... because there's always a lot of people who are way smarter than me here who come and make very insightful comments but this time I have to say...... so farking what ?
This could have very easily happened without people looking at the monitors. You could have been spotted doing the deed by someone standing on the street. You run that risk any time you break into your car. So what's the difference here ?
What better incentive : money ! People won't be motivated by hate, ideological bias, morals, etc, etc but by simple money. It's not personal and keeps in line with the desire for people to be free from societal shackles. But now, you only have to answer to society for crimes you're actually caught commiting.
It would however only work *IF* the correct safeguards were present. Knowing how incompetent government services are in any country, I'm really not hopeful.
What's the right balance between social cohesion and personal freedoms where society can continue to exist whilst each individual is able to enjoy the freedoms they're entitled to ?
What people have forgotten to consider is : can a completely anonymous society continue to exist as a society ?
Social cohesion has always depended on a degree of control of the individual by the group. That, naturally, caused a lot of pain to anyone who stepped out of line. When people started to migrate to cities, their privacy increased. Hell, to this day gays will move to the city in order to escape the intolerance felt back in the small town they come from.
While privacy increases, social cohesion decreases and unsurprisingly this gets abused by criminals etc who benefit from the increased anonymity.
Now with the ability of the common citizen to view the cameras, we're seeing the return of the control of the individual by the group.
I'd like to argue that this could in fact be a GOOD THING. People won't be watching out for if you're gay or foreign or an unmarried couple but will be watching out to see if they can catch you red-handed committing crimes. In a way, the fact they don't know you but are watching out for the crime removes the prejudiced attitudes and only leaves the question of : is this guy in the picture breaking into that car or not ?
This could actually be the solution to a major social problem.
Turkey badly needs to get into the EU. They won't do anything aggressive to Kurdistan unless they want to spoil any chance of getting into the EU.
This is admittedly a slight gamble : it's also possible that the Turks will finally give up trying to get into the EU and will go along with a revived Islamic wave coming from Iran. And then we'll have a huge muslim threat right on our (EU) doorstep.
The British Empire (as most empires) drew arbitrary lines along rivers etc and thus split tribes down the middle. The GP is saying "let's draw lines along ethnic divides" which is the way to go.
Now, sure, there'll be some side-effects to that but at least you'll have removed the ethnic split issue.
For example, breasts can get in the way of frequent mousing,and the weight of the breasts on the shoulders and back can make it uncomfortable to sit and type for long periods. Likewise the wider female hips can be uncomfortable on a chair designed for men.
How is this unique to IT ? I hadn't noticed that working at a terminal was specific to the IT sector. Do they still write letters with IBM typewriters in secretarial jobs ?
I hadn't noticed that seats had been specifically designed for the IT sector which were more geared towards male anatomy.
Oh wait...
Hopefully this problem can be addressed in the future through stem cell research and genetic therapy.
.... Hahaha !!! Excellent ! Gender equality through forced mutating the brain. Go back under your bridge, troll.
Late in the thread, pbly won't get read but no one seems to have mentionned this aspect so I'll give it a shot anyway.
As a foreword, in case anyone here thinks that I'm writing this because I'm a woman-hater (he hates feminists, he must hate women), I have two female colleagues (1 JDE Whitehouse expert and 1 Service Mgmt person) who are amazing women who are extremely competent at what they do and a great laugh to boot.
The feminist thinkers are bothered that the IT space disagrees with their world view.
They're trying and failing to prove that IT is somehow prejudiced against women.
They need to show that women are being discouraged by some kind of chauvinistic attitude in the profession. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to that effect simply because there are no girls trying to enter the field.
In the absence of a state of gender prejudice, they are hoping to create one so that they can occupy the political stage that will emerge.
What the feminists refuse to admit is that no woman who has wanted to work in IT has ever been chased away. Sure, they may not like what they find but there is no more a chauvinistic attitude in IT than anywhere else. If you were going to be put off by male pigs in IT, you were going to suffer the same way (if not more) in a auto repair shop.
So all I see here is politics at work. I'm particularly amused by the frantic attempts at creating a crisis where there is none.
I Agree : it's definitely not fair that society doesn't seem to hold it against men who refuse to bring up children.
I've had people say to me that the purpose of life was to seek and find pleasure. Needless to say, these were the types who think that having a family is uncool and a total drag ("terrible world, would be heartless to put a child into it").
I have the utmost respect for men who have brought up multiple happy children with their mother.
It takes something special to do that, it's called being a Man.
... there's enough people fighting to get in already.
You probably wouldn't have seen these events but on the French end of the Channel Tunnel, eastern block refugees were fighting the police in order to climb on board of the car shuttle trains... to Britain.
mouse click + keypress or clicking an alternate mouse button ? It's six and two threes.
I'd tend to say that having two mouse buttons helps to get to lots of things faster than requiring two hands (one on the mouse, one on the keyboard) to get there.
At the end of the day, both require a conceptual leap to mentally take on board. The newbie user will simply have been less confused by the single button on the mouse (except if it's the puck horror, in which case all bets are off) in the run-up to the concept of contextual menus.
As a "power user" (herm), I'd rather have my two buttons.
It's certain that moral values are learned differently by different people, depending on their genetic make-up and environment.
By the age of 18 however, we have been consistently tutored into the meaning of right and wrong by our elders SPECIFICALLY to make up for the variations in individuals' ability to learn the concept of themselves.
In fact, you don't learn right and wrong spontaneously, it's what society and family teach you.
Your argument seems to say that no one should be held liable for their unwillingness to join society as one of its functional members. Well that's weird because it's when an individual breaches that contract that... WE LOCK 'EM UP !!!!
It's not like society just left people to their own devices and then will-nilly locked them up for random reasons.
You've obviously studied this in detail. I'd just like to suggest for the general good that you realise that promoting privacy in the way you did (total privacy) could lead to the same mis-conceptions that arose when what's-his-name lectured on the "Selfish Gene". I know I was confused.
You define very vehemently what you are prepared to contribute to society. You do not seem to want to acknowledge that you have responsibilities towards that society.
You seem to forget that society isn't just you but all the others. As a functionning member of a society, you owe all the other members of that society some degree of responsibility, accountability and cooperation. That's what makes the difference between a healthy community and a rag tag of beggars.
By attempting to avoid any form of accountability that you owe society, you are in fact contributing to its dissolution.
If society needs anything right now, it's for its for the whole and the individual to come closer together through accountability and cooperation.
People with your stance serve only to shake off any remaining traces of what civilisations spent millenia building : stable and strong societies that gave birth to amazing civilisations.
Slashdot Mirror
... because there's always a lot of people who are way smarter than me here who come and make very insightful comments but this time I have to say ... ... so farking what ?
Please return to your normal schedules.
Thank you.
Tessa
This could have very easily happened without people looking at the monitors. You could have been spotted doing the deed by someone standing on the street. You run that risk any time you break into your car. So what's the difference here ?
What better incentive : money ! People won't be motivated by hate, ideological bias, morals, etc, etc but by simple money. It's not personal and keeps in line with the desire for people to be free from societal shackles. But now, you only have to answer to society for crimes you're actually caught commiting.
It would however only work *IF* the correct safeguards were present. Knowing how incompetent government services are in any country, I'm really not hopeful.
What's the right balance between social cohesion and personal freedoms where society can continue to exist whilst each individual is able to enjoy the freedoms they're entitled to ?
What people have forgotten to consider is : can a completely anonymous society continue to exist as a society ?
Social cohesion has always depended on a degree of control of the individual by the group. That, naturally, caused a lot of pain to anyone who stepped out of line. When people started to migrate to cities, their privacy increased. Hell, to this day gays will move to the city in order to escape the intolerance felt back in the small town they come from.
While privacy increases, social cohesion decreases and unsurprisingly this gets abused by criminals etc who benefit from the increased anonymity.
Now with the ability of the common citizen to view the cameras, we're seeing the return of the control of the individual by the group.
I'd like to argue that this could in fact be a GOOD THING. People won't be watching out for if you're gay or foreign or an unmarried couple but will be watching out to see if they can catch you red-handed committing crimes. In a way, the fact they don't know you but are watching out for the crime removes the prejudiced attitudes and only leaves the question of : is this guy in the picture breaking into that car or not ?
This could actually be the solution to a major social problem.
Turkey badly needs to get into the EU. They won't do anything aggressive to Kurdistan unless they want to spoil any chance of getting into the EU.
This is admittedly a slight gamble : it's also possible that the Turks will finally give up trying to get into the EU and will go along with a revived Islamic wave coming from Iran. And then we'll have a huge muslim threat right on our (EU) doorstep.
Oh well, we're all doomed anyway.
The British Empire (as most empires) drew arbitrary lines along rivers etc and thus split tribes down the middle. The GP is saying "let's draw lines along ethnic divides" which is the way to go.
Now, sure, there'll be some side-effects to that but at least you'll have removed the ethnic split issue.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=6+million+yen +in+USD&btnG=Google+Search
*sheesh*
The only slippery slope I'm seeing is Slashdot's growing tendency for alarmist article summaries.
http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&q=tiananmen+S quare+protests&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2&meta=cr%3Dc ountryCN
... it's "superior".
although the two notions are not intrinsically related, shoddy spelling kind of clashes with boasts of having a "superiour intellect".
No need to thank me.
How is this unique to IT ? I hadn't noticed that working at a terminal was specific to the IT sector. Do they still write letters with IBM typewriters in secretarial jobs ?
I hadn't noticed that seats had been specifically designed for the IT sector which were more geared towards male anatomy.
Oh wait ...
Hopefully this problem can be addressed in the future through stem cell research and genetic therapy.
Because I'd love to know what it is.
Late in the thread, pbly won't get read but no one seems to have mentionned this aspect so I'll give it a shot anyway.
As a foreword, in case anyone here thinks that I'm writing this because I'm a woman-hater (he hates feminists, he must hate women), I have two female colleagues (1 JDE Whitehouse expert and 1 Service Mgmt person) who are amazing women who are extremely competent at what they do and a great laugh to boot.
The feminist thinkers are bothered that the IT space disagrees with their world view.
They're trying and failing to prove that IT is somehow prejudiced against women.
They need to show that women are being discouraged by some kind of chauvinistic attitude in the profession. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to that effect simply because there are no girls trying to enter the field.
In the absence of a state of gender prejudice, they are hoping to create one so that they can occupy the political stage that will emerge.
What the feminists refuse to admit is that no woman who has wanted to work in IT has ever been chased away. Sure, they may not like what they find but there is no more a chauvinistic attitude in IT than anywhere else. If you were going to be put off by male pigs in IT, you were going to suffer the same way (if not more) in a auto repair shop.
So all I see here is politics at work. I'm particularly amused by the frantic attempts at creating a crisis where there is none.
... or at least that's my personal opinion.
I Agree : it's definitely not fair that society doesn't seem to hold it against men who refuse to bring up children.
I've had people say to me that the purpose of life was to seek and find pleasure. Needless to say, these were the types who think that having a family is uncool and a total drag ("terrible world, would be heartless to put a child into it").
I have the utmost respect for men who have brought up multiple happy children with their mother.
It takes something special to do that, it's called being a Man.
In the Netherlands it's 9 Euros for a movie ticket.
Somehow the parent is absolving the repeat burglers who abuse the law in its current state on the grounds of the state of things 500 years ago ?
And somehow some moderator as clueless as the parent gave him mod points ? wtf ?
Over and out.
... but I guess it makes you feel l33t to laugh at it.
This was modded *insightful* ?
Are you saying that the FBI should be banned from investigating any and all activities occurring on the internet ?
Or are you just a flaming idiot ?
Cheers.
The boy actually *did* prevent the dike from collapsing. The story is about how the boy's courage and endurance saved the town.
HTH
... there's enough people fighting to get in already.
... to Britain.
You probably wouldn't have seen these events but on the French end of the Channel Tunnel, eastern block refugees were fighting the police in order to climb on board of the car shuttle trains
No need to thank me.
mouse click + keypress or clicking an alternate mouse button ? It's six and two threes.
I'd tend to say that having two mouse buttons helps to get to lots of things faster than requiring two hands (one on the mouse, one on the keyboard) to get there.
At the end of the day, both require a conceptual leap to mentally take on board. The newbie user will simply have been less confused by the single button on the mouse (except if it's the puck horror, in which case all bets are off) in the run-up to the concept of contextual menus.
As a "power user" (herm), I'd rather have my two buttons.
you need to grow up, no surprise that you write the drivel you do.
It's certain that moral values are learned differently by different people, depending on their genetic make-up and environment.
... WE LOCK 'EM UP !!!!
By the age of 18 however, we have been consistently tutored into the meaning of right and wrong by our elders SPECIFICALLY to make up for the variations in individuals' ability to learn the concept of themselves.
In fact, you don't learn right and wrong spontaneously, it's what society and family teach you.
Your argument seems to say that no one should be held liable for their unwillingness to join society as one of its functional members. Well that's weird because it's when an individual breaches that contract that
It's not like society just left people to their own devices and then will-nilly locked them up for random reasons.
This guy knew perfectly well what he was doing.
Take him down.
You've obviously studied this in detail. I'd just like to suggest for the general good that you realise that promoting privacy in the way you did (total privacy) could lead to the same mis-conceptions that arose when what's-his-name lectured on the "Selfish Gene". I know I was confused.
It's been good reading you !
You define very vehemently what you are prepared to contribute to society. You do not seem to want to acknowledge that you have responsibilities towards that society.
You seem to forget that society isn't just you but all the others. As a functionning member of a society, you owe all the other members of that society some degree of responsibility, accountability and cooperation. That's what makes the difference between a healthy community and a rag tag of beggars.
By attempting to avoid any form of accountability that you owe society, you are in fact contributing to its dissolution.
If society needs anything right now, it's for its for the whole and the individual to come closer together through accountability and cooperation.
People with your stance serve only to shake off any remaining traces of what civilisations spent millenia building : stable and strong societies that gave birth to amazing civilisations.
Way to go.