http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/AheadoftheCurve/woman-loses-insurance-benefits-facebook-pics/story?id=9154741

The comments just...I don't know what to say.

The general populace's attitude at the moment seems to be "If I'm not 
the one getting the money, the person is a freeloader deadbeat who's 
milking the system and taking the money I worked my behind off to earn, 
bawww" and it's kind of weird.

It's like, for each individual, they are the only person actually trying 
to make a decent living, and everyone else on the planet gets a free 
ride from whatever.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> The comments just...I don't know what to say.

Welcome to the internet. It's not just that sort of thing. There's flame 
wars all over.  And everyone who reads an article like that and *comments* 
on it believes it at face value and then runs it thru their own perceptional 
filters.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Is God willing to prevent naglams, but unable?
     Then he is not omnipotent.
   Is he able, but not willing, to prevent naglams?
     Then he is malevolent.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:33:12 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Tim Cook wrote:
>> The comments just...I don't know what to say.
> 
> Welcome to the internet. It's not just that sort of thing. There's flame
> wars all over.  And everyone who reads an article like that and
> *comments* on it believes it at face value and then runs it thru their
> own perceptional filters.

Yep.  I'm actually having an argument with someone on another forum about 
whether or not looking out the window can tell you what the weather's 
going to do "in a few minutes"; he claims no because he can't tell when 
it's going to rain where he lives.  So clearly nobody in the world could 
possibly tell what the weather was going to do in the next 5-10 minutes 
because he can't.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/AheadoftheCurve/woman-loses-insurance-benefits-facebook-pics/story?id=9154741
>
> The comments just...I don't know what to say.

Mankind is doomed if it's to depend on a generation of uneducated crackheads.
We don't even have Wall-e-level AI to be in charge of babysitting the retard
overweight humans in perpetual vacation.  Or at least T-1000-level. :)

Luckily, 2012 is just around the corner. ;)

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yep.  I'm actually having an argument with someone on another forum about 
> whether or not looking out the window can tell you what the weather's 
> going to do "in a few minutes"; he claims no because he can't tell when 
> it's going to rain where he lives.  So clearly nobody in the world could 
> possibly tell what the weather was going to do in the next 5-10 minutes 
> because he can't.

Well, you can look at that argument from two equally valid sides:  the 
mathematical, and the practical.  For the former, if there is any case 
where you can't, saying "you can tell what the weather's going to be 
like in a few minutes by looking out the window" is untrue.  For the 
latter, it's assumed to read "m (at least one, probably more) people, in 
n (at least one, probably more) cases" etc.

;)

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

"Tim Cook" <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:4b0af852@news.povray.org...

>
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/AheadoftheCurve/woman-loses-insurance-benefits-facebook-pics/story?id=9154741

> The comments just...I don't know what to say.
>
> The general populace's attitude at the moment seems to be "If I'm not
> the one getting the money, the person is a freeloader deadbeat who's
> milking the system and taking the money I worked my behind off to earn,
> bawww" and it's kind of weird.
>
> It's like, for each individual, they are the only person actually trying
> to make a decent living, and everyone else on the planet gets a free
> ride from whatever.

That too. But where there's any kind of insurance, be it health,
unemployement or auto, there will be people milking it. In fact, I don't
know of a single personal experience where I haven't seen this secondhand
whenever there was opportunity, from a good friend having free massages for
years after a fender bender, to friends and even relatives taking nice
vacations on EI when they were supposed to be looking for work. I've taken
sick days myself just because I didn't feel like working, not because I
would seriously be unable to work if I didn't have sick days to burn. It's
human nature to milk the system, consciously or unconsciously, so long as
the checks are not there.

Doctors are enablers too, for they stand to benefit from each visit, from
each prescription, from each test or referral. The way a new disorder or
cause for stress is "discovered" each day, you'd think we are the most
overworked generation ever. Sure, twittering for hours, or posting our every
minor daily grievance about the p.h.b. to p.o.t. is backbreaking work.
Having come across more than my fair share of constant whiners at workplace,
I no longer give the benefit of doubt to those who do the whining.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:48:22 -0500, Tim Cook wrote:

> Well, you can look at that argument from two equally valid sides:  the
> mathematical, and the practical.  For the former, if there is any case
> where you can't, saying "you can tell what the weather's going to be
> like in a few minutes by looking out the window" is untrue.  For the
> latter, it's assumed to read "m (at least one, probably more) people, in
> n (at least one, probably more) cases" etc.
> 
> ;)

But that would be being overly pedantic, too. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 11/23/09 21:37, Jim Henderson wrote:
> But that would be being overly pedantic, too. ;)

	Not on the Inter-nets.

-- 
"Graphic Artist seeks Boss with vision impairment."

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:

> It's like, for each individual, they are the only person actually trying 
> to make a decent living, and everyone else on the planet gets a free 
> ride from whatever.

I think this might be a kind of projection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

How many times have you heard this conversation?

"Can you stop shouting at me please."
"I AM NOT SHOUTING!!!"
"Yes you are."
"NO I AM NOT! *YOU* ARE SHOUTING AT *ME*!"

Rational? Not especially. But how many selfish people have you met who 
complain bitterly about how the whole world is so selfish? How many 
loafers who complain that nobody does any work? How many people have sat 
at traffic lights impatiently revving the engine of their expensive 
sports car complaining that everybody's too impatient these days?

Interesting, eh?

I suspect the people who complain about everybody being money-grabbing 
parasites are exactly the sort of people who'd do the same thing, given 
half a chance.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:

> That too. But where there's any kind of insurance, be it health,
> unemployement or auto, there will be people milking it.

Yeah, pretty much.

> In fact, I don't
> know of a single personal experience where I haven't seen this secondhand
> whenever there was opportunity, from a good friend having free massages for
> years after a fender bender, to friends and even relatives taking nice
> vacations on EI when they were supposed to be looking for work.

You obviously don't know *me* then. ;-)

> I've taken
> sick days myself just because I didn't feel like working, not because I
> would seriously be unable to work if I didn't have sick days to burn.

I'm the sort of person who tends to turn up for work even when I really 
ought to be at home. (Then again, I don't *do* a lot at work I guess...) 
I've always been a good little boy. Something to do with having very 
strict parents or something.

> It's
> human nature to milk the system, consciously or unconsciously, so long as
> the checks are not there.

Yeah, there's always [at least] one.

This morning I shuffled along in a queue of traffic because one of the 
lanes had been coned off. With tedious inevitability, some guy in his 
shiny BWM SUV drives straight up the empty lane to where the cones start 
and then expects to cut in infront of everybody else. I mean, it *is* 
his personal road, after all...

Post a reply to this message

> This morning I shuffled along in a queue of traffic because one of the 
> lanes had been coned off. With tedious inevitability, some guy in his 
> shiny BWM SUV drives straight up the empty lane 

Clever guy.  Maybe that's how he can afford a BMW SUV?

Post a reply to this message

>> This morning I shuffled along in a queue of traffic because one of the 
>> lanes had been coned off. With tedious inevitability, some guy in his 
>> shiny BWM SUV drives straight up the empty lane 
> 
> Clever guy.  Maybe that's how he can afford a BMW SUV?

Or, more correctly: Maybe if people stopped doing stupid things like 
this and just waited their turn there wouldn't *be* a huge queue of 
waiting traffic in the first place?

Post a reply to this message

> Or, more correctly: Maybe if people stopped doing stupid things like this 
> and just waited their turn

Err, the whole point of having two lanes is so that you can overtake slower 
cars if you want to.

> there wouldn't *be* a huge queue of waiting traffic in the first place?

Incorrect.

The most efficient way is for everyone to stay in their lanes until the 
closure, then zip merge one car at a time from each lane.  In fact at some 
places in the UK (I've seen them around Reading) they even have big signs 
telling you to do this (to prevent the queue going back too far), and it 
seems to be how everyone here in Germany behaves by default (IME).  The 
queue will be half the length then, and there will be no concept of "pushing 
in" or "waiting your turn", so everyone is happy.

Post a reply to this message

>> Or, more correctly: Maybe if people stopped doing stupid things like 
>> this and just waited their turn
> 
> Err, the whole point of having two lanes is so that you can overtake 
> slower cars if you want to.

Sure, you don't have to pull over until the lane actually closes. But 
when there are speed restrictions and big signs saying "get in lane 
now", that doesn't mean you drive straight past so you can push in at 
the front.

> The most efficient way is for everyone to stay in their lanes until the 
> closure, then zip merge one car at a time from each lane.

I agree.

(Well, until a big lorry comes along that's the size of 6 cars. But that 
doesn't happen very much...)

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4b0bfd65@news.povray.org...

> This morning I shuffled along in a queue of traffic because one of the
> lanes had been coned off. With tedious inevitability, some guy in his
> shiny BWM SUV drives straight up the empty lane to where the cones start
> and then expects to cut in infront of everybody else. I mean, it *is*
> his personal road, after all...

There are two ways of looking at it. It's not his fault if everyone else
merged prematurely. Why should he not take advantage of a pefectly good lane
until it's time to merge? But it's a good example of the case that when
there's an opportunity, there will be people who will take it.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:20:20 -0600, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 11/23/09 21:37, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> But that would be being overly pedantic, too. ;)
> 
> 	Not on the Inter-nets.

LOL

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:54:34 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>> This morning I shuffled along in a queue of traffic because one of the
>>> lanes had been coned off. With tedious inevitability, some guy in his
>>> shiny BWM SUV drives straight up the empty lane
>> 
>> Clever guy.  Maybe that's how he can afford a BMW SUV?
> 
> Or, more correctly: Maybe if people stopped doing stupid things like
> this and just waited their turn there wouldn't *be* a huge queue of
> waiting traffic in the first place?

That's the difference between a mindset of "every man for himself" and 
"we're all in this together".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> The most efficient way is for everyone to stay in their lanes until the 
> closure, then zip merge one car at a time from each lane. 

Right. But if you go all the way up to the front, passing people who have 
already zip-merged, then you're ignoring the rule that keeps the traffic 
flowing.

The problem is that this person gets to the front, the person beside him has 
already let someone in, and now there isn't enough room to let this second 
person in without slowing down and making a hole.  Not just a hole big 
enough to merge into, but a hole big enough to merge into from being stopped 
instead of being at the same speed as traffic is already going.

In order to efficiently merge safely, you have to have both lanes finished 
merging before you get to the end of either lane. Zooping up to the front 
just because the people before you have already merged means you're no 
longer zip-merging. Instead, you have a zipper with an extra tooth on one 
side, and you know how well *that* works.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   You know the kamikaze monsters in Serious Sam
     with the bombs for hands, that go AAAAAHHHHHHHH!
   I want that for a ring tone.

Post a reply to this message

>> Or, more correctly: Maybe if people stopped doing stupid things like
>> this and just waited their turn there wouldn't *be* a huge queue of
>> waiting traffic in the first place?
> 
> That's the difference between a mindset of "every man for himself" and 
> "we're all in this together".

Yeah. Prisoner's Dilemma and all that...

Post a reply to this message

> In order to efficiently merge safely, you have to have both lanes finished 
> merging before you get to the end of either lane. Zooping up to the front 
> just because the people before you have already merged means you're no 
> longer zip-merging. Instead, you have a zipper with an extra tooth on one 
> side, and you know how well *that* works.

Indeed, the important point is that everyone should merge at the same point 
to make it efficient.  The obvious solution is that everyone merges near to 
the lane closure, not randomly 500 metres, 1 km or 2 km back up the road as 
they feel like it - that is pretty much the most inefficient way of doing 
it.

Anyway, these are the *average* efficiencies, if you're the one who always 
merges at the end of the lane then you'll be better off if everyone else 
merges sooner :-)  What the people who merge really early don't realise, is 
that if they merged later not only would they get through quicker, but 
everyone else would on avereage too.  So in fact it is them that are causing 
the problem, not the ones who merge at the end of the lane.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

 > that is pretty much the most inefficient way of doing it.

Huh. Odd, I can't see that it makes a difference really how far back you 
merge, in that kind of range.

> Anyway, these are the *average* efficiencies, if you're the one who 
> always merges at the end of the lane then you'll be better off if 
> everyone else merges sooner :-)

Yes. That's the basic problem with prisoner dilemma sorts of problems.

> What the people who merge really early 
> don't realise, is that if they merged later not only would they get 
> through quicker, but everyone else would on avereage too. 

I'm not sure this is the case. It's more efficient to merge at speed than it 
is to merge from a stop. (That's why they don't put stop-signs at the end of 
the on ramps to highways.) Running up to the end of the lane wouldn't be a 
problem if it didn't slow down everyone else merging in.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message