Actually, the gambler's fallacy is sometimes actually right, in a sense. If all you know is that it's come up heads 50 times in a row, you're actually smarter to bet on it being heads, because, unless you know that it's a fair coin, the odds are that it's actually a biased coin. So gambler's intuitively know that something is up when you get "rare" sequences of events, but are making the wrong decision.
You might not notice it happening, but I certainly have. In fact, my one accident has been because of my stupidity involving food. I had taken a second to look down and grab a piece of chicken while I was braking, and, well, let's just say I didn't quite brake fast enough. I rear-ended the people in front of me (going at like 5 km/h, but still an accident). It turned out okay for me, because they got their repairs done for free (and my damage was minimal), but it's certainly taught me something about eating and driving. At the very least, doing so where your decisions are very important. I still do eat while driving, but only on very specific streets (ones I personally know have very low traffic), at red lights, and never while braking or accelerating. Once bitten twice shy, they say.
My brother got his new car trashed when some idiot ran a red light and T-boned the driver side of my brother's car (luckily, just behind the driver's seat) because he was texting someone. The kicker? The kid's mom showed up and tried to convince my brother to let the kid leave before the cops showed up. Some people...
Who modded this down? He's got a damn good point, even for an AC. Let one behaviour be the default, but give people the option to switch back. Unless there's a good reason for it (spaghetti code, perpetuating bugs), give them a binary switch to play with.
Well, apparently they've managed to work the language so that unlimited really means unlimited connectivity, not unlimited download/upload. It's a filthy lie that they get away with because of ambiguity of language and those 10 pt white font legal disclaimers on the bottom of their commercials. Even though they know damn well that Joe Sixpack is going to think unlimited means how much he can do with his connection. I hate their bullshit, and I'm going to sign on with Teksavvy when I finally move out.
Fine. No gun to your head. You're right. You're not required to burn oil and use DSL or cable. Oh, but you live in the boonies and need to heat your place in the winter, plus you need to drive to work (no public transport out in the boonies or even the suburbs in some places). Move to the city, you say? Fine (if that's where your job is), but you still have to heat your home some way, and you can bet that the energy is coming from hydrocarbons. As for DSL and cable, you don't really need it. I mean, who really needs to stay in contact with people? I mean, if you ignore the benefits of e-mail, quick research, entertainment, access to work, and the necessity of an internet connection if you're a student, the internet is completely useless.
Sarcasm aside, we've reached the point where the internet is as necessary as phones, roads, and electricity is. This means we need either regulation, or a complete cut of corporate welfare for the incumbent ISPs, and start helping the new guys. The fact is, the $50 crippled connection is still the better option than none at all. We just want better choices.
Well, I do pity you for getting so royally screwed over. Did you change banks after that? Also, after a bit of research into credit/debit cards in the US of A, I am incredibly confused. Any chance you can give me a rough approximation of how your system works? In Canada, it's fairly straightforward.
Debit cards are issued by banks, and associated with one or two accounts in your name (your savings or your checking account). At an ABM with your bank's logo, you can make deposits, withdrawals, and transfer money between accounts. At any ABM, you can make withdrawals, though there's usually a $1.50 fee for using the ABM. Your debit card also works at any Interac machine in Canada. Debit cards are protected by a single PIN, usually 4 digits in length. Upon using a debit card, the money immediately gets withdrawn from your bank account. You can't make online purchases with a debit card.
Credit cards are issued by Visa/Mastercard/etc..., usually through a bank. Credit cards are generally also associated with a particular account, usually the same bank account as your debit card. Credit cards can be used for cash advances at any ABM, though. Credit cards can be used at certain locations that accept credit (usually only Visa and Mastercard). Credits cards are protected by your signature. Credit cards can be used to make online purchases (assuming the place accepts a credit card).
There's a world of options between controlling parents and absent parents. For example, my parents chose their battles wisely. They realized that video games were not the healthiest thing for a child of 5, but they also realized that I did enjoy myself. So they went for a 30 minute/day time limit of video games and internet, assuming all my homework and chores were completed. They also relaxed that over time, recognizing that I was growing up. Sometimes they came down harsher: punishments tended to be harsh, but usually related to the offense I had committed. On the other hand, they left me with plenty of choices in other areas. For example, they didn't try and force me down any academic path, they only pushed me to do my best in whatever I had chosen.
tl;dr, they parented me. They made decisions based on my age, responsibility, and maturity. Were they perfect? Absolutely not. But they did their best, and I think I've come out ahead because of that.
Horribly off topic, but that second post was a bit of genius on that man's part. The dependency on a plastic society makes it harder for people to truly understand what they're demanding / spending. There's actually a (probably false) story about why my university doesn't accept cash payments for tuition. Supposedly someone came in and paid the $4000 CDN tuition fee with loonies and toonies ($1 and $2 coins, for you non-Canucks). The rule was that they had to count out all the cash to ensure that the tuition was paid, and it took them all night. Probably apocryphal, but funny nonetheless.
How on earth is that circular reasoning? I'm making an assumption (my premise), and working towards a conclusion. My premise is not based on my conclusion, which would be circular reasoning. My first statement is an assumption, and an explanation of a given aspect of that assumption. At best, I'm being redundant or wasting time with definitions. Where on earth did you get the idea that I was using circular reasoning?
So it looks like the only way to win is not to play. Seems simple enough. Heck, I have 3 friends who are now WoWheads, and I still manage to keep out because I know I have an addictive personality. I read 125+ webcomics every day, I used to play KoL for 2 years on a daily basis (I just had to get in all my adventures and try speed runs), and don't even get me started on my 2 year Bootleggers (another online game) addiction. Well, I call them addictions, but really they were just fun games that I got hooked on. Eventually they got boring and I moved on. It's why I'll never try any recreational drugs other than pot or booze, why I'll never sign up for a game where I get billed monthly, and why I always make sure I have something productive to do that keeps me busy around 8 hours of the day.
The constitution does not enumerate or grant rights. It lists restrictions upon the federal government. To quote the Tenth Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
You sound like you'd be the kind of guy who would like Fat, by Rob Grant. Look around for it, it's a brilliant commentary on the illegality of being overweight.
It examines the UK in a society where being fat has, for all intents and purposes, become illegal. It's incredibly dark, funny, and surprisingly accurate. The catalyst? Taxes on unhealthy food and a 'fuel tax' based on weight. Remember, part of the reason why you are the way you are is because of pure luck.
Then you must respect the doctor's individual choice to refuse you that decision, on his moral grounds. The problem I see is that we have individuals making their decisions, then trying to force others to act accordingly, without respecting their respective decisions.
Oy. Of course people don't pay their fair share for insurance, and of course a small number of people will receive the majority of the payments.
It's insurance for crying out loud. The whole point of insurance is that a lot of people pay relatively small amounts of money, in the hopes that they won't have to pay huge amounts of money when things go horribly, horribly wrong.
As for this bullshit legislation, there's three things that will always fail.
Legislating common sense. People are going to do stupid things. Let them face the natural consequences of it.
Legislating healthy behaviour. People are going to make stupid decisions, but ultimately, they'll suffer for it. Don't like it? Don't pay insurance. Suffer the consequences of living in your country, or move.
Legislating politeness. People are going to be assholes. Deal with it.
Has society changed? Hell yes. Does that mean you get the right to pick on people who have various reasons for being fat? Even if I assume that all fat people are fat because of their decisions, that doesn't mean that better decisions will necessarily let them drop the weight. It's a helluva lot easier to gain weight than it is to lose it.
Well, I can't give a 100% guaranteed truth, but I'll try for, at the very least, a compelling argument, hopefully free of obvious mistakes.
Let us assume that humans are greedy, and will, if given the chance, take as much as they can. Obviously, not all people are like that, as we can clearly see that some people are happy merely having enough to live comfortably. All corporations are invariably led or somehow controlled by humans. With a few exceptions (such as charities and NPOs), we have seen that corporations are greedy. It is not unreasonable to say that corporations are greedy because the humans leading them are greedy. So, in my opinion, any other structure, led by humans, will be suspect to the same greed we find in humans.
Now, it is clear that it is possible for structures to exist that are not greedy. However, these are not the norm, and are often run by people who are not normal, in the statistical sense of the term. These people are outliers, but I still say they are greedy. Just not in the classical sense: they often believe in improving society, and subconsciously, believe that it will improve their life as well.
I normally agree with you, McGrew, but on this one, I have to take a different stance.
It all depends on your assumptions. For example, if one assumes that suffering is the greatest harm, then yes, abortion and euthanasia are perfectly valid and in fact moral procedures. However, if you assume that death is the greatest harm, then abortion and euthanasia are morally reprehensible. To the GP, death is clearly the greatest harm. In fact, the law would tend to agree: murder is often given the highest level of punishment, even more so than rape or even crippling violence. However, one could also argue that it's the involuntary removal of life that is the greatest harm, and that the patient knows best and should be able to decide how one's life is ended.
Society has changed. It is no longer the case that one moral view reigns supreme in a given town, let alone a country. For better or for worse, this is the situation we have arrived at. But we are a society. We must make a clear decision on what is worse: suffering or death. This, however, requires true debate, not political rhetoric, so I doubt I'll see a well informed decision on this made in my lifetime. And I am but 20.
Memory sucks, but muscle memory is amazing. My CTRL key recently broke (spilled some booze on it, waiting a week on the replacement keyboard), and it has slowed me right the fuck down when it comes to doing anything on the computer. When I think 'open new tab', my fingers go to "CTRL+T". You know why so many people were pissed off about the FF3 awesome bar? Because it requires thinking about your automatic movements. For me, when I want to go to/., I don't type in "slashdot.org", I hit "sl down enter". Usually with a CTRL+T in front of it.
The point is, for popular websites, you'll quickly train yourself to hit certain numbers to get to the page. And of course, with bookmarks (and the Awesome Bar), most people don't even need to worry about that. Plus there will quickly be an online phone book, located at 0, 411, and other common directory assistance numbers. Then you just do a look up. Besides, the good ol' series of tubes used to work by phone numbers. BBS anyone? The point is it is doable. Not to mention the fact that someone will just create an "are you feeling lucky" type system for entering words into the address bar.
This is a workable solution, but it will be unpopular and hence never get off the ground. Shame that.
Your third requirement doesn't work either. They'll just create holding companies to avoid this process. Like someone else mentioned, the real thing to do is to stop letting people transfer ownership of domains. Remove the profit, remove the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the gambler's fallacy is sometimes actually right, in a sense. If all you know is that it's come up heads 50 times in a row, you're actually smarter to bet on it being heads, because, unless you know that it's a fair coin, the odds are that it's actually a biased coin. So gambler's intuitively know that something is up when you get "rare" sequences of events, but are making the wrong decision.
You might not notice it happening, but I certainly have. In fact, my one accident has been because of my stupidity involving food. I had taken a second to look down and grab a piece of chicken while I was braking, and, well, let's just say I didn't quite brake fast enough. I rear-ended the people in front of me (going at like 5 km/h, but still an accident). It turned out okay for me, because they got their repairs done for free (and my damage was minimal), but it's certainly taught me something about eating and driving. At the very least, doing so where your decisions are very important. I still do eat while driving, but only on very specific streets (ones I personally know have very low traffic), at red lights, and never while braking or accelerating. Once bitten twice shy, they say.
My brother got his new car trashed when some idiot ran a red light and T-boned the driver side of my brother's car (luckily, just behind the driver's seat) because he was texting someone. The kicker? The kid's mom showed up and tried to convince my brother to let the kid leave before the cops showed up. Some people...
Who modded this down? He's got a damn good point, even for an AC. Let one behaviour be the default, but give people the option to switch back. Unless there's a good reason for it (spaghetti code, perpetuating bugs), give them a binary switch to play with.
They put software in boxes? The last box I saw was the one they shipped my desktop in.
Well, apparently they've managed to work the language so that unlimited really means unlimited connectivity, not unlimited download/upload. It's a filthy lie that they get away with because of ambiguity of language and those 10 pt white font legal disclaimers on the bottom of their commercials. Even though they know damn well that Joe Sixpack is going to think unlimited means how much he can do with his connection. I hate their bullshit, and I'm going to sign on with Teksavvy when I finally move out.
Actually, for the legal wrapper to be legal, you'd need it in both English and French. ;)
Fine. No gun to your head. You're right. You're not required to burn oil and use DSL or cable. Oh, but you live in the boonies and need to heat your place in the winter, plus you need to drive to work (no public transport out in the boonies or even the suburbs in some places). Move to the city, you say? Fine (if that's where your job is), but you still have to heat your home some way, and you can bet that the energy is coming from hydrocarbons. As for DSL and cable, you don't really need it. I mean, who really needs to stay in contact with people? I mean, if you ignore the benefits of e-mail, quick research, entertainment, access to work, and the necessity of an internet connection if you're a student, the internet is completely useless.
Sarcasm aside, we've reached the point where the internet is as necessary as phones, roads, and electricity is. This means we need either regulation, or a complete cut of corporate welfare for the incumbent ISPs, and start helping the new guys. The fact is, the $50 crippled connection is still the better option than none at all. We just want better choices.
Well, I do pity you for getting so royally screwed over. Did you change banks after that? Also, after a bit of research into credit/debit cards in the US of A, I am incredibly confused. Any chance you can give me a rough approximation of how your system works? In Canada, it's fairly straightforward.
Debit cards are issued by banks, and associated with one or two accounts in your name (your savings or your checking account). At an ABM with your bank's logo, you can make deposits, withdrawals, and transfer money between accounts. At any ABM, you can make withdrawals, though there's usually a $1.50 fee for using the ABM. Your debit card also works at any Interac machine in Canada. Debit cards are protected by a single PIN, usually 4 digits in length. Upon using a debit card, the money immediately gets withdrawn from your bank account. You can't make online purchases with a debit card.
Credit cards are issued by Visa/Mastercard/etc..., usually through a bank. Credit cards are generally also associated with a particular account, usually the same bank account as your debit card. Credit cards can be used for cash advances at any ABM, though. Credit cards can be used at certain locations that accept credit (usually only Visa and Mastercard). Credits cards are protected by your signature. Credit cards can be used to make online purchases (assuming the place accepts a credit card).
What, suddenly the spacebar doesn't count as a key?
There's a world of options between controlling parents and absent parents. For example, my parents chose their battles wisely. They realized that video games were not the healthiest thing for a child of 5, but they also realized that I did enjoy myself. So they went for a 30 minute/day time limit of video games and internet, assuming all my homework and chores were completed. They also relaxed that over time, recognizing that I was growing up. Sometimes they came down harsher: punishments tended to be harsh, but usually related to the offense I had committed. On the other hand, they left me with plenty of choices in other areas. For example, they didn't try and force me down any academic path, they only pushed me to do my best in whatever I had chosen.
tl;dr, they parented me. They made decisions based on my age, responsibility, and maturity. Were they perfect? Absolutely not. But they did their best, and I think I've come out ahead because of that.
Horribly off topic, but that second post was a bit of genius on that man's part. The dependency on a plastic society makes it harder for people to truly understand what they're demanding / spending. There's actually a (probably false) story about why my university doesn't accept cash payments for tuition. Supposedly someone came in and paid the $4000 CDN tuition fee with loonies and toonies ($1 and $2 coins, for you non-Canucks). The rule was that they had to count out all the cash to ensure that the tuition was paid, and it took them all night. Probably apocryphal, but funny nonetheless.
How on earth is that circular reasoning? I'm making an assumption (my premise), and working towards a conclusion. My premise is not based on my conclusion, which would be circular reasoning. My first statement is an assumption, and an explanation of a given aspect of that assumption. At best, I'm being redundant or wasting time with definitions. Where on earth did you get the idea that I was using circular reasoning?
So it looks like the only way to win is not to play. Seems simple enough. Heck, I have 3 friends who are now WoWheads, and I still manage to keep out because I know I have an addictive personality. I read 125+ webcomics every day, I used to play KoL for 2 years on a daily basis (I just had to get in all my adventures and try speed runs), and don't even get me started on my 2 year Bootleggers (another online game) addiction. Well, I call them addictions, but really they were just fun games that I got hooked on. Eventually they got boring and I moved on. It's why I'll never try any recreational drugs other than pot or booze, why I'll never sign up for a game where I get billed monthly, and why I always make sure I have something productive to do that keeps me busy around 8 hours of the day.
The constitution does not enumerate or grant rights. It lists restrictions upon the federal government. To quote the Tenth Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Personally, I'd be more worried that your plants have eyes.
You sound like you'd be the kind of guy who would like Fat, by Rob Grant. Look around for it, it's a brilliant commentary on the illegality of being overweight.
I personally suggest you take the time to read Fat, by Rob Grant.
It examines the UK in a society where being fat has, for all intents and purposes, become illegal. It's incredibly dark, funny, and surprisingly accurate. The catalyst? Taxes on unhealthy food and a 'fuel tax' based on weight. Remember, part of the reason why you are the way you are is because of pure luck.
Then you must respect the doctor's individual choice to refuse you that decision, on his moral grounds. The problem I see is that we have individuals making their decisions, then trying to force others to act accordingly, without respecting their respective decisions.
It's insurance for crying out loud. The whole point of insurance is that a lot of people pay relatively small amounts of money, in the hopes that they won't have to pay huge amounts of money when things go horribly, horribly wrong.
As for this bullshit legislation, there's three things that will always fail.
- Legislating common sense. People are going to do stupid things. Let them face the natural consequences of it.
- Legislating healthy behaviour. People are going to make stupid decisions, but ultimately, they'll suffer for it. Don't like it? Don't pay insurance. Suffer the consequences of living in your country, or move.
- Legislating politeness. People are going to be assholes. Deal with it.
Has society changed? Hell yes. Does that mean you get the right to pick on people who have various reasons for being fat? Even if I assume that all fat people are fat because of their decisions, that doesn't mean that better decisions will necessarily let them drop the weight. It's a helluva lot easier to gain weight than it is to lose it.Well, I can't give a 100% guaranteed truth, but I'll try for, at the very least, a compelling argument, hopefully free of obvious mistakes.
Let us assume that humans are greedy, and will, if given the chance, take as much as they can. Obviously, not all people are like that, as we can clearly see that some people are happy merely having enough to live comfortably. All corporations are invariably led or somehow controlled by humans. With a few exceptions (such as charities and NPOs), we have seen that corporations are greedy. It is not unreasonable to say that corporations are greedy because the humans leading them are greedy. So, in my opinion, any other structure, led by humans, will be suspect to the same greed we find in humans.
Now, it is clear that it is possible for structures to exist that are not greedy. However, these are not the norm, and are often run by people who are not normal, in the statistical sense of the term. These people are outliers, but I still say they are greedy. Just not in the classical sense: they often believe in improving society, and subconsciously, believe that it will improve their life as well.
I normally agree with you, McGrew, but on this one, I have to take a different stance.
It all depends on your assumptions. For example, if one assumes that suffering is the greatest harm, then yes, abortion and euthanasia are perfectly valid and in fact moral procedures. However, if you assume that death is the greatest harm, then abortion and euthanasia are morally reprehensible. To the GP, death is clearly the greatest harm. In fact, the law would tend to agree: murder is often given the highest level of punishment, even more so than rape or even crippling violence. However, one could also argue that it's the involuntary removal of life that is the greatest harm, and that the patient knows best and should be able to decide how one's life is ended.
Society has changed. It is no longer the case that one moral view reigns supreme in a given town, let alone a country. For better or for worse, this is the situation we have arrived at. But we are a society. We must make a clear decision on what is worse: suffering or death. This, however, requires true debate, not political rhetoric, so I doubt I'll see a well informed decision on this made in my lifetime. And I am but 20.
Memory sucks, but muscle memory is amazing. My CTRL key recently broke (spilled some booze on it, waiting a week on the replacement keyboard), and it has slowed me right the fuck down when it comes to doing anything on the computer. When I think 'open new tab', my fingers go to "CTRL+T". You know why so many people were pissed off about the FF3 awesome bar? Because it requires thinking about your automatic movements. For me, when I want to go to /., I don't type in "slashdot.org", I hit "sl down enter". Usually with a CTRL+T in front of it.
The point is, for popular websites, you'll quickly train yourself to hit certain numbers to get to the page. And of course, with bookmarks (and the Awesome Bar), most people don't even need to worry about that. Plus there will quickly be an online phone book, located at 0, 411, and other common directory assistance numbers. Then you just do a look up. Besides, the good ol' series of tubes used to work by phone numbers. BBS anyone? The point is it is doable. Not to mention the fact that someone will just create an "are you feeling lucky" type system for entering words into the address bar.
This is a workable solution, but it will be unpopular and hence never get off the ground. Shame that.
Your third requirement doesn't work either. They'll just create holding companies to avoid this process. Like someone else mentioned, the real thing to do is to stop letting people transfer ownership of domains. Remove the profit, remove the problem.