Thanks. That was the basic idea behind my proposal. It got a mixed reaction and, as a result, I never implemented it.
Since then, the spam problem has just gotten worse and little has been done to improve the situation. The biggest difference is that you can no longer expect to get a response from the ISPs telling you what, if anything, was done as a result of you reporting a spammer. And spamvertised web sites often stay up for days or even weeks after the spam is reported -- something that makes the spammers very happy, I'm sure.
While I use the various open-relay databases and report open relays to them, they really don't solve the spam problem. Some small percentage of ISPs and businesses use those services and their users won't get the spam. But the spammers will still send it out, figuring that they will just get a slightly lower delivery percentage. They don't give a rat's ass if they generate bounce messages for 30% of the e-mails that they send.
The situation now seems to be one of trying to increase your defenses rather than taking out the offenders.
P.S. Your English is fine. I wish I was as skilled at a second language.
Wait, I know, you are an asshole spammer! [google.com]
A lie on your part. Show me any case where I spammed anyone.
Fred's proposal is that he sends spam to everyone whose name is on any address for-sale database - in other words, spam, to tell them who is selling their address.
It was an idea that I floated four years ago. And it was a damned good one and more than one person said so publically. It would not have been UCE, since it was not commercial and would have resulted in the people selling the addresses having to deal with irate spam recipients.
Fred goes out of his way to track down individuals, and then harasses them at odd hours of the night.
True. And I'm damned proud of that. Nothing upsets a spammer so much as being tracked down and annoyed at 3:00AM by someone who doesn't appreciate being spammed. If they can spam people at all hours of the night, then they can be phoned at all hours of the night. If they don't like it, they can use an answering machine and "just press delete."
Sorry to rain on your parade, but I get the feeling that you're just another pro-spam mouthpiece trolling Slashdot.
And that, my friends, is why these people do it. Because they enjoy the feeling of power that cutting people off the net gives them.
How dare you presume to know what motivates someone else? "Feeling of power"? You have got to be kidding. For every 500 spam complaints that I send out, I'm lucky to get one single, personal reply from someone saying that they even looked at the problem. Most of what I get for my trouble are automated responses claiming that the ISPs are going to do something. And often that means giving a "warning" to the bozo who just sent out a quarter of a million e-mails advertising "herbal Viagra." Sometimes it means that my complaint will be promptly ignored.
If you want to feel frustrated, ignored, and almost powerless, try fighting spam. The only ones that do it for more than a few months are those who are truly dedicated because they believe that they are fighting the good fight for an important cause.
Actually most analysts recon that the bulk mail is subsidized by the letter post.
They are wrong.
This has been the case since the start of the USPS, several early revolutionaries were newspapermen and so they secured guaranteed low rates for their product.
In 1847, local postage was the same price as a quart of milk delivered to your door. So please don't try to tell me that first class mail, at 30-something cents per piece, is subsidizing anything today.
I've worked there. I know that BBM is what keeps the USPS in business. While you might not like it that BBM gets big price breaks, they pay for the infrastructure. And their mail requires much less processing. It typically comes pre-sorted and bundled. What's more cost-effective: Receiving a load of 100,000 pieces of pre-sorted BBM from a business or having local carriers pick up 100,000 pieces of first class mail one or two letters at a time?
If you got rid of BBM, the USPS would be out of business shortly thereafter. If you got rid of first class mail, the BBM would continue to support the USPS for years to come.
You've now shown me that they certainly aren't making a profit on that part.
It's a somewhat complex relationship between bulk business mail (BBM) and first class mail. For example, it would not be profitable to roll delivery trucks to deliver first class mail alone, but since they're already rolling to deliver the BBM, delivering first class mail is icing on the cake. So, technically, they do sometimes profit from first class mail -- but only because of the infrastructure the BBM paid for.
Actually, junk mailers are largely subsidized by first class mail
I worked in Engineering for the USPS for almost a decade total and you have got this one backwards. It is the bulk mailers who subsidize First Class mail. Bulk business mailers pre-sort their mail, making processing and delivery much easier. They pre-print barcodes (Postnet) on the mail, so that automated sortation equipment can sort it without human intervention. They interact with the USPS's computerized forwarding system to get change of address information promptly.
Contrast that to grandma's chicken scratch handwriting on an envelope. The carrier comes to her house and, hooray, gets one letter to mail for his (and the USPS's) time, gas, etc. The address is handwritten and, thus, can't be read by the OCR equipment. So someone processes it by hand, entering the ZIP code so that the barcode can be sprayed on the envelope. Then it get sorted but, not surprisingly, grandma switched two digits of the ZIP code and that's not caught until the letter shows up 1,500 miles away from where it belongs, at which point someone has to look-up and correct the ZIP code and put it back into the outgoing mail.
Look at it another way: Suppose there was no bulk business mail and the only revenue the USPS got was from First Class mail sent by individuals. How profitable would that be? Do you think that the USPS could afford to buy automated, computerized sorting equipment for that? Do you even think that they would make even enough money to cover their delivery costs? (Hint: No)
What you are suggesting is analogous to stating the individuals who buy 500 sheets of copier paper at a time must be subsidizing IBM, because IBM pays so much less for copier paper -- which they purchase by the pallet load.
While watching "Dennis Miller Live" on June 28, four days after I wrote the parent comment, I was amused to hear Dennis Miller say:
"And new figures indicate that Scotland has the highest concentration of UFO sightings on the planet Earth. Well sure it does. With those easy-to-lift-up kilts, they're just asking for an anal probe!"
all of them including the poor sot who has to restart that crashy server at 2am every second or third morning.
At some point, you have twisted this around to software engineers causing servers to crash. The original post was about software engineers having root access on their own PCs on which they do development:
As a software developer, I refuse to work at a company that doesn't give me the right to run my machine the way I see fit.
And that is the context of my response. At some point, you introduced the term "production machine" and I did not catch that you were apparently talking about something other than the developer's PC. If a software engineer, through installing apps on the development PC in his office, causes your server to crash, then I think both of you need a good solid beating for being bad at your jobs.
Talented software engineers are a lot harder to find than talented system administrators because hiring managers perversely ignore most of the people who can do the job right, merely because said applicants are over 35.
I'm 41 and that's probably about not much above the average age of developers at the firm where I am consulting. I can find plenty of work. It all depends on what the engineer is looking for. The aerospace industry, for instance, is more interested in experience than cheap labor, so they tend to hire older software engineers. If you were launching a multi-million dollar satellite or piloting a fly-by-wire aircraft, would you want the software that controlled it to have been developed by a team that averaged 20 years of experience or by a bunch of 20-somethings? Youth, energy, and enthusiasm are great, but they are no substitute for experience.
And before anyone starts a tirade, I realize that there are some younger software engineers who are quite talented. Just as there are very skilled surgeons that just graduated medical school. But I'd rather trust my surgery to the guy who's done 80 of them than be the second one a young surgeon has done.
As a system administrator, I refuse to work at a company where all developers have unlimited root access on the production network.
Analogy: As a janitor, I refuse to work at a company where employees are allowed to eat in their offices. (Yeah, I know that remark will probably cost me a few karma points, but I can afford it.)
Why the analogy? Because, like janitors, IT personnel providing a support function in most companies and software engineers produce products that make money. Don't forget that talented software engineers are a lot harder to find than talented system administrators. Most companies would much rather try to replace a sys admin than a software engineer -- especially if that software engineer is a key player on a major project/product. So, if you can afford to turn down jobs because the software engineers have root access, then hooray for you. But you don't want to get in a pissing contest like that at most companies because the developers will usually win.
I have a web server. It serves a text-only page that has info about my fan speeds, CPU temperature, etc. I access it a few times per day, each time downloading about 5K of data across my cable modem. I have an FTP server. I only access it about twice a week and then I don't move anything big. Usually just a.zip file or two. It's password-protected and I'm the only user. Neither one of these servers causes excessive bandwidth usage, yet both are banned under the newly amended TOS/AUP at my cable modem provider.
If the ISP is concerned about my usage of bandwidth, then they should publish bandwidth limits and/or tiered pricing to reflect usage rather than banning things that often have nothing to do with the "problem."
Of course, the real problem is that they want to force computer hobbyists, to whom the connection is most useful, to pay big bucks for a "business service." That's why they keep putting up red herrings like "servers" rather than just limiting bandwidth or charging for tiered service.
I thought you said important people don't have to be on-call?
No, I said that they don't have to be on call 24/7. I am sometimes on call for a few days at a time every 2-3 months (on average). That's not exactly 24/7. And I am asked if I am willing to be on call -- not told that I will be.
Next time, read what you are quoting before pressing [Submit].
Personally, I hate sitting next to fat people at movies, which I assume you are, since you are the size of a football player. I find the way their enormity overflows from the seat to be quite uncomfortable, if I am forced to sit beside them. Maybe the next rule should be no fatties at the movies either
I'm sure that you'd prefer to be sitting in in a dark theater with little children -- ah, but there's that restraining order and the monitoring device on your ankle.
Have a nice day and better luck in your future trolling attempts.
I was putting some levity into the RMS-cancer linkup that only the Slashdot crowd would appreciate.
Well, he's part of the Slashdot crowd and I bet he has trouble seeing humor in anything involving his kid's cancer. I'm sure that you meant no offense and I certainly didn't mean to come down on you personally. I just thought it best to leave that line of humor alone. Peace.
You are surely speaking from the mouth of someone who has never had to work oncall.
I am currently working at a company that builds satellites. During the testing and launch prep phases, I am often on call. When I am on call, I don't go out to movies and, instead, rent videos to watch at home.
Here is a suggestion, if YOU sit in your house, and rent movies from Blockbuster, you will not be interuppted.
That reminds me of the smokers that used to say 'If you don't want to breathe my cigarette smoke, then stay home and don't eat at a restaurant'.
Why ask anything from others that you would not be willing to do yourself?
I don't, as you can see above. But why should I be caged up at home when I'm not on call? So that people less considerate than I am can feel free to take cell phones, pagers, and Blackberrys to movies? I don't think so.
Personally, I'm concentrating on the movie, and just tune little things like that out. If your concentration ability is that bad, you might want to consider medication.
I did not say that I can't follow a movie when that happens. But when you are immersed in a movie, something like that can quickly snap you back from the illusion of being there. Obviously, that's not a big issue if you are watching something like Men In Black II, but when you are watching a cinematic masterpiece, it's a different matter.
And it's the sum total of annoyances. One watch? Minor annoyance. 4 watches, 8 cell phones, 9 backlit pagers, 2 PDAs, a Blackberry, some infant wailing away, and a guy two seats down that sounds like he has tuberculosis and the movie is ruined.
So everyone on call should just give up their social lives, eh?
No, just movies in theaters.
(ok, so you don't *have* to go to the movies, but I can imagine the reactions of my friends if I refused every time they wanted to go)
If your friends can't understand a desire to not annoy others, you need new friends.
Please stop staring at my crotch and watch the screen instead.
If you weren't running a glaring backlit mobile phone to draw attention to your crotch, it would be a lot easier for those around you to watch the film.
What makes you think you'll hear my phone doing the vibrate/buzz-thing?
Because it makes noise and I have heard them in meetings, theaters, offices, and restaurants.
You'd be right if it weren't for the fact that anyone voluntarily leaving a movie they've paid for probably has such a damn good reason it would override your momentary discomfort.
It's not up to you to decide whether you should inconvenience and discomfort me. Your hypothetical data center? Couldn't care less. Your company can hire multiple people to rotate the "on-call" responsibilities. Then you can go to movies when you're not on call.
Or perhaps you'd also object to sysadmins running through crowds because a vital datacenter's gone down?
And I suppose you think it's fine if some idiot sysadmin running through a crowd runs into a pregnant woman, small child, handicapped, or elderly person while rushing to get www.petfoodmart.com back online?
If you choose to treat your mobile phone as if it weren't mobile, why did you get one?
Obviously, your car is on cinder blocks in your front yard, but rest assured that my car is perfectly mobile.
Err...in another thread, you claimed to own your business. A consulting firm. This was how you explained that you were "important". Now you're an employee that the company doesn't want to risk losing?
I did not say "employee". I referred to the "company I work for." This may come as a tremendous shock to you, but consultants do work for other companies -- even though they run their own businesses. I provide consulting services to companies. Therefore, I work for them.
Not too good at reading comprehension, are you?
I'm sorry, at what point were the new parents and the SysAdmins all looking for a handout?
When they brought their infants and cell phones into movie theaters expecting the rest of the patrons to put up with the interruptions.
The world doesn't owe you perfect peace and quiet, either.
In a movie theater or nice restaurant, it does. That's one of the things I, and every other patron, paid for.
It's not them, it's you. Noone can stand you.
Let's see... I started this thread with a post that has received five positive karma points and two negative ones. You're post is at 0. Sounds like more people agree with me than with you. Go away, anonymous coward. And, if no one could stand me, I wouldn't have many clients, some for five or more years, would I?
hmmmm next you time you go to see your docter tell him he should never go see a movie on call.
I don't have to. My doctor is a professional. He is part of a practice in which the doctors rotate responsibility for taking calls. It is unlikely that my doctor is in a movie theater when it's his turn to be on call.
It hardly seems reasonable that medical personnel on call should be banned from public places because they may be needed at the hospital.
We are talking solely about theaters, so let's not imply something more than that.
If you choose to be a doctor, you can watch movies at home when you are on call so as not to disturb those around you. And you can join a practice where there is an answering service to screen calls and other doctors who take turns being on call.
Besides, if someone can't wait for the doctor to check his/her messages after the movie ends, that person needs to be in the ER, not on the phone.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks. That was the basic idea behind my proposal. It got a mixed reaction and, as a result, I never implemented it.
Since then, the spam problem has just gotten worse and little has been done to improve the situation. The biggest difference is that you can no longer expect to get a response from the ISPs telling you what, if anything, was done as a result of you reporting a spammer. And spamvertised web sites often stay up for days or even weeks after the spam is reported -- something that makes the spammers very happy, I'm sure.
While I use the various open-relay databases and report open relays to them, they really don't solve the spam problem. Some small percentage of ISPs and businesses use those services and their users won't get the spam. But the spammers will still send it out, figuring that they will just get a slightly lower delivery percentage. They don't give a rat's ass if they generate bounce messages for 30% of the e-mails that they send.
The situation now seems to be one of trying to increase your defenses rather than taking out the offenders.
P.S. Your English is fine. I wish I was as skilled at a second language.
In the above post, Fred advocates using illegal abuse to fight possibly illegal abuse.
It's legal to call someone at any hour of the day or night unless you have been asked not to. Don't declare something illegal unless it is.
And, as usual for people of his calibur,
People of my caliber know how to spell "caliber."
he resorts to calling his opponent names rather than actually addressing the point that he is a "Fucking Ignorant Individual."
That's so hypocritical that it's funny!
Wait, I know, you are an asshole spammer! [google.com]
A lie on your part. Show me any case where I spammed anyone.
Fred's proposal is that he sends spam to everyone whose name is on any address for-sale database - in other words, spam, to tell them who is selling their address.
It was an idea that I floated four years ago. And it was a damned good one and more than one person said so publically. It would not have been UCE, since it was not commercial and would have resulted in the people selling the addresses having to deal with irate spam recipients.
Fred goes out of his way to track down individuals, and then harasses them at odd hours of the night.
True. And I'm damned proud of that. Nothing upsets a spammer so much as being tracked down and annoyed at 3:00AM by someone who doesn't appreciate being spammed. If they can spam people at all hours of the night, then they can be phoned at all hours of the night. If they don't like it, they can use an answering machine and "just press delete."
Sorry to rain on your parade, but I get the feeling that you're just another pro-spam mouthpiece trolling Slashdot.
And that, my friends, is why these people do it. Because they enjoy the feeling of power that cutting people off the net gives them.
How dare you presume to know what motivates someone else? "Feeling of power"? You have got to be kidding. For every 500 spam complaints that I send out, I'm lucky to get one single, personal reply from someone saying that they even looked at the problem. Most of what I get for my trouble are automated responses claiming that the ISPs are going to do something. And often that means giving a "warning" to the bozo who just sent out a quarter of a million e-mails advertising "herbal Viagra." Sometimes it means that my complaint will be promptly ignored.
If you want to feel frustrated, ignored, and almost powerless, try fighting spam. The only ones that do it for more than a few months are those who are truly dedicated because they believe that they are fighting the good fight for an important cause.
Actually most analysts recon that the bulk mail is subsidized by the letter post.
They are wrong.
This has been the case since the start of the USPS, several early revolutionaries were newspapermen and so they secured guaranteed low rates for their product.
In 1847, local postage was the same price as a quart of milk delivered to your door. So please don't try to tell me that first class mail, at 30-something cents per piece, is subsidizing anything today.
I've worked there. I know that BBM is what keeps the USPS in business. While you might not like it that BBM gets big price breaks, they pay for the infrastructure. And their mail requires much less processing. It typically comes pre-sorted and bundled. What's more cost-effective: Receiving a load of 100,000 pieces of pre-sorted BBM from a business or having local carriers pick up 100,000 pieces of first class mail one or two letters at a time?
If you got rid of BBM, the USPS would be out of business shortly thereafter. If you got rid of first class mail, the BBM would continue to support the USPS for years to come.
You've now shown me that they certainly aren't making a profit on that part.
It's a somewhat complex relationship between bulk business mail (BBM) and first class mail. For example, it would not be profitable to roll delivery trucks to deliver first class mail alone, but since they're already rolling to deliver the BBM, delivering first class mail is icing on the cake. So, technically, they do sometimes profit from first class mail -- but only because of the infrastructure the BBM paid for.
Actually, junk mailers are largely subsidized by first class mail
I worked in Engineering for the USPS for almost a decade total and you have got this one backwards. It is the bulk mailers who subsidize First Class mail. Bulk business mailers pre-sort their mail, making processing and delivery much easier. They pre-print barcodes (Postnet) on the mail, so that automated sortation equipment can sort it without human intervention. They interact with the USPS's computerized forwarding system to get change of address information promptly.
Contrast that to grandma's chicken scratch handwriting on an envelope. The carrier comes to her house and, hooray, gets one letter to mail for his (and the USPS's) time, gas, etc. The address is handwritten and, thus, can't be read by the OCR equipment. So someone processes it by hand, entering the ZIP code so that the barcode can be sprayed on the envelope. Then it get sorted but, not surprisingly, grandma switched two digits of the ZIP code and that's not caught until the letter shows up 1,500 miles away from where it belongs, at which point someone has to look-up and correct the ZIP code and put it back into the outgoing mail.
Look at it another way: Suppose there was no bulk business mail and the only revenue the USPS got was from First Class mail sent by individuals. How profitable would that be? Do you think that the USPS could afford to buy automated, computerized sorting equipment for that? Do you even think that they would make even enough money to cover their delivery costs? (Hint: No)
What you are suggesting is analogous to stating the individuals who buy 500 sheets of copier paper at a time must be subsidizing IBM, because IBM pays so much less for copier paper -- which they purchase by the pallet load.
While watching "Dennis Miller Live" on June 28, four days after I wrote the parent comment, I was amused to hear Dennis Miller say:
"And new figures indicate that Scotland has the highest concentration of UFO sightings on the planet Earth. Well sure it does. With those easy-to-lift-up kilts, they're just asking for an anal probe!"
At some point, you have twisted this around to software engineers causing servers to crash. The original post was about software engineers having root access on their own PCs on which they do development:
And that is the context of my response. At some point, you introduced the term "production machine" and I did not catch that you were apparently talking about something other than the developer's PC. If a software engineer, through installing apps on the development PC in his office, causes your server to crash, then I think both of you need a good solid beating for being bad at your jobs.
Talented software engineers are a lot harder to find than talented system administrators because hiring managers perversely ignore most of the people who can do the job right, merely because said applicants are over 35.
I'm 41 and that's probably about not much above the average age of developers at the firm where I am consulting. I can find plenty of work. It all depends on what the engineer is looking for. The aerospace industry, for instance, is more interested in experience than cheap labor, so they tend to hire older software engineers. If you were launching a multi-million dollar satellite or piloting a fly-by-wire aircraft, would you want the software that controlled it to have been developed by a team that averaged 20 years of experience or by a bunch of 20-somethings? Youth, energy, and enthusiasm are great, but they are no substitute for experience.
And before anyone starts a tirade, I realize that there are some younger software engineers who are quite talented. Just as there are very skilled surgeons that just graduated medical school. But I'd rather trust my surgery to the guy who's done 80 of them than be the second one a young surgeon has done.
As a system administrator, I refuse to work at a company where all developers have unlimited root access on the production network.
Analogy: As a janitor, I refuse to work at a company where employees are allowed to eat in their offices. (Yeah, I know that remark will probably cost me a few karma points, but I can afford it.)
Why the analogy? Because, like janitors, IT personnel providing a support function in most companies and software engineers produce products that make money. Don't forget that talented software engineers are a lot harder to find than talented system administrators. Most companies would much rather try to replace a sys admin than a software engineer -- especially if that software engineer is a key player on a major project/product. So, if you can afford to turn down jobs because the software engineers have root access, then hooray for you. But you don't want to get in a pissing contest like that at most companies because the developers will usually win.
This whole supposition of yours that I'm a "fat ass" is wrong, but it's been fun taunting you.
Happy trolling.
As far as servers, bandwith is expensive.
.zip file or two. It's password-protected and I'm the only user. Neither one of these servers causes excessive bandwidth usage, yet both are banned under the newly amended TOS/AUP at my cable modem provider.
I have a web server. It serves a text-only page that has info about my fan speeds, CPU temperature, etc. I access it a few times per day, each time downloading about 5K of data across my cable modem. I have an FTP server. I only access it about twice a week and then I don't move anything big. Usually just a
If the ISP is concerned about my usage of bandwidth, then they should publish bandwidth limits and/or tiered pricing to reflect usage rather than banning things that often have nothing to do with the "problem."
Of course, the real problem is that they want to force computer hobbyists, to whom the connection is most useful, to pay big bucks for a "business service." That's why they keep putting up red herrings like "servers" rather than just limiting bandwidth or charging for tiered service.
For a troll to be successful, you have to get the person trolled upset -- not simply get them to insult you.
And telling some fat ass to move wouldn't bother me in the least...nothing to be affraid of some guy who will run out of breath after 10 seconds
So you'd tell him to move and then run away? Boy, that would impress your date! LOL!!!
I thought you said important people don't have to be on-call?
No, I said that they don't have to be on call 24/7. I am sometimes on call for a few days at a time every 2-3 months (on average). That's not exactly 24/7. And I am asked if I am willing to be on call -- not told that I will be.
Next time, read what you are quoting before pressing [Submit].
What do you mean have better luck? I fished you in fatty!
;-)
But you didn't make me mad or upset.
And if there's ever a really big guy next to you at a theater, just look up at him and tell him to move his fat ass away from you.
Personally, I hate sitting next to fat people at movies, which I assume you are, since you are the size of a football player. I find the way their enormity overflows from the seat to be quite uncomfortable, if I am forced to sit beside them. Maybe the next rule should be no fatties at the movies either
I'm sure that you'd prefer to be sitting in in a dark theater with little children -- ah, but there's that restraining order and the monitoring device on your ankle.
Have a nice day and better luck in your future trolling attempts.
I was putting some levity into the RMS-cancer linkup that only the Slashdot crowd would appreciate.
Well, he's part of the Slashdot crowd and I bet he has trouble seeing humor in anything involving his kid's cancer. I'm sure that you meant no offense and I certainly didn't mean to come down on you personally. I just thought it best to leave that line of humor alone. Peace.
You are surely speaking from the mouth of someone who has never had to work oncall.
I am currently working at a company that builds satellites. During the testing and launch prep phases, I am often on call. When I am on call, I don't go out to movies and, instead, rent videos to watch at home.
Here is a suggestion, if YOU sit in your house, and rent movies from Blockbuster, you will not be interuppted.
That reminds me of the smokers that used to say 'If you don't want to breathe my cigarette smoke, then stay home and don't eat at a restaurant'.
Why ask anything from others that you would not be willing to do yourself?
I don't, as you can see above. But why should I be caged up at home when I'm not on call? So that people less considerate than I am can feel free to take cell phones, pagers, and Blackberrys to movies? I don't think so.
Personally, I'm concentrating on the movie, and just tune little things like that out. If your concentration ability is that bad, you might want to consider medication.
I did not say that I can't follow a movie when that happens. But when you are immersed in a movie, something like that can quickly snap you back from the illusion of being there. Obviously, that's not a big issue if you are watching something like Men In Black II, but when you are watching a cinematic masterpiece, it's a different matter.
And it's the sum total of annoyances. One watch? Minor annoyance. 4 watches, 8 cell phones, 9 backlit pagers, 2 PDAs, a Blackberry, some infant wailing away, and a guy two seats down that sounds like he has tuberculosis and the movie is ruined.
So everyone on call should just give up their social lives, eh?
No, just movies in theaters.
(ok, so you don't *have* to go to the movies, but I can imagine the reactions of my friends if I refused every time they wanted to go)
If your friends can't understand a desire to not annoy others, you need new friends.
Please stop staring at my crotch and watch the screen instead.
If you weren't running a glaring backlit mobile phone to draw attention to your crotch, it would be a lot easier for those around you to watch the film.
What makes you think you'll hear my phone doing the vibrate/buzz-thing?
Because it makes noise and I have heard them in meetings, theaters, offices, and restaurants.
You'd be right if it weren't for the fact that anyone voluntarily leaving a movie they've paid for probably has such a damn good reason it would override your momentary discomfort.
It's not up to you to decide whether you should inconvenience and discomfort me. Your hypothetical data center? Couldn't care less. Your company can hire multiple people to rotate the "on-call" responsibilities. Then you can go to movies when you're not on call.
Or perhaps you'd also object to sysadmins running through crowds because a vital datacenter's gone down?
And I suppose you think it's fine if some idiot sysadmin running through a crowd runs into a pregnant woman, small child, handicapped, or elderly person while rushing to get www.petfoodmart.com back online?
If you choose to treat your mobile phone as if it weren't mobile, why did you get one?
Obviously, your car is on cinder blocks in your front yard, but rest assured that my car is perfectly mobile.
Err...in another thread, you claimed to own your business. A consulting firm. This was how you explained that you were "important". Now you're an employee that the company doesn't want to risk losing?
I did not say "employee". I referred to the "company I work for." This may come as a tremendous shock to you, but consultants do work for other companies -- even though they run their own businesses. I provide consulting services to companies. Therefore, I work for them.
Not too good at reading comprehension, are you?
I'm sorry, at what point were the new parents and the SysAdmins all looking for a handout?
When they brought their infants and cell phones into movie theaters expecting the rest of the patrons to put up with the interruptions.
The world doesn't owe you perfect peace and quiet, either.
In a movie theater or nice restaurant, it does. That's one of the things I, and every other patron, paid for.
It's not them, it's you. Noone can stand you.
Let's see... I started this thread with a post that has received five positive karma points and two negative ones. You're post is at 0. Sounds like more people agree with me than with you. Go away, anonymous coward. And, if no one could stand me, I wouldn't have many clients, some for five or more years, would I?
hmmmm next you time you go to see your docter tell him he should never go see a movie on call.
I don't have to. My doctor is a professional. He is part of a practice in which the doctors rotate responsibility for taking calls. It is unlikely that my doctor is in a movie theater when it's his turn to be on call.
i hope you mean in a dark and crowded theater.
I did. Sorry for not making that more clear.
So you leave your phone in the car because you're too stupid to figure out how to set it to vibrate?
No, I leave my phone in my car for two reasons:
1. So as not to disturb those around me with my conversations, text messages, the backlit display, and the buzzing associated with vibrating phones.
2. Because I have a cell phone for my convenience, not so that I can be on a 24/7 leash for anyone who wishes to reach me.
Quit your trolling.
It hardly seems reasonable that medical personnel on call should be banned from public places because they may be needed at the hospital.
We are talking solely about theaters, so let's not imply something more than that.
If you choose to be a doctor, you can watch movies at home when you are on call so as not to disturb those around you. And you can join a practice where there is an answering service to screen calls and other doctors who take turns being on call.
Besides, if someone can't wait for the doctor to check his/her messages after the movie ends, that person needs to be in the ER, not on the phone.