if telemarketing didn't *work so well*..... i.e. if people weren't such suckers...... we wouldn't need laws against it. it simply wouldn't be profitable. it's like gossip mags or sweatshop-made clothes or lots of other stuff. people *say* they hate it.....yet they still buy buy buy...... - O ----------
well, we've got 'girlgamers' and 'hackers' and 'opensource nerds' and now, *i'll be darned*, 'chickclickers'. how original. another group we can quantify, generalize about, rally around and, gee, SELL stuff to! i KNOW it's harder to be an individual. it's *harder* to make your own decisions, choose your own likes and dislikes, make your own way.....but come on! people are so afraid of the responsibility, creativity and work involved in NOT buying into an *image*........ ack. ----------
..... it seems like the biggest difference between this and any other education comes down to the $$. it sounds like a real 'opening of doors' for people like me who had to mortgage their soul to go to the university of their choice......and esp. for all those people who from very early on were discouraged from even forming the goal of going to college because the amount of $$ it would cost their families was beyond comprehension.
..... and with respect to shoddy degree holders 'flooding the market': i firmly believe that your education is what you make it. you could go to a local state/community college, work your ass off and emerge a really well-educated person. by the same token, you could go to a prestigious university, waste all your time there, and emerge unfit for society, much less the job market.
a diploma is a piece of paper, no matter what institution's name is written on it. the real value is *in* the person who 'earned' the diploma. now, on entering the job market, that fact should become blatantly clear. if joe schmoe from Online U made his degree worth something, he'll probably do well in the real world....more power to him. if his degree really is just a con job, he'll ultimately fail, or get fired, or be 'found out' in some way.........
....or maybe we (society) will go on as we mostly have.......perfectly satisfied with mediocrity. in which case, mediocre Online U grad, mediocre Prestigious U grad.......what's the difference?
- sonic
"It was all I could do, as a woman!". :PPPPPP
on
X-Files FPS Episode
·
· Score: 2
This episode made me totally sick! not that the x-files *hasn't* devolved into complete drivel anyway....but i tuned in cause the ads with scully decked out in VR armor were just too much for me to pass up....... needless to say the episode was a complete disappointment. and not just cause all *3* of the woman in this episode (not counting the killer-chick's holographic duplicates:P) were like stereotypes of a stereotype! both genders were maligned equally, imo. at least for women, there were 3 *different* stereotypes......scully, moralizing for the sake of the children, the freak-of-nature hackergrrl, and the homicidal fembot. *all* the men were portrayed as sex-crazed automotons -- especially mulder, leading with his Wang, as usual........those cops were sickening!! ok....except maybe for those 3 nerdy guys (what are they called again?).....mulder's tech buddies......they always amuse me. anyway.....i should know not to expect anything more than the most trite generalizations from this show......women, men, hackers, gamers, whatever........ i guess this makes me an ex-x-files fan:P, sonicblnd
>>Millions of dollars in damages?conduct that caused these companies to shut down their networks?retool?
>By this logic, if I inform someone that their house is on fire, I should be charged with arson.
no, by that logic, a better analogy would be.....if i set someone's house on fire, then inform them that it was flammable, i should be charged with arson.
really, burning down a house isn't that good an analogy at all.....since, as far as i understand it, no actual damage was done in kevin's case other than to the pride of certain individuals.......
imo, under slightly different conditions (e.g. he'd been contracted -- ever heard of "mystery shopping"??) this guy's activities would be called "consulting".......but the fact is, he wasn't hired. he broke in to these systems, without the owners' saying "please, try and break in."
so, it might have been fun (and even construed as an unintended *favor* to the "victims"), but, in strict legal terms, he had no business doing what he did.
it's basic issue of "sovreignty".......i retain the right to exercise exclusive control over my own domain (domain, in the psychological sense). even if what someone does is meant as, or ends up unintentionally being, a *favor*, it still disempowers me because it is something to which i did not consent.......
Slashdot Mirror
if telemarketing didn't *work so well*..... i.e. if people weren't such suckers...... we wouldn't need laws against it. it simply wouldn't be profitable. it's like gossip mags or sweatshop-made clothes or lots of other stuff. people *say* they hate it.....yet they still buy buy buy...... - O
----------
well, we've got 'girlgamers' and 'hackers' and 'opensource nerds' and now, *i'll be darned*, 'chickclickers'. how original. another group we can quantify, generalize about, rally around and, gee, SELL stuff to! i KNOW it's harder to be an individual. it's *harder* to make your own decisions, choose your own likes and dislikes, make your own way.....but come on! people are so afraid of the responsibility, creativity and work involved in NOT buying into an *image*........ ack.
----------
..... it seems like the biggest difference between this and any other education comes down to the $$. it sounds like a real 'opening of doors' for people like me who had to mortgage their soul to go to the university of their choice......and esp. for all those people who from very early on were discouraged from even forming the goal of going to college because the amount of $$ it would cost their families was beyond comprehension.
..... and with respect to shoddy degree holders 'flooding the market': i firmly believe that your education is what you make it. you could go to a local state/community college, work your ass off and emerge a really well-educated person. by the same token, you could go to a prestigious university, waste all your time there, and emerge unfit for society, much less the job market.
....or maybe we (society) will go on as we mostly have.......perfectly satisfied with mediocrity. in which case, mediocre Online U grad, mediocre Prestigious U grad.......what's the difference?
a diploma is a piece of paper, no matter what institution's name is written on it. the real value is *in* the person who 'earned' the diploma. now, on entering the job market, that fact should become blatantly clear. if joe schmoe from Online U made his degree worth something, he'll probably do well in the real world....more power to him. if his degree really is just a con job, he'll ultimately fail, or get fired, or be 'found out' in some way.........
- sonic
This episode made me totally sick! not that the x-files *hasn't* devolved into complete drivel anyway....but i tuned in cause the ads with scully decked out in VR armor were just too much for me to pass up....... needless to say the episode was a complete disappointment. and not just cause all *3* of the woman in this episode (not counting the killer-chick's holographic duplicates :P) were like stereotypes of a stereotype! both genders were maligned equally, imo. at least for women, there were 3 *different* stereotypes......scully, moralizing for the sake of the children, the freak-of-nature hackergrrl, and the homicidal fembot. *all* the men were portrayed as sex-crazed automotons -- especially mulder, leading with his Wang, as usual........those cops were sickening!! ok....except maybe for those 3 nerdy guys (what are they called again?).....mulder's tech buddies......they always amuse me. anyway.....i should know not to expect anything more than the most trite generalizations from this show......women, men, hackers, gamers, whatever........ i guess this makes me an ex-x-files fan :P, sonicblnd
>>Millions of dollars in damages?conduct that caused these companies to shut down their
networks?retool?
>By this logic, if I inform someone that their house is on fire, I should be charged with arson.
no, by that logic, a better analogy would be.....if i set someone's house on fire, then inform them that it was flammable, i should be charged with arson.
really, burning down a house isn't that good an analogy at all.....since, as far as i understand it, no actual damage was done in kevin's case other than to the pride of certain individuals.......
imo, under slightly different conditions (e.g. he'd been contracted -- ever heard of "mystery shopping"??) this guy's activities would be called "consulting".......but the fact is, he wasn't hired. he broke in to these systems, without the owners' saying "please, try and break in."
so, it might have been fun (and even construed as an unintended *favor* to the "victims"), but, in strict legal terms, he had no business doing what he did.
it's basic issue of "sovreignty".......i retain the right to exercise exclusive control over my own domain (domain, in the psychological sense). even if what someone does is meant as, or ends up unintentionally being, a *favor*, it still disempowers me because it is something to which i did not consent.......