it.
Because of this particular scene in the book, I've always felt that it should not have been promoted as a children's book. I have also felt that Orson Scott Card is, IMO, unsavory for cooperating in promoting it as a children's book.
30 years ago, Arthur David Olson started engineering a solution to this problem that persists to this day, and which he supported personally for all but the last few months. The systems I have that run his software have never even burped through legislative changes of the calendar, leap-seconds, and the Century leap-year day, which is a separate cycle from the 4-year one.
If you were really Paul Anthony, the first thing you'd do is get a login. The second thing would be to link to your Slashdot posting from a site known to be managed by your company, so we'd be able to identify that posting as real.
Placing our faith in the "wisdom" of the market has its failures as well. Certainly there are many topics regarding which we can't expect the buyer to be particularly well-informed. And anyone who "plays the market" understands that the purchaser can not be expected to behave rationally.
The last farm equipment catalog I got had any number of solutions, and I really doubt that very many working barns were still lighted on incandescent when the law went into place. Farmers care more for lowering their electric bill than that.
Anyone with a drop of sense has wrapped their well equipment in resistance heating tape, this not being susceptible to burning out and leaving the well unheated.
I see the tyranny of business around me every day. We live in a plutocracy. Citizens United is the latest abuse of power.
If you chose to wash your blue jeans by opening a fire hydrant and allowing a few tons of water to run into the street drains while you held your jeans in the stream, then jeans would be like incandescent lighting.
Actually, my statement was that there were not a myriad of reasons for normal people to use incandescent lighting. By saying their only reason is "don't tread on me", I mean that they choose incandescent lighting simply because they don't want to be compelled to make a sensible choice, not because of any love of incandescence. Those who actually have specialized needs for lighting were accommodated by the law.
The reason blue jeans differ from lighting is that they don't use an extra proportion of a scarce resource to no benefit while in operation. If it turned out that indigo dye was a bad environmental toxin, or was a rare commodity of strategic importance to the military, there would be regulation of blue jeans.
I like George Orwell's rejection of Hayek and of lassez-faire economics in general:
It cannot be said too often - at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough - that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamed of. Professor Hayek is also probably right in saying that in this country the intellectuals are more totalitarian-minded than the common people. But he does not see, or will not admit, that a return to 'free' competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the State.
We give our lawmakers the task of defining profligate use on our behalf, and we have the courts in place to check that. In this case, profligate use is a pretty simple argument. It's back to watts vs. illumination and associated factors like cost over equipment lifetime, and the perceptual quality of the illumination.
It seems to me that incandescent bulb "fans" have as their reason "don't tread on me", which in this case translates to the right to make poor decisions that effect others.
Its an internality and it is reflected in the energy bill by the producer.
This is an economic fallacy, because it assumes an infinite supply, and that the right to profligate use is equal in merit to everyone else's right to use.
Simply the watt-hours vs. illumination produced. Energy comes from a common pool, pollution or environmental desecration results from its production, both quality of life and economic availability of energy suffer from its profligate use.
Filburn lobbied for zoning changes, and changed his farm into a shopping mall. If you're a ham, you might have been to Salem Mall during Dayton Hamvention, I think they used to operate buses from there. Long after Filburn was gone, the mall suffered from bad management and was eventually torn down.
It seems he wasn't above manipulating the law for his own purposes. The particular case was about price supports during the Great Depression. It has not been entirely supported in subsequent cases, although it's used as justification for regulating marijuana production, which might be why so many people are interested.
If Congress wasn't constitutionally allowed to institute price supports during an economic disaster, they'd have ended up amending the constitution, as they otherwise have when necessary, and things would be exactly the same regardless of whether ICC was used or not.
Or.. the government could respect us to determine when use of CCFL vs Indcascent is the best choice and just stay out of it.
Gas stations would still be selling leaded gas, with all of the accompanying human damage. I think there are a few people on my block who would understand the issue and purchase intelligently. Most, not.
Regarding CCFL's, don't put them in your porch lights. Use LEDs. There have been some really good buys on them at Costco, etc. They are instant-on. I have them on a motion sensor. Despite the fact that I have chosen to light some rooms more brightly, either with compact fluorescent or with a fixture containing circline or tubular fluorescent, my overall energy usage is far down from when the home had all incandescent lighting.
Some people say your freedom reaches as far as you can swing your fist. Ultimately, your use of incandescent lighting, DDT, leaded gas, etc., hurts others. My freedom to have reasonable access to energy and to live in a safe environment is reduced when you insist on living as a soverign.
So, what you are saying is that the federal government has a constitutionally enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce, but if the form of regulation is not itself another constitutionally enumerated power, some folks don't believe the federal government should be doing it.
All the voluntary suspension of sanity on the right wing finally getting to you?
Actually, I see it as more of a sometimes-voluntary suspension of intelligence. Some people really are that dumb. But a heck of a lot of people out there are choosing to be dumb.
The ICC would not be at issue in this case, because such a bulb would be exempted from the law. There are a tremendous number of exceptions in the law, the most significant probably being "rough service bulbs", which can be manufactured and sold legally. In addition, anything not in a right-handed thread Edison base, any appliance lamp, essentially any specialized lamp.
I see this as similar to the ban on DDT. It pushes you to make a choice that is good for society in general. It is at times inconvenient, it has exceptions.
I'm not for "Libertarian Totalitarianism", in which every person would be a soverign. We need to have a balance between everybody's freedom to live in a healthy society together and your freedom to do what you wish. Unfortunately, we don't have convenient planets for Libertarians to live alone upon, and the sad reality is that things you do do sometimes effect me at a distance, like profligate use of energy.
If you're really the sort of person who would "un-respect" me over this, you would not be the sort of person who I would want to be respected by.
You mean the conservative relatives who are lamenting the loss of incandescent bulbs, but are too dumb or lazy to be able to blow glass if they really wanted them?
Headline news!!! Someone unnamed, somewhere in America, did something stupid in a SCHOOL!!! To a LITTLE KID!!! And OFFENDED HER MOMMY!!!
Obviously, all of our rights are in danger! This is not an isolated incident, not just some person out there who's having a bad day, it's a slippery slope!!! WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO NIP THIS IN THE BUD!
OK, I'll get my breath back now.
I think it's a much bigger problem that anyone on Slashdot would think this story is worth posting.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, sure. But I'd rather teach children to abhor it than enjoy it.
Mostly the effects I've seen on my own child have also been acted out in video games (and he's limited to what are supposed to be constructive games). Choices of some strategies that seem more violent than necessary. Enough that I decided to talk to him about it.
It's the cumilative frequency of violent acts more than the context of the individual acts. If you watch them regularly, you get used to seeing them regularly.
I am much less likely to watch a violent film than most people. It might be because I have other things to do, or because I'm at some level a gentile soul. Because I don't do watch this stuff so often, I am at times bothered when I do see it. The fact that people around me are inured to it seems weird and wrong.
We're about to be immersed in The Hunger Games, because of the movie. I haven't read that, and my 12-year-old has. He optimizes what he reads for a reading score web site that the school district uses, as it's 25% of his grade. So, you can consider that The Hunger Games in this case was recommended by the government!
Go look in your bookstore children's section. Or even on lists of science fiction books recommended for children. I'm not kidding.
Because of this particular scene in the book, I've always felt that it should not have been promoted as a children's book. I have also felt that Orson Scott Card is, IMO, unsavory for cooperating in promoting it as a children's book.
30 years ago, Arthur David Olson started engineering a solution to this problem that persists to this day, and which he supported personally for all but the last few months. The systems I have that run his software have never even burped through legislative changes of the calendar, leap-seconds, and the Century leap-year day, which is a separate cycle from the 4-year one.
If you were really Paul Anthony, the first thing you'd do is get a login. The second thing would be to link to your Slashdot posting from a site known to be managed by your company, so we'd be able to identify that posting as real.
Placing our faith in the "wisdom" of the market has its failures as well. Certainly there are many topics regarding which we can't expect the buyer to be particularly well-informed. And anyone who "plays the market" understands that the purchaser can not be expected to behave rationally.
Anyone with a drop of sense has wrapped their well equipment in resistance heating tape, this not being susceptible to burning out and leaving the well unheated.
I see the tyranny of business around me every day. We live in a plutocracy. Citizens United is the latest abuse of power.
If you chose to wash your blue jeans by opening a fire hydrant and allowing a few tons of water to run into the street drains while you held your jeans in the stream, then jeans would be like incandescent lighting.
Actually, my statement was that there were not a myriad of reasons for normal people to use incandescent lighting. By saying their only reason is "don't tread on me", I mean that they choose incandescent lighting simply because they don't want to be compelled to make a sensible choice, not because of any love of incandescence. Those who actually have specialized needs for lighting were accommodated by the law.
The reason blue jeans differ from lighting is that they don't use an extra proportion of a scarce resource to no benefit while in operation. If it turned out that indigo dye was a bad environmental toxin, or was a rare commodity of strategic importance to the military, there would be regulation of blue jeans.
I like George Orwell's rejection of Hayek and of lassez-faire economics in general:
Law makers regulate me in all sorts of ways, some of which I approve of, some not.
It seems to me that incandescent bulb "fans" have as their reason "don't tread on me", which in this case translates to the right to make poor decisions that effect others.
The example of Prohibition and its subsequent repeal would be an argument that the ICC is less relevant than you believe.
This is an economic fallacy, because it assumes an infinite supply, and that the right to profligate use is equal in merit to everyone else's right to use.
Tee hee. Obviously, congress has been very sensitive about the soverign nature of your private property rights! They'd never do that! Not.
Simply the watt-hours vs. illumination produced. Energy comes from a common pool, pollution or environmental desecration results from its production, both quality of life and economic availability of energy suffer from its profligate use.
It seems he wasn't above manipulating the law for his own purposes. The particular case was about price supports during the Great Depression. It has not been entirely supported in subsequent cases, although it's used as justification for regulating marijuana production, which might be why so many people are interested.
If Congress wasn't constitutionally allowed to institute price supports during an economic disaster, they'd have ended up amending the constitution, as they otherwise have when necessary, and things would be exactly the same regardless of whether ICC was used or not.
Gas stations would still be selling leaded gas, with all of the accompanying human damage. I think there are a few people on my block who would understand the issue and purchase intelligently. Most, not.
Regarding CCFL's, don't put them in your porch lights. Use LEDs. There have been some really good buys on them at Costco, etc. They are instant-on. I have them on a motion sensor. Despite the fact that I have chosen to light some rooms more brightly, either with compact fluorescent or with a fixture containing circline or tubular fluorescent, my overall energy usage is far down from when the home had all incandescent lighting.
Some people say your freedom reaches as far as you can swing your fist. Ultimately, your use of incandescent lighting, DDT, leaded gas, etc., hurts others. My freedom to have reasonable access to energy and to live in a safe environment is reduced when you insist on living as a soverign.
So, what you are saying is that the federal government has a constitutionally enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce, but if the form of regulation is not itself another constitutionally enumerated power, some folks don't believe the federal government should be doing it.
Actually, I see it as more of a sometimes-voluntary suspension of intelligence. Some people really are that dumb. But a heck of a lot of people out there are choosing to be dumb.
The ICC would not be at issue in this case, because such a bulb would be exempted from the law. There are a tremendous number of exceptions in the law, the most significant probably being "rough service bulbs", which can be manufactured and sold legally. In addition, anything not in a right-handed thread Edison base, any appliance lamp, essentially any specialized lamp.
I see this as similar to the ban on DDT. It pushes you to make a choice that is good for society in general. It is at times inconvenient, it has exceptions.
I'm not for "Libertarian Totalitarianism", in which every person would be a soverign. We need to have a balance between everybody's freedom to live in a healthy society together and your freedom to do what you wish. Unfortunately, we don't have convenient planets for Libertarians to live alone upon, and the sad reality is that things you do do sometimes effect me at a distance, like profligate use of energy.
If you're really the sort of person who would "un-respect" me over this, you would not be the sort of person who I would want to be respected by.
You mean the conservative relatives who are lamenting the loss of incandescent bulbs, but are too dumb or lazy to be able to blow glass if they really wanted them?
Obviously, all of our rights are in danger! This is not an isolated incident, not just some person out there who's having a bad day, it's a slippery slope!!! WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO NIP THIS IN THE BUD!
OK, I'll get my breath back now.
I think it's a much bigger problem that anyone on Slashdot would think this story is worth posting.