I have swapped hardware many many times, multiple re-installs of Windows 7 and _never_ had an issue with licensing on a single key. I am very confused and skeptical of your claims.
Rewards are transparent. Spend some money and before you know it, you get a $100 check or gas cards or amazon credit etc. What a headache!!! I hate it when people give me money for free!
For free? Really? No, people give you money, as they are building a great big database of your consuming-behavior. Not only what you buy, but when, where, in which quantities, what goes together with what, and so on.
That is the currency, that you do pay for these "perks".
In this circumstance, I hate to defend those that did what they did. The comment above about authoritarian followers is a good explanation as to why the officers/medical staff would comply. But I could see how one would comply, not to serve or aid, but out of fear or simply the with the perception that they _had_ to comply.
Doctors command an astounding level of respect and trust, and both are necessary for their profession to even exist. If I cannot trust a doctor while I am unconscious or otherwise vulnerable, then I would be putting myself at risk by avoiding seeking medical help if it became necessary. That level of trust is so high, I don't think it would be a stretch to think many people would expect a doctor to put a patient's needs and wellbeing above their own.
These doctors may have risked their livelihoods or their freedom by refusing to comply, but they knew full well the actual harm they would do if they did comply. They should be held accountable.
These doctors may have risked their livelihoods or their freedom by refusing to comply
Yeah, no. The first doctor is home right now, sleeping well, knowing s/he did the right thing by refusing to comply. The cops didn't have shit, the second hospital doctors completely abdicated their responsibilities absent any compelling interest and they went along with it because they wanted to, because they found a good enough reason. How do I know? Because the existence of the first doctor(s) proves they could have said "no."
When the cops haul a man in for "standing funny", anything you do to oppose their will is painting a target on your back.
The first doctor got away with it because the other doctors went along with the officers' demands. If everyone had refused they would have been ethically in the right, but you can be assured the authorities would have reacted far less favorably.
They went to a different hospital. That's not just turning to the next guy. The doctor at the first hospital explicitly refused on ethical grounds and did not get any unfavorable repercussions from the authorities, which completely refutes your point.
Do you know any medical personnel? They guard their licenses tightly and know exactly how they could be vulnerable. These people aren't stupid and have a culture versed in telling cops to back off. Note that the first doctor(s) they went to said, "no."
Just because you can see how they would comply says more about you than them.
With a title "To an alarming degree..." it immediately feels like a persuasive paper. Who thinks it's alarming? From the sound of it, everyone should (or does) think this is alarming.
But it may be a stretch to say this is someone trying to discredit global warming.
Science isn't broken. People claim what they see, sometimes they are wrong, sometimes they are right. But eventually we find out the truth.
Agree with first paragraph a hundred percent. How can we teach those in poverty that the way they live their lives is counter productive? The politics have to get out of the damn way or it will never happen.
It does not remove "perverse" incentives. Human nature dictates our desires. If we could have everything we ever wanted then there would be no "perverse" incentives. I could have my own amusement park where there would be no lines and I could ride any ride I wanted at any time - not to mention someone would carry me from ride to ride.
People will always want more, to achieve more. The "perverse" incentives exist simply because of that fact. If you cannot accept that, you should go live in the woods far away from people and be happy.
Life isn't fair, you do what you can to help those less fortunate around you. But, if you think for a second that some sort of "equal" pay will solve our worlds problems you are either ignorant or in denial of our human nature.
Your post contains no arguments, just a straw man with some accompanying unsubstantiated statements. No one is suggesting that any single measure will solve all the world's problems. But might we not solve one, or two?
First of all, nobody's opinions are substantiated. I believe that human nature has not and will not change. By human nature, I'm talking about what drives us to do the things we do.
I understand the logic behind BIG. My problem with the _idea_, as it is, is that the idea ignores human nature. If you want to bring an idea to the table, at least be honest about it.
The examples I gave were situations where people did something against their own interests because the current system of welfare provision is broken. Maybe that is inevitable; maybe the system we have is better than any alternative.
But ask yourself if a BIG were implemented:
Would my friend still live with his elderly parents?
Would my colleague's secretary have quit?
Would my acquaintance have been forced into a degrading simulation of a job search he would never succeed at?
The secretary might still have quit anyway - it probably depends on the level of BIG. Ending the pointless simulation of a job search for your acquaintance doesn't require a BIG, and a BIG alone probably doesn't represent the optimum solution either.
Those points don't mean that a BIG is bad, but since people tend to only see one side of an issue after they've made up their mind on it (whether rationally or emotionally), I thought I should bring it up.
"The secretary might still have quit anyway - it probably depends on the level of BIG."
She'd either get BIG and her salary, or just BIG. Compared to the previous scenario of salary vs welfare. The motivation to stay employed would be greater with BIG, surely. The husband would receive BIG regardless of her salaried situation.
I do understand your point. And you gave perfect examples of situations where BIG would be beneficial. My problem with the idea is that proponents ignore the negatives or severely downplay them. My biggest argument against that type of idea is that it kills human drive and ambition and progress.
Sorry, you are confusing "perverse incentive" (as in the incentive itself is perverted) and "incentives to things that are perverse" (as in having incentives to do things that are socially considered to be perverse).
It is a simple innocent ignorance of the term. Look up what perverse incentive means and you'll understand.
I can see you're defensive about this subject, but a simple google search of the term comes up with a wikipedia article explaining what is commonly meant by "perverse incentive".
I agree that BIG creates incentives... that is the point of all social policy in the history of ever. But the contrast here is that current policy can make positive actions (working, investing, personal development) a net loss to a family or individual who attempts them. THAT is the definition of a perverse incentive.
And my point is that BIG policy makes it so that negative actions (not working _hard_, not investing, no personal development beyond what is required) are not a net loss to the family or individual. Thus, it promotes doing the bare minimum to get by, especially when the result is a very comfy, stress free lifestyle.
You might want to Google the term yourself. According to Wikipedia, "A perverse incentive is an incentive that has an unintended and undesirable result which is contrary to the interests of the incentive makers". That is exactly westicle's usage here, unless you are implying that the outcomes he described were actually intended.
Maybe you aren't aware of the meaning of the term "perverse incentive." A "perverse incentive" is when you are incentivized to do something that doesn't make sense. It's not the same thing as "incentive."
Is this really necessary? How about 456 - unavailable because someone spilled coffee on our backend server? Or 467 - unavailable because garden gnomes invaded our offices?
