Ok, admittedly I haven't read the case. I'm going to take a chance here and ask about it. Flame me, and you'll be ignored - I'm looking for information, not idiots.
I have heard (speaking with a few people, reading this or that, and talking with my husband) that this is what happened: He worked as a security professional or sysadmin. He cracked the machines of his employer (or maybe he was a freelancer, cracked and then did this), and took the information to the people who owned the machine. He said, basically, 'You have a problem here, I think you should fix it. Be glad I'm not a bad-guy and am here to help, not harm, or you'd be up shit creek'. He then got arrested and put in jail for it, just as if he HAD been the bad-guy and had taken down the system - not to mention the violation of a lot of his rights in the process.
Given the tone of the posts on this story, I must have something wrong. If that is what happened, I'd think the people here would be up in arms about him - it could happen to anyone who, say, ran Satan on their work machines to be sure they were safe, or who logged into one of their work machines with a hole, to find out if the hole was there and to fix it. If this isn't what happened, then what is? Does anyone have a non-biased version of the story? Where is the info?
First, I'd like to point out that the discussions here seem to be precisely what these articles talk about. I've seen a lot of 'Jon Katz this' and 'Jon Katz that' posts, for or against, doesn't matter. I've seen a lot of opinions voiced in very forceful manners, usually on one extreme or the other, frequently angry at whoever-posted-the-opposite-viewpoint.
I am female. I am white, blonde, and short. I have posted a few times to slashdot, voicing my opinions. In some cases, it has turned into highly intelligent discussions, via email at least once. I like this, it's what I look for when I go to forums like this one. People with whom to discuss opinions, form opinions, people who have more information than I do about any particular subject.
In other cases, however, it has gotten me such marvelous messages as "oddly-shaped - she must be fat!" I don't come here for that. For one thing, I'm hardly fat, and for another, being female makes it difficult (in the US) to NOT be sensitive about weight. Having had a baby within the last three months, I find that my skin is wearing a bit thin about that particular subject. It's hard to read a forum in which people don't think twice before tossing out hurtful comments.
My husband reads the headlines, but doesn't generally bother with the discussion anymore, because it's too full of flamers and children in adult clothing.
In essence, I agree that the net is a hostile environment. Even though noone forces me to read these comments, when they are replies to my own, I read them. Because you never know when you'll get into a real discussion. Because if someone has something intelligent to say to me, I want to hear it. Someone posted a comment earlier that rang true for me... if I see a lot of woman-bashing posts, I'm not likely to want to post in that discussion unless I'm looking for a fight. It's not worth the effort of dealing with all the insults and derision. There have been a number of such things.
For example, the Playboy posting. I found that interesting. I've never read Playboy, but I do know a few women who do. But the comments were full of chauvanistic jerks. Comments that, if said to my face, would have caused me to go into a redfaced rage, were all over the page. I couldn't stomach it. Is this freedom of speech? Yes. Is it civil, or conducive to varied opinions being voiced? Hell no.
Something not many seem to have noticed:
((Innovate. Could sites have "free-fire" zones, areas designated for posters who want absolute freedom, but that others can avoid if they wish?
Welcome. Sites might establish special areas for newcomers, where they could be welcomed and learn the rules, traditions and language of a community before they wade in as members.))
I've been thinking about this for a little while, actually, even before these articles came out. I was thinking along the lines of a separate comment board, with specified moderators. Yes, this _would_ raise flames about moderation being corrupted, moderators being jerks, etc. But if the moderators were intelligent and reasonable people, they could keep the flamers out. This would mean extra work for those who run slashdot (sorry, Rob:) ). But it would give people a choice - moderated and relatively safe, or completely free. It may be too difficult to be a permanent solution, but it would be an interesting experiment. It would give newbies - and women, and anyone else who wasn't white/male/young technocrat a chance to speak and to learn. The free-fire section appeals to me, mostly because I think it would be easier to do.
((Almost anything counts as a dialect, whenever there is an objectively measureable difference in the dominant speech of one area or socio-economic group compared to another. ))
I was under the impression that the distinctions had to be _easily_ measured, ie the blank stares Enoch said they get from Parisian French speakers. More than that, I believed it had to evolve naturally - creoles being an 'unnatural' form of evolution.
((Guadeloupe, Martinique, Haiti, Reunion, Mauritius and many other places have creoles, Quebec French is unquestionably French))
This is the kind of information I was looking for, actually. I don't know French, or the history of Quebec's version. I don't know just how different it is (or isn't).
((Quebec French has not adopted any grammatical structure from English, nor does the grammar of Quebec French vary in any important way from the standard model of French))
Interesting. So it's just pronounciations and word definitions that differentiate it? Or is there more?
((Furthermore, "Ebonics" (Or Black American English or whatever term you like) has few aspects of a creole.))
I am under the distinct impression that it is one. English forced on immigrants (in this case, black slaves) caused them to learn the basics, but they were still using it in the context in which they knew language. A new form sprung up as a result.
((Although there are still some people who believe that black English grammar comes from West African Bantu roots, there are very few linguists who believe this.))
I must have friends in all the wrong places, then, as most of the linguaphiles I know agree with this one. There are examples, like the lack of conjugation of the verb 'to be' - 'I be at the store', depending on context, could mean I am, I will be, or I was at the store. Many of the grammatical rules of ebonics do seem to have stemmed this way... Incidentally, I know some distinctly NON-lower-income people who speak it as their birth-language. So it isn't restricted to those of the lower class or those without an education.
Since you say the people you know disagree, could you tell me why? If you know more on the subject than I, I'd like to know what you think. What are the differences between the grammar of the language and the grammar of ebonics? Have you truly examined it, or are you contradicting me just so you can say ebonics is for uneducated losers (I'm not saying that to be inflammatory, I actually have been confronted by those who wanted only to say just that and had no logical backing for it). If need be, we can take this off slashdot - I'd be glad to email about it, so as not to continue an off-topic discussion.:)
((There's a whole debate about Québecois slang. Is it a true language? Or is it a deformation brought about by lack of rigor and education? The snobs and well-bred try to mimic Parisian French, but otherwise, you'll hear Québecois everywhere you go. ))
I don't _think_ it counts as a dialect, but it definitely counts as a creole of the original language. Much as (many will hate me for this) ebonics is a creole of English, a combination of English words and West African grammar (I think it's west african). Misunderstood by many to be a bastardization of the 'original' language, it is spoken as a birth-language by many, much as a dialect would be.
In trying to remember the difference between a creole and a dialect, I wound up having to look them up. Here's what I found (the relevant definition anyway, ignoring what they say about europeans in the West Indies and Louisiana):
creole: "not capitalized : a language that has evolved from a pidgin but serves as the native language of a speech community "
A pidgin is defined as:
" a simplified speech used for communication between people with different languages"
Looking up dialect, I found:
"1 a : a regional variety of language distinguished by features of vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation from other regional varieties and constituting together with them a single language"
Do you know the history of Quebecois? Seems to me that, if it was pidginized in the immigration process, it would count as a creole at least, even if it doesn't qualify as a dialect. It isn't bad education, it's a natural part of the evolution of language.
Oh, I just had to - languages are a hobby of mine. *smile*
Cool, thanks. I wonder where the heck I heard the freezing thing. Memory seems to attribute it to high-school science class, but I can't think my science teachers would have given us that... Hum...
Not to mention the fact that helium-squeaking is NOT a good thing for your vocal chords. They squeak because they're FROZEN! Helium can damage you if you do it too much. Fun at weddings, yes, but still damaging.
-Elthia I don't remember where I learned that, so don't ask. I also might remember it wrong. It's been a while.
((It's like ALL dick wars...it continues today: My pipe has more bandwith than yours! Well suck my pipe:)))
Ok, I'm not going to comment on the last bit of this, but I'll definitely believe that the competetive nature of human beings is behind most of our advances. And human laziness is behind most of the rest, with true curiosity only getting maybe 2%. Oh, well, at least they _happen_.
Incidentally, keeping all of this relatively on-topic... I was born on January 14th. I'll be 25 in a couple of days now. My brother was born on the 13th, he'll be 21. Too bad he's in Tucson and can't be around for me to douse him in liquor or somesuch idiocy. Puck, if you're reading, happy birthday. Hope your homemade plasma cannons don't blow up the place.:)
So happy birthday Hal, happy birthday me, and happy birthday Puck. Gee, an evil computer overlord, a God of Mischief and Chaos, and me. What a combo. *wicked grin*
Does this mean that the teddy-bear-with-a-camera that is sold in many places as a surveillance of your own children is illegal? Is it illegal to covertly film your nanny as he/she cares for your kids, to make sure he/she isn't beating them? Or how about NURSERY MONITORS that have clocks in them?
Shouldn't they be going after the people who misuse these things, rather than the ones who manufacture them? Yes, I know, go after the maker of the crack and you cut supply short for the dealers and addicts, but we're not talking about crack here, we're talking about stupid little radio bits. Educational toys. Where does it end? And since you aren't allowed to look at your own belongings when They box em up, how is anyone to know that they aren't being framed for something?
Jeez, this sounds as bad as the movies. Can I run away to another country now? But... is any place safe? Cripes, I can just see it now - we're either going to go Shadowrun and everyone with brains will be hiding from the corps and the cops at once, or we're going to become the Snow Crash society, with the US being a tiny section of land where NOONE does ANYTHING without being monitored. Ick, or we're there already and Big Brother isn't just a fiction anymore. Ok, I'm scared. Is there a solution to this? Please tell me we're not headed for a revolution, cause if we are I'm going to hide under my bed now.
((Scott seems to miss the point entirely on his way to his politically correct rant. We're not laughing at the "dumb" user. We're laughing at the comedy of the situation itself. The sheer outrageousness of the moment.))
Nope. I'm laughing at the user. Look, anyone who saw something LABELED cd-rom and tried to put something else (a cup?!?) in there is a MORON. YES, they should be laughed at - this is not ignorance (lack of knowledge), this is stupidity (lack of desire for knowledge). BIG difference. Ignorance isn't laughed at by anyone I know; people will generally try to help rather than just laugh at it. But stupidity sets itself up to be laughed at.
From the article: ((They usually involve an incredibly smart technical support agent forced to suffer through the ignorance of his clients and peers.))
No, they usually involve a tech support person forced to suffer through people who don't know how to put the plug into the wall, or who absolutely insist that, when they forget something (password, where they put a file, what they did with their lunch) it is YOUR FAULT. Really stupid people, in other words, not ignorant ones.
(( Folks, a tech making fun of someone learning how to operate a computer is like a school teacher making fun of a child learning how to read.))
No. Making fun of these morons is like a high-school teacher posting to a teachers' board about the students who were supposed to read 'Romeo and Juliet' - and then go on to say that it was written by Napoleon. Or the ones who were supposed to read their history lesson and try to say that Edgar Rice Burroughs built the Panama Canal. It's not about ignorance, it's about STUPIDITY.
((I use a toilet everyday but never has a plumber openly mocked me for not knowing how to fix a pipe.))
You've never tried to do your laundry in the tank, either. Nor have you tried to use the toilet to dispose of sulphur (That one happened at a school I went to). Get the idea?
Frankly, my mother in law is totally clueless about computers. She bought one, in an attempt to find a new way to do her artwork (she's having breathing problems after years of professional oilpainting). She flat-out admits that she's afraid of the thing. Attempts to get her to do anything more complex than turn it on are likely to send her running from the room. But I've told her some of the 'clueless' jokes from UF, and she's found them amusing. They aren't about newbies, or people who are afraid or don't know. They're about total morons who refuse to read the directions or even use common sense.
If my mother-in-law can laugh about them, I can't imagine why anyone else wouldn't.
I've been stuck in the house for ages, I've been out of the house three times this year aside from doctor's appointments (and it was twice more this year than last:P ). Ok, so maybe I've arguably already gone insane, but you don't have to go nuts being in the house all the time. Also:
((Sex. It's 1 year, the guy has to get some. And it will be difficult with all those cameras..:) Can you order prostitutes on line? Or have a "sex-inside-only" relationship? ))
Note that the camera in the bathroom is turned AWAY from the toilet and bathtub (showers, anyone?). I'm pretty sure there are other 'hidden' areas in the house - if he found someone who wanted to, he could manage it. The problem here would be finding someone who wanted to. Someone else had a good point about geekgirls in general. This guy is _weird_, and not in a good way. Who cares about this stunt? A guy who can build a robot to bring me a card has a much better chance than a weirdo who locks himself in a house for a year. Of course, there are always desperate women out there, so if he does find it necessary...
((Money. Sure, the guy has credit cards, but you have to go to an ATM to get some cash to do some small things, link: tip the pizza guy,))
Hey, I tip with credit cards all the time. You give the number when you call in the order, and write the tip on that little line labeled (*gasp*) 'tip:'.
(( pay for the prostitutes.. What if a pipe brokes? ))
(breaks) I would think that online prostitutes would have been shut down by now, as things like that tend to be illegal in most places. Hm... come to think of it, 'escort services' operate in most states without a problem, so strike that. However, most of them take credit cards anyway; the prostitutes who can't are usually the street kind, and you don't want to go there. At least the women in escort services have a choice (they are told at the start that you are NOT to be selling that, but if you arrange anything like that it's YOUR choice and has nothing to do with them). Not to mention a regular (if unusual) job.
((Can you pay the plumber with a credit card?))
Does any real agency (even plumbers) NOT take credit anymore?
(( You need a job.. Sure it's easy if "Peapod.com" gives you free groceries, but that's not real life..))
The job thing I'll go for. I think he could likely work from home though, as a lot of people do that. Especially if he does something like sysadmin work or programming - as long as there's someone competant on the other end to hit the buttons when the need arises and do other in-person junk, he could easily monitor etc from home. However, given the prices online for necessities like groceries... oh wait, he's living alone. This makes a big difference; if he makes a normal salary he could live pretty well out there. One guy can live on a sysadmin's salary even online without problems.
As for going to the bank, many employers (especially in urban areas) will direct deposit to your bank account. Movies? I wait anyway, I don't like theaters, they're too loud. My ears don't like to ring (also why I don't do concerts or clubs, aside from the crowd aspect).
((Isn't there a mental disease that makes people do that? ))
*ahem* *pointed look* Are you insinuating something? *grin*
Okay, anyway, this point has been made, but:
It's not a big deal! The whole point of e-commerce is to allow people to not worry about these things, to have them delivered. He's not proving anything to anyone. It's stupid. But boy, if I'd thought of it I'd be doing it too, he's probably getting a lot of money for doing something he's likely been doing all along. Being allowed to have visitors etc makes it easy - he can meet and hang with anyone, even have parties. No problem. I'm a little jealous that he's getting money for it, but it isn't a big deal that he's doing it.
"...emotion must be an allowable tool in our arsenal."
I agree with this TO AN EXTENT. However, allowing flames to degenerate into badly spelled, poorly written, insulting, aimless flamemail is not effective. Most of these mails just get deleted by those who read them. True, the volume does make a difference, seeing so many people so angry over something you are doing does tend to make one pause and rethink one's actions. However, logic and emotion are NOT opposites, and they need not each be used to the exclusion of the other.
I repeat: logic and emotion are not opposites. Logic is analasys of cause-and-effect, the reasoning intelligence which allows us to process the world around us. Emotion is our base reaction to that process. Using both is the best way to write anything, be it poetry, prose, or even hate mail to someone who is doing something wrong.
Yes, you do have a point, that the outrage and volume have a direct effect. However, if all that was generated was idiot-mail, it would more likely be ignored than responded to, and it would be far less effective than intelligent responses. The fact that there WAS some intelligent email generated, and that even those who could write properly were talking about boycott, probably had just as much of an effect, if not more.
Angry mail can be a very important tool - indeed, it IS a very important tool - in any attempt to make other people change their behaviors. But it is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. It can be abused, and it can be inappropriate to use in many cases. Winning happens because we choose appropriate targets, because there IS something going on for which people are willing to boycott. In most cases, the wrongdoers know this, they just hope noone will notice.
Don't give the trolls the credit they crave, you'll only encourage stupidity. Using one's emotions, accepting their existence, does not have to make morons out of us. I've seen some very effective flames come out of people who could accept both intelligence and emotion at the same time. Anger can put the flame behind the words, but reason MUST choose the words, or you wind up being incoherant and looking stupid.
I don't know. To be honest, having read his original post (he posted to/. when he paid the thing), I think it was more done to be funny. Why not? They're dumbasses, it's only 35 bucks, hell - I'd have paid for it if I'd been in that position. Would've been funny. *grin*
Yes, it was a nice thing to do, simple as that. It was also very amusing. And made for an amusing conversation on slashdot when he did it, and again later (though I don't think he could have realized that he would get actual _press_ for that).
Having done it, I would also be wondering if they could pay more than 35 bucks. He isn't asking for it, he isn't pushing for it even. He commented that it would be nice, but he seems to understand that it isn't likely, especially knowing the greed in ms. So? Seems like just another average joe to me, who happened to notice the problem and do something about it, and get amused by his own actions. Nothing major, and certainly not greedy.
A greedy person would have tried to transfer ownership, or something like that. I see no indication that he even considered that, it seems more like a 'heh, I fixed their screwup for em, too bad they can't fix themselves' sort of thing.
My response wasn't to those who had real problems with Toys-R-Us specifically, but to those who were attacking _any_ merchant who couldn't make the date. Not shipping is very different from having problems with the shipper, and I was addressing those who were attacking ALL merchants who hadn't made the delivery date, regardless of reason.
I probably should have specified this, I thought it was obvious. *shrug*
((elthia you work for amazon or the like dont you.:) ))
*rotfl* those who know me will simply laugh at this. No, I don't.
((like i care if UPS stuffed up!, its not my problem! "you" promised delivery, its not here, what kind of business are you running if you dont take THAT kind of thing into consideration. ))
Ok. Put yourself in THEIR position. You have a product. You ship it UPS. UPS promises that, if you give your customers ____ date, that is when you can guarantee it by xmas. So you give your customers ___ date. UPS doesn't deliver, and you have a lot of unhappy customers on your hands. What could you do? Not give a date at all? Then people would yell at you even if they ordered it on december 24th. Give them a date in November? Heh, your competitors have given them the UPS date, you lose out because of that.
Whatever you do, you face pressure, usually economic. Don't go blaming people for doing what the public demands they do, unless you are NOT part of that public. Really, if you saw one place with a date in November, and another with a date in December, and it's already December and you were too lazy to do your shopping ON TIME, which one would you go with? It's your own laziness and irresponsibility which caused this in the first place, but you're blaming the merchant. That's all.
I have problems with Einstein, much as I am grateful for the work he put in. He was not great on his own, he stepped on (and flattened) incredible people to get where he got to.
Emily Noether did a lot of his work, working heavily on the relativity algorithms. At her death, Einstein had this to say about her: _____ In the judgement of the most competent living mathematicians, Fraulein Noether was the most significant creative mathematical genius thus far produced since the higher education of women began. In the realm of algebra in which the most gifted mathematicians have been busy for centuries she discovered methods which have proved of enormous importance in the development of present day younger generation of mathematicians. ________
This woman taught for free, so she could use the university she taught at for resources. She was not allowed a paid position, being only a woman.
Or how about Marie Curie, who has under her belt not one but TWO Nobel Prizes for her incredible work toward the advancement of science? Where would we be without her?
Or, since we are talking about 'of the century', and not just 'of science', how about people like Rosa Parks, who brought the civil rights movement to the mainstream public, in 1955 (NOT the 1800's as so many seem to think, this is a more recent part of history than many believe). This has affected not only black people, but hispanics, asians, whites, everyone in our country, in a major way.
Perhaps Eleanor Roosevelt, who was responsible in large part for the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and who did so much during her life that it would be impossible to list it all here.
Or, to bring it home quite hard to those I'm adressing, how about Admiral Grace Murray Hopper? Just TRY to tell me she wasn't worthy of 'person of the century'. Without the things she did, we'd all still be programming in numbers rather than languages. She pushed the computers she was working with to use english for programming, making her almost the 'mother of programming languages'. She was influential (extremely) in the creation and use of COBOL. She worked for the navy, for DEC, for everyone who was anyone in computing back then. She was tiny in body, but huge in mind, and without her computers might never have become the household things they are today.
My point? This is a discussion of Time's MAN of the century. Women are left out completely. Not only that, but I sincerely think that Grace Hopper is almost as deserving as Turing himself of this award. Without Turing we might not have computers (though we might, as there _were_ others working on similar things at the time), but without one tiny, intense WOMAN, we would almost certainly not have civilian computers that were so easy to use. The inventor of the compiler deserves more credit than to be left out of the running completely.
Microsoft, Intel, Sun, all of these companies owe their lives to Grace Hopper.
So why is it that Time tends to lean toward the republican viewpoint, and toward leaving women out? Why, because it's PRESS! Too bad we can't have a 'PEOPLE of the century', wherein people choose maybe ten, men AND women. Then we wouldn't have to leave out all of those who deserve the honor just to let one man who isn't politically volatile have it. Guts, Time, GUTS - it's the thing that makes a publication great, and the thing you seem to lack lately. Publishing to the common denominator will get you better sales in some sectors, but it won't make you stand out as 'the thing to read'.
*shrug* but I'm just one person, what do I matter? *wicked grin*
excuse me... I should have said "merchants should not be held responsible for your inability to do your shopping on time". This means that, if you shop on December 24th, you should DAMN well not be able to require that they get it to you by the 25th. Get the drift?
Of course they should be able to give you an _idea_ of when it will arrive, and be able to promise that it will GO OUT by a certain time. However, if UPS doesn't deliver on time, that's UPS's fault, not the merchant's. If you shop too late, that's YOUR fault, not the merchant's. Don't blame them for your own idiocy, in other words.
((Example Lets say the a felon buys a gun and shoots somebody. The store that sold a gun to a felon has SOME responsibility don't you think? They shouldn't get off scott free. ))
I agree, but only if the store has the ability to check the guy's status. In other words, if they had no idea he was a felon, they couldn't be held responsible. If they have access to his criminal record (or if they can at least see that he has been CONVICTED (not accused) of a _violent_ crime), then they probably shouldn't sell to him, you're right. However, blaming them 100% for it would also not work (as you said), because it's more HIS choice than theirs. He is totally responsible for HIS actions (the shooting). They are responsible for theirs (supplying the weapon to someone who is violent).
I don't see a way to fix this, though, withoug pissing off everyone (the stores for lack of info and/or responsibility, and the offenders for lack of privacy of their criminal record, which I don't think is a right anyway).
-Elthia the things I want would piss of a LOT of people, so they'll probably never happen unless I'm crowned queen in a theocracy (yes, god-queen, not monarchy).
Heh, Big Mailbox is, I believe, the one which hosts my friend's somecrazydame.com domain. In other words, it's what my/.-public email addy is on. Never had a problem with it.;)
-Elthia eggs expand in the microwave. Like balloons.
I did what shopping I did either well before christmas, or I paid extra for fast shipping.
Sheesh. Merchants shouldn't have to promise delivery-on-time, people should arrange for that themselves, or deal with the fact that they didn't do their shopping on time.
((This article was right on the money. Somehow, we've turned into a combative culture where the power of the judiciary is being used as a weapon-- against democracy and free markets.))
Actually, I don't think it's so much a _combative_ culture as a culture of irresponsibility. We don't so much sue for combat, we sue so we don't have to think about what we're doing before we do it.
Got pregnant because you forgot to take your pill? No problem, sue the pill makers for not making it strong enough to catch the one day you missed. Can't take being parodied? No problem, SUE THE PARODY! Someone else has a name you want? Don't get a more imaginative name, just sue them - they probably can't afford the defense anyway.
Now, I can see these laws being used correctly. I know someone who is having to go through a lawsuit right now, because someone saw her site (which has been up since 96 or earlier), and decided they wanted to steal her business. They set up a site which had an almost-identical URL (one hyphen difference), and put up similar content. They claimed they had 'bought the site from its previous owners' when emailed by people who had forgotten the hyphen and found them instead of the real site. They stole content word-for-word. They stole the entire idea of the site. And they weakened it (this is a women's forum, specifically anti-idiot but NOT anti-man, and they have set up a reasonably anti-male pro-shopping idiots' site, calling it by a similar name). It is hurting her reputation among the people she aims to be with and sell to. It's upsetting her business. For this, a lawsuit can be a good thing (cease-and-desists did nothing, and they have as much as admitted to doing these things - not to mention the fact that the people doing it are a big site-making company, not just some random person like they want people to think. They have Bucks to waste trying to force my friend out of business). Patent law and intellectual property can protect the little guy too, let's not lose sight of that.
The problem is that, within almost all parts of our lives, we have lost sight of the ideal of independence. This country, our government, was created by people for whom independence was a necessity of life. You have the right to carry a gun, because you have the right to defend yourself from all the crazies out there, or from government gone wild (which is what we were under just before the declaration). You have the right to say whatever you want, about whatever you want. You don't have the right to _incite_action_, but you do have the right to talk about it. Fine line, if you ask me, but it's there.
The problem is not with the laws in the way they were first made. It's in the changes that have been made, the evolution our legal system has gone through over time.
It's possible to have an insanity plea. This is not always good, I think - it means that, if you are nuts and do something because you couldn't stop, you won't just be randomly put to death for it. This can be good - it can save lives of those who can be made 'normal' again. It can also, however, keep people alive who really SHOULD be put to death. Frankly, if there is someone who is so dangerous that he should never again be allowed into society (life in prison, anyone?), he should be PUT TO DEATH. That is the point of trial-by-jury, right? If we can't keep them in society, if they are that dangerous, WHY are we keeping them around? My guess at the answer? Cheap labor. We pay taxes to keep them fed and housed, and the government gets super-cheap labor to make license plates and other governmental necessities. What a joke. Before The insanity plea is highly abused. "It wasn't my fault, I was temporarily insane, but I'm fine now" has become a common cry of the criminal. Ok, so you were abused like hell and you eventually went nuts. That says something about you, as well as about them. Before anyone starts in about 'two wrongs don't make a right', let me add that _releasing_ people who are convicted of murder or heavy abuse almost invariably results in more murders and/or abuse. Reform doesn't happen in the system we have right now. You want to make the death penalty obsolete, find a way to truly change these people without threatening the rest of the populace (brainwashing does NOT count), and FIX the system. Until that happens, we have too many criminals who are STILL BREEDING.
Also, before anyone tries to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about with 'temporary insanity of an abused person', let me state this: I have BEEN in an abusive relationship, and have BEEN raped, by family and others, have BEEN beaten. But you know, I never felt the need to cut off the penis of my abuser, or to kill him. I left him. It was hard, it was painful, it was near-impossible to get out of that cycle and to stop trusting my judgement for a while and just be with NOONE while I healed. It took me 6 or 8 months to break away completely and stop with the calling-back-and-forth, now-together-now-apart crap that follows these things. I didn't take him to court for injuring me forever, though, I took it upon myself to change myself, to not LET him have the power to destroy me. To quote Eleanor Roosevelt, "Noone can make you feel inferior without your consent."
Too bad noone ever thinks about that before they cut/shoot/destroy. (I am in NO WAY saying that being abused is the fault of the abused. However, if you get raped in a neighborhood, staying there - or going back repeatedly - when you know your rapist lives there is a Bad Idea - pure common sense. But people don't think that way anymore).
The same goes for a lot of things. It has become acceptable for people to be totally irresponsible, and to blame others - anyone, as long as it isn't themselves. There was a woman some time ago who sued Dunkin Donuts, or McDonald's, or somesuch. She bought a coffee, got into her car and put the coffee between her legs to hold it while she started the car. She spilled the coffee and got burned badly. What kind of MORON puts BOILING coffee between their legs?!?! And if you're stupid enough to DO something like that, don't go blaming the people who MADE it - they sold it, they didn't teach you how to be stupid.
Remember Columbine? How easy is it to blame video games for what went wrong? Kids who were picked on, kids who had dysfunctional lives, who were abused. But we don't blame the parents, we don't blame the kids, we blame the fucking video games and music?
Things like this happen all the time. The fact that it has spread, that it is infecting the internet, is not at all surprising. The fact that something needs to be done about it is well-known by anyone with brains.
I seriously doubt anything WILL be done about it, though, until people stop being so stupid. I have a sneaking suspicion that there will be a core of intelligent, self-reliant people out there, who will wind up becoming outlaws because they don't want the government to think for them. Everything but the self will be blamed for any problems people have, until we have a dulled-down, pastel view of life and no movies are higher than G rated, and no music even implies bad feelings... etc. Ok, so that's a little extreme, but... things that used to be acceptable in a 'pg' rated movie are rated 'r' now. Why is that? Swearing, which used to be perfectly fine (although not done very often) is now ILLEGAL. Not morally objectionable or socially unacceptable, but ILLEGAL. Morals don't matter, only laws matter.
This is teaching our children bad things, and children are growing up in a culture where 'it's bad if you get caught and it's illegal', not 'it's bad because it is (rude/mean/disrespectful/horrible/whatever)'.
Bleh. It's Christmas eve, and as usual I'm horribly bitter and annoyed by humanity tonight. If I hadn't learned how WRONG it is (not illegal, but fucking wrong!), I'd probably be out there with a shotgun or worse every christmas, trying to fix the gene pool or something. Stupidity breeds like rabbits. Too bad there are no wolves anymore.
-Elthia maybe I should start drinking myself into a stupor when I feel like this. I hate drinking though, does weird things to me - not to mention the nauseous, sloshy feeling in my stomach. Bleh. Guess I'll just rant about the idiocy of the human race and hope someone out there hears me.
I know this probably sounds crazy, but put a few pointers in here...
1. This guy started NetUSA, and the company went public.
2. NetUSA is failing in public, it's lost huge amounts of money and the stock price is falling drastically.
3. HE probably owned a majority share of NetUSA, right? So he gained quite a bit of money from those stocks... now, legally he could neither sell them nor use that money for six months. However...
4. Now he starts a NEW company, and tries to send it public within six months, a ridiculously short time for such things. Which, at ANY price, will bring in a nice chunk of pocket change...
5. Gee, sounds a little fishy - you think he might be using one to fund the other? Illegal, yes, impossible? No.
He's already shown disregard for people (laws?) by hosting spammail junk. Considering the (lack of) history for this company, I wouldn't be surprised if this is exactly what's happening. I hope he gets caught and jailed.
I have a friend from Sweden who came to visit us while this was eating up all the newstime. He was highly amused by the whole thing. He told me that, in Sweden (and this was backed up by another swedish friend), there had been a really messy debacle recently when a politician had used her (political? Business?) credit card to buy groceries. The fact that she had paid the money back didn't matter, she had USED it for personal purposes. This was a big deal over there. Having an affair would be considered not too great but definitely the personal business of the involved person. For politicians in most countries, this makes it fully the domain of tabloid reporters, something the main news wouldn't bother with other than a brief mention. True, Charlie-boy's affair got spread all over the news, and Di was killed in a paparazzi accident, but it was paparazzi, NOT true news reporters. Tabloids everywhere sprouted stories. We got most of _our_ flood of info about Monica from the normal news, the six o'clock news and other such things.
As my friend said, Americans are sex-crazed and have no idea how to handle it. We're royally messed up when it comes to sex, we call it taboo and then get obsessed with it. New York City abolished the ban on women going topless - it's legal now, when weather is bad. But the _very_ day it happened, a lot of women ripped off their shirts - and were promptly arrested for things like Disturbing the Peace. We're nuts.
Besides, to be honest, I have serious doubts about Hillary's aim in marrying Billy anyway. I don't think she NEEDED a loving, adoring, faithful man, I think she needed one who SEEMED to be that. I think she wanted power and realized what the easiest and sometimes best way is for a woman to get that, especially in 'traditional' politics. Not that she really needed it - she herself has the capability to kick ass. But in a country controlled as much by right-wing facists as left-wing maniacs, being married _and_ strong will get you respected (not loved, but at least respected) by both sides. Good political karma.
Monica was a distraction, and a good one too. Lots got done, good or bad, while everyone was thinking about _her_.
Of course, I'm an opinionated B*$&), so take that as you will. *grin*
To get back on topic, however, my 'person of the year' lists would have to include _some_ corporate individuals. After all, their businesses are our economy. Many of them, however, would be people who don't get noticed much but have an _effect_.
Larry Wall (he is the one who did it, right?) would be on it, for designing Tux and getting him out there. Face it, without a mascot (read: marketing gimmick), nobody gets anywhere anymore. It's a sad fact of life. That linux is suddenly being noticed as a decent corporate OS is going to vastly change the lives and work of many many people. Anything that goes mainstream changes, but it also gets _recognized_. M$ being such a big part of American lives, I think this qualifies.
Madeline Allbright would be on it also. This is a woman who has used her power, has made decisions that would paralyze other people, and has kicked ass while doing it. I'd love to see Winston Churchhill and Madeline Allbright in a room together. I suspect they'd either love or hate each other, and either way it would be entertaining for any who saw it. *cackle* Not to mention that the things she does have a worldwide effect, not just effects in the USA.
Offhand, with my brain occupied by other things, I can't think of the whole list. Just had to toss in my couple of pennies' worth of silliness.
Decent translations of anything are hard to find. That aside, however, the system IS much more complex than most people realize. Where, when, and how you were born affect the 'readings', not to mention all kinds of other things. I, for example, am a capricorn - but because of where/when I was born, about half of the 'houses' are in aquarius. Also known in some circles as earth over water. How's that for a combo? *grin* However, the main point - today - of astrology is that it's FUN.
If you believe in it wholeheartedly without question, you are either a time traveler from long ago or a flake (or a new-age freak, but they usually fall under 'flake' anyway). However, it is a fun diversion, and one of the superstitions that is semi-acceptable in our society. It's ok to look up your horoscope avidly every day - especially if you talk about it with the prefix "I don't believe in this crap, but...."
We do need some superstitions - regimentalized ones called religion, sporadic ones that are still called superstitious, whatever they are, we need myths in our lives. Even those who are heavily atheist believe in something - themselves, the universe, Science, whatever. Without these beliefs we become soulless beasts, we lose our sense of wonder. There is almost always some form of illogical cling to something Bigger Than Ourselves. Lonely life without that, and horribly depressing.
On the note of these predictions in particular, they don't seem to think much of the Geek Set. Particularly not capricorns - they think we're all doomsaying, paranoid freaks with hyperactive egos and big mouths. Ok, so I've got the big mouth. *grin* And I do tend to argue myself blue in the face trying to get the last word in when I feel it's important. But I'm not paranoid, I swear!
They really are out to get me! I saw it on a button! I swear! *wicked grin*
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, admittedly I haven't read the case. I'm going to take a chance here and ask about it. Flame me, and you'll be ignored - I'm looking for information, not idiots.
I have heard (speaking with a few people, reading this or that, and talking with my husband) that this is what happened: He worked as a security professional or sysadmin. He cracked the machines of his employer (or maybe he was a freelancer, cracked and then did this), and took the information to the people who owned the machine. He said, basically, 'You have a problem here, I think you should fix it. Be glad I'm not a bad-guy and am here to help, not harm, or you'd be up shit creek'. He then got arrested and put in jail for it, just as if he HAD been the bad-guy and had taken down the system - not to mention the violation of a lot of his rights in the process.
Given the tone of the posts on this story, I must have something wrong. If that is what happened, I'd think the people here would be up in arms about him - it could happen to anyone who, say, ran Satan on their work machines to be sure they were safe, or who logged into one of their work machines with a hole, to find out if the hole was there and to fix it. If this isn't what happened, then what is? Does anyone have a non-biased version of the story? Where is the info?
Thanks,
-Elthia
First, I'd like to point out that the discussions here seem to be precisely what these articles talk about. I've seen a lot of 'Jon Katz this' and 'Jon Katz that' posts, for or against, doesn't matter. I've seen a lot of opinions voiced in very forceful manners, usually on one extreme or the other, frequently angry at whoever-posted-the-opposite-viewpoint.
:) ). But it would give people a choice - moderated and relatively safe, or completely free. It may be too difficult to be a permanent solution, but it would be an interesting experiment. It would give newbies - and women, and anyone else who wasn't white/male/young technocrat a chance to speak and to learn. The free-fire section appeals to me, mostly because I think it would be easier to do.
I am female. I am white, blonde, and short. I have posted a few times to slashdot, voicing my opinions. In some cases, it has turned into highly intelligent discussions, via email at least once. I like this, it's what I look for when I go to forums like this one. People with whom to discuss opinions, form opinions, people who have more information than I do about any particular subject.
In other cases, however, it has gotten me such marvelous messages as "oddly-shaped - she must be fat!" I don't come here for that. For one thing, I'm hardly fat, and for another, being female makes it difficult (in the US) to NOT be sensitive about weight. Having had a baby within the last three months, I find that my skin is wearing a bit thin about that particular subject. It's hard to read a forum in which people don't think twice before tossing out hurtful comments.
My husband reads the headlines, but doesn't generally bother with the discussion anymore, because it's too full of flamers and children in adult clothing.
In essence, I agree that the net is a hostile environment. Even though noone forces me to read these comments, when they are replies to my own, I read them. Because you never know when you'll get into a real discussion. Because if someone has something intelligent to say to me, I want to hear it. Someone posted a comment earlier that rang true for me... if I see a lot of woman-bashing posts, I'm not likely to want to post in that discussion unless I'm looking for a fight. It's not worth the effort of dealing with all the insults and derision. There have been a number of such things.
For example, the Playboy posting. I found that interesting. I've never read Playboy, but I do know a few women who do. But the comments were full of chauvanistic jerks. Comments that, if said to my face, would have caused me to go into a redfaced rage, were all over the page. I couldn't stomach it. Is this freedom of speech? Yes. Is it civil, or conducive to varied opinions being voiced? Hell no.
Something not many seem to have noticed:
((Innovate. Could sites have "free-fire" zones, areas designated for posters who want absolute freedom, but that others can avoid if they wish?
Welcome. Sites might establish special areas for newcomers, where they could be welcomed and learn the rules, traditions and language of a community before they wade in as members.))
I've been thinking about this for a little while, actually, even before these articles came out. I was thinking along the lines of a separate comment board, with specified moderators. Yes, this _would_ raise flames about moderation being corrupted, moderators being jerks, etc. But if the moderators were intelligent and reasonable people, they could keep the flamers out. This would mean extra work for those who run slashdot (sorry, Rob
Just my thoughts on the matter.
-Elthia
Check yer email.
>:)
-Elthia
((Almost anything counts as a dialect, whenever there is an objectively measureable difference in the dominant speech of one area or socio-economic group compared to another. ))
:)
I was under the impression that the distinctions had to be _easily_ measured, ie the blank stares Enoch said they get from Parisian French speakers. More than that, I believed it had to evolve naturally - creoles being an 'unnatural' form of evolution.
((Guadeloupe, Martinique, Haiti, Reunion, Mauritius and many other places have creoles, Quebec French is unquestionably French))
This is the kind of information I was looking for, actually. I don't know French, or the history of Quebec's version. I don't know just how different it is (or isn't).
((Quebec French has not adopted any grammatical structure from English, nor does the grammar of Quebec French vary in any important way from the standard model of French))
Interesting. So it's just pronounciations and word definitions that differentiate it? Or is there more?
((Furthermore, "Ebonics" (Or Black American English or whatever term you like) has few aspects of a creole.))
I am under the distinct impression that it is one. English forced on immigrants (in this case, black slaves) caused them to learn the basics, but they were still using it in the context in which they knew language. A new form sprung up as a result.
((Although there are still some people who believe that black English grammar comes from West African Bantu roots, there are very few linguists who believe this.))
I must have friends in all the wrong places, then, as most of the linguaphiles I know agree with this one. There are examples, like the lack of conjugation of the verb 'to be' - 'I be at the store', depending on context, could mean I am, I will be, or I was at the store. Many of the grammatical rules of ebonics do seem to have stemmed this way... Incidentally, I know some distinctly NON-lower-income people who speak it as their birth-language. So it isn't restricted to those of the lower class or those without an education.
Since you say the people you know disagree, could you tell me why? If you know more on the subject than I, I'd like to know what you think. What are the differences between the grammar of the language and the grammar of ebonics? Have you truly examined it, or are you contradicting me just so you can say ebonics is for uneducated losers (I'm not saying that to be inflammatory, I actually have been confronted by those who wanted only to say just that and had no logical backing for it). If need be, we can take this off slashdot - I'd be glad to email about it, so as not to continue an off-topic discussion.
-Elthia
((There's a whole debate about Québecois slang. Is it a true language? Or is it a deformation brought about by lack of rigor and education? The snobs and well-bred try to mimic Parisian French, but otherwise, you'll hear Québecois everywhere you go. ))
I don't _think_ it counts as a dialect, but it definitely counts as a creole of the original language. Much as (many will hate me for this) ebonics is a creole of English, a combination of English words and West African grammar (I think it's west african). Misunderstood by many to be a bastardization of the 'original' language, it is spoken as a birth-language by many, much as a dialect would be.
In trying to remember the difference between a creole and a dialect, I wound up having to look them up. Here's what I found (the relevant definition anyway, ignoring what they say about europeans in the West Indies and Louisiana):
creole:
"not capitalized : a language that has evolved from a pidgin but serves as the native language of a speech community "
A pidgin is defined as:
" a simplified speech used for communication between people with different languages"
Looking up dialect, I found:
"1 a : a regional variety of language distinguished by features of vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation from other regional varieties and constituting together with them a single language"
Do you know the history of Quebecois? Seems to me that, if it was pidginized in the immigration process, it would count as a creole at least, even if it doesn't qualify as a dialect. It isn't bad education, it's a natural part of the evolution of language.
Oh, I just had to - languages are a hobby of mine. *smile*
-Elthia
Cool, thanks. I wonder where the heck I heard the freezing thing. Memory seems to attribute it to high-school science class, but I can't think my science teachers would have given us that... Hum...
:)
I'm saving that url, I like it.
-Elthia
Not to mention the fact that helium-squeaking is NOT a good thing for your vocal chords. They squeak because they're FROZEN! Helium can damage you if you do it too much. Fun at weddings, yes, but still damaging.
-Elthia
I don't remember where I learned that, so don't ask. I also might remember it wrong. It's been a while.
((It's like ALL dick wars...it continues today: My pipe has more bandwith than yours! Well suck my pipe :)))
:)
Ok, I'm not going to comment on the last bit of this, but I'll definitely believe that the competetive nature of human beings is behind most of our advances. And human laziness is behind most of the rest, with true curiosity only getting maybe 2%. Oh, well, at least they _happen_.
Incidentally, keeping all of this relatively on-topic... I was born on January 14th. I'll be 25 in a couple of days now. My brother was born on the 13th, he'll be 21. Too bad he's in Tucson and can't be around for me to douse him in liquor or somesuch idiocy. Puck, if you're reading, happy birthday. Hope your homemade plasma cannons don't blow up the place.
So happy birthday Hal, happy birthday me, and happy birthday Puck. Gee, an evil computer overlord, a God of Mischief and Chaos, and me. What a combo. *wicked grin*
-Elthia
That's ok. I got "Spunky Misunderstood Genius".
I guess all the reading of 'Evil Geniuses for Dummies' has finally paid off, huh? *wicked grin*
-Elthia
Okay, here is a question:
Does this mean that the teddy-bear-with-a-camera that is sold in many places as a surveillance of your own children is illegal? Is it illegal to covertly film your nanny as he/she cares for your kids, to make sure he/she isn't beating them? Or how about NURSERY MONITORS that have clocks in them?
Shouldn't they be going after the people who misuse these things, rather than the ones who manufacture them? Yes, I know, go after the maker of the crack and you cut supply short for the dealers and addicts, but we're not talking about crack here, we're talking about stupid little radio bits. Educational toys. Where does it end? And since you aren't allowed to look at your own belongings when They box em up, how is anyone to know that they aren't being framed for something?
Jeez, this sounds as bad as the movies. Can I run away to another country now? But... is any place safe? Cripes, I can just see it now - we're either going to go Shadowrun and everyone with brains will be hiding from the corps and the cops at once, or we're going to become the Snow Crash society, with the US being a tiny section of land where NOONE does ANYTHING without being monitored. Ick, or we're there already and Big Brother isn't just a fiction anymore. Ok, I'm scared. Is there a solution to this? Please tell me we're not headed for a revolution, cause if we are I'm going to hide under my bed now.
-Elthia
((Scott seems to miss the point entirely on his way to his politically correct rant. We're not laughing at the "dumb" user. We're laughing at the comedy of the situation itself. The sheer outrageousness of the moment.))
Nope. I'm laughing at the user. Look, anyone who saw something LABELED cd-rom and tried to put something else (a cup?!?) in there is a MORON. YES, they should be laughed at - this is not ignorance (lack of knowledge), this is stupidity (lack of desire for knowledge). BIG difference. Ignorance isn't laughed at by anyone I know; people will generally try to help rather than just laugh at it. But stupidity sets itself up to be laughed at.
From the article:
((They usually involve an incredibly smart technical support agent forced to suffer through the ignorance of his clients and peers.))
No, they usually involve a tech support person forced to suffer through people who don't know how to put the plug into the wall, or who absolutely insist that, when they forget something (password, where they put a file, what they did with their lunch) it is YOUR FAULT. Really stupid people, in other words, not ignorant ones.
(( Folks, a tech making fun of someone learning how to operate a computer is like a school teacher
making fun of a child learning how to read.))
No. Making fun of these morons is like a high-school teacher posting to a teachers' board about the students who were supposed to read 'Romeo and Juliet' - and then go on to say that it was written by Napoleon. Or the ones who were supposed to read their history lesson and try to say that Edgar Rice Burroughs built the Panama Canal. It's not about ignorance, it's about STUPIDITY.
((I use a toilet everyday but never has
a plumber openly mocked me for not knowing how to fix a pipe.))
You've never tried to do your laundry in the tank, either. Nor have you tried to use the toilet to dispose of sulphur (That one happened at a school I went to). Get the idea?
Frankly, my mother in law is totally clueless about computers. She bought one, in an attempt to find a new way to do her artwork (she's having breathing problems after years of professional oilpainting). She flat-out admits that she's afraid of the thing. Attempts to get her to do anything more complex than turn it on are likely to send her running from the room. But I've told her some of the 'clueless' jokes from UF, and she's found them amusing. They aren't about newbies, or people who are afraid or don't know. They're about total morons who refuse to read the directions or even use common sense.
If my mother-in-law can laugh about them, I can't imagine why anyone else wouldn't.
-Elthia
I've been stuck in the house for ages, I've been out of the house three times this year aside from doctor's appointments (and it was twice more this year than last :P ). Ok, so maybe I've arguably already gone insane, but you don't have to go nuts being in the house all the time. Also:
:) Can you order prostitutes on line? Or have a "sex-inside-only" relationship? ))
((Sex. It's 1 year, the guy has to get some. And it will be difficult with all those cameras..
Note that the camera in the bathroom is turned AWAY from the toilet and bathtub (showers, anyone?). I'm pretty sure there are other 'hidden' areas in the house - if he found someone who wanted to, he could manage it. The problem here would be finding someone who wanted to. Someone else had a good point about geekgirls in general. This guy is _weird_, and not in a good way. Who cares about this stunt? A guy who can build a robot to bring me a card has a much better chance than a weirdo who locks himself in a house for a year. Of course, there are always desperate women out there, so if he does find it necessary...
((Money. Sure, the guy has credit cards, but you have to go to an ATM to get some cash to do some small things, link: tip the pizza guy,))
Hey, I tip with credit cards all the time. You give the number when you call in the order, and write the tip on that little line labeled (*gasp*) 'tip:'.
(( pay for the prostitutes.. What if a pipe brokes? ))
(breaks) I would think that online prostitutes would have been shut down by now, as things like that tend to be illegal in most places. Hm... come to think of it, 'escort services' operate in most states without a problem, so strike that. However, most of them take credit cards anyway; the prostitutes who can't are usually the street kind, and you don't want to go there. At least the women in escort services have a choice (they are told at the start that you are NOT to be selling that, but if you arrange anything like that it's YOUR choice and has nothing to do with them). Not to mention a regular (if unusual) job.
((Can you pay the plumber with a credit card?))
Does any real agency (even plumbers) NOT take credit anymore?
(( You need a job.. Sure it's easy if "Peapod.com" gives you free groceries, but that's not real life..))
The job thing I'll go for. I think he could likely work from home though, as a lot of people do that. Especially if he does something like sysadmin work or programming - as long as there's someone competant on the other end to hit the buttons when the need arises and do other in-person junk, he could easily monitor etc from home. However, given the prices online for necessities like groceries... oh wait, he's living alone. This makes a big difference; if he makes a normal salary he could live pretty well out there. One guy can live on a sysadmin's salary even online without problems.
As for going to the bank, many employers (especially in urban areas) will direct deposit to your bank account. Movies? I wait anyway, I don't like theaters, they're too loud. My ears don't like to ring (also why I don't do concerts or clubs, aside from the crowd aspect).
((Isn't there a mental disease that makes people do that? ))
*ahem* *pointed look* Are you insinuating something? *grin*
Okay, anyway, this point has been made, but:
It's not a big deal! The whole point of e-commerce is to allow people to not worry about these things, to have them delivered. He's not proving anything to anyone. It's stupid. But boy, if I'd thought of it I'd be doing it too, he's probably getting a lot of money for doing something he's likely been doing all along. Being allowed to have visitors etc makes it easy - he can meet and hang with anyone, even have parties. No problem. I'm a little jealous that he's getting money for it, but it isn't a big deal that he's doing it.
-Elthia
"...emotion must be an allowable tool in our arsenal."
I agree with this TO AN EXTENT. However, allowing flames to degenerate into badly spelled, poorly written, insulting, aimless flamemail is not effective. Most of these mails just get deleted by those who read them. True, the volume does make a difference, seeing so many people so angry over something you are doing does tend to make one pause and rethink one's actions. However, logic and emotion are NOT opposites, and they need not each be used to the exclusion of the other.
I repeat: logic and emotion are not opposites. Logic is analasys of cause-and-effect, the reasoning intelligence which allows us to process the world around us. Emotion is our base reaction to that process. Using both is the best way to write anything, be it poetry, prose, or even hate mail to someone who is doing something wrong.
Yes, you do have a point, that the outrage and volume have a direct effect. However, if all that was generated was idiot-mail, it would more likely be ignored than responded to, and it would be far less effective than intelligent responses. The fact that there WAS some intelligent email generated, and that even those who could write properly were talking about boycott, probably had just as much of an effect, if not more.
Angry mail can be a very important tool - indeed, it IS a very important tool - in any attempt to make other people change their behaviors. But it is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. It can be abused, and it can be inappropriate to use in many cases. Winning happens because we choose appropriate targets, because there IS something going on for which people are willing to boycott. In most cases, the wrongdoers know this, they just hope noone will notice.
Don't give the trolls the credit they crave, you'll only encourage stupidity. Using one's emotions, accepting their existence, does not have to make morons out of us. I've seen some very effective flames come out of people who could accept both intelligence and emotion at the same time. Anger can put the flame behind the words, but reason MUST choose the words, or you wind up being incoherant and looking stupid.
-Elthia
I don't know. To be honest, having read his original post (he posted to /. when he paid the thing), I think it was more done to be funny. Why not? They're dumbasses, it's only 35 bucks, hell - I'd have paid for it if I'd been in that position. Would've been funny. *grin*
Yes, it was a nice thing to do, simple as that. It was also very amusing. And made for an amusing conversation on slashdot when he did it, and again later (though I don't think he could have realized that he would get actual _press_ for that).
Having done it, I would also be wondering if they could pay more than 35 bucks. He isn't asking for it, he isn't pushing for it even. He commented that it would be nice, but he seems to understand that it isn't likely, especially knowing the greed in ms. So? Seems like just another average joe to me, who happened to notice the problem and do something about it, and get amused by his own actions. Nothing major, and certainly not greedy.
A greedy person would have tried to transfer ownership, or something like that. I see no indication that he even considered that, it seems more like a 'heh, I fixed their screwup for em, too bad they can't fix themselves' sort of thing.
-Elthia
My response wasn't to those who had real problems with Toys-R-Us specifically, but to those who were attacking _any_ merchant who couldn't make the date. Not shipping is very different from having problems with the shipper, and I was addressing those who were attacking ALL merchants who hadn't made the delivery date, regardless of reason.
I probably should have specified this, I thought it was obvious. *shrug*
-Elthia
((elthia you work for amazon or the like dont you.:) ))
*rotfl* those who know me will simply laugh at this. No, I don't.
((like i care if UPS stuffed up!, its not my problem! "you" promised delivery, its not here, what kind of business are you running if you dont take THAT kind of thing into consideration. ))
Ok. Put yourself in THEIR position. You have a product. You ship it UPS. UPS promises that, if you give your customers ____ date, that is when you can guarantee it by xmas. So you give your customers ___ date. UPS doesn't deliver, and you have a lot of unhappy customers on your hands. What could you do? Not give a date at all? Then people would yell at you even if they ordered it on december 24th. Give them a date in November? Heh, your competitors have given them the UPS date, you lose out because of that.
Whatever you do, you face pressure, usually economic. Don't go blaming people for doing what the public demands they do, unless you are NOT part of that public. Really, if you saw one place with a date in November, and another with a date in December, and it's already December and you were too lazy to do your shopping ON TIME, which one would you go with? It's your own laziness and irresponsibility which caused this in the first place, but you're blaming the merchant. That's all.
-Elthia
Yup yup yup.
I have problems with Einstein, much as I am grateful for the work he put in. He was not great on his own, he stepped on (and flattened) incredible people to get where he got to.
Emily Noether did a lot of his work, working heavily on the relativity algorithms. At her death, Einstein had this to say about her:
_____
In the judgement of the most competent living mathematicians, Fraulein Noether was the most significant creative mathematical genius thus far produced since the higher education of women began. In the realm of algebra in which the most
gifted mathematicians have been busy for centuries she discovered methods which have proved of enormous importance in the development of present day younger generation of mathematicians.
________
This woman taught for free, so she could use the university she taught at for resources. She was not allowed a paid position, being only a woman.
Or how about Marie Curie, who has under her belt not one but TWO Nobel Prizes for her incredible work toward the advancement of science? Where would we be without her?
Or, since we are talking about 'of the century', and not just 'of science', how about people like Rosa Parks, who brought the civil rights movement to the mainstream public, in 1955 (NOT the 1800's as so many seem to think, this is a more recent part of history than many believe). This has affected not only black people, but hispanics, asians, whites, everyone in our country, in a major way.
Perhaps Eleanor Roosevelt, who was responsible in large part for the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and who did so much during her life that it would be impossible to list it all here.
Or, to bring it home quite hard to those I'm adressing, how about Admiral Grace Murray Hopper? Just TRY to tell me she wasn't worthy of 'person of the century'. Without the things she did, we'd all still be programming in numbers rather than languages. She pushed the computers she was working with to use english for programming, making her almost the 'mother of programming languages'. She was influential (extremely) in the creation and use of COBOL. She worked for the navy, for DEC, for everyone who was anyone in computing back then. She was tiny in body, but huge in mind, and without her computers might never have become the household things they are today.
My point? This is a discussion of Time's MAN of the century. Women are left out completely. Not only that, but I sincerely think that Grace Hopper is almost as deserving as Turing himself of this award. Without Turing we might not have computers (though we might, as there _were_ others working on similar things at the time), but without one tiny, intense WOMAN, we would almost certainly not have civilian computers that were so easy to use.
The inventor of the compiler deserves more credit than to be left out of the running completely.
Microsoft, Intel, Sun, all of these companies owe their lives to Grace Hopper.
So why is it that Time tends to lean toward the republican viewpoint, and toward leaving women out? Why, because it's PRESS! Too bad we can't have a 'PEOPLE of the century', wherein people choose maybe ten, men AND women. Then we wouldn't have to leave out all of those who deserve the honor just to let one man who isn't politically volatile have it. Guts, Time, GUTS - it's the thing that makes a publication great, and the thing you seem to lack lately. Publishing to the common denominator will get you better sales in some sectors, but it won't make you stand out as 'the thing to read'.
*shrug* but I'm just one person, what do I matter? *wicked grin*
-Elthia
excuse me... I should have said "merchants should not be held responsible for your inability to do your shopping on time". This means that, if you shop on December 24th, you should DAMN well not be able to require that they get it to you by the 25th. Get the drift?
Of course they should be able to give you an _idea_ of when it will arrive, and be able to promise that it will GO OUT by a certain time. However, if UPS doesn't deliver on time, that's UPS's fault, not the merchant's. If you shop too late, that's YOUR fault, not the merchant's. Don't blame them for your own idiocy, in other words.
-Elthia
no patience for morons.
((Example Lets say the a felon buys a gun and shoots somebody. The store that sold a gun to a felon has SOME responsibility don't you think? They shouldn't get off scott free. ))
I agree, but only if the store has the ability to check the guy's status. In other words, if they had no idea he was a felon, they couldn't be held responsible. If they have access to his criminal record (or if they can at least see that he has been CONVICTED (not accused) of a _violent_ crime), then they probably shouldn't sell to him, you're right. However, blaming them 100% for it would also not work (as you said), because it's more HIS choice than theirs. He is totally responsible for HIS actions (the shooting). They are responsible for theirs (supplying the weapon to someone who is violent).
I don't see a way to fix this, though, withoug pissing off everyone (the stores for lack of info and/or responsibility, and the offenders for lack of privacy of their criminal record, which I don't think is a right anyway).
-Elthia
the things I want would piss of a LOT of people, so they'll probably never happen unless I'm crowned queen in a theocracy (yes, god-queen, not monarchy).
Heh, Big Mailbox is, I believe, the one which hosts my friend's somecrazydame.com domain. In other words, it's what my /.-public email addy is on. Never had a problem with it. ;)
-Elthia
eggs expand in the microwave. Like balloons.
I did what shopping I did either well before christmas, or I paid extra for fast shipping.
Sheesh. Merchants shouldn't have to promise delivery-on-time, people should arrange for that themselves, or deal with the fact that they didn't do their shopping on time.
Still opinionated, still grouchy.
-Elthia
((This article was right on the money. Somehow, we've turned into a combative culture where the power of the judiciary is being used as a weapon-- against democracy and free markets.))
... things that used to be acceptable in a 'pg' rated movie are rated 'r' now. Why is that? Swearing, which used to be perfectly fine (although not done very often) is now ILLEGAL. Not morally objectionable or socially unacceptable, but ILLEGAL. Morals don't matter, only laws matter.
Actually, I don't think it's so much a _combative_ culture as a culture of irresponsibility. We don't so much sue for combat, we sue so we don't have to think about what we're doing before we do it.
Got pregnant because you forgot to take your pill? No problem, sue the pill makers for not making it strong enough to catch the one day you missed. Can't take being parodied? No problem, SUE THE PARODY! Someone else has a name you want? Don't get a more imaginative name, just sue them - they probably can't afford the defense anyway.
Now, I can see these laws being used correctly. I know someone who is having to go through a lawsuit right now, because someone saw her site (which has been up since 96 or earlier), and decided they wanted to steal her business. They set up a site which had an almost-identical URL (one hyphen difference), and put up similar content. They claimed they had 'bought the site from its previous owners' when emailed by people who had forgotten the hyphen and found them instead of the real site. They stole content word-for-word. They stole the entire idea of the site. And they weakened it (this is a women's forum, specifically anti-idiot but NOT anti-man, and they have set up a reasonably anti-male pro-shopping idiots' site, calling it by a similar name). It is hurting her reputation among the people she aims to be with and sell to. It's upsetting her business. For this, a lawsuit can be a good thing (cease-and-desists did nothing, and they have as much as admitted to doing these things - not to mention the fact that the people doing it are a big site-making company, not just some random person like they want people to think. They have Bucks to waste trying to force my friend out of business). Patent law and intellectual property can protect the little guy too, let's not lose sight of that.
The problem is that, within almost all parts of our lives, we have lost sight of the ideal of independence. This country, our government, was created by people for whom independence was a necessity of life. You have the right to carry a gun, because you have the right to defend yourself from all the crazies out there, or from government gone wild (which is what we were under just before the declaration). You have the right to say whatever you want, about whatever you want. You don't have the right to _incite_action_, but you do have the right to talk about it. Fine line, if you ask me, but it's there.
The problem is not with the laws in the way they were first made. It's in the changes that have been made, the evolution our legal system has gone through over time.
It's possible to have an insanity plea. This is not always good, I think - it means that, if you are nuts and do something because you couldn't stop, you won't just be randomly put to death for it. This can be good - it can save lives of those who can be made 'normal' again. It can also, however, keep people alive who really SHOULD be put to death. Frankly, if there is someone who is so dangerous that he should never again be allowed into society (life in prison, anyone?), he should be PUT TO DEATH. That is the point of trial-by-jury, right? If we can't keep them in society, if they are that dangerous, WHY are we keeping them around? My guess at the answer? Cheap labor. We pay taxes to keep them fed and housed, and the government gets super-cheap labor to make license plates and other governmental necessities. What a joke. Before The insanity plea is highly abused. "It wasn't my fault, I was temporarily insane, but I'm fine now" has become a common cry of the criminal. Ok, so you were abused like hell and you eventually went nuts. That says something about you, as well as about them. Before anyone starts in about 'two wrongs don't make a right', let me add that _releasing_ people who are convicted of murder or heavy abuse almost invariably results in more murders and/or abuse. Reform doesn't happen in the system we have right now. You want to make the death penalty obsolete, find a way to truly change these people without threatening the rest of the populace (brainwashing does NOT count), and FIX the system. Until that happens, we have too many criminals who are STILL BREEDING.
Also, before anyone tries to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about with 'temporary insanity of an abused person', let me state this: I have BEEN in an abusive relationship, and have BEEN raped, by family and others, have BEEN beaten. But you know, I never felt the need to cut off the penis of my abuser, or to kill him. I left him. It was hard, it was painful, it was near-impossible to get out of that cycle and to stop trusting my judgement for a while and just be with NOONE while I healed. It took me 6 or 8 months to break away completely and stop with the calling-back-and-forth, now-together-now-apart crap that follows these things. I didn't take him to court for injuring me forever, though, I took it upon myself to change myself, to not LET him have the power to destroy me. To quote Eleanor Roosevelt, "Noone can make you feel inferior without your consent."
Too bad noone ever thinks about that before they cut/shoot/destroy. (I am in NO WAY saying that being abused is the fault of the abused. However, if you get raped in a neighborhood, staying there - or going back repeatedly - when you know your rapist lives there is a Bad Idea - pure common sense. But people don't think that way anymore).
The same goes for a lot of things. It has become acceptable for people to be totally irresponsible, and to blame others - anyone, as long as it isn't themselves. There was a woman some time ago who sued Dunkin Donuts, or McDonald's, or somesuch. She bought a coffee, got into her car and put the coffee between her legs to hold it while she started the car. She spilled the coffee and got burned badly. What kind of MORON puts BOILING coffee between their legs?!?! And if you're stupid enough to DO something like that, don't go blaming the people who MADE it - they sold it, they didn't teach you how to be stupid.
Remember Columbine? How easy is it to blame video games for what went wrong? Kids who were picked on, kids who had dysfunctional lives, who were abused. But we don't blame the parents, we don't blame the kids, we blame the fucking video games and music?
Things like this happen all the time. The fact that it has spread, that it is infecting the internet, is not at all surprising. The fact that something needs to be done about it is well-known by anyone with brains.
I seriously doubt anything WILL be done about it, though, until people stop being so stupid. I have a sneaking suspicion that there will be a core of intelligent, self-reliant people out there, who will wind up becoming outlaws because they don't want the government to think for them. Everything but the self will be blamed for any problems people have, until we have a dulled-down, pastel view of life and no movies are higher than G rated, and no music even implies bad feelings... etc. Ok, so that's a little extreme, but
This is teaching our children bad things, and children are growing up in a culture where 'it's bad if you get caught and it's illegal', not 'it's bad because it is (rude/mean/disrespectful/horrible/whatever)'.
Bleh. It's Christmas eve, and as usual I'm horribly bitter and annoyed by humanity tonight. If I hadn't learned how WRONG it is (not illegal, but fucking wrong!), I'd probably be out there with a shotgun or worse every christmas, trying to fix the gene pool or something. Stupidity breeds like rabbits. Too bad there are no wolves anymore.
-Elthia
maybe I should start drinking myself into a stupor when I feel like this. I hate drinking though, does weird things to me - not to mention the nauseous, sloshy feeling in my stomach. Bleh. Guess I'll just rant about the idiocy of the human race and hope someone out there hears me.
I know this probably sounds crazy, but put a few pointers in here...
1. This guy started NetUSA, and the company went public.
2. NetUSA is failing in public, it's lost huge amounts of money and the stock price is falling drastically.
3. HE probably owned a majority share of NetUSA, right? So he gained quite a bit of money from those stocks... now, legally he could neither sell them nor use that money for six months. However...
4. Now he starts a NEW company, and tries to send it public within six months, a ridiculously short time for such things. Which, at ANY price, will bring in a nice chunk of pocket change...
5. Gee, sounds a little fishy - you think he might be using one to fund the other? Illegal, yes, impossible? No.
He's already shown disregard for people (laws?) by hosting spammail junk. Considering the (lack of) history for this company, I wouldn't be surprised if this is exactly what's happening. I hope he gets caught and jailed.
-Elthia
opinionated as ever
I have a friend from Sweden who came to visit us while this was eating up all the newstime. He was highly amused by the whole thing. He told me that, in Sweden (and this was backed up by another swedish friend), there had been a really messy debacle recently when a politician had used her (political? Business?) credit card to buy groceries. The fact that she had paid the money back didn't matter, she had USED it for personal purposes. This was a big deal over there. Having an affair would be considered not too great but definitely the personal business of the involved person. For politicians in most countries, this makes it fully the domain of tabloid reporters, something the main news wouldn't bother with other than a brief mention. True, Charlie-boy's affair got spread all over the news, and Di was killed in a paparazzi accident, but it was paparazzi, NOT true news reporters. Tabloids everywhere sprouted stories. We got most of _our_ flood of info about Monica from the normal news, the six o'clock news and other such things.
As my friend said, Americans are sex-crazed and have no idea how to handle it. We're royally messed up when it comes to sex, we call it taboo and then get obsessed with it. New York City abolished the ban on women going topless - it's legal now, when weather is bad. But the _very_ day it happened, a lot of women ripped off their shirts - and were promptly arrested for things like Disturbing the Peace. We're nuts.
Besides, to be honest, I have serious doubts about Hillary's aim in marrying Billy anyway. I don't think she NEEDED a loving, adoring, faithful man, I think she needed one who SEEMED to be that. I think she wanted power and realized what the easiest and sometimes best way is for a woman to get that, especially in 'traditional' politics. Not that she really needed it - she herself has the capability to kick ass. But in a country controlled as much by right-wing facists as left-wing maniacs, being married _and_ strong will get you respected (not loved, but at least respected) by both sides. Good political karma.
Monica was a distraction, and a good one too. Lots got done, good or bad, while everyone was thinking about _her_.
Of course, I'm an opinionated B*$&), so take that as you will. *grin*
To get back on topic, however, my 'person of the year' lists would have to include _some_ corporate individuals. After all, their businesses are our economy. Many of them, however, would be people who don't get noticed much but have an _effect_.
Larry Wall (he is the one who did it, right?) would be on it, for designing Tux and getting him out there. Face it, without a mascot (read: marketing gimmick), nobody gets anywhere anymore. It's a sad fact of life. That linux is suddenly being noticed as a decent corporate OS is going to vastly change the lives and work of many many people. Anything that goes mainstream changes, but it also gets _recognized_. M$ being such a big part of American lives, I think this qualifies.
Madeline Allbright would be on it also. This is a woman who has used her power, has made decisions that would paralyze other people, and has kicked ass while doing it. I'd love to see Winston Churchhill and Madeline Allbright in a room together. I suspect they'd either love or hate each other, and either way it would be entertaining for any who saw it. *cackle*
Not to mention that the things she does have a worldwide effect, not just effects in the USA.
Offhand, with my brain occupied by other things, I can't think of the whole list. Just had to toss in my couple of pennies' worth of silliness.
-Elthia
Decent translations of anything are hard to find. That aside, however, the system IS much more complex than most people realize. Where, when, and how you were born affect the 'readings', not to mention all kinds of other things. I, for example, am a capricorn - but because of where/when I was born, about half of the 'houses' are in aquarius. Also known in some circles as earth over water. How's that for a combo? *grin* However, the main point - today - of astrology is that it's FUN.
If you believe in it wholeheartedly without question, you are either a time traveler from long ago or a flake (or a new-age freak, but they usually fall under 'flake' anyway). However, it is a fun diversion, and one of the superstitions that is semi-acceptable in our society. It's ok to look up your horoscope avidly every day - especially if you talk about it with the prefix "I don't believe in this crap, but...."
We do need some superstitions - regimentalized ones called religion, sporadic ones that are still called superstitious, whatever they are, we need myths in our lives. Even those who are heavily atheist believe in something - themselves, the universe, Science, whatever. Without these beliefs we become soulless beasts, we lose our sense of wonder. There is almost always some form of illogical cling to something Bigger Than Ourselves. Lonely life without that, and horribly depressing.
On the note of these predictions in particular, they don't seem to think much of the Geek Set. Particularly not capricorns - they think we're all doomsaying, paranoid freaks with hyperactive egos and big mouths. Ok, so I've got the big mouth. *grin* And I do tend to argue myself blue in the face trying to get the last word in when I feel it's important. But I'm not paranoid, I swear!
They really are out to get me! I saw it on a button! I swear! *wicked grin*
-Elthia