Their fallacy starts, I believe, with confusing crime prevention with crime deterrence. Deterrence is what punishment for criminal activity, or the perceived possibility of criminal activity in this case, provides. If someone really wants to steal, destroy, or kill, no amount of deterrence short of death for them and all of their relations will prevent them from committing the crime. And even that may not be punishment enough to stop the person.
So we move toward a less free state of mind, letting everything we do be monitored and archived, letting the act of possessing items that may be used to commit crimes become a crime, because this avoids the hard question of how to prevent crime and acts of war. I see this same laziness everywhere, from at work where people will reboot or reimage a PC rather than read a couple logs and correct the true problem to the policies of nearly all nations.
Until we have figured out how to really prevent crime, we will repeat our past histories
Interesting, but let us use a bit of logic and cut out the emotionally laden bits.
Someone has simulated the feeling that when the helmet is focused on the temporal lobes, it
"induced in most of them the experience of a sensed presence--a feeling that someone (or a spirit) is in the room when no one, in fact, is--or of a profound state of cosmic bliss that reveals a universal truth. During the three-minute bursts of stimulation, the affected subjects translated this perception of the divine into their own cultural and religious language--terming it God, Buddha, a benevolent presence or the wonder of the universe."
So in most of the subjects, they created a sensation that was interrupted as someone else was in the room, OR cosmic bliss, OR a divine presence. I have also known people who know internal peace (sometimes incorrectly referred to as God) by way of alcohol, drugs, or sex. If God is only an emotion, then Persinger has recreated Him/Her/It, just more expensively, and much less portably.
With regard to "we're" and "were", all I have to say is "Oops, mistakes happen when editing sometimes, and "we're" is a contraction of "we are", not concatenation."
With regard to the remainder of your reply, when I hit Submit I expected that any reply at all would be a troll or flame. Instead, I received an intelligent and mostly polite reply.
Yes, Adam and Eve were real people, but the story about them and Eden is allegorical, as is the one about Abel and Cain, again about real people. These story events are repeated again and again and again throughout the history of our species/civilization. I keep the discussion somewhat abstract to avoid the idiots who think that women are responsible for all problems, the "If Eve hadn't done that we would all be sitting pretty." crowd of literal interpreters, who then somehow forget about Cain.
As for the "pseudo-scientific-Christ-hating crowd", all we can do is be good witnesses of how the Universe works. They will flame away, somehow thinking that the Universe was created from nothing, that there is no higher power than humanity while believing in parallel universes and god like extraterrestrial beings. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah, both real places, then becomes relevant
The problem with humans isn't political greed, but just GREED. All self inflicted problems, going back to the allegorical apple in Eden, are a result of giving in to greed, taking more than one needs or deserves.
Just to be clear allegorically, we still live in Eden and are still picking those apples, and screwing ourselves every time. Eve is not a female human, but a psychological part of all humans, without regard to gender or sexual orientation.
The problem is using technology to replace people instead of augmenting their skills and accepting the inferior results since they have a lower cost.
The PHB's of the world know that video surveillance is not as effective as a person who is interested in their work and has proper training. Surveillance gives "nearly" (80%ish) the same results for far less cost and risk than a person.They just plain do not understand that technology is best used when helping people in a task, not removing the person from the task.
Consider the simple act of connecting two boards together. Plant fibers could be used and would work. Now give the person a hammer and nails, or screwdriver and screws, and a more permanent and higher quality joint is achieved.
That is the most worrisome part of the article. As we are today, unless people know you there is some anonymity when you are in a public place. If Walker's claim is true the only way not to be identified would be with polarized lenses and gloves. This alone would flag you though, sort of like encrypting files may do today.
Space exploration will remain in the control of politicians and bureaucrats forever unless a new means of propulsion is developed outside of their influence. The fuel if nothing else has to come from somewhere that is under governmental control.
It is all about culture in the end. As many other have stated, in the geek culture it is far less about how one looks than about how one performs.
Geeks are the crazy ones who will gnaw a problem for days on end with that being their primary focus in life. Shaving, ironing, who cares as long as the problem is solved? And our humor is a bit odd if not completely misunderstood to those who find the average sitcom invigorating.
The rest of the world is more interested in the latest trend that will make them popular.
Please, note that this is a very simple view made to save time and space in posting.
In the U.S.A., with its two main political parties, there used to be differences. The Republican party used to be for balanced budgets and limiting federal government involvement. The Democrats were more likely to desire federal government involvement even if the budget was overspent. Both parties definitely had their scandals and inconsistencies.
The political leadership, whoever they are but they are not the elected, during the 1990's decided to move toward a nearly one party system. Everyone who wanted to be elected was a centrist, cherry picking the views that would get them enough votes for office. There were no ideological stands that were mentioned in the press anymore, no more of the Reagan vs. O'Neil from the 1980's. It was all about getting votes, not positions, and the views expressed by the two main parties merged.
What you see now is the mess of differing ideologies merging, each side taking something from the other and not standing for anything other than votes.
On one hand, maybe they just look at the polls and run stories on the top three from each party. That is all the time they have in their "In Depth" political segments, or all the time they think they can hold a viewers interest.
On the other, maybe its all about the advertisers, as the advertisers control Who will show What. Going big on following the letter of the Constitution does not get the same attention as the "Free Stuff for Everyone" and "Everybody Wins First Place" stuff. Fewer viewers results in fewer advertising dollars. So, in the end, whoever makes the most folks watch the commercials gets name recognition and a shot at their parties nomination.
To get kids interested in science and engineering, the jobs need to pay well. If the MBA can with less schooling, let alone the hard schooling to get a science/engineering PhD, have a 7-8 figure annual compensation package compared to the PhD's 5-6 figure package, only the true lovers of science will apply. Law and MBA schools will still win.
I largely agree with your post, but, telling someone to "fuck off" in a rude manner, particularly a parent, is more than just bad language or impolite behavior. I do realize that everyone experienced a different childhood. To some, swear words are just how people speak and to others they are nearly criminal acts. But, that only covers the actual words.
Words are not just sounds we make but the conveyors of our emotions. "Fuck off" depending upon the context is likely filled with hatred, malice, and disrespect, all of which will inflict real emotional pain on the recipient. It is not the same as a calmly stated "leave me alone".
With regard to discipline, the appropriate response is one that stops the short term behavior, then gets the child to an emotional state where reasoning is possible. Notice that there is no retribution, no vengeance, just Stop, Listen, and Learn. The Learn part is by far the longest. I think Listen, as in listening to the lecture that won't stop until the point is received and accepted, is the hardest for the child.
Sometimes, a physical act is necessary to get us to Stop in someone who is either too immature or emotionally unstable to reason. That physical act might be holding them, a swat to the behind, raising one's voice, but only enough to get their attention and stop the behavior as that is the immediate goal, not punishing them. The future goal is the child learning why some behaviors are bad and others good.
You are correct in that there almost never will be a good lesson learned from physical punishment. A beating only teaches them that whoever has the most power wins, which is too often true in the grownup world where power takes many forms.
The most recent riot, not including prison riots, that I know of in the U.S.A. was 15 years ago in Los Angeles. This would not have stopped that riot unless there were one aimed down every street (what happens when the beams converge?).
I see this being more of something that is with diplomatic flights or follows the WTO from conference to conference. Also, as mentioned in the article, this would be a really scary and psychologically scaring torture device and leave no evidence of the torture.
Of course it this was designed for the purpose of domestic riot control, someone is planning on there being being causes for people to riot in the future. If people won't even vote every four years let alone every election, they are not going to be quick to riot.
Where is the limit on automated surveillance before privacy becomes nonexistent or a crime? At least with people watching people, the watchers eventually become bored and move on, that or the cost of surveillance becomes to high for the expected reward. With cheap hardware, you can spy on anyone all the time looking for whatever you fancy. Think of it as Google for the state.
I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to lump all members of a religion, will multiple groups and varying beliefs, together with the most extreme fundamentalists of that group. Maybe its just that you picked up an Insightful moderation for a poor attempt at humor. Yes, there are parents who misguidedly over restrict their children's access to the world. They and their children pay a fearful price when the world is found anyway and the child has no means of coping with it or its temptations. Christianity is not alone with this problem. Perhaps you should have said something more like "fundamentalist religious parents" or "overprotective and self delusional parents"?
To be slightly more on the topic, I think we would have much more to fear from the Minority Report type of law enforcement that would follow searching for unvoiced emotions in the general populace. Imagine thinking about committing a crime, not talking about but just thinking about it briefly, being considered the same criminal act as the crime itself. Except, you have no way to prove that their machine is wrong, that you were not planning to commit a crime.
You picked up an "Interesting" vote, which is interesting for something that at first glance seems more deserving of funny. But the U.S.A. not picking sides in the U.S.S.R.'s invasion of Afghanistan and going with the enemy of my enemy is my friend bit is interesting when viewed by how the world might be now. Of course, the part that many forget, is that the Western world and some of the Middle East wanted intervention in Afghanistan. If the U.S.A had not helped the Afghan resistance and the U.S.S.R had eliminated them, the U.S.A. might still be condemned. I really doubt Iran would be more friendly today, and how did the Saudis want things to go?
How come Bin Laden and Co. never give the U.S.A. any thanks for helping out in Afghanistan? If Bin Laden and Co. are so high on the sanctity of the Middle East, wanting it to become the Islamic heaven on Earth, how come no thank you to the U.S.A. for pushing Hussein out of Kuwait in Iraq 1, with Saudi Arabia not able to defend itself alone if Hussein went further? I know, its all because of Iran, because the U.S.A helped Iraq when it was going to lose to Iran and establish a really large theocracy, and instead chose to help maintain status quo. The U.S.A. did not choose this alone, and Europe was only part of the consultation group.
Maybe we are all too busy playing The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend game.
Yes, and this has been the case for years, at least forty years. I remember feeling cheated somewhat when I purchased an LP in the early eighties, based upon the marketing/play frequency on radio, and finding only 2-3 tracks that I liked. The rest were near remakes, same beat and tones, just slightly different lyrics. Those groups did not last long then, and are mostly forgotten now. When I mentioned this to my father, he knew exactly what I was talking about, having experienced the same feelings twenty-five plus years earlier than I did.
There always will be bands/composers that excel, that make an album true art, and those that merely pose. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder though, and everyone has different preferences and reasons for those preferences, and all are valid.
Is the album several different poems about a common theme with each track put to music that matches the variances of the theme? Is the album continuous is presenting a mood with the music? Both are equally valid reasons for enjoyment. But when you purchase an album that gives only part of what you are interested in and a lot of filler, you might feel cheated.
Light and Dark, Good and Evil. Our streetlights, aside from the logical concept of helping with traffic control, are there to help keep away our monsters. They are our adult nightlights.
How many children need a nightlight to sleep tight? How many become adults who still need a light at night? Maybe not in their bedroom, but somewhere, just in case.
Until people learn to control their monsters, there will always be bright lights at night, and the natural lights that should fill us with amazement will be hidden.
Yes, it is sorry management. Most business management I have experienced in three completely different careers is sad. Those who manage the actual work, the people implementing the latest "process from above", do know when to listen. The worst managers think that technology replaces people rather than multiplying their effectiveness.
IT is not the same as janitorial or mechanical positions, but IT's relationship with business management is similar to a mechanically challenge customer's relationship with a vehicle repair facility. When the cost, estimated or actual, is high, they complain even if the service is great. When the work that they get for the lowest price is not high enough in quality, they complain.
Some shops get it though. The smart shops realize that the customers (all other functions in a large corporation are ITs customers, right?) want "good enough and not too expensive or takes too long". Notice that IT is the one adapting. IT is the provider while business management is the customer. Business management never really got IT and made them a partner. IT is still the place that just makes technical stuff happen, like the mechanic just fixes the car.
And yes, it sucks at times. The wonders that insist that internal documentation be written at at 8th grade or lower level comprehension level are somehow the ones with seven plus figure salaries that determine the direction of the company. Then when they want the company to be included in the latest fad, Web 2.0 or whatever it is this year, IT is responsible for implementing it without breaking anything existing, without an increase in budget, and without being given a vote regarding IF the new technology is a wise decision.
In many business applications, good enough really is good enough. The rough edges can be fixed later, after the release date has been met. So long as the data is good enough for a business decision there is no problem.
Devices which are considered infallible in the legal system must be held to a higher standard. If they have a false positive, someone who is innocent of a crime will likely be convicted, particularly in something considered to be straightforward like a DUI trial.
DNA evidence is something for which the source (how the probability was reached, including methods) is open to professional review. Why should a lower standard be applied to other crimes? If a crime is worth prosecuting, it should be worth being certain that the accused actually did commit the crime, not just a best guess.
While many things are wrong in California, laws protecting employees are one thing they generally get correct. With that said, it should be the other way around with regard to law making regarding monitoring of employees.
If an employer wishes to chip their employees, it should first be made explicitly constitutionally legal by an amendment. If the constitution does not state that an employer, by virtue of PACs and lobbyists known as the government, are allowed to perform an act or require an act for employment, then it is illegal.
If they did not have a full time legislature that needed to justify their positions by new, sometimes silly laws, California would actually be a great place.
For employee protection, it really is a good place. If your employer wants you to work more than 8 hours in a day, its overtime (1.5 times your hourly wage). Past 12 hours in a day, its doubletime. If most of your work involves manual labor/production, you are not salaried but hourly. While these may seem silly, they do protect employees from employers who would have managers making less that the minimum wage. Employers looking for that little bit of extra profit do short their employees if they feel they will not be punished.
Slashdot Mirror
Their fallacy starts, I believe, with confusing crime prevention with crime deterrence. Deterrence is what punishment for criminal activity, or the perceived possibility of criminal activity in this case, provides. If someone really wants to steal, destroy, or kill, no amount of deterrence short of death for them and all of their relations will prevent them from committing the crime. And even that may not be punishment enough to stop the person.
So we move toward a less free state of mind, letting everything we do be monitored and archived, letting the act of possessing items that may be used to commit crimes become a crime, because this avoids the hard question of how to prevent crime and acts of war. I see this same laziness everywhere, from at work where people will reboot or reimage a PC rather than read a couple logs and correct the true problem to the policies of nearly all nations.
Until we have figured out how to really prevent crime, we will repeat our past histories
Interesting, but let us use a bit of logic and cut out the emotionally laden bits.
Someone has simulated the feeling that when the helmet is focused on the temporal lobes, it
So in most of the subjects, they created a sensation that was interrupted as someone else was in the room, OR cosmic bliss, OR a divine presence. I have also known people who know internal peace (sometimes incorrectly referred to as God) by way of alcohol, drugs, or sex. If God is only an emotion, then Persinger has recreated Him/Her/It, just more expensively, and much less portably.No offense was meant or taken.
With regard to "we're" and "were", all I have to say is "Oops, mistakes happen when editing sometimes, and "we're" is a contraction of "we are", not concatenation."
With regard to the remainder of your reply, when I hit Submit I expected that any reply at all would be a troll or flame. Instead, I received an intelligent and mostly polite reply.
Yes, Adam and Eve were real people, but the story about them and Eden is allegorical, as is the one about Abel and Cain, again about real people. These story events are repeated again and again and again throughout the history of our species/civilization. I keep the discussion somewhat abstract to avoid the idiots who think that women are responsible for all problems, the "If Eve hadn't done that we would all be sitting pretty." crowd of literal interpreters, who then somehow forget about Cain.
As for the "pseudo-scientific-Christ-hating crowd", all we can do is be good witnesses of how the Universe works. They will flame away, somehow thinking that the Universe was created from nothing, that there is no higher power than humanity while believing in parallel universes and god like extraterrestrial beings. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah, both real places, then becomes relevant
.You we're so close.
The problem with humans isn't political greed, but just GREED. All self inflicted problems, going back to the allegorical apple in Eden, are a result of giving in to greed, taking more than one needs or deserves.
Just to be clear allegorically, we still live in Eden and are still picking those apples, and screwing ourselves every time. Eve is not a female human, but a psychological part of all humans, without regard to gender or sexual orientation.
The problem is using technology to replace people instead of augmenting their skills and accepting the inferior results since they have a lower cost.
The PHB's of the world know that video surveillance is not as effective as a person who is interested in their work and has proper training. Surveillance gives "nearly" (80%ish) the same results for far less cost and risk than a person.They just plain do not understand that technology is best used when helping people in a task, not removing the person from the task.
Consider the simple act of connecting two boards together. Plant fibers could be used and would work. Now give the person a hammer and nails, or screwdriver and screws, and a more permanent and higher quality joint is achieved.
That is the most worrisome part of the article. As we are today, unless people know you there is some anonymity when you are in a public place. If Walker's claim is true the only way not to be identified would be with polarized lenses and gloves. This alone would flag you though, sort of like encrypting files may do today.
True, but you have to get outside the border, however that is defined and enforced, first.
Space exploration will remain in the control of politicians and bureaucrats forever unless a new means of propulsion is developed outside of their influence. The fuel if nothing else has to come from somewhere that is under governmental control.
It is all about culture in the end. As many other have stated, in the geek culture it is far less about how one looks than about how one performs.
Geeks are the crazy ones who will gnaw a problem for days on end with that being their primary focus in life. Shaving, ironing, who cares as long as the problem is solved? And our humor is a bit odd if not completely misunderstood to those who find the average sitcom invigorating.
The rest of the world is more interested in the latest trend that will make them popular.
The game of High School never ends.
Please, note that this is a very simple view made to save time and space in posting.
In the U.S.A., with its two main political parties, there used to be differences. The Republican party used to be for balanced budgets and limiting federal government involvement. The Democrats were more likely to desire federal government involvement even if the budget was overspent. Both parties definitely had their scandals and inconsistencies.
The political leadership, whoever they are but they are not the elected, during the 1990's decided to move toward a nearly one party system. Everyone who wanted to be elected was a centrist, cherry picking the views that would get them enough votes for office. There were no ideological stands that were mentioned in the press anymore, no more of the Reagan vs. O'Neil from the 1980's. It was all about getting votes, not positions, and the views expressed by the two main parties merged.
What you see now is the mess of differing ideologies merging, each side taking something from the other and not standing for anything other than votes.
Unless there is a Carpathian named Vigo nearby.
On one hand, maybe they just look at the polls and run stories on the top three from each party. That is all the time they have in their "In Depth" political segments, or all the time they think they can hold a viewers interest.
On the other, maybe its all about the advertisers, as the advertisers control Who will show What. Going big on following the letter of the Constitution does not get the same attention as the "Free Stuff for Everyone" and "Everybody Wins First Place" stuff. Fewer viewers results in fewer advertising dollars. So, in the end, whoever makes the most folks watch the commercials gets name recognition and a shot at their parties nomination.
To get kids interested in science and engineering, the jobs need to pay well. If the MBA can with less schooling, let alone the hard schooling to get a science/engineering PhD, have a 7-8 figure annual compensation package compared to the PhD's 5-6 figure package, only the true lovers of science will apply. Law and MBA schools will still win.
I largely agree with your post, but, telling someone to "fuck off" in a rude manner, particularly a parent, is more than just bad language or impolite behavior. I do realize that everyone experienced a different childhood. To some, swear words are just how people speak and to others they are nearly criminal acts. But, that only covers the actual words.
Words are not just sounds we make but the conveyors of our emotions. "Fuck off" depending upon the context is likely filled with hatred, malice, and disrespect, all of which will inflict real emotional pain on the recipient. It is not the same as a calmly stated "leave me alone".
With regard to discipline, the appropriate response is one that stops the short term behavior, then gets the child to an emotional state where reasoning is possible. Notice that there is no retribution, no vengeance, just Stop, Listen, and Learn. The Learn part is by far the longest. I think Listen, as in listening to the lecture that won't stop until the point is received and accepted, is the hardest for the child.
Sometimes, a physical act is necessary to get us to Stop in someone who is either too immature or emotionally unstable to reason. That physical act might be holding them, a swat to the behind, raising one's voice, but only enough to get their attention and stop the behavior as that is the immediate goal, not punishing them. The future goal is the child learning why some behaviors are bad and others good.
You are correct in that there almost never will be a good lesson learned from physical punishment. A beating only teaches them that whoever has the most power wins, which is too often true in the grownup world where power takes many forms.
The most recent riot, not including prison riots, that I know of in the U.S.A. was 15 years ago in Los Angeles. This would not have stopped that riot unless there were one aimed down every street (what happens when the beams converge?).
I see this being more of something that is with diplomatic flights or follows the WTO from conference to conference. Also, as mentioned in the article, this would be a really scary and psychologically scaring torture device and leave no evidence of the torture.
Of course it this was designed for the purpose of domestic riot control, someone is planning on there being being causes for people to riot in the future. If people won't even vote every four years let alone every election, they are not going to be quick to riot.
Whatever is used by the military will find its way to the increasingly paramilitary law enforcement of major metropolitan areas. UAVs are just one example, http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4213464.html
Where is the limit on automated surveillance before privacy becomes nonexistent or a crime? At least with people watching people, the watchers eventually become bored and move on, that or the cost of surveillance becomes to high for the expected reward. With cheap hardware, you can spy on anyone all the time looking for whatever you fancy. Think of it as Google for the state.
I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to lump all members of a religion, will multiple groups and varying beliefs, together with the most extreme fundamentalists of that group. Maybe its just that you picked up an Insightful moderation for a poor attempt at humor. Yes, there are parents who misguidedly over restrict their children's access to the world. They and their children pay a fearful price when the world is found anyway and the child has no means of coping with it or its temptations. Christianity is not alone with this problem. Perhaps you should have said something more like "fundamentalist religious parents" or "overprotective and self delusional parents"?
To be slightly more on the topic, I think we would have much more to fear from the Minority Report type of law enforcement that would follow searching for unvoiced emotions in the general populace. Imagine thinking about committing a crime, not talking about but just thinking about it briefly, being considered the same criminal act as the crime itself. Except, you have no way to prove that their machine is wrong, that you were not planning to commit a crime.
You picked up an "Interesting" vote, which is interesting for something that at first glance seems more deserving of funny. But the U.S.A. not picking sides in the U.S.S.R.'s invasion of Afghanistan and going with the enemy of my enemy is my friend bit is interesting when viewed by how the world might be now. Of course, the part that many forget, is that the Western world and some of the Middle East wanted intervention in Afghanistan. If the U.S.A had not helped the Afghan resistance and the U.S.S.R had eliminated them, the U.S.A. might still be condemned. I really doubt Iran would be more friendly today, and how did the Saudis want things to go?
How come Bin Laden and Co. never give the U.S.A. any thanks for helping out in Afghanistan? If Bin Laden and Co. are so high on the sanctity of the Middle East, wanting it to become the Islamic heaven on Earth, how come no thank you to the U.S.A. for pushing Hussein out of Kuwait in Iraq 1, with Saudi Arabia not able to defend itself alone if Hussein went further? I know, its all because of Iran, because the U.S.A helped Iraq when it was going to lose to Iran and establish a really large theocracy, and instead chose to help maintain status quo. The U.S.A. did not choose this alone, and Europe was only part of the consultation group.
Maybe we are all too busy playing The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend game.
Maybe, it is time for a new game.
Yes, and this has been the case for years, at least forty years. I remember feeling cheated somewhat when I purchased an LP in the early eighties, based upon the marketing/play frequency on radio, and finding only 2-3 tracks that I liked. The rest were near remakes, same beat and tones, just slightly different lyrics. Those groups did not last long then, and are mostly forgotten now. When I mentioned this to my father, he knew exactly what I was talking about, having experienced the same feelings twenty-five plus years earlier than I did.
There always will be bands/composers that excel, that make an album true art, and those that merely pose. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder though, and everyone has different preferences and reasons for those preferences, and all are valid.
Is the album several different poems about a common theme with each track put to music that matches the variances of the theme? Is the album continuous is presenting a mood with the music? Both are equally valid reasons for enjoyment. But when you purchase an album that gives only part of what you are interested in and a lot of filler, you might feel cheated.
Light and Dark, Good and Evil. Our streetlights, aside from the logical concept of helping with traffic control, are there to help keep away our monsters. They are our adult nightlights.
How many children need a nightlight to sleep tight? How many become adults who still need a light at night? Maybe not in their bedroom, but somewhere, just in case.
Until people learn to control their monsters, there will always be bright lights at night, and the natural lights that should fill us with amazement will be hidden.
Yes, it is sorry management. Most business management I have experienced in three completely different careers is sad. Those who manage the actual work, the people implementing the latest "process from above", do know when to listen. The worst managers think that technology replaces people rather than multiplying their effectiveness.
IT is not the same as janitorial or mechanical positions, but IT's relationship with business management is similar to a mechanically challenge customer's relationship with a vehicle repair facility. When the cost, estimated or actual, is high, they complain even if the service is great. When the work that they get for the lowest price is not high enough in quality, they complain.
Some shops get it though. The smart shops realize that the customers (all other functions in a large corporation are ITs customers, right?) want "good enough and not too expensive or takes too long". Notice that IT is the one adapting. IT is the provider while business management is the customer. Business management never really got IT and made them a partner. IT is still the place that just makes technical stuff happen, like the mechanic just fixes the car.
And yes, it sucks at times. The wonders that insist that internal documentation be written at at 8th grade or lower level comprehension level are somehow the ones with seven plus figure salaries that determine the direction of the company. Then when they want the company to be included in the latest fad, Web 2.0 or whatever it is this year, IT is responsible for implementing it without breaking anything existing, without an increase in budget, and without being given a vote regarding IF the new technology is a wise decision.
In many business applications, good enough really is good enough. The rough edges can be fixed later, after the release date has been met. So long as the data is good enough for a business decision there is no problem.
Devices which are considered infallible in the legal system must be held to a higher standard. If they have a false positive, someone who is innocent of a crime will likely be convicted, particularly in something considered to be straightforward like a DUI trial.
DNA evidence is something for which the source (how the probability was reached, including methods) is open to professional review. Why should a lower standard be applied to other crimes? If a crime is worth prosecuting, it should be worth being certain that the accused actually did commit the crime, not just a best guess.
While many things are wrong in California, laws protecting employees are one thing they generally get correct. With that said, it should be the other way around with regard to law making regarding monitoring of employees.
If an employer wishes to chip their employees, it should first be made explicitly constitutionally legal by an amendment. If the constitution does not state that an employer, by virtue of PACs and lobbyists known as the government, are allowed to perform an act or require an act for employment, then it is illegal.
If they did not have a full time legislature that needed to justify their positions by new, sometimes silly laws, California would actually be a great place.
For employee protection, it really is a good place. If your employer wants you to work more than 8 hours in a day, its overtime (1.5 times your hourly wage). Past 12 hours in a day, its doubletime. If most of your work involves manual labor/production, you are not salaried but hourly. While these may seem silly, they do protect employees from employers who would have managers making less that the minimum wage. Employers looking for that little bit of extra profit do short their employees if they feel they will not be punished.