Nerds? Jocks? That certainly wasn't my first thought, but OK...
It may be that the popular bloggers have ease-of-use on their side (they aggregate the information in a better format).
It may be that they are linked to by other popular bloggers, and get referrals/popularity/hits that way... popularity begeting popularity.
Also, on an unrelated note, intelligence doesn't necessarily imply misanthropy... intelligent people are not only liked by other intelligent people. Being a nice, likeable guy doesn't necessarily imply intelligence or lack thereof. On the other hand, if you combine intelligence and an obnoxious/ostentatious attitude, you'll get resentment for sure, and not just from idiots.
syndrome... where somebody takes somebody else's commment, copies it enbloc, and reposts it in a higher subthread.
The higher-posted comment gets "insightful" and "interesting" mods, while the lower post gets "redundant" mods, regardless of the fact that the lower comment was posted first.
I think the Slashtrolls have turned this technique into an online sport.
particularly regarding visibility... that's definitely not stressed enough to the general public. Cops and paramedics get that education (some police academies teach that a right-sided vehicle approach during a traffic stop is preferable for that very reason... plus bad guys often don't expect it). Hasn't everyone seen the candid camera/realTV police cruiser dash-cam videos of cops being clipped by drunks and idiots? It amazes me that more civilians don't know how dangerous it is to be on the side of the road.
As to your other point about creeps stopping either way, my wife has a very different answer for those types...
but I'd never ask my wife to stand on the side of a US interstate with the hood up, waiting for who-the-hell-knows to stop... that's a recipe for disaster in some parts of the country. Now, I myself stop for people from time to time (it's my medic's instinct to see if they need help), but I don't expect them to trust me... and if they hint I should drive on, I always do so.
That's what cell phones are for... I'm not trying to insult you here, so please don't take it that way, but I'd never leave my wife dependent on the kindness of strangers.
"a mood encouraged by women-friendly Volvo boss Hans-Olov Olsson."
Hmmmm... that's a curious statement open to misinterpretation. Now what'd they mean by that, eh?... exactly how "women-friendly" is he? wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more... (sorry... BBC article... had to throw that in...)
some other posters mentioned it already, but the longer wavelengths are readily reflected from the ionosphere... this atmospheric bounce is what allows hams to communicate across huge distances.
If the BPL interference gets propogated the same way we're in big trouble (disclaimer: I'm a HAM operator)
Role and circumstances mean everything... intent matters in the eyes of the law (it's even codified in most world religions, where a strong distinction is made between killing based on circumstances)
If you pull a trigger and somebody dies, one of several outcomes will occur: you can be decorated, exonerated, or go to the gas chamber... it's totally dependent on motive and circumstance.
If you're a Navy SEAL and you wax some terrorist, you get a medal, and rightfully so. I'm an individual, so I can't issue medals... but I'd shake your hand and buy you a beer for killing somebody like that (you're defending my currently-non-military hide and that of my family), because a terrorist who perpetrates the wholesale, deliberate slaughter of innocents deserves to die... period... and somebody's got to do that dirty work. If it's you, God bless you and here's a guinness on me.
If you're joe citizen and somebody breaks into your home with the intent to harm your family, and you kill him, you will generally be exonerated. Again, depends on motive and circumstance.
If you're a sociopathic ass who murders someone because they cut you off in traffic, you'll die in the electric chair. Goodbye... nobody will miss you.
In all three of these scenarios, you pulled a trigger and somebody died, but you were not sanctioned in two out of three because violence is not necessarily wrong... it's a tool to be used in extreme circumstances to protect the innocent (and sometimes punish the guilty).
I may have missed the entire point of your post... but it looked like you were trying to draw a moral equivalence where none really exists. Unless you're some kind of pacifist, there most certainly is justification for violence in some circumstances, and as someone who's assisted in the endeavor, I put terrorist hunting at the top of that list.
It came to be during that scene in "once upon a time in Mexico" where Johnny Depp had a gun hidden under the table while he kept the fake arm on the table...
I know, I know... totally different genre, but I can't be the only person who was reminded of the Han Solo and Greedo scene from the original star wars.
Oh, I understand their motivations perfectly well... but I don't have to respect them.
Considering that most of the individuals I'm thinking of are/were 30ish before they even completed their training, one would hope they'd have grown out of that kind of nonsense by then... but you never know (I don't know how old you are... you may still be there yourself). If you're trying to point out that young men often behave in an idiotic, risky, and hormonally-poisoned fashion, then fine... that's virtually axiomatic.
If you're arguing that some guys are after indiscriminate sex and hedonism (ala the puerile tucker max types), there's some truth to that as well... but that brings its own set of problems, and I ought to know; I deal in the aftermath. Picking up random chicks at bars and doing the nasty is all a numbers game, and your number will come up eventually. It might be in the form of a psycho boyfriend/husband (but I'm sure the girl assured you she's unattached, right?), the STD dujour, conception... let your imagination run wild. I've seen it go wrong every single way (sometimes more than one way at a time).
If that's all you want out of your relationships, then go nuts... enjoy it while it lasts; hopefully you'll mature before your luck runs out. However, as your peers grow out of such activities, you'll find your herd of potential "mates" thinning considerably. Over time, you'll gain weight, lose your hair, lose your youth, and you'll eventually be forced to either beg/scam for sex, or at best negotiate for it... or you could be reduced to a pathetic sugardaddy and engage in the kind of thinly-disguised prostitution the name implies... even if you're wealthy enough to afford the best, you'll still be an object of scorn. Wave money around to get women all you like, but even a leper can buy sex.
As I said... an empty existence. What's most sad about some of these guys is that they're smart/worldly enough to know better... I don't know whether they lack insight, self-control, or both. Indulging your id like the lowest form of animal... Understandable in a way, but hardly admirable.
If she's better and cheaper, what's your answer? How can you add value to your services to compete? That's the question we should be asking... not whether it's "fair."
I'm not talking in a vacuum here... I've been fired... or rather, "outsourced."
That's right... I'm a doctor and I was fired (it was not for incompetence, so you trolls can pipe down)... it's happened to many ER docs. An ER contract changed hands, and I was unceremoniously terminated. With the growth of large contract groups in my specialty, that outsourcing threat is ever-present; all it takes is the decision of the hospital administrator. Sales guy shows up with a slick brochure, a sales pitch, and a lower bid, and boom. If it happens, I have 60 days to find another job in the area, or uproot my family and move.
I'm not unsympathetic to the outsourcing threat, and it's not a question of skills... I'll stack my clinical skills up against anyone in my specialty. It's more a question of adding value to my services... being available, affable, reliable. My partners and I make it a point to cultivate relationships with other physicians, our patients, our administrators, and the medical staff as a whole. We try to be responsive to their concerns, address problems promptly, and above all do a good job. We've taken a proactive approach to the outsourcing threat. Is it a lot of extra work? Oh yes... and even despite all that, I can still be outsourced, but that's simply the reality. Since I'm unwilling to throw away the years I spent in school, I have almost no alternative except to work harder, smarter, and stack the deck. Despite all that, the brutal truth is that I can still be fired at any time.
It's a global markeplace, even in medicine. Some medical specialities like Radiology can even be outsourced overseas (Teleradiography has completely changed portions of that speciality, and it's already being done halfway 'round the world).
OK... as somebody who makes a fair amount of money, involved in a profession where people make a fair amount of money (medicine) I've watched colleagues make that mistake over and over and over again.
It's painful to watch. I have colleagues that go to bars practically wearing lab coat and scrubs... you can sit back and watch the gold-diggers come a-runnin. Later, when their shallow relationship blows up, they go do it again... some stay in this rut for years. If you're going to use money to attract chix0rs, beware... you might get exactly what you're asking for. Ostentatiously waving money around is arrogant, obnoxious, creates resentment in others, and is no way to build a relationship.
For my own part, I don't advertise my income or profeesion... never did. It's not on my car, it's not on my checks or credit cards... not even on my correspondence. In fact, apart from this largely-anonymous forum, I'm damned circumspect about it, because it makes you a target, particularly when dating.
I'm married now, but even as a single guy, I didn't tell women what I did for a living... "I'm a student" was my pat answer. They'd eventually figure it out later, but after I'd had a chance to vet them for their real interests and motivations. If you're dating for dollars, you attract avaricious partners. I hope for Mr. Vasters sake that he was making that remark tongue-in-cheek.
Using bucks as bait to get dates is a losing strategy all the way... unless your idea of companionship is a using others and getting used yourself. And when it's all done, all you'll have to show for it is a shallow, disease-ridden string of one-night-stands; that's a pretty empty way to live.
You should relax... it's good for you. Incidently, I have no problem with people who work fast food, but if you insist on taking that as an insult, then by all means, be insulted... it really doesn't matter to me. My statement was more intended as a commentary on the loosening use of the term "professional."
The original poster wrote: Of course not as many accidents are going to happen, they're pros.
Which to me implies a measure of skill... not whether they fit the legal definition of a profession. A subsequent poster (iabervon) made the point that getting paid is what defines a profession... and he's partially right... but that's also the definition of a job, and doesn't begin to tell the whole story behind profession, professionalism, etc. Websters dictionary is just the beginning...
Also, it's OK that you thread-jacked this discussion into a dictionary fest, because this is slashdot, and we can do that... but the original poster clearly implied professional as a measure of skill, not as a result of a paycheck. Of course job and profession are not mutually exclusive... but getting a paycheck qualifies you for either definition... and you're quite right that professional must not necessarily relate to skillfulness, but like it or not, that is the definition that started this thread.
As a professional myself, the term implies much more to me than simply getting paid... but that's a thread for another day.
This whole discussion has developed a life of its own... it's interesting that so many people freely apply and so ardently defend the use of "professional" and "profession." The historical and sociological context behind the term makes for a thought-provoking read.
This has truly been an interesting discussion, particularly if you look at this issue from a (somewhat outdated) historical sense... meaning the late renaissance definition of profession, referring particularly to the ancient professions of divinity, law, and medicine (and sometimes soldiery). The evolution of that term progressed in the 19th century, to the point that it now includes engineers, architects, teachers (the "teaching profession") etc (and cab drivers, apparently)... but the classical professions were the original prototype.
Sociologist Geoffrey Millerson wrote a classic book on the topic in the mid-sixties, where he layed out the requirements in his formal definition of "profession": (keep in mind that for some professions, these things go back to antiquity)
Skill based on theoretical knowledge Required training and education Competence demonstrated by testing Ethical code of conduct Altruistic goals Professional organization
Some of this formal sociological definition has survived, and can be noted in Webster's definition of profession... but note how much it has broadened... it's tremendous... we're now to the point that many consider anyone who does something for pay as a "professional" in that field.
As a member of one of the previously mentioned "classical professions," it's fascinating to me to watch the evolution of the term.
Thanks to everyone who posted for the interesting thread.
Ironically, if you weren't in such a hurry to post that snarky reply, you might have noticed the entire definition that I posted... It's the identical link you are referencing.
Go home kid... come back when you can argue without sounding like a preschooler.
Though to be fair, you're partially right... profession has "at least two meanings," though you conveniently omitted the one that contradicts your little rant. I quote from Websters:
1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of a profession b : engaged in one of the learned professions c (1) : characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession (2) : exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace 2 a : participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs b : having a particular profession as a permanent career c : engaged in by persons receiving financial return 3 : following a line of conduct as though it were a profession - professionally adverb
As opposed to "job":
b : a specific duty, role, or function c : a regular remunerative position
I'll let you look up remunerative for yourself... but as you can see, you can get paid for either a profession or a job... but as you'll note in the first definition above, a profession often implies far more (specialized knowledge, ethics, etc) than simply getting paid.
But that's OK, I don't take it personally. If you want, you can keep calling your fast-food job a "profession" if it makes you feel better.
They aren't locked into your prescribed update path, at your prescribed price, with your prescribed software... If Microsoft says "like it or lump it," you have no choice, and no freedom.
Yes, linux can theoretically be "free" (as in beer), but everything has update and maintenance costs (even if only in manpower costs)... everything... including windows and linux.
Even if it costs a bit more up front... how much are they going to save in the long run? And how much is it worth to be free to choose another vendor? Another tech support company? Another code monkey to maintain their systems?
Who said anything about Jocks, Preppies, Goths, or geeks? I don't recall anyone saying anything about being good at sports...
He's talking about antisocial behavior... sociopaths who prey on their fellow man and society in general. I happen to agree that those people are what's wrong with society, and that they should be appropriately sanctioned.
Now, those people can come from any social strata (you are making the mistake of equating social strata with social worth). Lots of working class joes volunteer at soup kitchens and work in their local churches... they probably do a lot more good (and proportionally give much more) than some upper-crust aristrocrat who throws a few thousand bucks at the problem and forgets about it. Social position doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being a sociopath... and I think sociopaths in online games deserve the same banishment they get in society.
For instance, in addition to revoking accounts, I'd support some kind of game "jail" arrangement, or even something more appropriate to the period (in a fantasy-themed game, throw them in the stocks in the center of town and let the people abuse them... that might teach 'em).
does wonders on electronics... and this one hangs off the side of the laptop, allowing you to fry it without killing the object of your desire.
I had a friend who had a Van-DeGraff Generator, and I remember sending many types of old, unwanted electronics to that great microchip graveyard in the sky by taking them over to his house... old calculators, etc... the only thing that didn't die an ugly, static-electricity-induced death was my casio digital watch.
Actually, if you read the article
on
Stolen Laptop Alarms
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
You'll find that it gives you a five-second window to deactivate before the alarm starts blaring...
Should cut down on the noise pollution "oops, accidently tripped my alarm" incidents.
Besides, it's not like a car alarm that goes off when somebody walks too close to it (or brushes up against your door in the parking lot, or taps your car with a shopping cart, etc). Somebody actually has to pick this up and move it before it sounds the alarm. Personally, if somebody is moving my laptop in my absence, you can bet I'm going to assume the worst and correct their behavior...
First: I'm not the one who imprisoned him... though he is a previous child sex offender, and I have my own feelings about what should happen to those folks... but I digress.
Second: he wasn't charged with thinking about molesting a child... he was charged with possession of child pornography for the lurid and vivid accounts he wrote about in his journal. I don't think I made that clear in my initial post... The sticking point should be whether words can be considered pornography (in addition to pictures).
BTW, the law can prosecute for planning to commit crimes, even if you haven't done them yet.
Here's something for your perusal: a charming little story about a man who wrote about vile acts involving children... so vile, in fact, that he was sent to prison for ten years.
He didn't do any of the act described, he just talked about it... but it turns out to be illegal under Ohio law. Possession of child porn materials (which isn't just pictures) is against the law. A picture is worth a thousand words... but apparently enough words will get you into trouble as well (and I don't necessarily disagree). Not all speech is A-OK... no "fire!" in a crowded theatre... no talking about killing the president... and no talking about the torture/molestation/imprisonment of children.
The individual in question sounds like a sick guy, so as a parent myself, I can't say I'm sorry to see he's off the street.
Slashdot Mirror
Nerds? Jocks? That certainly wasn't my first thought, but OK...
It may be that the popular bloggers have ease-of-use on their side (they aggregate the information in a better format).
It may be that they are linked to by other popular bloggers, and get referrals/popularity/hits that way... popularity begeting popularity.
Also, on an unrelated note, intelligence doesn't necessarily imply misanthropy... intelligent people are not only liked by other intelligent people. Being a nice, likeable guy doesn't necessarily imply intelligence or lack thereof. On the other hand, if you combine intelligence and an obnoxious/ostentatious attitude, you'll get resentment for sure, and not just from idiots.
syndrome... where somebody takes somebody else's commment, copies it enbloc, and reposts it in a higher subthread.
The higher-posted comment gets "insightful" and "interesting" mods, while the lower post gets "redundant" mods, regardless of the fact that the lower comment was posted first.
I think the Slashtrolls have turned this technique into an online sport.
particularly regarding visibility... that's definitely not stressed enough to the general public. Cops and paramedics get that education (some police academies teach that a right-sided vehicle approach during a traffic stop is preferable for that very reason... plus bad guys often don't expect it). Hasn't everyone seen the candid camera/realTV police cruiser dash-cam videos of cops being clipped by drunks and idiots? It amazes me that more civilians don't know how dangerous it is to be on the side of the road.
As to your other point about creeps stopping either way, my wife has a very different answer for those types...
but I'd never ask my wife to stand on the side of a US interstate with the hood up, waiting for who-the-hell-knows to stop... that's a recipe for disaster in some parts of the country. Now, I myself stop for people from time to time (it's my medic's instinct to see if they need help), but I don't expect them to trust me... and if they hint I should drive on, I always do so.
That's what cell phones are for... I'm not trying to insult you here, so please don't take it that way, but I'd never leave my wife dependent on the kindness of strangers.
Like I say, maybe it's different in England.
the quote about Volvo's CEO:
"a mood encouraged by women-friendly Volvo boss Hans-Olov Olsson."
Hmmmm... that's a curious statement open to misinterpretation. Now what'd they mean by that, eh?... exactly how "women-friendly" is he? wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more... (sorry... BBC article... had to throw that in...)
your wife sells belly-dancing costumes?
You, sir, must be a very happy man.
some other posters mentioned it already, but the longer wavelengths are readily reflected from the ionosphere... this atmospheric bounce is what allows hams to communicate across huge distances.
If the BPL interference gets propogated the same way we're in big trouble (disclaimer: I'm a HAM operator)
do a google search on tropospheric ducting to see an example of how far radio waves can propogate.
It all depends on wavelength.
Role and circumstances mean everything... intent matters in the eyes of the law (it's even codified in most world religions, where a strong distinction is made between killing based on circumstances)
If you pull a trigger and somebody dies, one of several outcomes will occur: you can be decorated, exonerated, or go to the gas chamber... it's totally dependent on motive and circumstance.
If you're a Navy SEAL and you wax some terrorist, you get a medal, and rightfully so. I'm an individual, so I can't issue medals... but I'd shake your hand and buy you a beer for killing somebody like that (you're defending my currently-non-military hide and that of my family), because a terrorist who perpetrates the wholesale, deliberate slaughter of innocents deserves to die... period... and somebody's got to do that dirty work. If it's you, God bless you and here's a guinness on me.
If you're joe citizen and somebody breaks into your home with the intent to harm your family, and you kill him, you will generally be exonerated. Again, depends on motive and circumstance.
If you're a sociopathic ass who murders someone because they cut you off in traffic, you'll die in the electric chair. Goodbye... nobody will miss you.
In all three of these scenarios, you pulled a trigger and somebody died, but you were not sanctioned in two out of three because violence is not necessarily wrong... it's a tool to be used in extreme circumstances to protect the innocent (and sometimes punish the guilty).
I may have missed the entire point of your post... but it looked like you were trying to draw a moral equivalence where none really exists. Unless you're some kind of pacifist, there most certainly is justification for violence in some circumstances, and as someone who's assisted in the endeavor, I put terrorist hunting at the top of that list.
It came to be during that scene in "once upon a time in Mexico" where Johnny Depp had a gun hidden under the table while he kept the fake arm on the table...
I know, I know... totally different genre, but I can't be the only person who was reminded of the Han Solo and Greedo scene from the original star wars.
Oh, I understand their motivations perfectly well... but I don't have to respect them.
Considering that most of the individuals I'm thinking of are/were 30ish before they even completed their training, one would hope they'd have grown out of that kind of nonsense by then... but you never know (I don't know how old you are... you may still be there yourself). If you're trying to point out that young men often behave in an idiotic, risky, and hormonally-poisoned fashion, then fine... that's virtually axiomatic.
If you're arguing that some guys are after indiscriminate sex and hedonism (ala the puerile tucker max types), there's some truth to that as well... but that brings its own set of problems, and I ought to know; I deal in the aftermath. Picking up random chicks at bars and doing the nasty is all a numbers game, and your number will come up eventually. It might be in the form of a psycho boyfriend/husband (but I'm sure the girl assured you she's unattached, right?), the STD dujour, conception... let your imagination run wild. I've seen it go wrong every single way (sometimes more than one way at a time).
If that's all you want out of your relationships, then go nuts... enjoy it while it lasts; hopefully you'll mature before your luck runs out. However, as your peers grow out of such activities, you'll find your herd of potential "mates" thinning considerably. Over time, you'll gain weight, lose your hair, lose your youth, and you'll eventually be forced to either beg/scam for sex, or at best negotiate for it... or you could be reduced to a pathetic sugardaddy and engage in the kind of thinly-disguised prostitution the name implies... even if you're wealthy enough to afford the best, you'll still be an object of scorn. Wave money around to get women all you like, but even a leper can buy sex.
As I said... an empty existence. What's most sad about some of these guys is that they're smart/worldly enough to know better... I don't know whether they lack insight, self-control, or both. Indulging your id like the lowest form of animal... Understandable in a way, but hardly admirable.
If she's better and cheaper, what's your answer? How can you add value to your services to compete? That's the question we should be asking... not whether it's "fair."
I'm not talking in a vacuum here... I've been fired... or rather, "outsourced."
That's right... I'm a doctor and I was fired (it was not for incompetence, so you trolls can pipe down)... it's happened to many ER docs. An ER contract changed hands, and I was unceremoniously terminated. With the growth of large contract groups in my specialty, that outsourcing threat is ever-present; all it takes is the decision of the hospital administrator. Sales guy shows up with a slick brochure, a sales pitch, and a lower bid, and boom. If it happens, I have 60 days to find another job in the area, or uproot my family and move.
I'm not unsympathetic to the outsourcing threat, and it's not a question of skills... I'll stack my clinical skills up against anyone in my specialty. It's more a question of adding value to my services... being available, affable, reliable. My partners and I make it a point to cultivate relationships with other physicians, our patients, our administrators, and the medical staff as a whole. We try to be responsive to their concerns, address problems promptly, and above all do a good job. We've taken a proactive approach to the outsourcing threat. Is it a lot of extra work? Oh yes... and even despite all that, I can still be outsourced, but that's simply the reality. Since I'm unwilling to throw away the years I spent in school, I have almost no alternative except to work harder, smarter, and stack the deck. Despite all that, the brutal truth is that I can still be fired at any time.
It's a global markeplace, even in medicine. Some medical specialities like Radiology can even be outsourced overseas (Teleradiography has completely changed portions of that speciality, and it's already being done halfway 'round the world).
OK... as somebody who makes a fair amount of money, involved in a profession where people make a fair amount of money (medicine) I've watched colleagues make that mistake over and over and over again.
It's painful to watch. I have colleagues that go to bars practically wearing lab coat and scrubs... you can sit back and watch the gold-diggers come a-runnin. Later, when their shallow relationship blows up, they go do it again... some stay in this rut for years. If you're going to use money to attract chix0rs, beware... you might get exactly what you're asking for. Ostentatiously waving money around is arrogant, obnoxious, creates resentment in others, and is no way to build a relationship.
For my own part, I don't advertise my income or profeesion... never did. It's not on my car, it's not on my checks or credit cards... not even on my correspondence. In fact, apart from this largely-anonymous forum, I'm damned circumspect about it, because it makes you a target, particularly when dating.
I'm married now, but even as a single guy, I didn't tell women what I did for a living... "I'm a student" was my pat answer. They'd eventually figure it out later, but after I'd had a chance to vet them for their real interests and motivations. If you're dating for dollars, you attract avaricious partners. I hope for Mr. Vasters sake that he was making that remark tongue-in-cheek.
Using bucks as bait to get dates is a losing strategy all the way... unless your idea of companionship is a using others and getting used yourself. And when it's all done, all you'll have to show for it is a shallow, disease-ridden string of one-night-stands; that's a pretty empty way to live.
I'm the original AC, for the record.
of course you are.
You should relax... it's good for you. Incidently, I have no problem with people who work fast food, but if you insist on taking that as an insult, then by all means, be insulted... it really doesn't matter to me. My statement was more intended as a commentary on the loosening use of the term "professional."
The original poster wrote: Of course not as many accidents are going to happen, they're pros.
Which to me implies a measure of skill... not whether they fit the legal definition of a profession. A subsequent poster (iabervon) made the point that getting paid is what defines a profession... and he's partially right... but that's also the definition of a job, and doesn't begin to tell the whole story behind profession, professionalism, etc. Websters dictionary is just the beginning...
Also, it's OK that you thread-jacked this discussion into a dictionary fest, because this is slashdot, and we can do that... but the original poster clearly implied professional as a measure of skill, not as a result of a paycheck. Of course job and profession are not mutually exclusive... but getting a paycheck qualifies you for either definition... and you're quite right that professional must not necessarily relate to skillfulness, but like it or not, that is the definition that started this thread.
As a professional myself, the term implies much more to me than simply getting paid... but that's a thread for another day.
Thanks for the interesting discussion.
This whole discussion has developed a life of its own... it's interesting that so many people freely apply and so ardently defend the use of "professional" and "profession." The historical and sociological context behind the term makes for a thought-provoking read.
This has truly been an interesting discussion, particularly if you look at this issue from a (somewhat outdated) historical sense... meaning the late renaissance definition of profession, referring particularly to the ancient professions of divinity, law, and medicine (and sometimes soldiery). The evolution of that term progressed in the 19th century, to the point that it now includes engineers, architects, teachers (the "teaching profession") etc (and cab drivers, apparently)... but the classical professions were the original prototype.
Sociologist Geoffrey Millerson wrote a classic book on the topic in the mid-sixties, where he layed out the requirements in his formal definition of "profession": (keep in mind that for some professions, these things go back to antiquity)
Skill based on theoretical knowledge
Required training and education
Competence demonstrated by testing
Ethical code of conduct
Altruistic goals
Professional organization
Some of this formal sociological definition has survived, and can be noted in Webster's definition of profession... but note how much it has broadened... it's tremendous... we're now to the point that many consider anyone who does something for pay as a "professional" in that field.
As a member of one of the previously mentioned "classical professions," it's fascinating to me to watch the evolution of the term.
Thanks to everyone who posted for the interesting thread.
You're a dipshit
Stop it before I burst into tears.
Ironically, if you weren't in such a hurry to post that snarky reply, you might have noticed the entire definition that I posted... It's the identical link you are referencing.
Go home kid... come back when you can argue without sounding like a preschooler.
Nice try, coward.
Though to be fair, you're partially right... profession has "at least two meanings," though you conveniently omitted the one that contradicts your little rant. I quote from Websters:
1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of a profession b : engaged in one of the learned professions c (1) : characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession (2) : exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace
2 a : participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs b : having a particular profession as a permanent career c : engaged in by persons receiving financial return
3 : following a line of conduct as though it were a profession
- professionally adverb
As opposed to "job":
b : a specific duty, role, or function c : a regular remunerative position
I'll let you look up remunerative for yourself... but as you can see, you can get paid for either a profession or a job... but as you'll note in the first definition above, a profession often implies far more (specialized knowledge, ethics, etc) than simply getting paid.
But that's OK, I don't take it personally. If you want, you can keep calling your fast-food job a "profession" if it makes you feel better.
that's referred to as a "job."
You can be an amateur and still get paid.
sorry, did I just see the words "New York City" and "professional drivers" in the same sentence?
Yeah... I think I also saw "cabs" in that same sentence, along with "not as many accidents are going to happen"...
I'm sorry... I don't know what to say...
Answer that one for me, Mr. Ballmer.
They aren't locked into your prescribed update path, at your prescribed price, with your prescribed software... If Microsoft says "like it or lump it," you have no choice, and no freedom.
Yes, linux can theoretically be "free" (as in beer), but everything has update and maintenance costs (even if only in manpower costs)... everything... including windows and linux.
Even if it costs a bit more up front... how much are they going to save in the long run? And how much is it worth to be free to choose another vendor? Another tech support company? Another code monkey to maintain their systems?
Who said anything about Jocks, Preppies, Goths, or geeks? I don't recall anyone saying anything about being good at sports...
He's talking about antisocial behavior... sociopaths who prey on their fellow man and society in general. I happen to agree that those people are what's wrong with society, and that they should be appropriately sanctioned.
Now, those people can come from any social strata (you are making the mistake of equating social strata with social worth). Lots of working class joes volunteer at soup kitchens and work in their local churches... they probably do a lot more good (and proportionally give much more) than some upper-crust aristrocrat who throws a few thousand bucks at the problem and forgets about it. Social position doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being a sociopath... and I think sociopaths in online games deserve the same banishment they get in society.
For instance, in addition to revoking accounts, I'd support some kind of game "jail" arrangement, or even something more appropriate to the period (in a fantasy-themed game, throw them in the stocks in the center of town and let the people abuse them... that might teach 'em).
does wonders on electronics... and this one hangs off the side of the laptop, allowing you to fry it without killing the object of your desire.
I had a friend who had a Van-DeGraff Generator, and I remember sending many types of old, unwanted electronics to that great microchip graveyard in the sky by taking them over to his house... old calculators, etc... the only thing that didn't die an ugly, static-electricity-induced death was my casio digital watch.
You'll find that it gives you a five-second window to deactivate before the alarm starts blaring...
Should cut down on the noise pollution "oops, accidently tripped my alarm" incidents.
Besides, it's not like a car alarm that goes off when somebody walks too close to it (or brushes up against your door in the parking lot, or taps your car with a shopping cart, etc). Somebody actually has to pick this up and move it before it sounds the alarm. Personally, if somebody is moving my laptop in my absence, you can bet I'm going to assume the worst and correct their behavior...
Sign me up for one of these babies.
Relax.
First: I'm not the one who imprisoned him... though he is a previous child sex offender, and I have my own feelings about what should happen to those folks... but I digress.
Second: he wasn't charged with thinking about molesting a child... he was charged with possession of child pornography for the lurid and vivid accounts he wrote about in his journal. I don't think I made that clear in my initial post... The sticking point should be whether words can be considered pornography (in addition to pictures).
BTW, the law can prosecute for planning to commit crimes, even if you haven't done them yet.
Here's something for your perusal: a charming little story about a man who wrote about vile acts involving children... so vile, in fact, that he was sent to prison for ten years.
He didn't do any of the act described, he just talked about it... but it turns out to be illegal under Ohio law. Possession of child porn materials (which isn't just pictures) is against the law. A picture is worth a thousand words... but apparently enough words will get you into trouble as well (and I don't necessarily disagree). Not all speech is A-OK... no "fire!" in a crowded theatre... no talking about killing the president... and no talking about the torture/molestation/imprisonment of children.
The individual in question sounds like a sick guy, so as a parent myself, I can't say I'm sorry to see he's off the street.