2002: I have a co worker whose desk is about ten feet away. From the time she gets in, to the time she leaves, she plays classical music on an alarm clock radio. It's like working in an elevator. And it's distracting, and she shouts over her music. Other people, including executives, have moved to desks further away, because they don't want to infringe on her right to listen to music, thus annoying the mostly 20-somethings in the office with classical music, all the time.
The more computer savvy surf, shop, chat and email people, and listen to streaming audio on occaision. But no one does anything. Some of the less savvy just gather around the coffeemaker and chat or talk on the phone all day. No one is not distracted, including the officers, but everyone takes a break once in a while, even if that while is most of the day.
Everyone understands that their computer is company property, and at anytime, one's supervisor can have access to the computer you use and find any files you downloaded and kept on that PC. Simple. Burn the files and take them home with you, but don't leave them there.
flashback to 1991: Our receptionist doesn't listen to music, and doesn't know how to surf the web, shop online, chat, play flash games, or download music. She's on the phone 6 hours a day though. She has visitors sometimes, who she gossips with for hours. And she cries, loudly, on the phone, about her problems. She works at a snail's pace and can't be trusted to learn a new task within a month unless she has constant supervision.
Everyone else here gets his or her work done on time, except for the receptionist.
The reason for this, I have surmised, is that almost everyone does their best to get their work done quickly and done well so that they have more time to email, chat, shop, surf and download mp3s.
Still, I have a hard time understanding how no one at Buckeye would not have known, or guessed, that someone could and would try to steal bandwidth.
"Most of the broadband providers are really just beginning to learn how the networks perform, what the possibilities are, and how they deal with theft," he said. That just makes him look dumb. This is a nice statement to make to the public 'we don't know what we're doing, and we don't know what our stuff does.' Whether or not you do, it's simple business savvy never to allude to cluelessness. And yes, $250,000 of bandwidth? I'm under the assumption the computers, other than the laptops are your standard Gateway a-button-for-everything PC. What is the average PC home user going to do with over $10K of bandwidth? I work in logistics and database management. There is no way, if a company knows what's going on internally, that they couldn't periodically check contracts and services per customer and their output of resources and products and see that something is wrong. Whether or not these big bad bandwidth thieves broke the law or just a civil contract, I'm ecstatic to know that my federal taxes are going to pay the FBI to clean up after small companies with poor management, instead of protecting us from terrorism or some other tried-and-true law enforcement stuff. I have a few customers who like to share their passwords with colleagues to read news on our websites. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to make a call to the FBI.
Your point of view, as a parent, is interesting.
However, I want to ask a question about a broader topic:
Is it a good idea, in order to deter the sexual abuse of children, to allow pedophiles to not only become part of mainstream sexuality, but to feel as if the world, at least the capitalist market in the United States as a whole, accepts them just the way they are by providing them with a "safe" alternative to abusing children?
We are not painting a picture here of what a common pedophile really is - usually, it's an adult white male engaged in a romantic and sexual relationship with a minor, and less often the serial killing, clownsuit-wearing maniac. This man is not only attracted to females under the age of accepted sexual maturity (generally 17-18 in the US) but wants to have a relationship with them much like a normal romantic relationship between two consenting adults.
All of the serial abusers who repeatedly assault and rape different children already know they're sexual preferences are not accepted in our society and this will most likely not change anytime soon.
Before the 1960's, it was still generally believe in Western society that children were the property of their parents to be treated as the parents saw fit, and children were to always mind their elders, no matter what would happen to them because they were not people until they were adults, and not allowed any control over their lives and bodies. Unfortunately, this attitude still exists somewhat.
After all, one child being protected from sexual abuse is not worth the cost of one pedophile's freedom to view whatever he or she wants.
The idea of monitoring intentions is not what the USA was founded on. However, if an act or object can be utilized to fuel a crime against another, beyond a reasonable doubt, then monitoring is to be taken place - not in a "1984" fashion, but to keep peace.
Because we cannot get inside the heads of others and see their thoughts, understand their interpretations of right and wrong, we can rarely stop a crime before it happens and are left to pick up the pieces and punish the perpetrator after the crime has been committed. Therefore, we have laws that deter such crimes.
It is true that pedophiles are indeed responsible for their own actions, but outlawing virtual child porn is not all about pedophiles. It is about children. In general, the common belief in America is that children and young teenagers may very well have a sense of sexuality, as immature and innocent as each child may have, but because they are not adults and generally cannot cope with the emotional and psychoogical strings attached with sex, we do not perceive them as sexual beings, and this is what child pornography does, whether or not the child is photgraphed while performing a sexual act.
Because we do not want our own real children to be perceive and dealt with as sexually active beings, why should anyone want for a pedophile to be able to indulge his or her fantasies on a fake child?
Pedophiles rarely are ever "cured" of their desires...remember Megan's Law? We do not need to encourage those who lust after children to continue to do so, whether those children are computer generated or flesh and bone.
Re:Books are better when stolen from ex's
on
E=MC
·
· Score: 1
No - they all wrote poetry before I dated them, and I, at the time, was an English tutor, and had no qualms about giving them straight criticism.
That might have turned them gay, but I think the human female population is the better for it.
Books are better when stolen from ex's
on
E=MC
·
· Score: 1
The physical and natural science section of my personal library is composed completely of books from ex-boyfriends. The way I see it, the more crappy poetry I am forced to listen to, the more books I keep.
However, my copy of Brief History of Time I bought all by myself.
This has nothing to do with the topic, but keep in mind - the ratio of books you lose to ex-girlfriends is directly related to every crappy poem you made her read, about 1:3 respectively.
Slashdot Mirror
2002:
I have a co worker whose desk is about ten feet away. From the time she gets in, to the time she leaves, she plays classical music on an alarm clock radio. It's like working in an elevator. And it's distracting, and she shouts over her music. Other people, including executives, have moved to desks further away, because they don't want to infringe on her right to listen to music, thus annoying the mostly 20-somethings in the office with classical music, all the time.
The more computer savvy surf, shop, chat and email people, and listen to streaming audio on occaision. But no one does anything. Some of the less savvy just gather around the coffeemaker and chat or talk on the phone all day. No one is not distracted, including the officers, but everyone takes a break once in a while, even if that while is most of the day.
Everyone understands that their computer is company property, and at anytime, one's supervisor can have access to the computer you use and find any files you downloaded and kept on that PC. Simple. Burn the files and take them home with you, but don't leave them there.
flashback to 1991:
Our receptionist doesn't listen to music, and doesn't know how to surf the web, shop online, chat, play flash games, or download music. She's on the phone 6 hours a day though. She has visitors sometimes, who she gossips with for hours. And she cries, loudly, on the phone, about her problems. She works at a snail's pace and can't be trusted to learn a new task within a month unless she has constant supervision.
Everyone else here gets his or her work done on time, except for the receptionist.
The reason for this, I have surmised, is that almost everyone does their best to get their work done quickly and done well so that they have more time to email, chat, shop, surf and download mp3s.
Still, I have a hard time understanding how no one at Buckeye would not have known, or guessed, that someone could and would try to steal bandwidth.
"Most of the broadband providers are really just beginning to learn how the networks perform, what the possibilities are, and how they deal with theft," he said.
That just makes him look dumb. This is a nice statement to make to the public 'we don't know what we're doing, and we don't know what our stuff does.' Whether or not you do, it's simple business savvy never to allude to cluelessness.
And yes, $250,000 of bandwidth? I'm under the assumption the computers, other than the laptops are your standard Gateway a-button-for-everything PC. What is the average PC home user going to do with over $10K of bandwidth?
I work in logistics and database management. There is no way, if a company knows what's going on internally, that they couldn't periodically check contracts and services per customer and their output of resources and products and see that something is wrong.
Whether or not these big bad bandwidth thieves broke the law or just a civil contract, I'm ecstatic to know that my federal taxes are going to pay the FBI to clean up after small companies with poor management, instead of protecting us from terrorism or some other tried-and-true law enforcement stuff.
I have a few customers who like to share their passwords with colleagues to read news on our websites. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to make a call to the FBI.
Your point of view, as a parent, is interesting.
However, I want to ask a question about a broader topic:
Is it a good idea, in order to deter the sexual abuse of children, to allow pedophiles to not only become part of mainstream sexuality, but to feel as if the world, at least the capitalist market in the United States as a whole, accepts them just the way they are by providing them with a "safe" alternative to abusing children?
We are not painting a picture here of what a common pedophile really is - usually, it's an adult white male engaged in a romantic and sexual relationship with a minor, and less often the serial killing, clownsuit-wearing maniac. This man is not only attracted to females under the age of accepted sexual maturity (generally 17-18 in the US) but wants to have a relationship with them much like a normal romantic relationship between two consenting adults.
All of the serial abusers who repeatedly assault and rape different children already know they're sexual preferences are not accepted in our society and this will most likely not change anytime soon.
Before the 1960's, it was still generally believe in Western society that children were the property of their parents to be treated as the parents saw fit, and children were to always mind their elders, no matter what would happen to them because they were not people until they were adults, and not allowed any control over their lives and bodies. Unfortunately, this attitude still exists somewhat.
After all, one child being protected from sexual abuse is not worth the cost of one pedophile's freedom to view whatever he or she wants.
Do we want to take a step backward?
The idea of monitoring intentions is not what the USA was founded on. However, if an act or object can be utilized to fuel a crime against another, beyond a reasonable doubt, then monitoring is to be taken place - not in a "1984" fashion, but to keep peace. Because we cannot get inside the heads of others and see their thoughts, understand their interpretations of right and wrong, we can rarely stop a crime before it happens and are left to pick up the pieces and punish the perpetrator after the crime has been committed. Therefore, we have laws that deter such crimes. It is true that pedophiles are indeed responsible for their own actions, but outlawing virtual child porn is not all about pedophiles. It is about children. In general, the common belief in America is that children and young teenagers may very well have a sense of sexuality, as immature and innocent as each child may have, but because they are not adults and generally cannot cope with the emotional and psychoogical strings attached with sex, we do not perceive them as sexual beings, and this is what child pornography does, whether or not the child is photgraphed while performing a sexual act. Because we do not want our own real children to be perceive and dealt with as sexually active beings, why should anyone want for a pedophile to be able to indulge his or her fantasies on a fake child? Pedophiles rarely are ever "cured" of their desires...remember Megan's Law? We do not need to encourage those who lust after children to continue to do so, whether those children are computer generated or flesh and bone.
No - they all wrote poetry before I dated them, and I, at the time, was an English tutor, and had no qualms about giving them straight criticism. That might have turned them gay, but I think the human female population is the better for it.
The physical and natural science section of my personal library is composed completely of books from ex-boyfriends. The way I see it, the more crappy poetry I am forced to listen to, the more books I keep. However, my copy of Brief History of Time I bought all by myself. This has nothing to do with the topic, but keep in mind - the ratio of books you lose to ex-girlfriends is directly related to every crappy poem you made her read, about 1:3 respectively.