However it seems to me that the people running the government are pretty much a self-selecting bunch, narrowing down the people they deem worthy to join their ranks to one or two per position before the general populace has a chance to have a say in things.
If that's true, it's because we (or they, heh heh) let it be true. America is built on some great premises, and it's the apathy of the people (We The People, not "They the people," imaginary bad guys) that let it be anything less than that.
You're right, of course. Those minor perks are the same as saying thank you. What bugs me are the people who treat it as anything more -- as if management was making some kind of sacrifice for their efforts.
I do reserve the right to be pissy at an organization for creating a culture where management is denied the ability to _really_ rewards its employees and is instead encouraged to give out "fake" rewards like giving me a crappy meal (while my wife sits at home waiting for me, and the groceries we've bought to make our dinner rot in the fridge).
When I work late, I want to get home as early as possible. My wife is at home, waiting for me. I don't want to chum it up with everybody while we share a pizza. I want to get what needs to be done, done, so I can get home and enjoy the real reason I work at all anyway.
As I said originally -- I really like a give-and-take culture between management and engineers. When my manager says, "It's very important that we get this tested over the weekend; it would be great if folks could put a little extra effort in," I want to be able to do that, and know that in a month, when we're in a different part of the software life-cycle, and there's no reason to be working late, and I say, "I need today off to help a friend move," he'll say, "Don't worry about reporting this as a vacation day; you've earned it."
It's a two-way street. I "break the rules" by forgoing family in favor of work. I want them to "break the rules" by letting me do the opposite when the circumstances demand it.
I've had some bosses that were very good about this, and some that were total pricks about it.
When people are running late, pay for the pizza. Look for other ways to be considerate.
I always felt like I was getting a slap in the face when my boss offered to buy pizza. Pizza costs like 5 bucks. I can handle pizza. Give me stock options, give me a raise, give me a bonus, give me a promotion. Don't buy us pizza.
I'm perpetually amazed by the people who actually get off on management paying less per person than they would to feed their own family at McDonalds and feeling like they got some kind of treat. "Oh, they bought Chinese food, how nice!" No. Nice is job security. Nice is not giving me shit when I ask for a half-day off to help a family member move. Nice is looking the other way when I walk out the door on Friday at 3:00 because you know the day before I worked until 8:00. Nice is not just blowing a few dollars on each of us so we can eat greasy unhealthy fast food.
I'm also consistently disgusted by companies that ask you to do a little sacrifice for the good of the company. The day the company does a little sacrificing for the good of me, I'll consider taking some of the finite time I'm alotted on this wonderful planet to help make the shareholders a little happier. My company has a shitload of money in the bank. We haven't given out raises in two years. We've stopped a ton of our little "perks" we used to give out. When it comes time for the company to "sacrifice" for us, the shareholders say "no!"... but when it's time for us to "sacrifice" for them, oh, please do!
It didn't take me long to completely lose the ability to be fooled (oh, excuse me, motivated) by those stupid tricks. Don't let them fool you.
I think every situation is unique and you should go with your gut.
A good friend of mine was underpaid and overworked. He threatened to go, got a counteroffer, and while he's still overworked he's no longer (as) underpaid. Those who were close to him knew about this, and none of us changed how we felt about him. In fact, we all felt he was overworked and likely underpaid, and we were happy to hear he got some of what he was due. I've since moved on from that group, but I've stayed in touch, and this guy is still in a very high-profile position and has evidently been getting regular-enough raises that he hasn't felt the need to leave again. Heck, he's lasted a lot longer than anyone he's worked for has.
As for your manager not respecting you, I have to repeat what has already been said. What you add to your group is infinitely more important than how much money you make or whether your boss thinks you're "loyal."
So, if you feel the current job is the one for you, take it. If the other job is some world-shattering oppurtunity, take that instead. But don't let the conventional wisdom scare you out of doing what you want.
I've introduced two people to the net who never used it before.
They've joined "virtual communities." They now swap quilting stories, and actual physical artifacts of the quilting hobby, with dozens of friends around the world.
Tell me how this is isolating them? Please. TV isolates you -- sits you on your couch with nobody to talk to and no reason to move. The net makes you branch out. It's reversing what the TV has done to us for decades.
People who once would have been happy to pursue their hobby in the privacy of their own home now branch out to others who share their hobby around the world. People who are too shy to go to a RL meeting of their peers will lurk on a message board and eventually get up the courage to join in the conversation.
Not every online community is filled with flames and hatred. Many are quite civilized and happily exist within their corner of the net.
Remember, folks -- you may not get fired for consulting with a fellow programmer, but if you never learn how to do anything but copy & paste other people's code, you've lost out on a LOT of problem solving skills.
There's a difference, a huge difference, between collaborating and cheating.
In the real world, you _would_ get fired for taking credit for someone else's work, trying to pass it off on your own. Heck, you'd probably also violate a bunch of licenses, too:).
I noticed today that Yahoo started putting ads up that interrupt you -- i.e. you click a headline and an add page comes up, with a link to the real story -- forcing you to find the link and absorb the ad for a second.
Is this all we're talking about, or is there something more "sinister" going on that I missed?
Re:You're kidding about that Terrorism thing...
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 2
You make a good point. It's kind of hard to predict what people will do.
My thought was that once we've (and I say we since I live in the US) "retaliated" and got the initial rage out of our system, public support will begin to wane.
If John Q. Public is wondering why we're bothering to fight this war anymore, and random acts of terror start happening, I picture John Q. Public being very receptive to a videotape showing someone saying, "Look -- stop bombing our caves and we'll stop blowing up your malls. Your weapons are too advanced for us to fight your troops, we must fight your civilians."
Hrm. Then again, you're probably right. That would probably just piss us off more and increase the support further.
Economic imbalance is the issue here
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I don't think this builds to a future where robots fight each other and we sit at home and wait for the outcome.
I think what we're seeing here is a natural progression, not a revolution. It's always been less risky for a wealthy nation to fight a poor one (as long as the wealthy nation is willing to spend the money -- Russia wasn't) than it has been to fight against even odds.
All you have here is a mechanism for wealthy countries a relatively guiltless and politically easy-to-swallow way to wage war against relatively poor countries. There is no threat of nuclear backlash, and we don't risk soldiers. All we ask is for people to pay their taxes and support the economy.
The "equalizer" (if you want to call it that) here is terrorism -- if civilians here start dying in scores in retaliation... public support for this dries up pretty fast.
(Thus, one could decide, the only way to keep these kind of wars going is to run a police state so your civilians are "safe"... or at least feel safe.)
That's supposed to be Australian slang? *shrug* To me, it's just a wacky guy being wacky. I think the Subaru outback commercials have done more lasting damage to Australia by keeping Dundee around than anything the Croc hunter has done.
And yes, he jumps on top of animals. Often to save their lives.
Sure, it's over the top and silly melodrama. But I'd wager a bunch of kids watch nature shows now who weren't before, and you can't say that's bad.
Good call -- I was totally disgusted when I picked up the first Shanarra book last week. It felt so... boring. Maybe it had something to do with having just read Tolkein again in anticipation of the movie.
If you want something original, check out George R. R. Martin's A Game of Thrones. I'm still reading it, but it's totally blowing me away. Some of the best fantasy I've ever read. Very political, low magic, credible characters who he's not afraid to kill off.... Good stuff. Very good.
All well, you've read all this now. Go back to thinking that everyone in Australia is like that pathetic Crocodile Hunter show. I guess your fantasies are more fun then the real world.
Crike!
(Oh, and I agree. How pathetic -- a show that teaches kids to respect nature and urges them to explore the world around them rather than sitting and playing video games. Silly!)
Re:What are these movies/books about?
on
The Hype of the Rings
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
You ask a hard question. What is it about the books that make them special? That appeal to us?
As has been pointed out earlier, the books are heavy with the themes of friendship, duty, honor, and sacrifice. These may not be easy themes, but they are universal. The story hits you in the same way a War Epic might -- innocent young man from small town goes into the hell of war and comes out a different man. He is chosen, by the ambiguous hand of fate, to carry the ultimate load on his shoulders. Along the way, he fights the good fight. He nearly dies several times. He meets up with true evil. He faces the ultimate temptations.
And at its core, it's about good struggling against evil for the right of everyone to live freely.
It's also an incredibly self-consistent world. It feels like real history, not a cheesy fantasy where the rules change every hundred pages. If you're a details nut, this book will send you in a tizzy. It's what other authors hope for when they try to develop rich backgrounds for their books.
There's also the fact that it introduced the concept of modern fantasy. Trolls, dwarves, elves, wizards, magic swords, orcs... in fact, I almost worry that some people will see LotR and feel it's derivative, just because it's where the rest of these copies came from! [NO, I'm not trying to say Tolkien invented Elves. But the genre of modern fantasy did begin with him.]
The last item for my little checklist is its cross-generational appeal. The story has been around long enough where grandparents and grandchildren both identify with it. My mother and I have wildly varying taste in entertainment -- but we're both silly excited to see this come out.
Tolkien Calendar
Fellowship Movie Calendar (wall)
Fellowship Movie Calendar (desk)
Fellowship Movie Action Figures
Fellowship Movie Coffee Mugs
Fellowship Movie Companion Book
Gift membership to Fan Club, getting their names listed in the credits of the movie on DVD (60 bucks, I think?)
I think we see the same problem, and we just choose different ways to deal with it. I have chosen to pick friends out of my coworkers and open up to them, and take the risk one of them will screw me over. It hasn't hurt me yet, but I admit it might some day.
I think also that the time you spend in any group has a big impact on this equation. If your group is largely stable for a couple of years, you should have some idea of the character of those you've worked beside for those two years. If you're in an environment where constant turnover and whatnot mean you never really work with the same set of people for more than a few months, it gets much harder to make value judgments.
In High School, I wasn't ever popular enough to have anyone want to pretend to be my friend. I settled in with my little clique, and got through. Why would anybody backstab me -- what would they have to gain? Did I ever have some dickweed beat me up? Sure. Did I ever have some cute chick act like she cared who I was so she could get some help on her math homework? Sure. Did I understand exactly why that cute chick was being friendly? Of course. Did I help her anyway? Depends on how cute she was!
As for work -- I've worked only in big companies -- I'm currently working for a large computer storage company. As far as I know, I've never been backstabbed by a co-worker -- if they did it, they did it so well I didn't notice.
I've been promoted quickly based on my competence. I've made friends with some bosses, ignored others. I've never felt any of them used any metric to measure me other than their perception of my performance (very different than my performance -- I am in touch with reality here, and I understand that someone who works late every night may be seen as a better performer, even if they suck, then someone who does a great job 9-5 every day).
As for my great secret, you stumbled right onto it. You can't tell what someone's like until you do get to know them. So get to know them. Make some friends. Use those friends to help you evaluate other people. Some new guy comes into the group, and tries to get all buddy-buddy with the boss, you and your friends will immediately know the guy's a kiss-ass. The boss will know, too. And he won't get anywhere.
Maybe I'm just a young idealist who has yet to have his cherry broken on this subject. But I'm heading towards 30 awfully fast, and I've got a little plaque in my cube saying I've been here 5 years, so it's possible that there are big companies where your rules don't apply....
(FWIW, read another reply of mine, where I tell people not to be idiots -- to balance their work relationships with their friendships and temper them wisely.... I'm not advocating opening up your soul to everyone you meet).
Let me clarify what I've said a couple of times -- that you can and should make good friends with coworkers.
You should always know that they are your coworkers, first and foremost. I don't advocate anywhere near the level of manipulative closed-heartedness Hanzo seems to be talking about, but you do have to be smart about it.
I have friends outside of work who know my exact salary. None of my work friends know that. When I get a bonus check, or an envelope full of stock options, the numbers on those letters don't find their way to my work friends. If my boss tells me something in confidence, there are some work friends who may hear about it, and others who may not. I make that judgment on an individual basis, and I make it very carefully.
You do have to use your head. You have to realize that these people play multiple roles in your life, and any time that happens, you have to be smart about it. It's not just co-worker/friend -- any time a person fills two or more roles in your life, you must be careful how you balance them in those multiple roles.
If you're the kind of person who has an on/off switch for friends, and can't be a bit more socially savvy about it, you might be best off leaving the switch on "off" for your coworkers.
But you'll miss out on some great potential friendships by doing that.
If you can't judge character well enough to distinguish a friend from someone who is out to hurt you, don't assume everyone else is.
I've never met anyone who was as manipulative and cold as you're making the average person out to be.
I'd much rather know my coworkers are my friends; they're less likely to stick me with crappy code, because they know their friends might have to maintain it. They're less likely to abandon me in fixing a bug, because they know how important my family is to me and they want to help make sure I get to see them. It just goes on and on.
I can't really identify with the structure you're describing (the fierce competition for promotions, raises, bosses who are so blind to ass-kissing that it actually works, etc). Maybe it's a difference between development groups and some other kind of group? But seriously -- I have no clue what you're talking about.
I was very fortunate to have some great people in my first development group. We'd go out for lunch, a bunch of us, once a week or so. We'd go out for beers after work. We threw parties, BBQ's, all the stuff you're talking about. Our wives knew each other (or husbands, for that matter). I thought all groups were like that, until I transfered within the company.
My new group is nothing like that. I have one good friend within the team; we get together and play games, drink, and bitch about work. The rest of these people are pretty stick-to-themselves. I can't imagine hanging out at some of these people's houses, or meeting their wives and kids.
Weirdly enough, I still get together with the people from the first team. Just this weekend my wife and I went over one of their homes to watch football and visit with him, his wife, and their kids.
I think it's just pure luck that decides these things. Some teams are just not meant to socialize together.
As for those that talk about how it's impossible to make friends with work people due to backstabbing, office politics, etc.... get a new job! Jesus. Work is a place you go to for a few hours a day to pay your bills. If things are that ugly where you are, find a new place to trade your soul for money.
There's one problem with the line of reasoning you're taking (and others I've heard taking as well).
Regardless of whether OBL had a valid point in his little speech, regardless of whether it makes moral sense of the US to have a presence in the Middle East, regardless of all those things... you don't negotiate with terrorists. Doing so encourages them to do it again.
Let's say the US is doing something really stupid. In response to this, someone who disagrees with what they're doing comes along and murders 6,000 civilians. The US turns, looks at itself, and says, "Wow, maybe we're doing something really stupid. Let's stop doing that before 6,000 more civilians get murdered."
Then what? Then next time somebody out in the world with a chip on their shoulder sees the US doing something they don't like, they think, "Hey, it worked for so-and-so, let me try."
Bush's diplomacy, in this case, had nothing to do with the Taliban, and everything to do with the other nations in the region who are backing the US in this (however reluctantly it may be). "Diplomacy" with the Taliban was limited (as it absolutely should have been) to strict demands of what needed to be done.
You don't negotiate with criminals, you bring them to justice. You tell them what they need to do, and what will happen if they don't do it. If they don't do what they need to do, you follow through with your threats.
Look at this a little differently. Change the scale a bit. There's a new zoning law in your town that prohibits people from having cars on cinder blocks in front yards. Some guy in the town really likes having his car on cinder blocks, so he complains to the town. The town says, "The citizens of this town voted for this ordinance, you must follow it." What does this person do? Maybe he puts up signs, trying to change the view of the people -- ask that they change the law, try and tell his side of the story. But maybe that doesn't work. So, instead, he blows up a bomb at the local elementary school. The police, and the local citizens, are outraged. "Hey, you should have listened when I asked you to change the law. Maybe you'll change it now?"
You don't negotiate with that person. You go get him and lock him away for life. Maybe you kill him. But you certainly don't change the law beause of him! And if his landlord refuses you access to his apartment, you arrest him as well -- treating him as much a criminal as the man he's protecting.
I'm against war.
I have a healthy amount of skepticism about the US foreign and domestic policy. I question the usefulness of our sanctions against Iraq. I question a lot of things.
I am not a drone. I am not a sheep.
It makes me indescribably sad to think of the innocent men, women, and children dying right now because of this.
But I can't think of a better way of handling what needs to be done. As much as I hate Bush, these strikes, and this "war," need to take place.
B5 was a great experiment in Sci-Fi TV. It will influence future shows in the genre; it is influencing current shows.
But you can't solve a Star Trek problem with a B5 solution:).
Part of the appeal of Star Trek is the strictly episodic nature -- you tune in to a rerun, and you don't have to sit and ponder for 10 minutes "Where in the myth-arc is this episode?" You just settle in and enjoy the story.
Would I love to see a B5-style story done in the Star Trek universe? Hell yeah. I'd love to see a B5-style story run in any universe -- it was a great example of a style of storytelling which we're drastically lacking. But I don't necesssarily expect any Star Trek show to scratch that itch any time soon.
Instead, I watch Sopranos. It may not have a clearly defined 5-year story like B5, but each season feels like a long miniseries rather than a string of barely-related episodes....
Slashdot Mirror
However it seems to me that the people running the government are pretty much a self-selecting bunch, narrowing down the people they deem worthy to join their ranks to one or two per position before the general populace has a chance to have a say in things.
If that's true, it's because we (or they, heh heh) let it be true. America is built on some great premises, and it's the apathy of the people (We The People, not "They the people," imaginary bad guys) that let it be anything less than that.
You're right, of course. Those minor perks are the same as saying thank you. What bugs me are the people who treat it as anything more -- as if management was making some kind of sacrifice for their efforts.
I do reserve the right to be pissy at an organization for creating a culture where management is denied the ability to _really_ rewards its employees and is instead encouraged to give out "fake" rewards like giving me a crappy meal (while my wife sits at home waiting for me, and the groceries we've bought to make our dinner rot in the fridge).
When I work late, I want to get home as early as possible. My wife is at home, waiting for me. I don't want to chum it up with everybody while we share a pizza. I want to get what needs to be done, done, so I can get home and enjoy the real reason I work at all anyway.
As I said originally -- I really like a give-and-take culture between management and engineers. When my manager says, "It's very important that we get this tested over the weekend; it would be great if folks could put a little extra effort in," I want to be able to do that, and know that in a month, when we're in a different part of the software life-cycle, and there's no reason to be working late, and I say, "I need today off to help a friend move," he'll say, "Don't worry about reporting this as a vacation day; you've earned it."
It's a two-way street. I "break the rules" by forgoing family in favor of work. I want them to "break the rules" by letting me do the opposite when the circumstances demand it.
I've had some bosses that were very good about this, and some that were total pricks about it.
When people are running late, pay for the pizza. Look for other ways to be considerate.
I always felt like I was getting a slap in the face when my boss offered to buy pizza. Pizza costs like 5 bucks. I can handle pizza. Give me stock options, give me a raise, give me a bonus, give me a promotion. Don't buy us pizza.
I'm perpetually amazed by the people who actually get off on management paying less per person than they would to feed their own family at McDonalds and feeling like they got some kind of treat. "Oh, they bought Chinese food, how nice!" No. Nice is job security. Nice is not giving me shit when I ask for a half-day off to help a family member move. Nice is looking the other way when I walk out the door on Friday at 3:00 because you know the day before I worked until 8:00. Nice is not just blowing a few dollars on each of us so we can eat greasy unhealthy fast food.
I'm also consistently disgusted by companies that ask you to do a little sacrifice for the good of the company. The day the company does a little sacrificing for the good of me, I'll consider taking some of the finite time I'm alotted on this wonderful planet to help make the shareholders a little happier. My company has a shitload of money in the bank. We haven't given out raises in two years. We've stopped a ton of our little "perks" we used to give out. When it comes time for the company to "sacrifice" for us, the shareholders say "no!" ... but when it's time for us to "sacrifice" for them, oh, please do!
It didn't take me long to completely lose the ability to be fooled (oh, excuse me, motivated) by those stupid tricks. Don't let them fool you.
I think every situation is unique and you should go with your gut.
A good friend of mine was underpaid and overworked. He threatened to go, got a counteroffer, and while he's still overworked he's no longer (as) underpaid. Those who were close to him knew about this, and none of us changed how we felt about him. In fact, we all felt he was overworked and likely underpaid, and we were happy to hear he got some of what he was due. I've since moved on from that group, but I've stayed in touch, and this guy is still in a very high-profile position and has evidently been getting regular-enough raises that he hasn't felt the need to leave again. Heck, he's lasted a lot longer than anyone he's worked for has.
As for your manager not respecting you, I have to repeat what has already been said. What you add to your group is infinitely more important than how much money you make or whether your boss thinks you're "loyal."
So, if you feel the current job is the one for you, take it. If the other job is some world-shattering oppurtunity, take that instead. But don't let the conventional wisdom scare you out of doing what you want.
Damnit, this has nothing to do with geeks or nerds?
I was waiting for the next Katz article on how the 21st century is seeing the rise of the geeks within gangs, or something.
I've introduced two people to the net who never used it before.
They've joined "virtual communities." They now swap quilting stories, and actual physical artifacts of the quilting hobby, with dozens of friends around the world.
Tell me how this is isolating them? Please. TV isolates you -- sits you on your couch with nobody to talk to and no reason to move. The net makes you branch out. It's reversing what the TV has done to us for decades.
People who once would have been happy to pursue their hobby in the privacy of their own home now branch out to others who share their hobby around the world. People who are too shy to go to a RL meeting of their peers will lurk on a message board and eventually get up the courage to join in the conversation.
Not every online community is filled with flames and hatred. Many are quite civilized and happily exist within their corner of the net.
Remember, folks -- you may not get fired for consulting with a fellow programmer, but if you never learn how to do anything but copy & paste other people's code, you've lost out on a LOT of problem solving skills.
:).
There's a difference, a huge difference, between collaborating and cheating.
In the real world, you _would_ get fired for taking credit for someone else's work, trying to pass it off on your own. Heck, you'd probably also violate a bunch of licenses, too
I noticed today that Yahoo started putting ads up that interrupt you -- i.e. you click a headline and an add page comes up, with a link to the real story -- forcing you to find the link and absorb the ad for a second.
Is this all we're talking about, or is there something more "sinister" going on that I missed?
You make a good point. It's kind of hard to predict what people will do.
My thought was that once we've (and I say we since I live in the US) "retaliated" and got the initial rage out of our system, public support will begin to wane.
If John Q. Public is wondering why we're bothering to fight this war anymore, and random acts of terror start happening, I picture John Q. Public being very receptive to a videotape showing someone saying, "Look -- stop bombing our caves and we'll stop blowing up your malls. Your weapons are too advanced for us to fight your troops, we must fight your civilians."
Hrm. Then again, you're probably right. That would probably just piss us off more and increase the support further.
I don't think this builds to a future where robots fight each other and we sit at home and wait for the outcome.
... public support for this dries up pretty fast.
... or at least feel safe.)
I think what we're seeing here is a natural progression, not a revolution. It's always been less risky for a wealthy nation to fight a poor one (as long as the wealthy nation is willing to spend the money -- Russia wasn't) than it has been to fight against even odds.
All you have here is a mechanism for wealthy countries a relatively guiltless and politically easy-to-swallow way to wage war against relatively poor countries. There is no threat of nuclear backlash, and we don't risk soldiers. All we ask is for people to pay their taxes and support the economy.
The "equalizer" (if you want to call it that) here is terrorism -- if civilians here start dying in scores in retaliation
(Thus, one could decide, the only way to keep these kind of wars going is to run a police state so your civilians are "safe"
Hrm. Sorry it took me so long to reply to this.
:).
Basically, I meant to say that the main people you're supposed to identify with in the story are the Hobbits.
They live all great and carefree. Evil comes to their door, and a small number of them run off to put a stop to it
I mean, the Hobbits are pretty free. If they're under a monarchy, they certainly don't know it.
That's supposed to be Australian slang? *shrug* To me, it's just a wacky guy being wacky. I think the Subaru outback commercials have done more lasting damage to Australia by keeping Dundee around than anything the Croc hunter has done.
And yes, he jumps on top of animals. Often to save their lives.
Sure, it's over the top and silly melodrama. But I'd wager a bunch of kids watch nature shows now who weren't before, and you can't say that's bad.
Good call -- I was totally disgusted when I picked up the first Shanarra book last week. It felt so ... boring. Maybe it had something to do with having just read Tolkein again in anticipation of the movie.
If you want something original, check out George R. R. Martin's A Game of Thrones. I'm still reading it, but it's totally blowing me away. Some of the best fantasy I've ever read. Very political, low magic, credible characters who he's not afraid to kill off.... Good stuff. Very good.
All well, you've read all this now. Go back to thinking that everyone in Australia is like that pathetic Crocodile Hunter show. I guess your fantasies are more fun then the real world.
Crike!
(Oh, and I agree. How pathetic -- a show that teaches kids to respect nature and urges them to explore the world around them rather than sitting and playing video games. Silly!)
You ask a hard question. What is it about the books that make them special? That appeal to us?
... in fact, I almost worry that some people will see LotR and feel it's derivative, just because it's where the rest of these copies came from! [NO, I'm not trying to say Tolkien invented Elves. But the genre of modern fantasy did begin with him.]
As has been pointed out earlier, the books are heavy with the themes of friendship, duty, honor, and sacrifice. These may not be easy themes, but they are universal. The story hits you in the same way a War Epic might -- innocent young man from small town goes into the hell of war and comes out a different man. He is chosen, by the ambiguous hand of fate, to carry the ultimate load on his shoulders. Along the way, he fights the good fight. He nearly dies several times. He meets up with true evil. He faces the ultimate temptations.
And at its core, it's about good struggling against evil for the right of everyone to live freely.
It's also an incredibly self-consistent world. It feels like real history, not a cheesy fantasy where the rules change every hundred pages. If you're a details nut, this book will send you in a tizzy. It's what other authors hope for when they try to develop rich backgrounds for their books.
There's also the fact that it introduced the concept of modern fantasy. Trolls, dwarves, elves, wizards, magic swords, orcs
The last item for my little checklist is its cross-generational appeal. The story has been around long enough where grandparents and grandchildren both identify with it. My mother and I have wildly varying taste in entertainment -- but we're both silly excited to see this come out.
I hope that helps.
Tolkien Calendar
Fellowship Movie Calendar (wall)
Fellowship Movie Calendar (desk)
Fellowship Movie Action Figures
Fellowship Movie Coffee Mugs
Fellowship Movie Companion Book
Gift membership to Fan Club, getting their names listed in the credits of the movie on DVD (60 bucks, I think?)
I think we see the same problem, and we just choose different ways to deal with it. I have chosen to pick friends out of my coworkers and open up to them, and take the risk one of them will screw me over. It hasn't hurt me yet, but I admit it might some day.
I think also that the time you spend in any group has a big impact on this equation. If your group is largely stable for a couple of years, you should have some idea of the character of those you've worked beside for those two years. If you're in an environment where constant turnover and whatnot mean you never really work with the same set of people for more than a few months, it gets much harder to make value judgments.
*shrug* I'm sorry, but I'm not lying.
.... I'm not advocating opening up your soul to everyone you meet).
In High School, I wasn't ever popular enough to have anyone want to pretend to be my friend. I settled in with my little clique, and got through. Why would anybody backstab me -- what would they have to gain? Did I ever have some dickweed beat me up? Sure. Did I ever have some cute chick act like she cared who I was so she could get some help on her math homework? Sure. Did I understand exactly why that cute chick was being friendly? Of course. Did I help her anyway? Depends on how cute she was!
As for work -- I've worked only in big companies -- I'm currently working for a large computer storage company. As far as I know, I've never been backstabbed by a co-worker -- if they did it, they did it so well I didn't notice.
I've been promoted quickly based on my competence. I've made friends with some bosses, ignored others. I've never felt any of them used any metric to measure me other than their perception of my performance (very different than my performance -- I am in touch with reality here, and I understand that someone who works late every night may be seen as a better performer, even if they suck, then someone who does a great job 9-5 every day).
As for my great secret, you stumbled right onto it. You can't tell what someone's like until you do get to know them. So get to know them. Make some friends. Use those friends to help you evaluate other people. Some new guy comes into the group, and tries to get all buddy-buddy with the boss, you and your friends will immediately know the guy's a kiss-ass. The boss will know, too. And he won't get anywhere.
Maybe I'm just a young idealist who has yet to have his cherry broken on this subject. But I'm heading towards 30 awfully fast, and I've got a little plaque in my cube saying I've been here 5 years, so it's possible that there are big companies where your rules don't apply....
(FWIW, read another reply of mine, where I tell people not to be idiots -- to balance their work relationships with their friendships and temper them wisely
Let me clarify what I've said a couple of times -- that you can and should make good friends with coworkers.
You should always know that they are your coworkers, first and foremost. I don't advocate anywhere near the level of manipulative closed-heartedness Hanzo seems to be talking about, but you do have to be smart about it.
I have friends outside of work who know my exact salary. None of my work friends know that. When I get a bonus check, or an envelope full of stock options, the numbers on those letters don't find their way to my work friends. If my boss tells me something in confidence, there are some work friends who may hear about it, and others who may not. I make that judgment on an individual basis, and I make it very carefully.
You do have to use your head. You have to realize that these people play multiple roles in your life, and any time that happens, you have to be smart about it. It's not just co-worker/friend -- any time a person fills two or more roles in your life, you must be careful how you balance them in those multiple roles.
If you're the kind of person who has an on/off switch for friends, and can't be a bit more socially savvy about it, you might be best off leaving the switch on "off" for your coworkers.
But you'll miss out on some great potential friendships by doing that.
If you can't judge character well enough to distinguish a friend from someone who is out to hurt you, don't assume everyone else is.
I've never met anyone who was as manipulative and cold as you're making the average person out to be.
I'd much rather know my coworkers are my friends; they're less likely to stick me with crappy code, because they know their friends might have to maintain it. They're less likely to abandon me in fixing a bug, because they know how important my family is to me and they want to help make sure I get to see them. It just goes on and on.
I can't really identify with the structure you're describing (the fierce competition for promotions, raises, bosses who are so blind to ass-kissing that it actually works, etc). Maybe it's a difference between development groups and some other kind of group? But seriously -- I have no clue what you're talking about.
I was very fortunate to have some great people in my first development group. We'd go out for lunch, a bunch of us, once a week or so. We'd go out for beers after work. We threw parties, BBQ's, all the stuff you're talking about. Our wives knew each other (or husbands, for that matter). I thought all groups were like that, until I transfered within the company.
... get a new job! Jesus. Work is a place you go to for a few hours a day to pay your bills. If things are that ugly where you are, find a new place to trade your soul for money.
My new group is nothing like that. I have one good friend within the team; we get together and play games, drink, and bitch about work. The rest of these people are pretty stick-to-themselves. I can't imagine hanging out at some of these people's houses, or meeting their wives and kids.
Weirdly enough, I still get together with the people from the first team. Just this weekend my wife and I went over one of their homes to watch football and visit with him, his wife, and their kids.
I think it's just pure luck that decides these things. Some teams are just not meant to socialize together.
As for those that talk about how it's impossible to make friends with work people due to backstabbing, office politics, etc.
You're right -- I sort of took your comment as an excuse to fire off a reply to the line of reasoning I've heard used by a lot of people.
There's one problem with the line of reasoning you're taking (and others I've heard taking as well).
... you don't negotiate with terrorists. Doing so encourages them to do it again.
Regardless of whether OBL had a valid point in his little speech, regardless of whether it makes moral sense of the US to have a presence in the Middle East, regardless of all those things
Let's say the US is doing something really stupid. In response to this, someone who disagrees with what they're doing comes along and murders 6,000 civilians. The US turns, looks at itself, and says, "Wow, maybe we're doing something really stupid. Let's stop doing that before 6,000 more civilians get murdered."
Then what? Then next time somebody out in the world with a chip on their shoulder sees the US doing something they don't like, they think, "Hey, it worked for so-and-so, let me try."
Bush's diplomacy, in this case, had nothing to do with the Taliban, and everything to do with the other nations in the region who are backing the US in this (however reluctantly it may be). "Diplomacy" with the Taliban was limited (as it absolutely should have been) to strict demands of what needed to be done.
You don't negotiate with criminals, you bring them to justice. You tell them what they need to do, and what will happen if they don't do it. If they don't do what they need to do, you follow through with your threats.
Look at this a little differently. Change the scale a bit. There's a new zoning law in your town that prohibits people from having cars on cinder blocks in front yards. Some guy in the town really likes having his car on cinder blocks, so he complains to the town. The town says, "The citizens of this town voted for this ordinance, you must follow it." What does this person do? Maybe he puts up signs, trying to change the view of the people -- ask that they change the law, try and tell his side of the story. But maybe that doesn't work. So, instead, he blows up a bomb at the local elementary school. The police, and the local citizens, are outraged. "Hey, you should have listened when I asked you to change the law. Maybe you'll change it now?"
You don't negotiate with that person. You go get him and lock him away for life. Maybe you kill him. But you certainly don't change the law beause of him! And if his landlord refuses you access to his apartment, you arrest him as well -- treating him as much a criminal as the man he's protecting.
I'm against war.
I have a healthy amount of skepticism about the US foreign and domestic policy. I question the usefulness of our sanctions against Iraq. I question a lot of things.
I am not a drone. I am not a sheep.
It makes me indescribably sad to think of the innocent men, women, and children dying right now because of this.
But I can't think of a better way of handling what needs to be done. As much as I hate Bush, these strikes, and this "war," need to take place.
B5 was a great experiment in Sci-Fi TV. It will influence future shows in the genre; it is influencing current shows.
:).
But you can't solve a Star Trek problem with a B5 solution
Part of the appeal of Star Trek is the strictly episodic nature -- you tune in to a rerun, and you don't have to sit and ponder for 10 minutes "Where in the myth-arc is this episode?" You just settle in and enjoy the story.
Would I love to see a B5-style story done in the Star Trek universe? Hell yeah. I'd love to see a B5-style story run in any universe -- it was a great example of a style of storytelling which we're drastically lacking. But I don't necesssarily expect any Star Trek show to scratch that itch any time soon.
Instead, I watch Sopranos. It may not have a clearly defined 5-year story like B5, but each season feels like a long miniseries rather than a string of barely-related episodes....
"well sometimes 2 hours cuz I'd get sucked into the next show which always had some sensational expose"
:-)
America Undercover kicks ass.
That's all I have to say about that