I'm sure there's a team of scientists over at MIT or Stanford, working hard on the next-generation bird-based beer-delivery system. Have some faith in science, man!
Although the bill may not be explicit in its language, rest assured that once the door is cracked open, that power will be [ab]used to its fullest.
Good question about the feasibility of blanket-exempting a branch of the government from "any law, regulation, policy", etc. Slashdot lawyers? Hello?
Well, I guess you can: many state laws specifically exclude the police.
They do, but with a metric shit-ton of conditions imposed, not a free-floating permission.
Best-case scenario, this is another pork project that will make some people very happy with the grants. Worst-case scenario, this is the replay (move-by-move) of the Bolshevik government's actions in Russia circa 1917. "First, we must control the telephone, telegraph, and the postal office" - Vladimir Lenin. Call me paranoid ("You're paranoid!"), but it's just a little unsettling to anyone who's studied history.
On a tangent, what's pretty amazing is the comparative lack of interest in this outside of/. Even Facebook, with 150+ million members, has only 3 groups set up (and these are folks who make a group on just about every topic) - http://www.facebook.com/srch.php?q=cybersecurity+2009&k=200000010
If spammers can't make money off of sending out spam, they won't send it out to begin with.
You're right. Unfortunately, all it takes is 0.01% of idiots who do click on those links / buy penny stocks / try the male-enlargement cream - and the spammers have a profit. And 0.01% of 10,000,000 E-mails is 1,000 actions (sales/registrations/infocaptures/whatever).
Spam will not be stopped until one or both of the following things happen (either one will destroy the profit scheme):
The general population gets smart enough that no one ever again clicks on a link in a spam E-mail.
A postage-based E-mail solution is implemented globally. (Postage being anything from actual money, to virtual tokens, to hash-calcs eating up CPU cycles, etc.).
Nice in theory, but it's a pretty close call between which of the 2 items listed above has a worse chance of happening.
P.S.
You're also right on "Obama Administration" and "Communism" not being synonymous. Forgot the "yet", though.
My personal favorite is Keytronic.
Anyone remember those?
I think they may have made keyboards for IBM, but not 100% sure.
Keytronic boards are built like battleships. I have one that's almost 14 years old, has at least 9 years of daily office use on it, and works better than anything else. One of those pieces of equipment that you know will never die.
The most awesome thing about it, though, is the ridiculous surplus of keys. Standard 101 layout, plus 12 extra programmable F-keys (above the main F keys), plus 10 macro keys (left of Tab/CapsLock/etc), plus a calculator (using the space above the keypad), plus a detachable trackball module. Holy crap. And of course, metal casing, clicky feel, drainage holes, the works.
Too bad they don't seem to offer these "loaded" boards anymore. Dammit.
I've gotten a couple of those too.
Did you get a 3-page letter, first page from the ISP + 2 pages from copyright holder (printout of XML file showing all the stats)?
(Ironically enough, both letters were for completely SHITTY content that I was glad I could preview for free & save my money to buy a legit DVD/iTunes download of something worthwhile.)
A while ago, there was a thread on [house of m00t] with the OP showcasing a pic of his 100+ collection of those letters. Lulz were had by all.
My letters are over a year old, and there's been no escalation whatsoever. Still the same ISP, the same level of service. I honestly have no idea why they even bother killing the trees. (*whoosh* - and cue Slashdot lawyers in 3... 2... 1...)
coward
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French cuard, from cue, coe tail, from Latin cauda
Date: 13th century
Definition: one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coward
Anonymity has a higher purpose than being used only for hiding behind while making threats/posting illegal activity.
It is one of the foundations of freedom of speech and democracy, allowing citizens to voice their concerns and opinions without fear of prosecution or ridicule.
It reminds us to place principles before personalities, allowing logic to take precedent over emotions.
P.S. It's a bit ironic to hear an admonition to "be brave for once and say what you want in the open" - from an Anonymous Coward. LOL. Good job. Alanis Morrisette would be proud.
Worth a read, especially moments like request for "Any and all documents relating to the establishment and ongoing operation of the website, freedominion.ca, by the Fournier Defendants, such as, but not limited to,
hosting agreements, billing information, and website registrant name(s)."
Now, if the purpose of the motion is to acquire documents that will help to establish the identities of the posters - how the hell is the hosting agreement/billing details/etc relevant? Or is this a case of "let's collect all the paperwork we can, relevant or not, and then see what we can make of it"?
"Well, we see that you've established the site in 1991, and have been paying $ 39.99/month for hosting. CLEARLY, this proves... um... actually, I'm not sure WHAT it proves... Hang on."
In cities like NYC, not all intersections have turn-arrow lights. In those cases, if you're making a TURN, it's OK to block the intersection - otherwise, you will never be able to make the turn due to the cross-traffic. Technically, it's illegal. Technically, you could get a ticket. But most cops in NYC are not assholes, and recognize that blocking the intersection for several seconds because you need to turn is a far lesser evil than blocking the traffic for several minutes (which, considering the traffic density of Manhattan, will impact hundreds of vehicles.)
Also known as the "DON'T BLOCK THE BOX - FINE+POINTS" law (as written on the signs all over Manhattan). Can't make it any friggin' simpler.
This law makes sense 100% in urban environments - even if the intersection is clear, but the road segment beyond is packed, do NOT get into the intersection regardless of the light color, because you will NOT get through.
Being a jackass and trying to "squeeze in" will earn you the undivided attention of an NYPD cop. Yet people still try to "beat the light".
On one hand, if efficient mass-transit systems are put into place in major American cities, including the suburbs, many people won't need cars anymore.
On the other hand, nobody is going to invest billions of dollars into new infrastructure when everybody has a car already.
The amount of traffic in major US cities is ridiculous. And what is truly tragic is that, in most cases, it's a case of "Point A to Point B" traffic, such as the 100,000 cars/day moving between Manhattan and New Jersey's Hudson and Bergen counties. One "bedroom community" contributes hundreds of thousands of cars to the road - having an excellent public transportation system would remove the vast majority of those cars, significantly reducing emissions, saving commuters a ton of money, and improving quality of life.
However, despite the traffic problem having been extant for some decades, nothing has been done. The current mass-transit systems in major US cities range from "moderately crappy" to "outright shitty", and many Americans refuse to use them, preferring the comfort of their own cars (environmental impact be damned). And having seen the subway systems in London (best damn design anywhere, love the timing displays), Paris (almost 100% coverage, and excellent artwork), Moscow (unfuckingbelievable architecture + amazing timing & speed), Oslo, and Helsinki - and then comparing them to the pathetic run-down crap that has to be tolerated by NYC MTA, SEPTA, and BART riders, I honestly cannot blame them.
It's not likely that any major renovations/expansions of US mass-transit will be done, not until a much greater pressure (oil supply cut-off, draconian environmental laws [goodluckwiththat], etc) outright forces the development of a viable (and reliable) mass-transit system.
Until that day, US city and state governments will be perfectly happy profiting from tolls, a corrupt insurance system, traffic tickets, and many other sources of income. And let's not forget the political influence of the various unions involved in highway construction & maintenance.
Yes, an effective, well-designed, comfortable, and reliable mass-transit would be the solution to the urban-suburban transportation needs of America, and carbon footprint reduction.
But, for reasons outlined above (and a few more), it's not going to happen anytime soon.
There are some pretty important differences between the last major clash of Micro$oft VS "indie" developers (the Netscape Wars era), and the web landscape as we see it today.
There was only one significant David to Microsoft's Goliath. Now there are a dozen. Firefox, Chrome, WebKit, Konqueror, the list goes on.
Awareness of web standards was at a minimal level, even among "professional" web designers. Today, there's much more concern about interoperability and cross-browser compatibility. Thanks to major design blogs (AListApart, Art.Lebedev, etc), Firefox/Chrome, iPhone, and a metric shit-ton of other factors I won't bore you with, this issue is finally seeing the light.
Awareness of Open Source software as a concept was at an abysmal level compared to today. Projects like OsAlt.com did not (and could not) exist back then. Now, a significant percentage of the public is *aware of alternatives*, thereby making them far more likely to at least *try* them.
Generational shift. Look at the average web user 10 years ago, and look at the same average user now. Notice something different? He (or more increasingly, SHE) is younger, typically more educated, typically more open-minded, and hell of a lot more likely to crowdsource advice from MySpace/Facebook/Twitter/etc, as opposed to blindly taking the "default" path.
Members of the "Us Generation" are more likely to try new things, and decide on an option that gives them the best solution for their own, personal needs.
And conversely, they're far less likely to even begin to trust *anything* that a major corporation says (Apple is an exception, because, you know, they're soooo cool. Ahem.)
Wide availability of standards-oriented web access devices clashing with "fossil" websites built in strict accordance with Micro$oft's insanity.
45-year-old Joe Q Public doesn't want to hear why his bank's website doesn't work on his iPhone. The man needs to do his banking "on the go", and chances are he'll switch to another bank whose site will give him that ability (considering the APY's between most major banks are pretty much on the level).
It's not only an issue of web developers' [completely justified] bitching about hard-coded incompatible sites, it's becoming an issue for the general public as well.
So, slowly but inexorably, standards will win. There is no other option.
"Of course, this is just my opinion, I could be wrong." (C) Dennis Miller
I'll take "Alexis De Tocqueville" for $ 600, Alex.
"Democracy In America"
Chapter 8: "How The Americans Combat Individualism By The Principle Of Self-Interest Rightly Understood"
"The principle of self-interest rightly understood produces no great acts of self-sacrifice, but it suggests daily small acts of self-denial. By itself it cannot suffice to make a man virtuous; but it disciplines a number of persons in habits of regularity, temperance, moderation, foresight, self-command; and if it does not lead men straight to virtue by the will, it gradually draws them in that direction by their habits. If the principle of interest rightly understood were to sway the whole moral world, extraordinary virtues would doubtless be more rare; but I think that gross depravity would then also be less common. The principle of interest rightly understood perhaps prevents men from rising far above the level of mankind, but a great number of other men, who were falling far below it, are caught and restrained by it. Observe some few individuals, they are lowered by it; survey mankind, they are raised."
It seems De Tocqueville, while acknowledging the need for a "common morality" to guide the vast majority of the population, is also inserting a "subtle" warning that the same "common morality" will prevent some individuals from "rising far above the level of mankind".
A point somewhat related to Andrew Ryan's ideal (dazzle me with the source of this one, no Googling please): "A city where the artist would not fear the censor. Where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality. Where the great would not be constrained by the small. And with the sweat of your brow, {this city} can become your city as well."
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against--then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it.
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone?
But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted--and you create a nation of law-breakers--and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
Once you understand that everything we do, Mr. Anonymous, we do to Protect The Children, you'll be much easier to deal with.
So, AT&T actually creates a system that becomes "aware" of huge charges being racked up, and warns the customer.
Everything that people do, they do for two reasons: the reason they tell others, and the real reason, which they keep to themselves.
The ostensible point of such a system is to be able to say (in advertisements as well as in court), "Hey, we care about our customers, we'll actually warn them if they're over-spending."
The REAL point of such a system would have been to PREVENT those charges in the first place:
Customer is racking up $ 10 / minute (or w/e other amount well above average)? Sure, send a few warning messages first. But then, if you actually want to prevent the problem, CUT OFF access and display a message that REQUIRES confirmation. Make the customer call service & ask what happened. At which point they'll tell him, "hey Joe Customer, we noticed that you were running up hundreds of dollars in charges, so we warned you [twice-10 times] and then we cut off the connection, since we didn't want to bankrupt you." At which point Joe Customer will realize that something *did* go wrong, but thanks to the company actually *enforcing* the ostensible goodwill intent of this system, they had prevented a major disaster.
And AT&T would have had a customer for life. Instead, they have this.
However, AT&T utterly failed to make this system actually *work* in all circumstances (data cards... phone is off, 2nd device on account is running up a bill... teenager on family plan calling a 1-900 line in Tokyo... area code scams... 9000+ more possible scenarios.)
Minor win for taking a step in the right direction (warning messages). Verizon doesn't even do that.
Epic fail for not taking this measure to its logical conclusion (don't warn, prevent problems).
In my experience running the customer service department of a major company (not related to telecom in any way), I've seen at least one example per day (on a good day) of people NOT reading warnings, NOT following instructions, clicking on confirmation dialogs without reading them, and generally behaving like biomass. This applies to customers, reps, and managers, BTW. So in order to prevent problems, measures must be taken to specifically disallow a dangerous action unless that action's consequences have been explained, understood, and confirmed.
The only way to build a truly reliable and secure process is to rely on logic, not on people "doing the right thing".
The only way to build a truly great relationship with customers is to not let them screw up. And of course, acknowledge your own screw-ups (and fix them).
A customer may get ticked off at the additional security / verification steps at the moment, but they'll thank you later.
And if your CSR's know what they're doing, and explain the risks up-front, they customer won't even be ticked off to begin with. Win-win.
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." (C) Dennis Miller.
1. That some businesses would want to slander (or libel) the competition, yeah, that probably goes all the way back to the dawn of time.
Astroturfing and astro-slander goes on all the time, on almost every review site. After all, if a business is going to invest the time/effort into promoting themselves (via fake reviews), why not slander the competition while you're at it? Makes sense from the time-management point of view.
Which is why most countries have various numbers of laws to contain the phenomenon.
And we're all keenly aware of just how well those laws work. Everything on teh interwebz should be taken with a grain^H^H^H^H^H large industrial-sized shaker of salt.
We're in an age where someone's reputation is probably the most important asset of their business.
Completely agree with you here. This goes double for new businesses especially, that do not have an established brand name or an expensive marketing campaign to bring new customers. And triple for online-only-based businesses. Of course, the more valuable reputation / credo becomes, the more incentive there is for competitors to trash it. Unfortunately, unless and until the "general public" learns to distinguish astroturfed reviews from real ones, this will keep happening, and there's precious little anyone (legislators, review sites, or businesses themselves) can do about it. And considering the general mental skillset of the general public (i.e. "sheeple"), this isn't very likely to happen anytime soon.
All that being said, I'd like to point out (after positioning tongue firmly in cheek) that Yelp (and a few other sites I won't mention here) aren't threatening businesses with adding bad reviews, they're offering incentives to remove the existing bad reviews. Which, according to their terms, they're well within their rights to do. Ever notice the "we reserve the right to remove any review if it does not meet editorial qualifications" or "if we suspect fraudulent activity" or similar verbiage? It's there for a reason. So technically, it's not extortion. *takes tongue out of cheek*.
Slashdot Mirror
Hrm. "Nanobeer" - from the makers of "Brawndo"?
I'm sure there's a team of scientists over at MIT or Stanford, working hard on the next-generation bird-based beer-delivery system. Have some faith in science, man!
Good question about the feasibility of blanket-exempting a branch of the government from "any law, regulation, policy", etc. Slashdot lawyers? Hello?
Well, I guess you can: many state laws specifically exclude the police.
They do, but with a metric shit-ton of conditions imposed, not a free-floating permission.
/. Even Facebook, with 150+ million members, has only 3 groups set up (and these are folks who make a group on just about every topic) - http://www.facebook.com/srch.php?q=cybersecurity+2009&k=200000010
Best-case scenario, this is another pork project that will make some people very happy with the grants. Worst-case scenario, this is the replay (move-by-move) of the Bolshevik government's actions in Russia circa 1917. "First, we must control the telephone, telegraph, and the postal office" - Vladimir Lenin. Call me paranoid ("You're paranoid!"), but it's just a little unsettling to anyone who's studied history.
On a tangent, what's pretty amazing is the comparative lack of interest in this outside of
1... and GO!
zombie control master rather than the horde (or is a botnet a "herd"?).
IMHO, the proper term is indeed "herd", since it's mostly composed of sheeple who think that AOL will protect them from the evils of the Internet.
If spammers can't make money off of sending out spam, they won't send it out to begin with.
You're right. Unfortunately, all it takes is 0.01% of idiots who do click on those links / buy penny stocks / try the male-enlargement cream - and the spammers have a profit. And 0.01% of 10,000,000 E-mails is 1,000 actions (sales/registrations/infocaptures/whatever).
Spam will not be stopped until one or both of the following things happen (either one will destroy the profit scheme):
Nice in theory, but it's a pretty close call between which of the 2 items listed above has a worse chance of happening.
P.S.
You're also right on "Obama Administration" and "Communism" not being synonymous. Forgot the "yet", though.
My personal favorite is Keytronic.
Anyone remember those?
I think they may have made keyboards for IBM, but not 100% sure.
Keytronic boards are built like battleships. I have one that's almost 14 years old, has at least 9 years of daily office use on it, and works better than anything else. One of those pieces of equipment that you know will never die.
The most awesome thing about it, though, is the ridiculous surplus of keys. Standard 101 layout, plus 12 extra programmable F-keys (above the main F keys), plus 10 macro keys (left of Tab/CapsLock/etc), plus a calculator (using the space above the keypad), plus a detachable trackball module. Holy crap. And of course, metal casing, clicky feel, drainage holes, the works.
Too bad they don't seem to offer these "loaded" boards anymore. Dammit.
Suddenoutbreakofcommonsense? What ISP is this?
I've gotten a couple of those too.
Did you get a 3-page letter, first page from the ISP + 2 pages from copyright holder (printout of XML file showing all the stats)?
(Ironically enough, both letters were for completely SHITTY content that I was glad I could preview for free & save my money to buy a legit DVD/iTunes download of something worthwhile.)
A while ago, there was a thread on [house of m00t] with the OP showcasing a pic of his 100+ collection of those letters. Lulz were had by all.
My letters are over a year old, and there's been no escalation whatsoever. Still the same ISP, the same level of service. I honestly have no idea why they even bother killing the trees. (*whoosh* - and cue Slashdot lawyers in 3... 2... 1...)
With trucks involved too. Don't forget the trucks.
Where did I say it's a "right"?
Read the damn post.
It's one of the contributing factors to free expression, that encourages speech w/o fear.
Partial cause, not the entire complex factor, and sure as fuck not the effect.
Jesus H. Christ. If you lack reading comprehension skills, expect to be ridiculed for that deficiency. Kind of like now.
Lrn2logic and then get back to me. Kthxbai.
coward
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French cuard, from cue, coe tail, from Latin cauda
Date: 13th century
Definition: one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coward
Anonymity has a higher purpose than being used only for hiding behind while making threats/posting illegal activity.
It is one of the foundations of freedom of speech and democracy, allowing citizens to voice their concerns and opinions without fear of prosecution or ridicule.
It reminds us to place principles before personalities, allowing logic to take precedent over emotions.
P.S. It's a bit ironic to hear an admonition to "be brave for once and say what you want in the open" - from an Anonymous Coward. LOL. Good job. Alanis Morrisette would be proud.
"It's hard to find a Vietnamese man named Charlie..."
Yup. Someone needs to gb2encyclopediadramatica and read up on the proper technique of meme application. It's harder than it looks, kids.
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/images/motion_decision.pdf
Worth a read, especially moments like request for "Any and all documents relating to the establishment and ongoing operation of the website, freedominion.ca, by the Fournier Defendants, such as, but not limited to, hosting agreements, billing information, and website registrant name(s)."
Now, if the purpose of the motion is to acquire documents that will help to establish the identities of the posters - how the hell is the hosting agreement/billing details/etc relevant? Or is this a case of "let's collect all the paperwork we can, relevant or not, and then see what we can make of it"?
"Well, we see that you've established the site in 1991, and have been paying $ 39.99/month for hosting. CLEARLY, this proves... um... actually, I'm not sure WHAT it proves... Hang on."
In cities like NYC, not all intersections have turn-arrow lights. In those cases, if you're making a TURN, it's OK to block the intersection - otherwise, you will never be able to make the turn due to the cross-traffic. Technically, it's illegal. Technically, you could get a ticket. But most cops in NYC are not assholes, and recognize that blocking the intersection for several seconds because you need to turn is a far lesser evil than blocking the traffic for several minutes (which, considering the traffic density of Manhattan, will impact hundreds of vehicles.)
Also known as the "DON'T BLOCK THE BOX - FINE+POINTS" law (as written on the signs all over Manhattan). Can't make it any friggin' simpler.
This law makes sense 100% in urban environments - even if the intersection is clear, but the road segment beyond is packed, do NOT get into the intersection regardless of the light color, because you will NOT get through.
Being a jackass and trying to "squeeze in" will earn you the undivided attention of an NYPD cop. Yet people still try to "beat the light".
It's a "Catch-22" situation, an infinite loop.
On one hand, if efficient mass-transit systems are put into place in major American cities, including the suburbs, many people won't need cars anymore.
On the other hand, nobody is going to invest billions of dollars into new infrastructure when everybody has a car already.
The amount of traffic in major US cities is ridiculous. And what is truly tragic is that, in most cases, it's a case of "Point A to Point B" traffic, such as the 100,000 cars/day moving between Manhattan and New Jersey's Hudson and Bergen counties. One "bedroom community" contributes hundreds of thousands of cars to the road - having an excellent public transportation system would remove the vast majority of those cars, significantly reducing emissions, saving commuters a ton of money, and improving quality of life.
However, despite the traffic problem having been extant for some decades, nothing has been done. The current mass-transit systems in major US cities range from "moderately crappy" to "outright shitty", and many Americans refuse to use them, preferring the comfort of their own cars (environmental impact be damned). And having seen the subway systems in London (best damn design anywhere, love the timing displays), Paris (almost 100% coverage, and excellent artwork), Moscow (unfuckingbelievable architecture + amazing timing & speed), Oslo, and Helsinki - and then comparing them to the pathetic run-down crap that has to be tolerated by NYC MTA, SEPTA, and BART riders, I honestly cannot blame them.
It's not likely that any major renovations/expansions of US mass-transit will be done, not until a much greater pressure (oil supply cut-off, draconian environmental laws [goodluckwiththat], etc) outright forces the development of a viable (and reliable) mass-transit system.
Until that day, US city and state governments will be perfectly happy profiting from tolls, a corrupt insurance system, traffic tickets, and many other sources of income. And let's not forget the political influence of the various unions involved in highway construction & maintenance.
Yes, an effective, well-designed, comfortable, and reliable mass-transit would be the solution to the urban-suburban transportation needs of America, and carbon footprint reduction.
But, for reasons outlined above (and a few more), it's not going to happen anytime soon.
There are some pretty important differences between the last major clash of Micro$oft VS "indie" developers (the Netscape Wars era), and the web landscape as we see it today.
Members of the "Us Generation" are more likely to try new things, and decide on an option that gives them the best solution for their own, personal needs.
And conversely, they're far less likely to even begin to trust *anything* that a major corporation says (Apple is an exception, because, you know, they're soooo cool. Ahem.)
45-year-old Joe Q Public doesn't want to hear why his bank's website doesn't work on his iPhone. The man needs to do his banking "on the go", and chances are he'll switch to another bank whose site will give him that ability (considering the APY's between most major banks are pretty much on the level).
It's not only an issue of web developers' [completely justified] bitching about hard-coded incompatible sites, it's becoming an issue for the general public as well.
So, slowly but inexorably, standards will win. There is no other option.
"Of course, this is just my opinion, I could be wrong." (C) Dennis Miller
Hm, I would have thought one Jobs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs) was enough...
I'll take "Alexis De Tocqueville" for $ 600, Alex.
"Democracy In America"
Chapter 8: "How The Americans Combat Individualism By The Principle Of Self-Interest Rightly Understood"
"The principle of self-interest rightly understood produces no great acts of self-sacrifice, but it suggests daily small acts of self-denial. By itself it cannot suffice to make a man virtuous; but it disciplines a number of persons in habits of regularity, temperance, moderation, foresight, self-command; and if it does not lead men straight to virtue by the will, it gradually draws them in that direction by their habits. If the principle of interest rightly understood were to sway the whole moral world, extraordinary virtues would doubtless be more rare; but I think that gross depravity would then also be less common. The principle of interest rightly understood perhaps prevents men from rising far above the level of mankind, but a great number of other men, who were falling far below it, are caught and restrained by it. Observe some few individuals, they are lowered by it; survey mankind, they are raised."
It seems De Tocqueville, while acknowledging the need for a "common morality" to guide the vast majority of the population, is also inserting a "subtle" warning that the same "common morality" will prevent some individuals from "rising far above the level of mankind".
A point somewhat related to Andrew Ryan's ideal (dazzle me with the source of this one, no Googling please): "A city where the artist would not fear the censor. Where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality. Where the great would not be constrained by the small. And with the sweat of your brow, {this city} can become your city as well."
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against--then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it.
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone?
But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted--and you create a nation of law-breakers--and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
So, AT&T actually creates a system that becomes "aware" of huge charges being racked up, and warns the customer.
Everything that people do, they do for two reasons: the reason they tell others, and the real reason, which they keep to themselves.
The ostensible point of such a system is to be able to say (in advertisements as well as in court), "Hey, we care about our customers, we'll actually warn them if they're over-spending."
The REAL point of such a system would have been to PREVENT those charges in the first place:
Customer is racking up $ 10 / minute (or w/e other amount well above average)? Sure, send a few warning messages first. But then, if you actually want to prevent the problem, CUT OFF access and display a message that REQUIRES confirmation. Make the customer call service & ask what happened. At which point they'll tell him, "hey Joe Customer, we noticed that you were running up hundreds of dollars in charges, so we warned you [twice-10 times] and then we cut off the connection, since we didn't want to bankrupt you." At which point Joe Customer will realize that something *did* go wrong, but thanks to the company actually *enforcing* the ostensible goodwill intent of this system, they had prevented a major disaster.
And AT&T would have had a customer for life. Instead, they have this.
However, AT&T utterly failed to make this system actually *work* in all circumstances (data cards... phone is off, 2nd device on account is running up a bill... teenager on family plan calling a 1-900 line in Tokyo... area code scams... 9000+ more possible scenarios.)
Minor win for taking a step in the right direction (warning messages). Verizon doesn't even do that.
Epic fail for not taking this measure to its logical conclusion (don't warn, prevent problems).
In my experience running the customer service department of a major company (not related to telecom in any way), I've seen at least one example per day (on a good day) of people NOT reading warnings, NOT following instructions, clicking on confirmation dialogs without reading them, and generally behaving like biomass. This applies to customers, reps, and managers, BTW. So in order to prevent problems, measures must be taken to specifically disallow a dangerous action unless that action's consequences have been explained, understood, and confirmed.
The only way to build a truly reliable and secure process is to rely on logic, not on people "doing the right thing".
The only way to build a truly great relationship with customers is to not let them screw up. And of course, acknowledge your own screw-ups (and fix them).
A customer may get ticked off at the additional security / verification steps at the moment, but they'll thank you later.
And if your CSR's know what they're doing, and explain the risks up-front, they customer won't even be ticked off to begin with. Win-win.
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." (C) Dennis Miller.
1. That some businesses would want to slander (or libel) the competition, yeah, that probably goes all the way back to the dawn of time.
Astroturfing and astro-slander goes on all the time, on almost every review site. After all, if a business is going to invest the time/effort into promoting themselves (via fake reviews), why not slander the competition while you're at it? Makes sense from the time-management point of view.
Which is why most countries have various numbers of laws to contain the phenomenon.
And we're all keenly aware of just how well those laws work. Everything on teh interwebz should be taken with a grain^H^H^H^H^H large industrial-sized shaker of salt.
We're in an age where someone's reputation is probably the most important asset of their business.
Completely agree with you here. This goes double for new businesses especially, that do not have an established brand name or an expensive marketing campaign to bring new customers. And triple for online-only-based businesses. Of course, the more valuable reputation / credo becomes, the more incentive there is for competitors to trash it. Unfortunately, unless and until the "general public" learns to distinguish astroturfed reviews from real ones, this will keep happening, and there's precious little anyone (legislators, review sites, or businesses themselves) can do about it. And considering the general mental skillset of the general public (i.e. "sheeple"), this isn't very likely to happen anytime soon.
All that being said, I'd like to point out (after positioning tongue firmly in cheek) that Yelp (and a few other sites I won't mention here) aren't threatening businesses with adding bad reviews, they're offering incentives to remove the existing bad reviews. Which, according to their terms, they're well within their rights to do. Ever notice the "we reserve the right to remove any review if it does not meet editorial qualifications" or "if we suspect fraudulent activity" or similar verbiage? It's there for a reason. So technically, it's not extortion. *takes tongue out of cheek*.