WOW-- You have perfectly described the company I just left!
Thankfully you had the option of leaving. That isn't always the case, but for children doing useless work that benefits no one, they have no such option. But at least you (presumably) got paid.
The schools might as well ask that people dig giant holes in the ground with spoons; that's about how useful the work they do is.
Anyone that disagrees with me doesn't have a child. All children are the same, too, and that's why everyone's opinion about how to raise a child will be the exact same.
I don't think someone's intelligence is determined by his/her grades, anyway. At least in the US, getting a good grade is as easy as memorizing as much useless information as is possible and then spewing it all back on a poorly designed test. Not everyone wants to put in the effort to do that, and some can't remember the material too well.
But in the end, the school's job is to prepare you for life in the workforce.
I'm not sure that locking you in a building with others your own age and then forcing you to complete useless, mundane busy work is a good way to accomplish that.
Then again, public schools certainly put too much effort into educating people.
But after a few decades in the Real World, I see now that the sports taught teamwork.
I wonder if there's a better way to do that than wasting millions of dollars on sports stadiums and equipment just so people can throw/hit balls around. It seems like an awfully expensive and inefficient way to teach something!
Social skills matter.
I believe that saying what needs to be said matters. Busy work in public school is another issue entirely.
I personally wouldn't blame anyone like that. Busy work in public school is seemingly almost always completely worthless and a waste of time. This isn't always true of real work.
You don't think high quality killing simulators might have some sort of effect on the nuts?
I don't know if I'd call them "high quality killing simulators." In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that people who call them that may, in fact, be "nuts."
The argument is NOT "violent video games will make a normal person into a killer" but that they can contribute to pushing someone who is close to the edge over it.
And what are some of the people who make these arguments getting at? That everyone else should have to suffer because of a few "nuts"? I hope not, but it certainly seems that way in some cases.
What a stupid response. Not only did you not address my question, but your comment is devoid of anything that resembles intelligence above a retard.
No, I did respond. You asked whether or not society will crumble if we let this continue as if that's the only thing that determines whether or not something is a problem. Something needn't cause society to fall apart for it to be a problem.
Will the foundations of society crumble because someone can't get out that ONE GOOD Hamlet remake where everyone dresses like they're in present times, but speak in Shakespearean language?
Will the foundations of society crumble if I punch you in the face? No, but that doesn't mean it's not a problem.
It depends on what you meant by "missing out." To me, it looks like you meant that having a child is objectively a good experience or that people would definitely be more happy with a child (due to the way you used it). I certainly didn't think you merely meant that they hadn't experienced something in particular because, as far as I know, that's not how it's normally used.
The point is that not everyone have the same goals or preferences. I don't care about a lot of things that other people enjoy, but that doesn't mean I'm "missing out."
The problem with waiting for the drug addict to commit a crime is the future innocent victim of the crime.
The problem with waiting for you to commit a crime is the future innocent victim of the crime. You might commit a crime in the future, so you must be punished now!
What you are saying is it's OK for a few innocent people to die and for a lot of others to have a constant feeling of living in a shitty society in order to let a few drug addicts be who they are.
I don't know what he's saying, but what I'm saying is that I vastly prefer freedom over safety. Have your TSA and drug war
What you are saying is that the freedom of a drug addict is worth more than the life of an innocent person.
I believe the freedom of everyone is worth more than the lives of a few innocent people. I'm willing to accept a few casualties, and indeed, no matter what you do, there will be casualties. That's why I'm against the TSA, the Patriot Act, and all that other nonsense that trades essential freedoms for security.
But what you're advocating for is that people be punished just because they might commit a crime in the future. Apparently you don't care about the innocent people affected by your decisions or that this is a ridiculous amount of power to give the government.
I think human sacrifice is not acceptable.
Then why are you advocating for punishing people and permanently altering them just because they might commit a crime in the future?
But if you're so obsessed with security at all costs that you'd go to such lengths, why not just make everyone live in padded rooms?
"Whoever posted that acted as if swear words are objectively bad or offensive, and that is what I objected to." Your words. Also, apologies for using the word "implication"... I should have said "the outright statement".
And I stand by that. If indeed he was saying (and, at least to me, it appeared that he was) that it's objectively bad (in any context), I object to that.
Nah, you just prefer to dismiss certain words you don't like.
Anything I don't like is unprofessional, actually.
4 possibilities.
2 possibilities. One: You don't really believe anything you said in that comment. Two: You do believe what you said in that comment, but you're still 100% wrong.
That'll show you what for.
Four: You understands words can have importance, but because you don't get offended by them you don't see why other people should, hence you flinging the word "objective" round like it helps your cause *even though you're being fundamentally subjective*.
When did I ever once say that I wasn't being subjective? Of course I am; I'm expressing my opinion about the matter! I can see how words have importance, but I just think it's laughable that people actually get offended by a specific class of words and how some people actually act like certain words are objectively bad to use. Yes, that's my opinion, and it's a subjective matter.
Maybe that poster wasn't trying to say that these words shouldn't be used in certain contexts, but that's not how it came across to me. At any rate, I don't see anything indicating an opinion there.
I just realised the wonderful hypocrisy that you think people shouldn't get bent out of shape by people saying certain words to them... while at the same time having a big problem with people saying a certain word to you.
I just maintain that they're not objectively bad. Additionally, I'm referring to people getting offended by them. Although I disagree with the usage, I'm not really offended by it.
It's less entertaining when I can predict all the replies you're going to make.
If you honestly don't see how typing that crap about someone, in a venue visible to all their colleagues, when you can get the same point across in a more (and yes, I'm going to use the word) professional way could possibly be thought to be offensive except by the terminally sensitive
I do believe that they're oversensitive, but that's not the point. You could get rid of the swear words and make it just as offensive to certain people. Different people are offended by different things, after all.
That's because you're using a computer while in command of a limited intellect.
I disagree. But you sure are quick to state that someone lacks intelligence simply because you believe he/she is wrong about something.
Your implication I don't like "swear words"? In case you haven't noticed by now, bullshit.
I was not specifically referring to you.
The implication the poster acted as if swear words are always bad?
Where's that? Regardless of how often he thinks they're bad, I object to it if he thinks it's an objective matter.
He's saying that, *in the context of telling a subordinate in a businesslike environment*, swear words are objectionable.
What you're saying is not new information. I responded to that. This ambiguous "professional" label is, to me, purely nonsense. I do not see how swearing is bad in this context even if most people think it is. It's funny to me how people can get offended by things like that.
but you're a downright idiot if you don't understand that, in most work environments
Not what I was arguing about; irrelevant.
Not bullshit, but you're *acting* like they are.
Absolutely not.
when you can get the same point across in a more (and yes, I'm going to use the word) professional way
Slashdot Mirror
WOW-- You have perfectly described the company I just left!
Thankfully you had the option of leaving. That isn't always the case, but for children doing useless work that benefits no one, they have no such option. But at least you (presumably) got paid.
The schools might as well ask that people dig giant holes in the ground with spoons; that's about how useful the work they do is.
Anyone that disagrees with me doesn't have a child. All children are the same, too, and that's why everyone's opinion about how to raise a child will be the exact same.
Then again, public schools certainly put too much effort into educating people.
Then again, public schools certainly don't put too much effort into educating people.*
I don't think someone's intelligence is determined by his/her grades, anyway. At least in the US, getting a good grade is as easy as memorizing as much useless information as is possible and then spewing it all back on a poorly designed test. Not everyone wants to put in the effort to do that, and some can't remember the material too well.
But in the end, the school's job is to prepare you for life in the workforce.
I'm not sure that locking you in a building with others your own age and then forcing you to complete useless, mundane busy work is a good way to accomplish that.
Then again, public schools certainly put too much effort into educating people.
But after a few decades in the Real World, I see now that the sports taught teamwork.
I wonder if there's a better way to do that than wasting millions of dollars on sports stadiums and equipment just so people can throw/hit balls around. It seems like an awfully expensive and inefficient way to teach something!
Social skills matter.
I believe that saying what needs to be said matters. Busy work in public school is another issue entirely.
I personally wouldn't blame anyone like that. Busy work in public school is seemingly almost always completely worthless and a waste of time. This isn't always true of real work.
Being obedient isn't always a good thing.
but most have not yet developed the self control to handle the consequences of their actions.
That reminds me of people in my workplace. Actually, it reminds me of most people in general. If that's true, I can see where teenagers get it from.
You don't think high quality killing simulators might have some sort of effect on the nuts?
I don't know if I'd call them "high quality killing simulators." In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that people who call them that may, in fact, be "nuts."
The argument is NOT "violent video games will make a normal person into a killer" but that they can contribute to pushing someone who is close to the edge over it.
And what are some of the people who make these arguments getting at? That everyone else should have to suffer because of a few "nuts"? I hope not, but it certainly seems that way in some cases.
Erm, except that we already have a solution to small children watching violent video games, and it works quite well.
Letting them play the games anyway? That seems like an alright solution, and it's what plenty of people seem to do anyway...
Let's just stop being uptight about either of them.
What a stupid response. Not only did you not address my question, but your comment is devoid of anything that resembles intelligence above a retard.
No, I did respond. You asked whether or not society will crumble if we let this continue as if that's the only thing that determines whether or not something is a problem. Something needn't cause society to fall apart for it to be a problem.
Did you really not get that?
Will the foundations of society crumble because someone can't get out that ONE GOOD Hamlet remake where everyone dresses like they're in present times, but speak in Shakespearean language?
Will the foundations of society crumble if I punch you in the face? No, but that doesn't mean it's not a problem.
Why would i buy or even steal windows 8.
Or download it, for that matter?
It depends on what you meant by "missing out." To me, it looks like you meant that having a child is objectively a good experience or that people would definitely be more happy with a child (due to the way you used it). I certainly didn't think you merely meant that they hadn't experienced something in particular because, as far as I know, that's not how it's normally used.
The point is that not everyone have the same goals or preferences. I don't care about a lot of things that other people enjoy, but that doesn't mean I'm "missing out."
That's why I'm against the TSA, the Patriot Act, and all that other nonsense that trades essential freedoms for security.
Actually, in those cases, you don't even receive security...
The problem with waiting for the drug addict to commit a crime is the future innocent victim of the crime.
The problem with waiting for you to commit a crime is the future innocent victim of the crime. You might commit a crime in the future, so you must be punished now!
What you are saying is it's OK for a few innocent people to die and for a lot of others to have a constant feeling of living in a shitty society in order to let a few drug addicts be who they are.
I don't know what he's saying, but what I'm saying is that I vastly prefer freedom over safety. Have your TSA and drug war
What you are saying is that the freedom of a drug addict is worth more than the life of an innocent person.
I believe the freedom of everyone is worth more than the lives of a few innocent people. I'm willing to accept a few casualties, and indeed, no matter what you do, there will be casualties. That's why I'm against the TSA, the Patriot Act, and all that other nonsense that trades essential freedoms for security.
But what you're advocating for is that people be punished just because they might commit a crime in the future. Apparently you don't care about the innocent people affected by your decisions or that this is a ridiculous amount of power to give the government.
I think human sacrifice is not acceptable.
Then why are you advocating for punishing people and permanently altering them just because they might commit a crime in the future?
But if you're so obsessed with security at all costs that you'd go to such lengths, why not just make everyone live in padded rooms?
Who cares if the brains of innocents could be ruined!? We're talking about child molesters! For the children, it must be done!
No. Just simple stupidity.
You can't expect much from most voters.
So are you saying you CAN predict my replies, or are you just saying it would be less entertaining if you could?
The latter. I'm not a mind reader, after all. As it is, I have little idea how you're going to respond, and that's what makes this entertaining.
"Whoever posted that acted as if swear words are objectively bad or offensive, and that is what I objected to." Your words. Also, apologies for using the word "implication"... I should have said "the outright statement".
And I stand by that. If indeed he was saying (and, at least to me, it appeared that he was) that it's objectively bad (in any context), I object to that.
Nah, you just prefer to dismiss certain words you don't like.
Anything I don't like is unprofessional, actually.
4 possibilities.
2 possibilities. One: You don't really believe anything you said in that comment. Two: You do believe what you said in that comment, but you're still 100% wrong.
That'll show you what for.
Four: You understands words can have importance, but because you don't get offended by them you don't see why other people should, hence you flinging the word "objective" round like it helps your cause *even though you're being fundamentally subjective*.
When did I ever once say that I wasn't being subjective? Of course I am; I'm expressing my opinion about the matter! I can see how words have importance, but I just think it's laughable that people actually get offended by a specific class of words and how some people actually act like certain words are objectively bad to use. Yes, that's my opinion, and it's a subjective matter.
Maybe that poster wasn't trying to say that these words shouldn't be used in certain contexts, but that's not how it came across to me. At any rate, I don't see anything indicating an opinion there.
I just realised the wonderful hypocrisy that you think people shouldn't get bent out of shape by people saying certain words to them... while at the same time having a big problem with people saying a certain word to you.
I just maintain that they're not objectively bad. Additionally, I'm referring to people getting offended by them. Although I disagree with the usage, I'm not really offended by it.
It's less entertaining when I can predict all the replies you're going to make.
If you honestly don't see how typing that crap about someone, in a venue visible to all their colleagues, when you can get the same point across in a more (and yes, I'm going to use the word) professional way could possibly be thought to be offensive except by the terminally sensitive
I do believe that they're oversensitive, but that's not the point. You could get rid of the swear words and make it just as offensive to certain people. Different people are offended by different things, after all.
That's because you're using a computer while in command of a limited intellect.
I disagree. But you sure are quick to state that someone lacks intelligence simply because you believe he/she is wrong about something.
Your implication I don't like "swear words"? In case you haven't noticed by now, bullshit.
I was not specifically referring to you.
The implication the poster acted as if swear words are always bad?
Where's that? Regardless of how often he thinks they're bad, I object to it if he thinks it's an objective matter.
He's saying that, *in the context of telling a subordinate in a businesslike environment*, swear words are objectionable.
What you're saying is not new information. I responded to that. This ambiguous "professional" label is, to me, purely nonsense. I do not see how swearing is bad in this context even if most people think it is. It's funny to me how people can get offended by things like that.
but you're a downright idiot if you don't understand that, in most work environments
Not what I was arguing about; irrelevant.
Not bullshit, but you're *acting* like they are.
Absolutely not.
when you can get the same point across in a more (and yes, I'm going to use the word) professional way
How ambiguous.
I don't even know what you're arguing against anymore.