begin quoting MattyJ as of Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 02:23:45AM -0700:
> >If person A waits until person B's trashcan is on the curb, then there's
> >no harm, no foul, no problem -- but that doesn't quite match the
> >situation either.
>
> I would argue there is a problem because person B pays for that trashcan,
> it costs money to come get it and cart the trash off (normally, and by
> normally I mean in my neighborhood. Whether or not you buy your own
> trashcan or the city 'provides' it, somewhere down the line you are paying
> for the service.) And person A is not contributing monetarily, person B
> has an added burden.
Nope. Ain't buyin' it.
Not everyone who uses another's trashcan is not contributing; I often
only have one (or two bags) of trash each week... if my neighbor has
room in their trashcan, then there's no harm in putting my one bag
in their trashcan.
You've promoted the special case of the dedicated leech to the general
case (or I've misunderstood the underlying issue).
> >If person B puts their trashcan on person A's property, and person A
> >fills up the trashcan before person B can do so, you get something a
> >lot closer (but still not a very good match).
>
> True, but as argued elsewhere person A should, in a civilized society, go
> tell B to secure his trashcan.
I disagree.
This puts the onus on person A to engage in a confrontation. This
puts the onus on person A, when person A isn't the one at fault.
Person A can encourage person B to engage in the confrontation by
using person B's trashcan; if person B doesn't care, and person A
finds it convenient, it's a win for everyone.
If person B does care, then the confrontation will be initiated by
person B, not person A, putting the inconvenience where it belongs.
As an aside... person A isn't likely to know where to find person B.
So expecting them to confront person B is a double inconvenience.
> >I don't pay a separate fee for trash collection. Your analogy had a
> >different sort of impact than what you probably intended....
>
> Probably. But somewhere down the line trash collection is paid for, and in
> a lot of communities (the last three or four I've lived in) you directly
> pay for trash collection.
That just seems to be asking for trouble...
> What's more, the fee is based on the size of the
> trashcan you want. Bigger can, more fee. In this free Wifi society some
> people seem to be advocating, before long one guy is going to have a big
> dumpster that the whole neighborhood uses for free. I don't want to be
> that dumpster guy so I pull my weight as I'm expected to.
So?
Maybe the guy likes a clean neighborhood, and feels that the dumpster
is a better solution than a bunch of people with too-small overstuffed
trashcans that spill waste all over the street.
I've seen apartment complexes with locked dumpsters ("we pay for this,
so we're not going to let just anyone use our trash bins") and with
unlocked dumpsters ("a trashy alley doesn't make for a nice place to
live"), and both justifications are, well, okay, so far as justifications
go. Trying to derive a general-purpose universal rule seems kind of
silly.
--
"Network off!" he said with a cough.
Stewart Stremler
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
