Sometimes, it's the ignorant friend who posts the data that you want to keep private for you. Even if you're not a Facebook user.
[Tagged] "Grant Lawson passed out on the floor from too much cocaine at last night's orgy!!LOLOL!!!"
This is the argument I raise in most discussions about Facebook. While the above is perfectly feasible everywhere on the Web (not to mention other services such as Usenet,) the main problem is that Facebook encourages such behavior. Facebook doesn't only make business on making its users give up their own personal information (which I cannot object), but also others', mostly without their consent.
Take the contact list import function as an example. It asks you for your user name and password on a third party web mail (probably with a hypocritical "We promise not to abuse it" disclaimer) to download your whole address book and spam your peers. Anybody using such a function a decade ago would have been declared an idiot, but today it seems to be perfectly normal and acceptable to do so.
My only problem with Facebook is that why they can't allow a complete account removal. They just disable the accounts. With a simple log in, the account is re - enabled.
I joined Facebook on the insistence of my friends. However, I no longer feel it useful, they are too many cluttered apps (which I can't tolerate) and other stuff which make it simply unusable. I tried to delete my account, it doesn't work.
You know what I am going to answer, don't you? It's your own fault.
Grow a backbone and get a habit of telling your friends to go and fuck themselves when appropriate. Otherwise you could end up doing worse things than signing up for a bullshit web site next time you succumb to peer pressure.
If you think that there is no field in which you would be considered "stupid" then you're quite an arrogant little sod.
This is true. However, there is a huge difference between not being perfect and being completely unfit for life.
Some my empathize with the people who are wiring their life savings to Nigeria, or who are the target audience of warnings such as "Don't put this plastic bag over your child's head because it might suffocate", but I certainly don't. Fuck them.
Why as a society do we continue to protect the stupid. Can't we just let them fail and go away. If we continue to prop them up there will be no breeding disadvantage to them and we will all become fucking idiots. Please for the love of the deity of your choice. Let the stupid kill themselves off!
Please mod the parent up. It may sound cruel, but the society is becoming increasingly idiotic thanks to the nanny state.
As George Carlin once said, "The kid who swallows too many marbles doesn't grow up to have kids of his own. Simple stuff."
Statement that N megapixels ought to be enough is no different than a similar one made by a certain Mr. Gates a while ago. Shortsightedness at its best.
Having said that, I've never been a megapixel chaser. Factors such as lens quality, maximum aperture and others are of much bigger importance for me. When it comes to sensors specifically, I would always trade one with 15Mp for another which can shoot at ISO6400 with less noise, for example.
Another indication that megapixel wars no longer make much sense is the fact that nowadays even mobile phones compete with SLRs on megapixel scale. But do they really outperform SLRs in general?
That's about as fair of criticism as can be had. As the summary suggests, stop enabling these people. Only management can enable these type of anti-team employees. Give them the ultimatum, document your crap or get out. Don't let them entrench themselves for years with this behavior.
The problem is much deeper than enabling such people. People like "Josh" and those who enabled them (their immediate superiors, probably) are merely symptoms indicating that there is something seriously wrong with the whole organization, perhaps even top management to begin with.
if the author has such a problem with this guy, maybe he needs to be skilled enough to replace him
In my experience it is usually the management who makes people difficult to replace. At one of my previous jobs my bosses noticed that I can handle the work load and cheerfully ignored my pleas to hire more people. I was forced to work even on my vacation and sick leaves. When I finally announced my resignation, I had to listen to comments such as "How can you do this to us", "You are immoral" (!) et cetera. Go figure.
Lesson, you are replaceable. If you are not replaceable, then you are too dangerous to have.
My words exactly. To bad many managers don't understand the same.
As I noticed is one of my previous comments, this story is really about mismanagement than misbehavior of employees.
Why do people feel the need to control quirky geniuses who are doing nothing wrong?
People who value their individuality and resist corporate brainwashing are always regarded as "dangerous", especially in large companies. This is no wonder, since a flock of sheep is much easier to control and manipulate than a group of thinking individuals.
Seriously, there's nothing in this example that's out of the ordinary, except for the women's t-shirts.
Agree. The detail with his T-shirt slogans might indicate a lack of personal manners, if they are truly offensive. But then again, the sense of humor is a very individual thing and usually resides in the eye of beholder.
That's what you get for having a casual work place. My thought would be that if the author has such a problem with this guy, maybe he needs to be skilled enough to replace him.
In my experience, larger companies will be more than happy to get rid of a single good engineer and replace him with 5 mediocre to bad ones to replace him. Ask yourself why.
By the way, we didn't hear the story from the other perspective, from "Josh" about "Eric". Would be interesting.
The fact this guy gets away with being a downright asshole is purely a management issue at the company. The management either decided to ignore the problem, or tolerate him as he is for whatever reason.
I stumbled upon a couple of such people at my jobs, except they were by no means above average and even had no excuse for similar behavior. Fighting them makes no sense, usually. My advice is to ignore them and focus on doing your job. If it becomes unbearable, change your job.
P.S. Somebody who gets insulted by a slogan on somebody else's T-shirt has a serious issue with himself, I would say.
Bob the Angry Flower rules the universe. I'm glad it has more fans.
Re:there's a real Netiquette problem here
on
Linked In Or Out?
·
· Score: 1
Several of my friends don't seem to understand that it is inappropriate to provide someone's private Email address to anybody without their consent in advance.
That's the bottom line here: an Email that says, "Invitation to connect on LinkedIn" really means "Some idiot gave us your Email address, and we will pester you until you give us more information."
It's just as bad as an E-greeting card, or "click to Email this article." STOP DOING IT.
Mod this up.
What you described is a highly annoying feature of most social networking sites, including LinkedIn. Some of them will even allow you to upload your whole address book, or ask you to supply your password to webmail, so that they can log in to your mailbox and get addresses of all your correspondents. Only a complete idiot would use such a feature, and I was appalled to find out that some of my colleagues "IT professionals" do it.
This is one of the reasons why social networking sites mostly disgust me -- they encourage their users to apply peer pressure on their behalf as a marketing tool. Even LinkedIn (which I tolerate, as described elsewhere) does this.
So it propably won't pay off. Or - has anyone got a job through LinkedIn?
I received a couple of offers, but didn't pursue them so I cannot be sure how serious they were. So far most of my jobs came to me thanks to Monster.
Re:Kill all the LIONs.
on
Linked In Or Out?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
By the way, what happens when you click "I don't know this person" on somebody's invitation? Do they receive any answer or simply get blocked from inviting you again?
It seems it's visible from invitation status in the outbox, as explained here.
Apparently, receiving five "I don't know" responses to invitations will introduce restrictions to your account. For example, you won't be able to invite anybody without knowing her email address.
There are successful people on LinkedIn. There's also an army of annoying losers, called
"LIONs", trolling for friend requests. These are mostly consultants and marketeers trying to use LinkedIn to spam. They get really annoyed if you click "I don't know this person", because a few of those actions turns off their ability to spam.
I add people to my network only if I know them personally and also appreciate them. That's why I have less then 50 connections after a couple of years.
By the way, what happens when you click "I don't know this person" on somebody's invitation? Do they receive any answer or simply get blocked from inviting you again?
The only site I use is LinkedIn, because it is a good way to keep a thin attachment to people who are just contacts, but people I don't want to loose touch with entirely. That to me is far different than telling people misc details about my life that I consider to be private.
I share your opinion. Although I am very negative towards the very idea of social networking as such, I still find LinkedIn to be acceptable because it is professionally oriented (unlike Facebook and others). I primarily use it as a job seeking tool and use to receive some offers from time to time.
If you set your own house on fire deliberately and try to cash the insurance money, you're commiting a fraud.
However, if you are a notorius substance abuser, you most likely have a psychological problem behind it. You need medical help both for the consecuences of said substance abuse _and_ your mind problems, that's why I said that they need it more.
Maybe so, but we could discuss what is the difference between free will and mental disorder. Where do we draw the line?
Take me as an example. I'm mildly overweight and absolutely don't care about being fit. Should I be given psychological help at somebody else's expense?
I do find it acceptable for the government to revoke health insurance of notorious substance abusers (including smokers and alcoholics), however.
You kidding? those are the guys who actually need it more. The onlyproblem is that only the consecuences are usually treated, not the root problems.
I'm not kidding. If you crash your car or set your house on fire deliberately, the insurance company will rightfully refuse to pay you a penny. Why should health insurance be any different? Mind you, I'm not suggesting that health care should be denied to junkies, only that they should pay for it themselves.
Freedom and responsibility are two faces of the same coin. They don't exist without each other.
It's time we seriously considered two things -
Legalizing marijuana
I suggest legalizing all drugs to adults, because an adult person should have the right to consume whatever she wants as long as she does it in her own privacy without interfering with others. I do find it acceptable for the government to revoke health insurance of notorious substance abusers (including smokers and alcoholics), however.
Exiling violent offenders
There is no place to exile them to, I'm afraid. But I believe that incorrigible criminals should be executed.
Slashdot Mirror
FYI, the iPhone 3GS has voice commands built-in now. Too bad it wasn't there from the start...
Perhaps so, but this fact doesn't address RCourtney's concern about upload of contact lists to untrustworthy parties.
Too bad the scumbag didn't die in the process. It would be such a nice Darwin Award winning material...
| ... private information on Facebook ...
Are you new to the internet? Since when is anything posted on facebook "private"??
Exactly. I have to wonder what kind of a cretin modded you down for saying this.
Sometimes, it's the ignorant friend who posts the data that you want to keep private for you. Even if you're not a Facebook user.
[Tagged] "Grant Lawson passed out on the floor from too much cocaine at last night's orgy!!LOLOL!!!"
This is the argument I raise in most discussions about Facebook. While the above is perfectly feasible everywhere on the Web (not to mention other services such as Usenet,) the main problem is that Facebook encourages such behavior. Facebook doesn't only make business on making its users give up their own personal information (which I cannot object), but also others', mostly without their consent.
Take the contact list import function as an example. It asks you for your user name and password on a third party web mail (probably with a hypocritical "We promise not to abuse it" disclaimer) to download your whole address book and spam your peers. Anybody using such a function a decade ago would have been declared an idiot, but today it seems to be perfectly normal and acceptable to do so.
My only problem with Facebook is that why they can't allow a complete account removal. They just disable the accounts. With a simple log in, the account is re - enabled.
I joined Facebook on the insistence of my friends. However, I no longer feel it useful, they are too many cluttered apps (which I can't tolerate) and other stuff which make it simply unusable. I tried to delete my account, it doesn't work.
You know what I am going to answer, don't you? It's your own fault.
Grow a backbone and get a habit of telling your friends to go and fuck themselves when appropriate. Otherwise you could end up doing worse things than signing up for a bullshit web site next time you succumb to peer pressure.
We've already seen amusing stories about US/Canadian citizens by chance finding their faces plastered all over stores in Czechoslovakia
Not only Czechoslovakia, I heard that Facebook users from the Holy Roman Empire had a similar experience as well!
If you think that there is no field in which you would be considered "stupid" then you're quite an arrogant little sod.
This is true. However, there is a huge difference between not being perfect and being completely unfit for life.
Some my empathize with the people who are wiring their life savings to Nigeria, or who are the target audience of warnings such as "Don't put this plastic bag over your child's head because it might suffocate", but I certainly don't. Fuck them.
Why as a society do we continue to protect the stupid. Can't we just let them fail and go away. If we continue to prop them up there will be no breeding disadvantage to them and we will all become fucking idiots. Please for the love of the deity of your choice. Let the stupid kill themselves off!
Please mod the parent up. It may sound cruel, but the society is becoming increasingly idiotic thanks to the nanny state.
As George Carlin once said, "The kid who swallows too many marbles doesn't grow up to have kids of his own. Simple stuff."
Statement that N megapixels ought to be enough is no different than a similar one made by a certain Mr. Gates a while ago. Shortsightedness at its best.
Having said that, I've never been a megapixel chaser. Factors such as lens quality, maximum aperture and others are of much bigger importance for me. When it comes to sensors specifically, I would always trade one with 15Mp for another which can shoot at ISO6400 with less noise, for example.
Another indication that megapixel wars no longer make much sense is the fact that nowadays even mobile phones compete with SLRs on megapixel scale. But do they really outperform SLRs in general?
That's about as fair of criticism as can be had. As the summary suggests, stop enabling these people. Only management can enable these type of anti-team employees. Give them the ultimatum, document your crap or get out. Don't let them entrench themselves for years with this behavior.
The problem is much deeper than enabling such people. People like "Josh" and those who enabled them (their immediate superiors, probably) are merely symptoms indicating that there is something seriously wrong with the whole organization, perhaps even top management to begin with.
if the author has such a problem with this guy, maybe he needs to be skilled enough to replace him
In my experience it is usually the management who makes people difficult to replace. At one of my previous jobs my bosses noticed that I can handle the work load and cheerfully ignored my pleas to hire more people. I was forced to work even on my vacation and sick leaves. When I finally announced my resignation, I had to listen to comments such as "How can you do this to us", "You are immoral" (!) et cetera. Go figure.
Lesson, you are replaceable. If you are not replaceable, then you are too dangerous to have.
My words exactly. To bad many managers don't understand the same.
As I noticed is one of my previous comments, this story is really about mismanagement than misbehavior of employees.
Why do people feel the need to control quirky geniuses who are doing nothing wrong?
People who value their individuality and resist corporate brainwashing are always regarded as "dangerous", especially in large companies. This is no wonder, since a flock of sheep is much easier to control and manipulate than a group of thinking individuals.
Seriously, there's nothing in this example that's out of the ordinary, except for the women's t-shirts.
Agree. The detail with his T-shirt slogans might indicate a lack of personal manners, if they are truly offensive. But then again, the sense of humor is a very individual thing and usually resides in the eye of beholder.
That's what you get for having a casual work place. My thought would be that if the author has such a problem with this guy, maybe he needs to be skilled enough to replace him.
In my experience, larger companies will be more than happy to get rid of a single good engineer and replace him with 5 mediocre to bad ones to replace him. Ask yourself why.
By the way, we didn't hear the story from the other perspective, from "Josh" about "Eric". Would be interesting.
The fact this guy gets away with being a downright asshole is purely a management issue at the company. The management either decided to ignore the problem, or tolerate him as he is for whatever reason.
I stumbled upon a couple of such people at my jobs, except they were by no means above average and even had no excuse for similar behavior. Fighting them makes no sense, usually. My advice is to ignore them and focus on doing your job. If it becomes unbearable, change your job.
P.S. Somebody who gets insulted by a slogan on somebody else's T-shirt has a serious issue with himself, I would say.
Bob the Angry Flower rules the universe. I'm glad it has more fans.
Several of my friends don't seem to understand that it is inappropriate to provide someone's private Email address to anybody without their consent in advance. That's the bottom line here: an Email that says, "Invitation to connect on LinkedIn" really means "Some idiot gave us your Email address, and we will pester you until you give us more information." It's just as bad as an E-greeting card, or "click to Email this article." STOP DOING IT.
Mod this up.
What you described is a highly annoying feature of most social networking sites, including LinkedIn. Some of them will even allow you to upload your whole address book, or ask you to supply your password to webmail, so that they can log in to your mailbox and get addresses of all your correspondents. Only a complete idiot would use such a feature, and I was appalled to find out that some of my colleagues "IT professionals" do it.
This is one of the reasons why social networking sites mostly disgust me -- they encourage their users to apply peer pressure on their behalf as a marketing tool. Even LinkedIn (which I tolerate, as described elsewhere) does this.
So it propably won't pay off. Or - has anyone got a job through LinkedIn?
I received a couple of offers, but didn't pursue them so I cannot be sure how serious they were. So far most of my jobs came to me thanks to Monster.
By the way, what happens when you click "I don't know this person" on somebody's invitation? Do they receive any answer or simply get blocked from inviting you again?
It seems it's visible from invitation status in the outbox, as explained here.
Apparently, receiving five "I don't know" responses to invitations will introduce restrictions to your account. For example, you won't be able to invite anybody without knowing her email address.
There are successful people on LinkedIn. There's also an army of annoying losers, called "LIONs", trolling for friend requests. These are mostly consultants and marketeers trying to use LinkedIn to spam. They get really annoyed if you click "I don't know this person", because a few of those actions turns off their ability to spam.
I add people to my network only if I know them personally and also appreciate them. That's why I have less then 50 connections after a couple of years.
By the way, what happens when you click "I don't know this person" on somebody's invitation? Do they receive any answer or simply get blocked from inviting you again?
I got a blowjob.
Was it from an 85-year old grandmother who removed her denture? If not, it doesn't sound like fun at all.
The only site I use is LinkedIn, because it is a good way to keep a thin attachment to people who are just contacts, but people I don't want to loose touch with entirely. That to me is far different than telling people misc details about my life that I consider to be private.
I share your opinion. Although I am very negative towards the very idea of social networking as such, I still find LinkedIn to be acceptable because it is professionally oriented (unlike Facebook and others). I primarily use it as a job seeking tool and use to receive some offers from time to time.
1984 was supposed to be a cautionary tale NOT an instruction manual!
True. The purpose of SF is often to warn of the future, not predict it.
If you set your own house on fire deliberately and try to cash the insurance money, you're commiting a fraud.
However, if you are a notorius substance abuser, you most likely have a psychological problem behind it. You need medical help both for the consecuences of said substance abuse _and_ your mind problems, that's why I said that they need it more.
Maybe so, but we could discuss what is the difference between free will and mental disorder. Where do we draw the line?
Take me as an example. I'm mildly overweight and absolutely don't care about being fit. Should I be given psychological help at somebody else's expense?
I may be wrong.
Same here.
I do find it acceptable for the government to revoke health insurance of notorious substance abusers (including smokers and alcoholics), however.
You kidding? those are the guys who actually need it more. The onlyproblem is that only the consecuences are usually treated, not the root problems.
I'm not kidding. If you crash your car or set your house on fire deliberately, the insurance company will rightfully refuse to pay you a penny. Why should health insurance be any different? Mind you, I'm not suggesting that health care should be denied to junkies, only that they should pay for it themselves.
Freedom and responsibility are two faces of the same coin. They don't exist without each other.
I prefer not to feed the trolls, but this is a meme that I see more and more on here.
Is everybody who doesn't share your views a troll?
It's time we seriously considered two things - Legalizing marijuana
I suggest legalizing all drugs to adults, because an adult person should have the right to consume whatever she wants as long as she does it in her own privacy without interfering with others. I do find it acceptable for the government to revoke health insurance of notorious substance abusers (including smokers and alcoholics), however.
Exiling violent offenders
There is no place to exile them to, I'm afraid. But I believe that incorrigible criminals should be executed.