Well, I've read these articles and here is what I've gained:
1)Flamers are, by and large, adolescent white males in need of attention.
2)Women are delicate flowers. Treat them as such.
3)Hostility is a bad, bad thing. Like growing up in a burning house, without the trips to hospital.
4)The first friendly discussion website will 'shroud itself in glory' 4a)I must pause for a moment now, as I know of no websites that have ever shrouded themselves in glory. In point of fact, I can think of precious few things or people that have. Will there be angels involved in this enshrouding?
5)There are some things which could be done to stop flaming, but they might not work. Then again, they might. But, then again -- they might not.
Anytime that you communicate through a medium which permits one or more parties to seem as though they are not a human being, something akin to flaming will ensue.
Demonisation, dehumanisation and so forth are old tricks of orators and leaders. The net has simply facillitated this by not requiring the process leading up to the effect.
Anyone who has subscribed to a counter-cultural movement at any time in their youth -- and how many haven't -- will tell you that they're often treated poorly by their peers. Katz should be quite familiar with this, as he seems to write more than a few pieces that revolve around it. When someone is seen as being even subtly 'different' (difference, of course, being completely subjective) they will suffer more abuse. It will not generally come to the levels of our lovely Internet, but it will occur.
This is a facet of existance, not a phenomena of the Internet that needs to be altered. At the very least, the Internet gives everybody equal footing. There are few enough human beings here, and those that are have earned their stripes. Everybody started out the same, though: anonymously. Knowing a name and knowing a person are two completely different things.
Flaming has never managed to bother me. "U DIE FUCK!" hardly fits my perception of threatening. This may not be true for everybody. But then, nothing is. I'm certain that it's shocking for some. Ultimately, though, the Internet does comprise a distinct culture. Call it culture shock, if you will. My mother, who hooked up last year with a DSL package, has managed to adapt to flaming, pornography advertisements and 'Save my baby from the well' forwards. Like it or not, these are all a part of our community. They're those quirky cousins in the hills, bringing no menace with them but reminding us of those days during childhood when they terrified us with their shotguns and muddy breeches. Now, they've done their bit. They are repetitive. They are ever-dwindling shades of their original incarnation, and cannot possibly recover what they were. If you've seen one mindless flame, you've seen them all. And if that fancy lawyer uncle of yours from New York shivers in their shadow, he can pack his bags and get the next bus home.
The 'critical' flames are a bit different. I don't consider a strongly worded response to be a flame. Assuming it contains criticism, it should be addressed. A reply is not necessary, but one should read over what is contained within them. When something slips beyond the 'FUCK UD IE FUCK!' phase, and manages to expand into a pedantic rant regarding subordinate clauses, at least it informs me that my grammar has slipped.
Flames have been around since the dawn of man, when Grog laid the smack down on an albino. They are not unique to the internet, nor did they originate here. At one time, though, we should remember that these flames were kindled by those who held sway. The orations to decide power in Rome, the Crusades, the Inquisition and the Witch hunts all sprung up from personal motives shifted to dehumanisation. Once de-humanised, the mindless hatreds and actions were flames, no?
The internet is a mass of non-entities with the occasional cluster of human beings: the people you know. If anything, this sort of non-identity -- from which springs the incessant flaming -- is an advance, not a regression.
-l
Apologies for lack of clarity, I've no time to proof.
I'm a regular reader of Salon, and this article was pretty disappointing. They, and other magazines, have focused on this before, and it still remains a non-issue.
Why aren't geeks having 'enough' sex? I don't know, but it might have something to do with long working days and lots of stress. Perhaps it has a little bit to do with a lot of greeks being 'fringed' as youngsters and not being into the courtship rituals. Maybe we just don't like people. Perhaps there are a fair proportion of geeks who, having hacked evolution, are not very eager to have their handy-dandy prehensile tails discovered.
/* I knew a geek who had sex once...*/
This article wasn't even written as a social study, but was fragmented into near unreadability as a result of both the pseudo-code and the lack of flow invoked by the author. The only interesting point was the nod to culture shock and immigration.
/* I knew a girl once... */
This does not keep up with Salon's tradition of doing interesting social commentary. This article was bland and covered issues which people are familiar with from exposure to the canon of geek jokes.
/* Story */ /* Two engineers are walking across campus, when a beautiful woman */ /* rides by on a bicycle. She suddenly vaults off of the bike and */ /* takes off all of her clothes, addressing the first engineer: */ /* "Take anything you want!" she pants lustily, standing naked. */ /* Without batting an eye, the engineer gets on her bike and */ /* pedals away, his buddy jogging with him. "Good choice" says */ /* the buddy, "The clothes probably wouldn't have fit you." */ /* End Story */
Did Salon really do more than regurgitate the above, backing it up with the knowledge that, gosh gee, a lot of geeks really don't get laid too often?
The best way that this story could have been handled would be to look at the 'new' business and social environment and interaction in Silicon Valley. I know nothing about it, as I work as I work in Ireland -- mix business with pleasure, anyone? I'm curious as to just how people interact, meet each other and what not in an environment that seems insanely pressurised to me, from the congested traffic to the high rent and long hours.
When I'm really engrossed in a project, I know that my social interaction comes with the project team and, occasionally, bystanders, for the most part. Does this occur in Silicon Valley, as well, where friendships and romances arise from convenience? If so, I'm sure the same ramifications exist for work romances, but what's the social view of, say, a millionaire CEO dating his secretary?
For some reason, picturing some programmer millionaire dating his secretary seems much more innocuous to me than his Wall Street equivalent. The perceived innocence of geekdom? Another point they didn't touch on.
/* This may well be the poorest way */ /* of interjecting a thought that I've ever seen. */ /* It works for commenting, but at least the comments */ /* mostly relate quite directly to the code. */ /* In opposition to being a departure from the primary objective */ /* they provide further insight into the confusing aspects. */ /* There is no need to use these, as academia has their own version. */ /* They're called footnotes. */ /* Astonishingly, they're very seldom used to invoke anecdotes, either. */
That's becoming rather addictive. I think that my next project will be commented in obvious, un-enlightening anecdotes.
Well, I can't speak for the export market, but here in Ireland they've actually begun a new campaign based around 'draught bottles'. I've had a couple of them, and to my tastebuds (honed at Mullo's), they're more satisfying than the be-widgeted cans.
I haven't done any research into the physics and mechanics of these new bottles, but they're quite snazzy looking. They maintain the creamy head whilst in the bottle -- the neck basically houses it.
Just a point of interest for all of you lovely drinkers.
-l
P.S. If any of you who favour Guinness haven't had a proper pint in County Clare, beat your way on over here.
I can understand being bummed -- I'm planning to start contracting again within the next year -- but, particularly in the emerging IT employee structure, this falls under the banner of workers rights.
Contractors will still be called in, but they'll be called in per-project, not to fill a role permanently working on a contractor basis.
Lots of money is nice and what not, but I question the morality of a company hiring a 'contractor' for an indefinite length of time to oversee productions. During the wonderful days of the steel monopoly, miners and other such folk weren't considered real employees, either.
Yea, people
are
stupid. The American legal system is set up to protect them, though. Let it follow through, or else work on changing the foundations of it.
And having accounted for 7.24 percent of posts on my threshold, I think I'll bury my nose in work again. I must find some trustworthy, independently compiled database benchmarking stats.
I believe it works similarly in France, but it works as such in Ireland:
Temporary employees are entitled to 1.66 (recently raised from 1.33) days of holiday per month of full-time working, minimum. This minimum passes as the standard from staffing agencies.
Temporary employees are not entitled to sick days paid, though they are entitled to 6 absences per anum, which are not paid but for which they are not penalised.
The reason? There's lots of temps: buyer's market.
Contractors essentially have the terms set in their contract, but the salary tends to be scaled up and the benefits scaled down, because people want contractors to do things fast, for the most part. This is more of a seller's market, but the amount of competition amongst contractors results in quite a few without the sick days, and with a bare minimum of holidays.
The problem is that using 'temporary' and 'contractor' designations as a means of avoiding the offering of permanent positions is a problem that should be handled by the legal system.
This is an issue of employee rights. Not everybody has the luxury to pack up and leave, particularly in saturation markets like temporary staff.
When there is a breach of rights such as this -- a company is hiring on temp and contract employees to do the jobs of those who are in permanent roles, and the company is not offering those temps and contractors the option to become permanent employees -- it is a matter for the labour boards and legal system to handle.
It is an abuse of the system, and nothing more or less. Of course I look back at that first shiny job of mine where I was paid far less than I was worth to complete a project that became a cornerstone of off-shelf sales with, if not anger, irritation. I contributed to that company, and I got shafted. End of story. I don't dwell on it, but I will warn of it.
If people can't wake up to their current job situation? They are waking up. Thousands of them. That is why this lawsuit is in place. Would it be better if 10,000 Microsoft Temps and Contractors stood up and walked away? Well, it would certainly provide amusement. You have to realise that the legal system is in place to settle disputes, and disputes like these are those that most need the settling. Certainly, the American legal system is more of a hammer than the one favoured by you Brits, stocked up with heavy-handed fines to discourage those who violate the spirit of the law. I, for one, am glad that American corporations have to watch their asses at every instance. The amount of frivolous lawsuits that result from this are an acceptable loss to national integrity, I would suppose. I know they're often maligned over here (I dwell in Eire), and I think a fair number are ridiculous. This is not one of them.
I've worked as a Contractor, and I quite enjoyed my time as one also. I had a great deal of freedom, working generally in a 1-3 month fixed term, and occasionally receiving a bonus at the end of it. In this time, I've also been approached regarding contract extensions. I've accepted some, but others (which seemed to me less of a contract extension and more of a "Please stay on indefinitely") seemed unfair. I would usually reject them outright, but I once made an exception and asked to be made a permanent member of staff, even accepting a cut in pay. They turned me down, and I'm fairly certain that that 'indefinite contracting' position was foisted upon some other contractor within a week of my leaving.
It is a situation like that which provides abuse. By and large, I would say that these things happen to the inexperienced contractor, not to the long-termer who knows full well that working 3 months a year and travelling for 9 is the way to go, screw the stock options.
Temps are much more susceptible to abuse, though. I'm not sure if you know anybody who has done long-term temping work, but they are treated exactly as permanently employees. Less the benefits. Of course they can just walk out the door, but temps do receive pay rises and tend to be amongst the least skilled of the office workers. Want to start over for 3 bucks less an hour? If I recall my college days correctly, that's 15 packets of Mr. Noodles!
If a contractor leaves taking key corporate knowledge with him, and seeks vengeance for abuses, he's committing an illegal act. At least, under the terms of every contract I have on hand, I'm required to create and submit all project and process documentation at the end of my term, even if I am dismissed from the project or walk out after a few weeks.
Curiously, I also have a contract that absolutely requires me to wear a tie. But that is besides the point.
What is the difference between temporary and permanent employees? Temporary employees can be dismissed with less notice and less trouble. They're generally paid higher for this sacrifice, this is true. If a company shows that they have been hiring temps in place of permanent staff merely to glean this advantage, though (look at amazon.com), I think that is fundamentally wrong. True, there is no shortage of people willing to temp, but I think this is a violation of workers rights.
In every company I've worked for that has had a well-developed temporary staffing solution, you could subtract the temps and continue to maintain the status quo, at the very least during the slowest month of the year. Temps were always used when things were falling behind, or during a sudden rush.
Contractors are a bit different. I think that perhaps they should have known better, but that inexperienced people suddenly being offered $10-20k per quarter will grab it without questions, and then act exactly as a permanent employee does, doing the work of a permanent employee and having the long-term projections and assessments of a permanent employee. Suddenly, 3 years down the road, they realise that they've been shafted.
I'd like to say 'Too bad for them', but having been, early in my career, used and abused by an employer, I really can't. True, I left that job and trebled my salary. But then, I wonder just how many royalty payments I missed out on?
I know that at many companies, employees are hired on as temps and carry at least the workload of the full-time staff. So far as I'm aware, this lawsuit affects the more professional workers (contractors) as well.
There are quite a few corporate entites which abuse temp status. Temps and contractors do not need to be supplied with benefits of any sort in most countries, and this results in mean ol' companies abusing the law. In Ireland, for instance, many companies hire employees to 11 month fixed contracts, at which point they are dismissed. This is because beyond 11 months, they become eligible for benefits. I've also seen companies over here where 'Temporary' employees hold a fair bit of seniority (1-2 years).
In my belief, Temps and Contractors shouldn't be eligible for benefits if they are brought in strictly as relief staff or additional manpower for a fixed, brief period of time. At Microsoft, however, this does not seem to be the case. They've abused the worker classification of those employees strictly to avoid health benefits, stock options and even, IIRC, a decent lunch.
So more power to the people pressing this suit. I think they're doing it for the right reasons -- they've done the work of permanents, held the term of permanents and all they've gotten in return is a sort of lofty disdain from proper (Salaried and optioned) Microsoft employees.
Another bit of blood on the nose of Microsoft, I suppose. Still, this is something that has been played out, though for basic rights like a minimum wage (not lucrative stock), for years in Big Industry.
For those of you who are wondering about the proper classifications of Temporary and Contractual employees:
Temporary: A temporary employee is one who is maintained on a rolling contract and paid a fixed wage based on time worked, generally schemed around hours. They often get the short end of the benefit stick, not even getting paid sick leave and having a rather paltry amount of holidays. Generally, temps will be provided by staffing agencies. Temporary staff are often abused by rolling their contracts for week after week, keeping them on as 'Temporary' employees despite having reached the point where they would carry seniority if they were a Permanent employee.
Contractor: A contractor is a bit different, as their pay scale can be done hourly, weekly, daily or project-based. They are employed on a fixed term contract, and their billing varies as much as their pay scales. The abuses to contractors occur in much the same way as those to temps. A contractor is employed for a specific project, then the project term is extended or he is transferred to another project team, and so he remains a contractor, although he is obviously acting outside of his original contracting brief. I've seen 'Contractors' with more say in a company than the director of IT, and yet they're still working off of their base terms as far as benefits go. And that means that if the company they helped create runs an IPO, they're not entitled to a bit of it.
As mentioned above, from what I can tell MS purposefully abused these designations in order to save a buck or two.
I'm not sure how much this will be scintillating the average/. reader, but I've always wondered what happened to I2(Just doesn't work in Roman Numerals, does it?)
It's an educational tool, and seems to me to have more in common with a large academic WAN (high bandwidth, no fluff) than with our beloved Internet (creepy-crawly, mix-mash). A lot of the genius of the Internet (mark I) came about because of people being random. It's rather like Hyde Park, except with less people wrapped in flags.
Well, maybe not all that many less.
Anyway, this is more of a 'Whatever happened to...' article than anything. Thanks for the information.
It'd be nice if every institute of higher learning managed to wire to this puppy without tripping over the pitfalls that so shifted (and improved?) our Internet.
Apologies for the choppiness, I write this while I negotiate with one of my suppliers.
It does seem that privacy is growing harder and harder to attain. I've had to politely but firmly turn down company cellphones on a few occasions, and there's been a certain amount of incredulity at the other end.
Of course, that's almost an issue of personal space more than privacy. Privacy encompasses my sole right to myself and my thoughts, or at least it does so to me. That hasn't been affected too much. In fact, legislation is constantly being passed here (Eire) which limits the degree to which a company can pry into your personal life.
Corporate culture and privacy are two separate things. It's fine that they want me to be on call -- I did not permit this, as was allowed under my contract -- that's a corporate prerogative, and one I would probably attempt to exercise as a CEO. If, however, they had an extensive background check run on me prior to my hiring I would be offended.
The real privacy issue lies in the assemblage of data regarding your person and activities. GUIDs and what-have-you are the current crop of threats to an anonymous personal profile, not this sub-dermal device.
Sure, it may permit complex E-transactions at the shake of a hand. Sure, this poses a security risk. This, in turn, poses a privacy risk. But then, so does keeping a diary.
There are two contributors to privacy violation: personal information stores and access thereto. If the former is the simplest of census identities, the latter is meaningless. Unauthorised access to an information store can never be completely defeated, and so the only real option is to prevent profiling.
I'm getting too off-topic here, though. What I'm trying to say is that, yes, in this age of micro-devices we have more and more trouble finding space for ourselves, as our employers feel a need to call on us (I have no phone or internet at my home, and have actually had a taxi sent for me) when we are not in, engage us professionally in social situations and so forth. These are not invasions of privacy, though, and the issues should not be confused. We are growing more and more wired, and therefor more and more engrossed in a corporate culture -- generally the first point of introduction for these snazzy new devices. This is another step down that road, yes, and I don't like it.
But then, I don't carry a cell phone or a palm computer, nor do I maintain a telephone or internet access beyond my workplace. If personal space is an issue, you can make it. Don't accept the things foisted upon you.
The taxi sent returned to the office with a politely worded letter.
I fear the posts that will follow after this. It's always a bit frightening when a technology that we've been familiarised with through distopian science fiction comes to the forefront in the real world.
These would be quite handy for zoologists, marine biologists and their ilk. It would allow for much more tracking than the current tagging systems do. It has few applications with human beings that do not violate civil liberties, however. As a result of this, the inevitable following posts regarding the tag of prisoners, infants at birth and immigrants will be off-base, at least in western democracies.
This is nothing more than a gateway technology that will make life easier for researchers. I very sincerely doubt that human implementation will be permitted unless specifically requested by the individual. As far as gateway tech goes, it isn't even very exciting -- what happened to the light-slower-than-light that seemed to open up so many possibilities?
This can't really go far at all. It deals with unsolicited bulk mails being forced upon the subscribers to an online service. While the article didn't actually define (maybe I skimmed) the court definition of 'bulk', I would imagine that it is fairly considerable.
This case related purely to ISPs, and will not have repercussions in the non-wired world. It is based around the forced transmittal of e-mail inherent to the structure of an ISP. When one addresses mail to X@aol.com, AOL has to deliver it. They cannot employ a million monkeys to read every mail that passes their doors. As well, AOL does not charge for e-mail sent, only for the privilege of a member receiving it. The post office, of course, charges by sending and not receiving. This is why the Postmaster General has never sued Publisher's Clearing House.
Where will this stop? It'll stop with spammers, I presume. I've never utilised a mass e-mail in order to accomplish anything remotely worthwhile, nor have I felt the urge.
There are some legal issues at stake here. As mentioned, spam advantages itself of the nature of an ISP. I would have imagined that, legally, this would disqualify any successful lawsuits against Spam. Instead, the onus should perhaps be placed on an individual ISP to block all mails sent to >25% of its user list originating from the same domain. Of course, this still burns space on the servers for a given ISP, but perhaps these are infrastructure issues that should have been earlier addressed. What veteran of UseNET could not have sagely pointed to Timmy in Colorado and his never-ending difficulties with a variety of diseases when charged with an infrastructure consultancy role for a startup ISP? This is an important lawsuit, because it is establishing point of responsibility for bulk e-mails.
If concerned with frivolous lawsuits, this does not qualify. The United States legal system supports a suit based around unmeasurable 'psychological agony', not to mention that if you have trouble getting an erection after any sort of trauma you're entitled to a boatload of benjamins. As it were. This lawsuit seems necessary to me. It's ruling on who dwells firmly in the wrong (spammers) effectively ends the quietish war waged between ISP and marketing reps, should this case fall as a firm precedent in the judicial system.
I do have some reservations, however. My day will become increasingly dull as I am no longer called upon to wage war against Islamic treatment of women, save various children trapped in various wills, visit webpages in order to resuscitate Charlie Chaplin, indicate my grocery shopping preferences or partake of some high-quality ultra XXX full penetration action. I will no longer qualify to punch the monkey, follow links to great savings or track down a long lost love. My social conscience, smart shopping and porn consumption will all doubtless suffer as a result of this lawsuit.
Are we going to open up a discussion thread everytime somebody mutters "Power Lines" and "Modem" in the same sentence? This is twice in the last couple of weeks, and no new information has come to light beyond a process patent.
I mean, really.
A valid point was also raised about cost for this sort of service. When living in Canada, I paid CND40 for 24/7 CableModem service. Currently, in Ireland, I pay about IRP100 per month for heavy useage over a standard modem. This is because Eircom (formerly Telecom Eireann) was only recently privatised, and there is still little enough local competition. I believe there are a grand total of 20 cable modems in Dublin, all currently being tested (In Terenure, if any Dubs are reading.) At any rate (pun!), isn't there a threat regarding cost in the States? I'm not certain, but I thought the power grid was government property, and I can imagine how much they would enjoy the added revenue provided by fixed-cost high speed internet service. And I don't see an independent startup laying power lines in order to compete, personally.
This seems like little more than a pipe dream (pun!), particularly for those already enjoying the wonder of Cable Modems and DSL links. If anything, this new tech -- if it ever becomes new tech -- will up your prices and knock your smaller providers out of the market.
There is a school of thought which adheres to the belief that the incidence of mental disorders has not risen much, but rather that the incidence reporting of them has. As such, an argument can be made that the 'decay of American society' is not causing a sudden bout of mental illness amongst its members, but rather that the increasingly reliant American population is reporting in greater numbers the dark spots in their psyches.
Anxiety (except in severe cases) and mood swinging (aside from manic depression) are hardly symptoms of severe disorder. People are becoming increasingly reliant on the power of professional opinion. Rather than being -- to borrow from MTV -- a skitzoid, someone is actually hypertense! American culture has a quasi-obsessive need to label everything, including their own idiosyncracies, and then to treat them.
Ultimately, it won't do any harm to call upon the government and psychological/psychiatric bodies to provide free or low-cost treatment to the nations youth, assuming (quite safely) that it will not become a sort of mandatory exercise in fifth period on Thursdays. If people wish to discover that, in fact, their anxiety stems from a case of, well, anxiety that is all well and good.
It is not the most potent forum for the surgeon general of America, but it is one of the safest to stand on just now. In the wake of difficulties rooted (at least, by the press) in disorderly minds -- Day Trading Massacres, High School Shoot Outs, etc -- a voice smoothly suggesting that our youth have access to psychological help will be heard, for the most part, on the same level as a waiter asking if you'd like some more bread.
Some people won't, some people will and it will be barely remembered by the time the bill is paid.
The most interesting aspect of the entire thing will be the panel discussions, message forums and assorted other communications hooplah dedicated to that famous debate of the twentieth century which almost seems to defy wording due to its nuanced nature:
"Is psychological treatment a good thing or a bad thing?"
That is the crux of it worded as basically as possible. Some people maintain that psychological treatment is a sham. That it is a contributing factor towards the distopian dream of normalisation. Others feel that it is as necessary to modern living as a weekend massage.
And I imagine this topic's been posted to have just those two things discussed.
The primary purpose of this system is not to ascertain criminal activities, but to ascertain when one is about to engage in such. Smashing a window is after the fact -- the aim with this new technology is to prevent that window from being broken. This must be done by examining prior activity without the knowledge of post activity. Something which is patently unethical.
Suspicious activity in this case would include any deviation from the physical norm that causes enough ripples to actually be charted. Walking around a car while moving your head from side to side, for instance, would provide a flag. Beginning to walk at a rapid pace and then slowing as you approach another person, matching her pace rather than maintaining your own. Glancing from side to side before placing your hand into the inside pocket of your jacket, repeatedly.
Those are all activities which could constitute precursors to criminal action, and they would be the ones to ring the alarms and, occasionally, send a security guard strolling past. It wouldn't be an obtrusive action, nor would an arrest incur. A lovely man in a blue suit would inquire as to whether or not you are lost, ask what you're doing out so late at night or simply make his presence known by leaning against the wall.
Ultimately, these are not forms of harassment. They are an absolute invasion, however. How do you think it would feel to have a blue man appear, analyse the situation and realise that in his opinion you were a rape suspect? To be aware that snap judgements are being formed about your character to the extent that there is an armed man six feet away keeping an eye on you would be a terrible feeling, and one that nobody should be subjected to.
It's akin to the reaction of a racist when someone 'lacking in purity' enters their vision. Immediately, that person is dehumanised and left as little more than an aspect of blighted society. A rapist, a thief, a murderer. A rabble rouser.
I suppose that the tables are being turned somewhat. Surely an algorithm would be implemented to take into account that white men are more likely to be serial killers and rapists.
If we can't eliminate physicality-based judgements, let's just start making them about everybody?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I've read these articles and here is what I've gained:
1)Flamers are, by and large, adolescent white males in need of attention.
2)Women are delicate flowers. Treat them as such.
3)Hostility is a bad, bad thing. Like growing up in a burning house, without the trips to hospital.
4)The first friendly discussion website will 'shroud itself in glory'
4a)I must pause for a moment now, as I know of no websites that have ever shrouded themselves in glory. In point of fact, I can think of precious few things or people that have. Will there be angels involved in this enshrouding?
5)There are some things which could be done to stop flaming, but they might not work. Then again, they might. But, then again -- they might not.
Well, thanks!
-l
Anytime that you communicate through a medium which permits one or more parties to seem as though they are not a human being, something akin to flaming will ensue.
Demonisation, dehumanisation and so forth are old tricks of orators and leaders. The net has simply facillitated this by not requiring the process leading up to the effect.
Anyone who has subscribed to a counter-cultural movement at any time in their youth -- and how many haven't -- will tell you that they're often treated poorly by their peers. Katz should be quite familiar with this, as he seems to write more than a few pieces that revolve around it. When someone is seen as being even subtly 'different' (difference, of course, being completely subjective) they will suffer more abuse. It will not generally come to the levels of our lovely Internet, but it will occur.
This is a facet of existance, not a phenomena of the Internet that needs to be altered. At the very least, the Internet gives everybody equal footing. There are few enough human beings here, and those that are have earned their stripes. Everybody started out the same, though: anonymously. Knowing a name and knowing a person are two completely different things.
Flaming has never managed to bother me. "U DIE FUCK!" hardly fits my perception of threatening. This may not be true for everybody. But then, nothing is. I'm certain that it's shocking for some. Ultimately, though, the Internet does comprise a distinct culture. Call it culture shock, if you will. My mother, who hooked up last year with a DSL package, has managed to adapt to flaming, pornography advertisements and 'Save my baby from the well' forwards. Like it or not, these are all a part of our community. They're those quirky cousins in the hills, bringing no menace with them but reminding us of those days during childhood when they terrified us with their shotguns and muddy breeches. Now, they've done their bit. They are repetitive. They are ever-dwindling shades of their original incarnation, and cannot possibly recover what they were. If you've seen one mindless flame, you've seen them all. And if that fancy lawyer uncle of yours from New York shivers in their shadow, he can pack his bags and get the next bus home.
The 'critical' flames are a bit different. I don't consider a strongly worded response to be a flame. Assuming it contains criticism, it should be addressed. A reply is not necessary, but one should read over what is contained within them. When something slips beyond the 'FUCK UD IE FUCK!' phase, and manages to expand into a pedantic rant regarding subordinate clauses, at least it informs me that my grammar has slipped.
Flames have been around since the dawn of man, when Grog laid the smack down on an albino. They are not unique to the internet, nor did they originate here. At one time, though, we should remember that these flames were kindled by those who held sway. The orations to decide power in Rome, the Crusades, the Inquisition and the Witch hunts all sprung up from personal motives shifted to dehumanisation. Once de-humanised, the mindless hatreds and actions were flames, no?
The internet is a mass of non-entities with the occasional cluster of human beings: the people you know. If anything, this sort of non-identity -- from which springs the incessant flaming -- is an advance, not a regression.
-l
Apologies for lack of clarity, I've no time to proof.
I'm a regular reader of Salon, and this article was pretty disappointing. They, and other magazines, have focused on this before, and it still remains a non-issue.
/* I knew a geek who had sex once...*/
/* I knew a girl once... */
/* Story */
/* Two engineers are walking across campus, when a beautiful woman */
/* rides by on a bicycle. She suddenly vaults off of the bike and */
/* takes off all of her clothes, addressing the first engineer: */
/* "Take anything you want!" she pants lustily, standing naked. */
/* Without batting an eye, the engineer gets on her bike and */
/* pedals away, his buddy jogging with him. "Good choice" says */
/* the buddy, "The clothes probably wouldn't have fit you." */
/* End Story */
/* This may well be the poorest way */
/* of interjecting a thought that I've ever seen. */
/* It works for commenting, but at least the comments */
/* mostly relate quite directly to the code. */
/* In opposition to being a departure from the primary objective */
/* they provide further insight into the confusing aspects. */
/* There is no need to use these, as academia has their own version. */
/* They're called footnotes. */
/* Astonishingly, they're very seldom used to invoke anecdotes, either. */
/* -l */
Why aren't geeks having 'enough' sex? I don't know, but it might have something to do with long working days and lots of stress. Perhaps it has a little bit to do with a lot of greeks being 'fringed' as youngsters and not being into the courtship rituals. Maybe we just don't like people. Perhaps there are a fair proportion of geeks who, having hacked evolution, are not very eager to have their handy-dandy prehensile tails discovered.
This article wasn't even written as a social study, but was fragmented into near unreadability as a result of both the pseudo-code and the lack of flow invoked by the author. The only interesting point was the nod to culture shock and immigration.
This does not keep up with Salon's tradition of doing interesting social commentary. This article was bland and covered issues which people are familiar with from exposure to the canon of geek jokes.
Did Salon really do more than regurgitate the above, backing it up with the knowledge that, gosh gee, a lot of geeks really don't get laid too often?
The best way that this story could have been handled would be to look at the 'new' business and social environment and interaction in Silicon Valley. I know nothing about it, as I work as I work in Ireland -- mix business with pleasure, anyone? I'm curious as to just how people interact, meet each other and what not in an environment that seems insanely pressurised to me, from the congested traffic to the high rent and long hours.
When I'm really engrossed in a project, I know that my social interaction comes with the project team and, occasionally, bystanders, for the most part. Does this occur in Silicon Valley, as well, where friendships and romances arise from convenience? If so, I'm sure the same ramifications exist for work romances, but what's the social view of, say, a millionaire CEO dating his secretary?
For some reason, picturing some programmer millionaire dating his secretary seems much more innocuous to me than his Wall Street equivalent. The perceived innocence of geekdom? Another point they didn't touch on.
That's becoming rather addictive. I think that my next project will be commented in obvious, un-enlightening anecdotes.
Well, I can't speak for the export market, but here in Ireland they've actually begun a new campaign based around 'draught bottles'. I've had a couple of them, and to my tastebuds (honed at Mullo's), they're more satisfying than the be-widgeted cans.
I haven't done any research into the physics and mechanics of these new bottles, but they're quite snazzy looking. They maintain the creamy head whilst in the bottle -- the neck basically houses it.
Just a point of interest for all of you lovely drinkers.
-l
P.S. If any of you who favour Guinness haven't had a proper pint in County Clare, beat your way on over here.
Contractors will still be called in, but they'll be called in per-project, not to fill a role permanently working on a contractor basis.
Lots of money is nice and what not, but I question the morality of a company hiring a 'contractor' for an indefinite length of time to oversee productions. During the wonderful days of the steel monopoly, miners and other such folk weren't considered real employees, either.
Yea, people
- are
stupid. The American legal system is set up to protect them, though. Let it follow through, or else work on changing the foundations of it.And having accounted for 7.24 percent of posts on my threshold, I think I'll bury my nose in work again. I must find some trustworthy, independently compiled database benchmarking stats.
I'm such a commie.
-l
I believe it works similarly in France, but it works as such in Ireland:
Temporary employees are entitled to 1.66 (recently raised from 1.33) days of holiday per month of full-time working, minimum. This minimum passes as the standard from staffing agencies.
Temporary employees are not entitled to sick days paid, though they are entitled to 6 absences per anum, which are not paid but for which they are not penalised.
The reason? There's lots of temps: buyer's market.
Contractors essentially have the terms set in their contract, but the salary tends to be scaled up and the benefits scaled down, because people want contractors to do things fast, for the most part. This is more of a seller's market, but the amount of competition amongst contractors results in quite a few without the sick days, and with a bare minimum of holidays.
Just a bit of information.
-l
The problem is that using 'temporary' and 'contractor' designations as a means of avoiding the offering of permanent positions is a problem that should be handled by the legal system.
This is an issue of employee rights. Not everybody has the luxury to pack up and leave, particularly in saturation markets like temporary staff.
When there is a breach of rights such as this -- a company is hiring on temp and contract employees to do the jobs of those who are in permanent roles, and the company is not offering those temps and contractors the option to become permanent employees -- it is a matter for the labour boards and legal system to handle.
It is an abuse of the system, and nothing more or less. Of course I look back at that first shiny job of mine where I was paid far less than I was worth to complete a project that became a cornerstone of off-shelf sales with, if not anger, irritation. I contributed to that company, and I got shafted. End of story. I don't dwell on it, but I will warn of it.
If people can't wake up to their current job situation? They are waking up. Thousands of them. That is why this lawsuit is in place. Would it be better if 10,000 Microsoft Temps and Contractors stood up and walked away? Well, it would certainly provide amusement. You have to realise that the legal system is in place to settle disputes, and disputes like these are those that most need the settling. Certainly, the American legal system is more of a hammer than the one favoured by you Brits, stocked up with heavy-handed fines to discourage those who violate the spirit of the law. I, for one, am glad that American corporations have to watch their asses at every instance. The amount of frivolous lawsuits that result from this are an acceptable loss to national integrity, I would suppose. I know they're often maligned over here (I dwell in Eire), and I think a fair number are ridiculous. This is not one of them.
It keeps them honest.
Is there anything more important than that?
I've worked as a Contractor, and I quite enjoyed my time as one also. I had a great deal of freedom, working generally in a 1-3 month fixed term, and occasionally receiving a bonus at the end of it. In this time, I've also been approached regarding contract extensions. I've accepted some, but others (which seemed to me less of a contract extension and more of a "Please stay on indefinitely") seemed unfair. I would usually reject them outright, but I once made an exception and asked to be made a permanent member of staff, even accepting a cut in pay. They turned me down, and I'm fairly certain that that 'indefinite contracting' position was foisted upon some other contractor within a week of my leaving.
It is a situation like that which provides abuse. By and large, I would say that these things happen to the inexperienced contractor, not to the long-termer who knows full well that working 3 months a year and travelling for 9 is the way to go, screw the stock options.
Temps are much more susceptible to abuse, though. I'm not sure if you know anybody who has done long-term temping work, but they are treated exactly as permanently employees. Less the benefits. Of course they can just walk out the door, but temps do receive pay rises and tend to be amongst the least skilled of the office workers. Want to start over for 3 bucks less an hour? If I recall my college days correctly, that's 15 packets of Mr. Noodles!
If a contractor leaves taking key corporate knowledge with him, and seeks vengeance for abuses, he's committing an illegal act. At least, under the terms of every contract I have on hand, I'm required to create and submit all project and process documentation at the end of my term, even if I am dismissed from the project or walk out after a few weeks.
Curiously, I also have a contract that absolutely requires me to wear a tie. But that is besides the point.
What is the difference between temporary and permanent employees? Temporary employees can be dismissed with less notice and less trouble. They're generally paid higher for this sacrifice, this is true. If a company shows that they have been hiring temps in place of permanent staff merely to glean this advantage, though (look at amazon.com), I think that is fundamentally wrong. True, there is no shortage of people willing to temp, but I think this is a violation of workers rights.
In every company I've worked for that has had a well-developed temporary staffing solution, you could subtract the temps and continue to maintain the status quo, at the very least during the slowest month of the year. Temps were always used when things were falling behind, or during a sudden rush.
Contractors are a bit different. I think that perhaps they should have known better, but that inexperienced people suddenly being offered $10-20k per quarter will grab it without questions, and then act exactly as a permanent employee does, doing the work of a permanent employee and having the long-term projections and assessments of a permanent employee. Suddenly, 3 years down the road, they realise that they've been shafted.
I'd like to say 'Too bad for them', but having been, early in my career, used and abused by an employer, I really can't. True, I left that job and trebled my salary. But then, I wonder just how many royalty payments I missed out on?
-l
I know that at many companies, employees are hired on as temps and carry at least the workload of the full-time staff. So far as I'm aware, this lawsuit affects the more professional workers (contractors) as well.
There are quite a few corporate entites which abuse temp status. Temps and contractors do not need to be supplied with benefits of any sort in most countries, and this results in mean ol' companies abusing the law. In Ireland, for instance, many companies hire employees to 11 month fixed contracts, at which point they are dismissed. This is because beyond 11 months, they become eligible for benefits. I've also seen companies over here where 'Temporary' employees hold a fair bit of seniority (1-2 years).
In my belief, Temps and Contractors shouldn't be eligible for benefits if they are brought in strictly as relief staff or additional manpower for a fixed, brief period of time. At Microsoft, however, this does not seem to be the case. They've abused the worker classification of those employees strictly to avoid health benefits, stock options and even, IIRC, a decent lunch.
So more power to the people pressing this suit. I think they're doing it for the right reasons -- they've done the work of permanents, held the term of permanents and all they've gotten in return is a sort of lofty disdain from proper (Salaried and optioned) Microsoft employees.
Another bit of blood on the nose of Microsoft, I suppose. Still, this is something that has been played out, though for basic rights like a minimum wage (not lucrative stock), for years in Big Industry.
For those of you who are wondering about the proper classifications of Temporary and Contractual employees:
Temporary: A temporary employee is one who is maintained on a rolling contract and paid a fixed wage based on time worked, generally schemed around hours. They often get the short end of the benefit stick, not even getting paid sick leave and having a rather paltry amount of holidays. Generally, temps will be provided by staffing agencies. Temporary staff are often abused by rolling their contracts for week after week, keeping them on as 'Temporary' employees despite having reached the point where they would carry seniority if they were a Permanent employee.
Contractor: A contractor is a bit different, as their pay scale can be done hourly, weekly, daily or project-based. They are employed on a fixed term contract, and their billing varies as much as their pay scales. The abuses to contractors occur in much the same way as those to temps. A contractor is employed for a specific project, then the project term is extended or he is transferred to another project team, and so he remains a contractor, although he is obviously acting outside of his original contracting brief. I've seen 'Contractors' with more say in a company than the director of IT, and yet they're still working off of their base terms as far as benefits go. And that means that if the company they helped create runs an IPO, they're not entitled to a bit of it.
As mentioned above, from what I can tell MS purposefully abused these designations in order to save a buck or two.
-l
I'm not sure how much this will be scintillating the average
It's an educational tool, and seems to me to have more in common with a large academic WAN (high bandwidth, no fluff) than with our beloved Internet (creepy-crawly, mix-mash). A lot of the genius of the Internet (mark I) came about because of people being random. It's rather like Hyde Park, except with less people wrapped in flags.
Well, maybe not all that many less.
Anyway, this is more of a 'Whatever happened to...' article than anything. Thanks for the information.
It'd be nice if every institute of higher learning managed to wire to this puppy without tripping over the pitfalls that so shifted (and improved?) our Internet.
Apologies for the choppiness, I write this while I negotiate with one of my suppliers.
-l
It does seem that privacy is growing harder and harder to attain. I've had to politely but firmly turn down company cellphones on a few occasions, and there's been a certain amount of incredulity at the other end.
Of course, that's almost an issue of personal space more than privacy. Privacy encompasses my sole right to myself and my thoughts, or at least it does so to me. That hasn't been affected too much. In fact, legislation is constantly being passed here (Eire) which limits the degree to which a company can pry into your personal life.
Corporate culture and privacy are two separate things. It's fine that they want me to be on call -- I did not permit this, as was allowed under my contract -- that's a corporate prerogative, and one I would probably attempt to exercise as a CEO. If, however, they had an extensive background check run on me prior to my hiring I would be offended.
The real privacy issue lies in the assemblage of data regarding your person and activities. GUIDs and what-have-you are the current crop of threats to an anonymous personal profile, not this sub-dermal device.
Sure, it may permit complex E-transactions at the shake of a hand. Sure, this poses a security risk. This, in turn, poses a privacy risk. But then, so does keeping a diary.
There are two contributors to privacy violation: personal information stores and access thereto. If the former is the simplest of census identities, the latter is meaningless. Unauthorised access to an information store can never be completely defeated, and so the only real option is to prevent profiling.
I'm getting too off-topic here, though. What I'm trying to say is that, yes, in this age of micro-devices we have more and more trouble finding space for ourselves, as our employers feel a need to call on us (I have no phone or internet at my home, and have actually had a taxi sent for me) when we are not in, engage us professionally in social situations and so forth. These are not invasions of privacy, though, and the issues should not be confused. We are growing more and more wired, and therefor more and more engrossed in a corporate culture -- generally the first point of introduction for these snazzy new devices. This is another step down that road, yes, and I don't like it.
But then, I don't carry a cell phone or a palm computer, nor do I maintain a telephone or internet access beyond my workplace. If personal space is an issue, you can make it. Don't accept the things foisted upon you.
The taxi sent returned to the office with a politely worded letter.
-l
I fear the posts that will follow after this. It's always a bit frightening when a technology that we've been familiarised with through distopian science fiction comes to the forefront in the real world.
These would be quite handy for zoologists, marine biologists and their ilk. It would allow for much more tracking than the current tagging systems do. It has few applications with human beings that do not violate civil liberties, however. As a result of this, the inevitable following posts regarding the tag of prisoners, infants at birth and immigrants will be off-base, at least in western democracies.
This is nothing more than a gateway technology that will make life easier for researchers. I very sincerely doubt that human implementation will be permitted unless specifically requested by the individual. As far as gateway tech goes, it isn't even very exciting -- what happened to the light-slower-than-light that seemed to open up so many possibilities?
Ah well.
-l
This can't really go far at all. It deals with unsolicited bulk mails being forced upon the subscribers to an online service. While the article didn't actually define (maybe I skimmed) the court definition of 'bulk', I would imagine that it is fairly considerable.
This case related purely to ISPs, and will not have repercussions in the non-wired world. It is based around the forced transmittal of e-mail inherent to the structure of an ISP. When one addresses mail to X@aol.com, AOL has to deliver it. They cannot employ a million monkeys to read every mail that passes their doors. As well, AOL does not charge for e-mail sent, only for the privilege of a member receiving it. The post office, of course, charges by sending and not receiving. This is why the Postmaster General has never sued Publisher's Clearing House.
Where will this stop? It'll stop with spammers, I presume. I've never utilised a mass e-mail in order to accomplish anything remotely worthwhile, nor have I felt the urge.
There are some legal issues at stake here. As mentioned, spam advantages itself of the nature of an ISP. I would have imagined that, legally, this would disqualify any successful lawsuits against Spam. Instead, the onus should perhaps be placed on an individual ISP to block all mails sent to >25% of its user list originating from the same domain. Of course, this still burns space on the servers for a given ISP, but perhaps these are infrastructure issues that should have been earlier addressed. What veteran of UseNET could not have sagely pointed to Timmy in Colorado and his never-ending difficulties with a variety of diseases when charged with an infrastructure consultancy role for a startup ISP? This is an important lawsuit, because it is establishing point of responsibility for bulk e-mails.
If concerned with frivolous lawsuits, this does not qualify. The United States legal system supports a suit based around unmeasurable 'psychological agony', not to mention that if you have trouble getting an erection after any sort of trauma you're entitled to a boatload of benjamins. As it were. This lawsuit seems necessary to me. It's ruling on who dwells firmly in the wrong (spammers) effectively ends the quietish war waged between ISP and marketing reps, should this case fall as a firm precedent in the judicial system.
I do have some reservations, however. My day will become increasingly dull as I am no longer called upon to wage war against Islamic treatment of women, save various children trapped in various wills, visit webpages in order to resuscitate Charlie Chaplin, indicate my grocery shopping preferences or partake of some high-quality ultra XXX full penetration action. I will no longer qualify to punch the monkey, follow links to great savings or track down a long lost love. My social conscience, smart shopping and porn consumption will all doubtless suffer as a result of this lawsuit.
Bastards.
-l
Are we going to open up a discussion thread everytime somebody mutters "Power Lines" and "Modem" in the same sentence? This is twice in the last couple of weeks, and no new information has come to light beyond a process patent.
I mean, really.
A valid point was also raised about cost for this sort of service. When living in Canada, I paid CND40 for 24/7 CableModem service. Currently, in Ireland, I pay about IRP100 per month for heavy useage over a standard modem. This is because Eircom (formerly Telecom Eireann) was only recently privatised, and there is still little enough local competition. I believe there are a grand total of 20 cable modems in Dublin, all currently being tested (In Terenure, if any Dubs are reading.) At any rate (pun!), isn't there a threat regarding cost in the States? I'm not certain, but I thought the power grid was government property, and I can imagine how much they would enjoy the added revenue provided by fixed-cost high speed internet service. And I don't see an independent startup laying power lines in order to compete, personally.
This seems like little more than a pipe dream (pun!), particularly for those already enjoying the wonder of Cable Modems and DSL links. If anything, this new tech -- if it ever becomes new tech -- will up your prices and knock your smaller providers out of the market.
-l
There is a school of thought which adheres to the belief that the incidence of mental disorders has not risen much, but rather that the incidence reporting of them has. As such, an argument can be made that the 'decay of American society' is not causing a sudden bout of mental illness amongst its members, but rather that the increasingly reliant American population is reporting in greater numbers the dark spots in their psyches.
Anxiety (except in severe cases) and mood swinging (aside from manic depression) are hardly symptoms of severe disorder. People are becoming increasingly reliant on the power of professional opinion. Rather than being -- to borrow from MTV -- a skitzoid, someone is actually hypertense! American culture has a quasi-obsessive need to label everything, including their own idiosyncracies, and then to treat them.
Ultimately, it won't do any harm to call upon the government and psychological/psychiatric bodies to provide free or low-cost treatment to the nations youth, assuming (quite safely) that it will not become a sort of mandatory exercise in fifth period on Thursdays. If people wish to discover that, in fact, their anxiety stems from a case of, well, anxiety that is all well and good.
It is not the most potent forum for the surgeon general of America, but it is one of the safest to stand on just now. In the wake of difficulties rooted (at least, by the press) in disorderly minds -- Day Trading Massacres, High School Shoot Outs, etc -- a voice smoothly suggesting that our youth have access to psychological help will be heard, for the most part, on the same level as a waiter asking if you'd like some more bread.
Some people won't, some people will and it will be barely remembered by the time the bill is paid.
The most interesting aspect of the entire thing will be the panel discussions, message forums and assorted other communications hooplah dedicated to that famous debate of the twentieth century which almost seems to defy wording due to its nuanced nature:
"Is psychological treatment a good thing or a bad thing?"
That is the crux of it worded as basically as possible. Some people maintain that psychological treatment is a sham. That it is a contributing factor towards the distopian dream of normalisation. Others feel that it is as necessary to modern living as a weekend massage.
And I imagine this topic's been posted to have just those two things discussed.
So, get on with it. I'm done rambling.
-l
The primary purpose of this system is not to ascertain criminal activities, but to ascertain when one is about to engage in such. Smashing a window is after the fact -- the aim with this new technology is to prevent that window from being broken. This must be done by examining prior activity without the knowledge of post activity. Something which is patently unethical.
Suspicious activity in this case would include any deviation from the physical norm that causes enough ripples to actually be charted. Walking around a car while moving your head from side to side, for instance, would provide a flag. Beginning to walk at a rapid pace and then slowing as you approach another person, matching her pace rather than maintaining your own. Glancing from side to side before placing your hand into the inside pocket of your jacket, repeatedly.
Those are all activities which could constitute precursors to criminal action, and they would be the ones to ring the alarms and, occasionally, send a security guard strolling past. It wouldn't be an obtrusive action, nor would an arrest incur. A lovely man in a blue suit would inquire as to whether or not you are lost, ask what you're doing out so late at night or simply make his presence known by leaning against the wall.
Ultimately, these are not forms of harassment. They are an absolute invasion, however. How do you think it would feel to have a blue man appear, analyse the situation and realise that in his opinion you were a rape suspect? To be aware that snap judgements are being formed about your character to the extent that there is an armed man six feet away keeping an eye on you would be a terrible feeling, and one that nobody should be subjected to.
It's akin to the reaction of a racist when someone 'lacking in purity' enters their vision. Immediately, that person is dehumanised and left as little more than an aspect of blighted society. A rapist, a thief, a murderer. A rabble rouser.
I suppose that the tables are being turned somewhat. Surely an algorithm would be implemented to take into account that white men are more likely to be serial killers and rapists.
If we can't eliminate physicality-based judgements, let's just start making them about everybody?
Here froggie, froggie.
ribbit
-l