an average of 90 people will die in traffic "accidents". can we... do something meaningful about mental illness? Or drunk drivers?
Perhaps you would like to make some sort of argument that these things are some how related or that there is something that can be done about mental illness or drunk drivers that could have a material effect on fatal traffic accidents.
Actually, I'm making the arguments that:
They are not related
Traffic deaths are a much bigger problem, and yet there is never, ever, a call to ban motor vehicles because of this.
Effectively managing the mentally ill (most communities don't even come close) would reduce the number of deaths cause by crazy people hearing voices.
Doing something effective about drunk drivers (as an emergency medical provider of long experience, I can tell you that most accidents involved repeat offenders) will reduce the number of traffic fatalities and injuries, a lot.
Notice that I am not saying stupid shit like, "Cars are to easy to get. We need laws that will keep them out of the hands of everyone but law enforcement. Blah, blah, blah" It's not the cars, just like it's not the guns.
True enough, re. corruption, er.... "lobbying" and "speech" (in the form of money), but again, you are making an invalid assumption; that the corruption you describe is inevitable. There are several ways that the influence on our government by corporate money might be curtailed. Not that that's likely, but there are clear solutions to that problem.
Today, like every day of the year, an average of 90 people will die in traffic "accidents". Yes, every day. So can we stop all the hand-wringing about "gun violence" and do something meaningful about mental illness? Or drunk drivers?
Which is more open and transparent -- the free market, with all its flaws, or the Federal Government, with all its self-proclaimed good intentions? Personally, I don't trust either one. We have to be vigilant of both.
You presume an "open and transparent" market. This is a common mistake. The mythical free market presumes that consumers have all the information they need to make the right choices. It also presumes that the barriers to entry are inconsequential for would be vendors in that market. Neither is ever true in most cases. Therefore, the "vigilance" that correctly demand, may only be practically maintained by an entity possessed of the necessary information and the expertise to analyze it. That means a government agency, empowered by law to get the information, weigh and analyze it from the perspective of the interests of the consumer/citizen, and where indicated, implement regulations that see to those interests.
Of course that's just an idealistic pipe dream in 2012. "The government" works for the corporations now, not the people.
So what's our policy for deciding which people's rights get protected?
Roll the dice, and if their country is important to our strategic economic interests we intervene, otherwise we don't?
Now you're getting it. The policy is "If it's profitable for those who write the checks that get us elected, we go to war, and where we can, use the "bring democracy to oppressed people" schtick as a PR tool. Because everybody knows, you need some positive spin when the voters' kids start coming home dead, in large numbers.
If we allowed every Tom, Dick, and citizen free and open access to the things their taxes paid for, what kind of world would that be? Access to things like that should be reserved for corporate citizens who've proven that they deserve the fruits of public funding, not "the public". That's just crazy socialist talk!
I guess I should have included the part where he said "....but fair is fair...", as in "Normally, I'd not give a rat's ass about all those black and brown people in the big house, but..." You'll pardon me, but I am well aware of the coded meaning of "good law and order conservative".
It's not (really) about the jobs. It's about spending public money to make some wealthy people that much wealthier. Yes, I said public money. If history is any indicator (an it usually is) the expense of providing the additional municipal services this project will require will fall to the taxpayers and not to the plant owners. In fact, those owners will probably get a tax break for creating all those jobs. You don't really buy all that bullshit about the payback from giving government handouts to "job creators", do you?
I'm a good law-and-order conservative when it comes to things like this.../p>
Things like what? Justice?
How are truth and justice different for "conservatives"? You seem to imply that liberals are "bad" and not for "law and order". I live in a state that is rife with "good law-and-order conservatives" and our penal system is famous for housing wrongfully convicted me and women. You're right about one thing, fair is fair. Given that, how do we explain that it's always the poor who are wrongfully convicted? There's a lot more wrong with the system than not enough DNA testing.
... not the other way around. This nonsense began when we started changing the notification rules for HIV patients. Before that time, dangerous communicable diseases were dealt with in a way that valued the health of the public higher than the "privacy" of infected individuals. Now, I understand the issue, and we all saw Philadelphia, but the result is that, clearly, we have gone too far, and in Florida, people are going to die because of it.
Oh, yeah. Now there's an assertion crying out for substantiation if ever there was one. So WSJ readers are better informed just because they are WSJ readers, eh? Wait for it...
[citation needed]
Don't forget the problems of misinterpretation and ambiguity.
Not understanding the message is one thing, but understanding it as something that wasn't intended is worse. And when correctly parsing the message and the result is completely different from what the author intended, it's worst of all.
Not only do people use reduced vocabularies and lackluster grammar, but they use words and phrases wrong, so unless the recipient also does it wrong, the same way, misunderstandings are very likely.
In short, I think it boils down to people not caring much anymore. T
I see what you did there. That was a nicely executed use of irony; using an adjective to incorrectly modify a verb.
Yes, small mobile devices have as much, or more, compute power (including display processing) as PC's of a few years ago. And yes, solid state storage is cheap enough to make a mobile device a practical platform for most uses, but for one thing - the user interface. Just try to get real work done on a tablet. Sure, if you're "work" is a single task, with a UI that is suited to small displays, and if your input doesn't involve much typing at all, that will work. But if you run multiple apps at once, and have to actually type any significant number of characters like say, a paragraph on a/. post, tiny touch screens suck, hard. So Cringe has it right, partly. I'm willing to allow that "the PC" will look quite different in 10 or 15 years. I expect that it will involve a wearable heads-up display of some type. If we don't get that, the screens on my desk will still be there.
Paul is just another in a long line of elected officials who do not understand "The Internet". I use that term to encompass all of the issues and technologies that surround it and make it go.That's a lot of stuff to understand. Used to be that we appointed experts to advise the policy makers on such things so that they had at least some hope of getting it right and that the interests of the people whom they (the policy makers) represented were looked after. Now, we appoint "industry experts", which is the polite term for "paid lackey" to advise the policy makers so that they can see to the interests of the industry. "Fuck 'the people'. They don't write the checks." Paul has clearly been taking his "advice" from this lot. Still, I would almost be inclined to go with a completely hands-off approach when it comes to government meddling in defining how we use the Internet. Almost. Sadly, the telecommunication industry, who effectively owns and runs the Internet in the U.S. has pretty sorry history of looking out for our rights, much less our interests as consumers. Every single major telco save one (QWest) happily held the chair whilst our rights were then bent over it and given a good ass-ramming. That's called fascism and I'll have part of it, thank you. And the Paul's can shove it.
Please stop saying that. Nobody else is, so why do you persist? No, we're not. Really. What we are saying is that corporations are, by their very nature, incompatible with the well being of the citizens of the state that allows such entities to exist. Corporations have one mission, to create profit for their shareholders. Any action not in keeping with that mission is, arguably, a breach of the duties entrusted to those who run the show. We (the citizens), then, should not expect a corporation to do what we regard as "the right thing". We should, then, rigorously monitor and regulate said corporation's behavior so that it will so the right thing WRT to the citizens who granted it's existence, and most definitely not the other way around.
As the president, or member of his cabinet, you are supposed to Execute the laws even if you don't like them. The exception being unconstitutional laws (as required by your oath). Since the patent law was constitutional, Jefferson did his job and obeyed the constitution. (Something recent presidents ought to learn to do.)
So..., you're saying that..., so called "signing statements" wherein a President will attempt to put his own spin on legislation passed on brought before him for his signature (or veto) is an inexcusable perversion of the system's separation of powers? Wow. We really are fucked, because there has not been any kind of public outrage that should accompany such an egregious abuse.
...is "disingenuous", for nothing fits the term better than Verizon's twisted argument that a free and open Internet can somehow be an impediment to free speech. If it didn't come from corporate lawyers, it would be unbelievable.
Because they rely on being cool in order to continue to make money.
So sayeth the Slashdot demographic as they stand in the cold and stare hungrily at the "clueless sheep" through the window.
TFTFY. And BTW, it's not really that cold out here. The/. "demographic" is also smart enough to dress for the weather, if not always with a fashionably "cool" style sense.
Brilliant deduction, clown, but WRONG since people (even the uninsured) typically only go to the ER as a last resort. People, with insurance go to their doctor's for a hang-nail. The usage of the service will increase dramatically and so will the costs. Unimaginative ad-hominem, though.
You demonstrate an astonishing, if exceedingly common lack of understanding of health care costs and compensation. The E.R. is the last and only resort for those unable to pay for healthcare, which includes almost all the uninsured. Yes, there are a few folks who can afford to write a check for whatever they need, but that's not "typical", not by a long stretch. And I''ve got news for you, the "hangnail" people flood the ER now. And you and I pay for that, right now.
BTW, nice job avoiding the whole question about how it is that virtually every other industrialized nation does it better and cheaper,...dumbass.
You've been "picking up the" tab all along, dumbass. Forcing, (or allowing, depending on your point of view) the uninsured to go the an E.R. for basic care - and not providing them with ANY preventative care, is expensive. Someone pays that bill. Who could that be, I wonder.
Slashdot Mirror
an average of 90 people will die in traffic "accidents". can we ... do something meaningful about mental illness? Or drunk drivers?
Perhaps you would like to make some sort of argument that these things are some how related or that there is something that can be done about mental illness or drunk drivers that could have a material effect on fatal traffic accidents.
Actually, I'm making the arguments that:
Notice that I am not saying stupid shit like, "Cars are to easy to get. We need laws that will keep them out of the hands of everyone but law enforcement. Blah, blah, blah" It's not the cars, just like it's not the guns.
True enough, re. corruption, er.... "lobbying" and "speech" (in the form of money), but again, you are making an invalid assumption; that the corruption you describe is inevitable. There are several ways that the influence on our government by corporate money might be curtailed. Not that that's likely, but there are clear solutions to that problem.
Today, like every day of the year, an average of 90 people will die in traffic "accidents". Yes, every day. So can we stop all the hand-wringing about "gun violence" and do something meaningful about mental illness? Or drunk drivers?
...unless you enjoy "extra security" when you fly, having your mail opened, your electronic communications "monitored", etc.
Which is more open and transparent -- the free market, with all its flaws, or the Federal Government, with all its self-proclaimed good intentions? Personally, I don't trust either one. We have to be vigilant of both.
You presume an "open and transparent" market. This is a common mistake. The mythical free market presumes that consumers have all the information they need to make the right choices. It also presumes that the barriers to entry are inconsequential for would be vendors in that market. Neither is ever true in most cases. Therefore, the "vigilance" that correctly demand, may only be practically maintained by an entity possessed of the necessary information and the expertise to analyze it. That means a government agency, empowered by law to get the information, weigh and analyze it from the perspective of the interests of the consumer/citizen, and where indicated, implement regulations that see to those interests.
Of course that's just an idealistic pipe dream in 2012. "The government" works for the corporations now, not the people.
Regulation is bad. Right? The free market will take care of everything, including our privacy. Right? RIGHT?
So what's our policy for deciding which people's rights get protected?
Roll the dice, and if their country is important to our strategic economic interests we intervene, otherwise we don't?
Now you're getting it. The policy is "If it's profitable for those who write the checks that get us elected, we go to war, and where we can, use the "bring democracy to oppressed people" schtick as a PR tool. Because everybody knows, you need some positive spin when the voters' kids start coming home dead, in large numbers.
If we allowed every Tom, Dick, and citizen free and open access to the things their taxes paid for, what kind of world would that be? Access to things like that should be reserved for corporate citizens who've proven that they deserve the fruits of public funding, not "the public". That's just crazy socialist talk!
I guess I should have included the part where he said "....but fair is fair...", as in "Normally, I'd not give a rat's ass about all those black and brown people in the big house, but..." You'll pardon me, but I am well aware of the coded meaning of "good law and order conservative".
It's not (really) about the jobs. It's about spending public money to make some wealthy people that much wealthier. Yes, I said public money. If history is any indicator (an it usually is) the expense of providing the additional municipal services this project will require will fall to the taxpayers and not to the plant owners. In fact, those owners will probably get a tax break for creating all those jobs. You don't really buy all that bullshit about the payback from giving government handouts to "job creators", do you?
I'm a good law-and-order conservative when it comes to things like this.../p>
Things like what? Justice?
How are truth and justice different for "conservatives"? You seem to imply that liberals are "bad" and not for "law and order". I live in a state that is rife with "good law-and-order conservatives" and our penal system is famous for housing wrongfully convicted me and women. You're right about one thing, fair is fair. Given that, how do we explain that it's always the poor who are wrongfully convicted? There's a lot more wrong with the system than not enough DNA testing.
It wasn't funny.
I disagree. I'm certain that scores of 12-year-olds found it hilarious.
... not the other way around. This nonsense began when we started changing the notification rules for HIV patients. Before that time, dangerous communicable diseases were dealt with in a way that valued the health of the public higher than the "privacy" of infected individuals. Now, I understand the issue, and we all saw Philadelphia, but the result is that, clearly, we have gone too far, and in Florida, people are going to die because of it.
That used to be the job of journalists. To point out errors, or outright lies and demand answers with as little bias as possible.
So..., what? You're saying that journalists are doing something other than impartially reporting facts these days? I am shocked.
Oh, yeah. Now there's an assertion crying out for substantiation if ever there was one. So WSJ readers are better informed just because they are WSJ readers, eh?
Wait for it... [citation needed]
Don't forget the problems of misinterpretation and ambiguity. Not understanding the message is one thing, but understanding it as something that wasn't intended is worse. And when correctly parsing the message and the result is completely different from what the author intended, it's worst of all.
Not only do people use reduced vocabularies and lackluster grammar, but they use words and phrases wrong, so unless the recipient also does it wrong, the same way, misunderstandings are very likely.
In short, I think it boils down to people not caring much anymore. T
I see what you did there. That was a nicely executed use of irony; using an adjective to incorrectly modify a verb.
Yes, small mobile devices have as much, or more, compute power (including display processing) as PC's of a few years ago. And yes, solid state storage is cheap enough to make a mobile device a practical platform for most uses, but for one thing - the user interface. Just try to get real work done on a tablet. Sure, if you're "work" is a single task, with a UI that is suited to small displays, and if your input doesn't involve much typing at all, that will work. But if you run multiple apps at once, and have to actually type any significant number of characters like say, a paragraph on a /. post, tiny touch screens suck, hard. So Cringe has it right, partly. I'm willing to allow that "the PC" will look quite different in 10 or 15 years. I expect that it will involve a wearable heads-up display of some type. If we don't get that, the screens on my desk will still be there.
Paul is just another in a long line of elected officials who do not understand "The Internet". I use that term to encompass all of the issues and technologies that surround it and make it go.That's a lot of stuff to understand. Used to be that we appointed experts to advise the policy makers on such things so that they had at least some hope of getting it right and that the interests of the people whom they (the policy makers) represented were looked after. Now, we appoint "industry experts", which is the polite term for "paid lackey" to advise the policy makers so that they can see to the interests of the industry. "Fuck 'the people'. They don't write the checks." Paul has clearly been taking his "advice" from this lot. Still, I would almost be inclined to go with a completely hands-off approach when it comes to government meddling in defining how we use the Internet. Almost. Sadly, the telecommunication industry, who effectively owns and runs the Internet in the U.S. has pretty sorry history of looking out for our rights, much less our interests as consumers. Every single major telco save one (QWest) happily held the chair whilst our rights were then bent over it and given a good ass-ramming. That's called fascism and I'll have part of it, thank you. And the Paul's can shove it.
Follow the hivemind! Corporations are bad!
Please stop saying that. Nobody else is, so why do you persist? No, we're not. Really. What we are saying is that corporations are, by their very nature, incompatible with the well being of the citizens of the state that allows such entities to exist. Corporations have one mission, to create profit for their shareholders. Any action not in keeping with that mission is, arguably, a breach of the duties entrusted to those who run the show. We (the citizens), then, should not expect a corporation to do what we regard as "the right thing". We should, then, rigorously monitor and regulate said corporation's behavior so that it will so the right thing WRT to the citizens who granted it's existence, and most definitely not the other way around.
As the president, or member of his cabinet, you are supposed to Execute the laws even if you don't like them. The exception being unconstitutional laws (as required by your oath). Since the patent law was constitutional, Jefferson did his job and obeyed the constitution. (Something recent presidents ought to learn to do.)
So..., you're saying that..., so called "signing statements" wherein a President will attempt to put his own spin on legislation passed on brought before him for his signature (or veto) is an inexcusable perversion of the system's separation of powers? Wow. We really are fucked, because there has not been any kind of public outrage that should accompany such an egregious abuse.
...is "disingenuous", for nothing fits the term better than Verizon's twisted argument that a free and open Internet can somehow be an impediment to free speech. If it didn't come from corporate lawyers, it would be unbelievable.
I suspect he meant USB storage and network devices. It's easy enough to lock those down while still allowing input devices to connect and function.
So sayeth the Slashdot demographic as they stand in the cold and stare hungrily at the "clueless sheep" through the window.
TFTFY. And BTW, it's not really that cold out here. The /. "demographic" is also smart enough to dress for the weather, if not always with a fashionably "cool" style sense.
Brilliant deduction, clown, but WRONG since people (even the uninsured) typically only go to the ER as a last resort. People, with insurance go to their doctor's for a hang-nail. The usage of the service will increase dramatically and so will the costs. Unimaginative ad-hominem, though.
You demonstrate an astonishing, if exceedingly common lack of understanding of health care costs and compensation. The E.R. is the last and only resort for those unable to pay for healthcare, which includes almost all the uninsured. Yes, there are a few folks who can afford to write a check for whatever they need, but that's not "typical", not by a long stretch. And I''ve got news for you, the "hangnail" people flood the ER now. And you and I pay for that, right now. BTW, nice job avoiding the whole question about how it is that virtually every other industrialized nation does it better and cheaper, ...dumbass.
You've been "picking up the" tab all along, dumbass. Forcing, (or allowing, depending on your point of view) the uninsured to go the an E.R. for basic care - and not providing them with ANY preventative care, is expensive. Someone pays that bill. Who could that be, I wonder.