Thanks for making such wonderful assumptions about my life. I have already reduced my work hours to around 40/week, and my employer is very satisfied with my performance.
Sucks? No. Still no place for unions. Want something? Earn it.
When I was flipping burgers at McDonald's I wanted something better. So I worked harder. Then I left it for a better paying job with benefits and better working conditions. I also busted my ass 50+ hrs/wk while taking 12 - 15 credits of college (paid for out of my pocket) for four years. I then left that employer for greener pastures. I have had several employers since graduation, but each time I have set myself up for a better position.
Unions use the gang mentality, which is in direct contrast to my work ethic. So yes, I am opposed to unions. If you think you should be able to bully an employer for conditions that I have worked for, then I will oppose you.
What kind of post is that? You can spout off about choice all you want, but choice is a union's worst fear. If choice was even a factor, then whiny employees would choose a different employer. Do unions accept choice when a worker crosses a picket line?
And as far as free markets, your post shows a serious lack of understanding. If in fact free markets worked, then employers could fire striking workers and replace them with people who want the jobs. But unions require government intervention here to provide artificial job security mechanisms.
The fact that "labor movement leaders" have to scramble to find a way to survive indicates that the need for unions must be waning. If they were truly sincere about bettering wages and working conditions, you'd see a massive attempt to unionize fast-food workers and 7-11 cashiers. No, there isn't much money to be skimmed there so they ignore those folks.
This whole unionization of the tech-sector is a big joke. If you're good, you'll make it. Hell, if your even mediocre you'll make it. You gotta love the M$ temp who is making $60k/yr and complaining about not getting the benefits that M$ employees get. Didn't he know those were the terms when he accepted the assignment?
I still find it disturbing that most of the companies whining about the lack of broadband access are not interested in running their own cabling system. AOL is probably the biggest offender in this regard. The cable companies have spent an enormous amount of money to get the infrastructure in place so that they could profit from the result. Then along come other "service providers" who complain that it is not fair that they don't have access to the new system.
I'm not a huge fan of cable companies. But to require them to open up access to everyone else is to ignore the importance of capital spending on infrastructure. It becomes a huge disincentive to spend on such things if you have to allow your competitors access. And if the telephone lines are used as a comparison, keep in mind that they have been expensed for decades already. The telcos are regulated, and appear reluctant to do much to improve infrastructure.
There are plenty of connectivity options. Dial-up access is probably the most common. But wireless, cable, and DSL are also options that are spreading out. This is no time to have government meddle with broadband access.
So the writer sees a kid "playing games on his father's $449 Palm V" and uses that as the premise that Palm Pilots are toys? If the same kid was playing games on his father's PC would the logical conclusion be that it is just a toy also? How likely is it that the kid's father purchased a Palm V just so his kid could play games?
He isn't addressing (no pun intended) the utility of the Palm Pilot at all. Sure, lots of people are buying them. They are great little devices that happen to be extremely flexible. Within a week of buying my first Palm Pilot I had unloaded all of the business cards from my wallet and entered the information into the Palm. All of my appointments were immediately entered into it as well.
This thing has saved me a lot of grief. When going to remote sites to check on systems, I can look up the telephone extensions of various co-workers that I need to get in touch with. I take it to conferences and use it for notes, contact lists, schedule information, etc.
If you own a Palm Pilot and are not any more productive than you were without it, then it's your own fault. This thing is a tool. If you choose to use it just for games, that's your choice. But it doesn't make it any less of a tool.
If you want a simple installation then this is a good one. By simple I mean single OS on the machine, not particular about partitioning, and willing to accept the default packages. You can literally install this package onto your system without ever seeing a command prompt. But if you don't like that, you can create a LISA boot disk and do a custom installation.
I ended up creating a LISA boot disk (had to do it under win95) and installing from there. LISA allows you more control over partitioning and package selection.
I've seen some posts here asking "where's the source?" The OpenLinux 2.2 I purchased had a source CD inside. I'm not sure what the fuss is regarding source availability.
The disk partitioning utility is weird. It seems to randomly assign mount points that are selected. I end up having to create all of the partitions first, and then select the mount points. It also has pre-determined mount points, and has nothing available for/boot.
But overall the Lizard utility is very useful. It really expedites the installation process. It should make life easier for people new to Linux who may be content with a single partition and pre-selected packages.
It's funny how people's expectations get so out of whack when dealing with technology. Knowing how to use a paintbrush does not make one an artist. Yet when it comes to computers everyone knows what's best. E-commerce sites are just one example, but they are a VERY GOOD example.
We let pilots fly the airplanes; we let chefs cook the dinner; but we cannot let technical experts exert technical expertise. Sometimes it's scary.
>> Simply because a low-cost version of Unix is now available, it does not automatically generate more people capable of managing and configuring these systems.
About 5 years ago I was whining to a friend that I really wanted to learn Unix, but it was too damned expensive to obtain for a single user at home. Shortly thereafter I heard about Linux and began playing with it. I'm certainly not an expert, but I am comfortable with my level of understanding. I am comfortable enough to manage and configure Linux systems.
>> Whereas Microsoft's products are designed to work with one another and the operating system's services, users may spend a significant amount of time trying to integrate these components under Linux.
Yeah, Microsoft's integration of products has sure been beneficial to everyone. Like the integration of the browser into the OS (security issues), and the inclusion of a programming language into the office suite (Melissa). And let's not forget about the active components included in the forthcoming Outlook 2000, which will let a program be executed just by opening the message. Gee, with such wonderful integration why would anyone NOT choose Microsoft?
Maybe, just maybe, tying all of these things tightly together is a BAD THING? Who on earth would want to spend that much effort to tie them together under Linux? I think the idea is to maintain control, not to surrender it.
>> Linux is a college student's project gone astray. The version that will be supported by Sun Microsystems and IBM on its hardware will fall far short of each of these company's own Unix operating systems in features and capabilities.
Hmmm. So Linux won't replace Solaris or AIX? Is the implication that NT will? If the job is too big for Linux, then it is probably better-suited to Unix.
If Linux is "a college student's project gone astray," then NT is a corporate dinosaur's project gone astray. At least Linux allows us to manage the technology. NT allows the technology to manage us.
ZEN creates several additional DS objects that allow for centralized administration. Among them are workstation objects, workstation group objects, policy objects, and OS user package objects. We're using it to do workstation inventory and remote control of WINxx workstations initially. Later we will be using its application packaging for distribution (like antivirus software updates). We'll also use policy objects to prevent some of the damage users do by tinkering with their configurations. ZEN availability would definitely help those of us that run Linux on our workstations.
Installation is quick, but configuation is neither simple nor quick. However it does save admins time once installed and configured. I'm hoping that Caldera will be successful in porting NDS administration utilities to Linux.
Nice title. Star Wars fans have only been demanding a new movie for what, 16 years? Yeah, heavily promoting this movie sure sounds like a sellout. I guess Disney is constantly selling-out too. I have no idea where you're coming from. (notice "you're" is not you?re)
If you want to see the new Star Wars movie, go see it. And if you don't, then don't. It's really not that hard. All of this babbling about the social consequences and the selling-out by moviemakers is ignoring one glaring fact: you can choose not to participate. That's what I did with Titanic.
You mention that James Cameron "showed a lot more courage and rebelliousness in the making of his movie" by risking his share of profits. Gee, what a hero. Lucas financed this entire movie out of his own pocket. So who showed a lot more courage? (And I actually tried watching Titanic last week, but couldn't bear it. There was more cheese in Titanic than in an entire Kraft warehouse.)
Jon, I like some of your articles but this is way off the deep end. It seems that you forget that it is a movie. It's fake. It is intended for entertainment purposes only, and is not to be taken orally.
It was good to see Caldera there. I installed 2.2 last weekend, and it was incredibly easy to set up. Hopefully Novell will cooperate a little better so we can get some Netware administration tools available for Linux.
Penguin Computing was also there with a nifty new server on display. Red Hat didn't have its own setup, but Dell had a Red Hat section for its Power Edge (?) server line. There was also a company displaying its Linux router product. And I forget which company was displaying its Alpha servers designed for Linux.
While searching for info on Linux-friendly laptops I received a great deal of interest from Gateway and Toshiba. Hopefully they will move this interest out of the "informal" mode into officially supporting Linux on their products.
And one last ironic thing. While discussing VPN software with Checkpoint, they showed me their new product that runs with Firewall-1. Problem is, they don't have a Linux client for it. I kindly suggested that a firewall admin is very likely to want Linux VPN support at home, and that for some of us Windows is not a desirable choice. Apparently Checkpoint employees are being rebuffed when they suggest that a Linux VPN client would be a good thing. I told them to let the PHBs know that some of their potential VPN customers insist upon it.
All in all, it was a great show. I was very happy to see the visible interest in Linux this year.
I agree with you completely. I watched the flamewars prior to installing either desktop, and could not figure out why only one had to be "right." Then, after installing each one for a trial period, I was really confused at the insistence that only one can survive.
There are some things in KDE that I prefer over Gnome. There are also some things in Gnome that I prefer over KDE. In my view, they will each get better. Hopefully there will be some sort of idea sharing as both projects go forward.
To the folks at each project, I thank you for all of your efforts in providing a fine desktop environment. I don't feel that I have been cheated by your parallel efforts. On the contrary, I feel that I have benefitted.
I must've read my post at least a dozen times now to see where my message was not getting across. I am not condoning the killers' actions at all. I have no sympathy for them. What I don't understand is the mean-spirited approaches taken by either side in this case. These 2 guys claimed that the "jocks" and others were responsible for their oppression. But instead of attempting to bring themselves up, they chose to bring everyone down.
And as for the students, whoever it was that screwed with those two should not be surprised with the results. That does not mean that the results are justified, only that they could be expected. (Although maybe not expected on this scale.)
Point #1 was that people who go out of their way for attention are very likely to get it, good or bad. Point #2 was that people who play with fire are likely to get burned. Neither point justifies the actions. They are both wrong.
I do not condone the treatment that these 2 guys claim they endured. Neither do I condone their subsequent actions.
I have read several posts from people claiming that they did not choose to be different, yet endured similar treatment. I understand that completely. I have not condemned them in any way. My comments were directed at people who intentionally exhibit behavior that is extremely likely to get them a lot of attention (again, good or bad).
The reason this whole situation sucks so bad is that EITHER SIDE at the core could have prevented this situation by simply acting responsibly. That is not sympathizing with the killers.
I guess your last paragraph sums it all up. "Don't torment others" is probably the best way to state it.
>Suppose you did not have the option to choose... then what? Should you still resign yourselves to being treated differently?
Nope. Not having the option to choose would fall under the category of "not choosing to be different." I never said that it is right for people to relentlessly pick on anybody. I've both witnessed and experienced the mean-spiritedness of others. I'm sure everyone has. It sucks, but life sometimes works that way.
>I am an engineer of Asian Indian origin. I speak with what most Americans would consider to be a foriegn accent. I am also not a Christian. There are many like me here. We work in the high-tech sector and our children, who are born here and are American citizens, go to good schools here.
Congratulations. Nothing unusual about any of that.
>Thanks for letting us know that we should just expect to be treated differently. After all, we are different, right?
Take of the martyr hat for a minute. I don't recall saying that you should expect to be treated differently. If you need a different frame of reference, picture the Trenchcoat Mafia who made it into the news. They intentionally dressed and acted differently. Folks who dye their hair purple or wear a safety pin through their cheek seem to want attention too. Does that make them bad people? No. Does it mean that they are going to get attention? Yep.
Your point that people can be mean-spirited is well taken. Yeah, it sucks. Yeah, it is unnecessary and counterproductive. If you paid any attention at all to my full post, you would have noticed that I said that I had friends from the various "groups" of kids in school. I was willing to treat people as equals. Others are not. Not everyone is willing to view a person as a person.
>And how do we not `antagonize' these people who are different from us?
What kind of question is that? A good start would be to not ridicule, scorn, exclude, avoid, or ostracize them. I'd even go so far as to recommend ignoring their attention-seeking behavior. In other words, treat people as people.
If I chose to antagonize members of Hell's Angels, I would probably end up getting the tar beat out of me (if I was lucky). Though their activity (assault) would be illegal, I would not expect a lot of sympathy. Why? Because what I did was stupid. It did not make their actions right, but I should have known better.
My point stands: People must begin taking responsibility for their own actions. Did you or your friends go on a murderous rampage because of the persecution you suffered? Or did you grow up to become productive members of society?
I agree with your zero sympathy statement. This whole incident is a microcosm of what's wrong in this country. It seems that everyone is using it as a platform for their causes, even those who claim they have no cause. Just on the face of it, there are a couple of items that we can learn from:
1. If you choose to be different, expect to be treated differently. 2. If you choose to antagonize someone who is different, be prepared for a different kind of response.
There is absolutely no excuse for the actions of the killers. It is one thing to sympathize for the treatment by their classmates. It is quite another to excuse the behavior. I was not an athlete in school. I did not belong to the "in crowd." My passion for computing definitely set me apart from my trendier classmates.
But there are several differences here. First, I did not go postal on my classmates. Second, I did not behave in a way that drew unwanted attention to myself. Third, I made an attempt to make friends. So even though I did not fit into any of the groups that prevailed (stoners, surfers, preppies, freaks) I still interacted with individuals from each of the groups.
People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions. The gunmen in Littleton apparently did, but it was after the fact. No more excuses.
Check this out. Ramachandran is a neuroscientist and relays some interesting information. I'm not studying philosophy, psychology, or anything else for that matter. But this book is an excellent read.
This sounds like an entertaining read. I just finished "Phantoms in the Brain" by V.S. Ramachandran (ISBN: 0688152473), and would highly recommend it. I was wondering what to read next, and it looks like this might be the one.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for making such wonderful assumptions about my life. I have already reduced my work hours to around 40/week, and my employer is very satisfied with my performance.
Sucks? No. Still no place for unions. Want something? Earn it.
When I was flipping burgers at McDonald's I wanted something better. So I worked harder. Then I left it for a better paying job with benefits and better working conditions. I also busted my ass 50+ hrs/wk while taking 12 - 15 credits of college (paid for out of my pocket) for four years. I then left that employer for greener pastures. I have had several employers since graduation, but each time I have set myself up for a better position.
Unions use the gang mentality, which is in direct contrast to my work ethic. So yes, I am opposed to unions. If you think you should be able to bully an employer for conditions that I have worked for, then I will oppose you.
What kind of post is that? You can spout off about choice all you want, but choice is a union's worst fear. If choice was even a factor, then whiny employees would choose a different employer. Do unions accept choice when a worker crosses a picket line?
And as far as free markets, your post shows a serious lack of understanding. If in fact free markets worked, then employers could fire striking workers and replace them with people who want the jobs. But unions require government intervention here to provide artificial job security mechanisms.
The fact that "labor movement leaders" have to scramble to find a way to survive indicates that the need for unions must be waning. If they were truly sincere about bettering wages and working conditions, you'd see a massive attempt to unionize fast-food workers and 7-11 cashiers. No, there isn't much money to be skimmed there so they ignore those folks.
This whole unionization of the tech-sector is a big joke. If you're good, you'll make it. Hell, if your even mediocre you'll make it. You gotta love the M$ temp who is making $60k/yr and complaining about not getting the benefits that M$ employees get. Didn't he know those were the terms when he accepted the assignment?
rant...rave...fume!
very loosely, because I received an invite too.
I still find it disturbing that most of the companies whining about the lack of broadband access are not interested in running their own cabling system. AOL is probably the biggest offender in this regard. The cable companies have spent an enormous amount of money to get the infrastructure in place so that they could profit from the result. Then along come other "service providers" who complain that it is not fair that they don't have access to the new system.
I'm not a huge fan of cable companies. But to require them to open up access to everyone else is to ignore the importance of capital spending on infrastructure. It becomes a huge disincentive to spend on such things if you have to allow your competitors access. And if the telephone lines are used as a comparison, keep in mind that they have been expensed for decades already. The telcos are regulated, and appear reluctant to do much to improve infrastructure.
There are plenty of connectivity options. Dial-up access is probably the most common. But wireless, cable, and DSL are also options that are spreading out. This is no time to have government meddle with broadband access.
So the writer sees a kid "playing games on his father's $449 Palm V" and uses that as the premise that Palm Pilots are toys? If the same kid was playing games on his father's PC would the logical conclusion be that it is just a toy also? How likely is it that the kid's father purchased a Palm V just so his kid could play games?
He isn't addressing (no pun intended) the utility of the Palm Pilot at all. Sure, lots of people are buying them. They are great little devices that happen to be extremely flexible. Within a week of buying my first Palm Pilot I had unloaded all of the business cards from my wallet and entered the information into the Palm. All of my appointments were immediately entered into it as well.
This thing has saved me a lot of grief. When going to remote sites to check on systems, I can look up the telephone extensions of various co-workers that I need to get in touch with. I take it to conferences and use it for notes, contact lists, schedule information, etc.
If you own a Palm Pilot and are not any more productive than you were without it, then it's your own fault. This thing is a tool. If you choose to use it just for games, that's your choice. But it doesn't make it any less of a tool.
If you want a simple installation then this is a good one. By simple I mean single OS on the machine, not particular about partitioning, and willing to accept the default packages. You can literally install this package onto your system without ever seeing a command prompt. But if you don't like that, you can create a LISA boot disk and do a custom installation.
I ended up creating a LISA boot disk (had to do it under win95) and installing from there. LISA allows you more control over partitioning and package selection.
I've seen some posts here asking "where's the source?" The OpenLinux 2.2 I purchased had a source CD inside. I'm not sure what the fuss is regarding source availability.
The disk partitioning utility is weird. It seems to randomly assign mount points that are selected. I end up having to create all of the partitions first, and then select the mount points. It also has pre-determined mount points, and has nothing available for /boot.
But overall the Lizard utility is very useful. It really expedites the installation process. It should make life easier for people new to Linux who may be content with a single partition and pre-selected packages.
It's funny how people's expectations get so out of whack when dealing with technology. Knowing how to use a paintbrush does not make one an artist. Yet when it comes to computers everyone knows what's best. E-commerce sites are just one example, but they are a VERY GOOD example.
We let pilots fly the airplanes; we let chefs cook the dinner; but we cannot let technical experts exert technical expertise. Sometimes it's scary.
Sometimes bad technology ideas actually lose!!!
>> Simply because a low-cost version of Unix is now available, it does not automatically generate more people capable of managing and configuring these systems.
About 5 years ago I was whining to a friend that I really wanted to learn Unix, but it was too damned expensive to obtain for a single user at home. Shortly thereafter I heard about Linux and began playing with it. I'm certainly not an expert, but I am comfortable with my level of understanding. I am comfortable enough to manage and configure Linux systems.
>> Whereas Microsoft's products are designed to work with one another and the operating system's services, users may spend a significant amount of time trying to integrate these components under Linux.
Yeah, Microsoft's integration of products has sure been beneficial to everyone. Like the integration of the browser into the OS (security issues), and the inclusion of a programming language into the office suite (Melissa). And let's not forget about the active components included in the forthcoming Outlook 2000, which will let a program be executed just by opening the message. Gee, with such wonderful integration why would anyone NOT choose Microsoft?
Maybe, just maybe, tying all of these things tightly together is a BAD THING? Who on earth would want to spend that much effort to tie them together under Linux? I think the idea is to maintain control, not to surrender it.
>> Linux is a college student's project gone astray. The version that will be supported by Sun Microsystems and IBM on its hardware will fall far short of each of these company's own Unix operating systems in features and capabilities.
Hmmm. So Linux won't replace Solaris or AIX? Is the implication that NT will? If the job is too big for Linux, then it is probably better-suited to Unix.
If Linux is "a college student's project gone astray," then NT is a corporate dinosaur's project gone astray. At least Linux allows us to manage the technology. NT allows the technology to manage us.
>The interface is user friendly only if the user happens to be a comp-sci Ph.D.
:-)
Hmmm...I guess I'll be watching my mailbox for this nifty little piece of paper. Should help boost my wage a little.
ZEN creates several additional DS objects that allow for centralized administration. Among them are workstation objects, workstation group objects, policy objects, and OS user package objects. We're using it to do workstation inventory and remote control of WINxx workstations initially. Later we will be using its application packaging for distribution (like antivirus software updates). We'll also use policy objects to prevent some of the damage users do by tinkering with their configurations. ZEN availability would definitely help those of us that run Linux on our workstations.
Installation is quick, but configuation is neither simple nor quick. However it does save admins time once installed and configured. I'm hoping that Caldera will be successful in porting NDS administration utilities to Linux.
I'm really looking forward to this. I hope they make ZEN available for Linux too.
Nice title. Star Wars fans have only been demanding a new movie for what, 16 years? Yeah, heavily promoting this movie sure sounds like a sellout. I guess Disney is constantly selling-out too. I have no idea where you're coming from. (notice "you're" is not you?re)
If you want to see the new Star Wars movie, go see it. And if you don't, then don't. It's really not that hard. All of this babbling about the social consequences and the selling-out by moviemakers is ignoring one glaring fact: you can choose not to participate. That's what I did with Titanic.
You mention that James Cameron "showed a lot more courage and rebelliousness in the making of his movie" by risking his share of profits. Gee, what a hero. Lucas financed this entire movie out of his own pocket. So who showed a lot more courage? (And I actually tried watching Titanic last week, but couldn't bear it. There was more cheese in Titanic than in an entire Kraft warehouse.)
Jon, I like some of your articles but this is way off the deep end. It seems that you forget that it is a movie. It's fake. It is intended for entertainment purposes only, and is not to be taken orally.
Or NIC card...
It was good to see Caldera there. I installed 2.2 last weekend, and it was incredibly easy to set up. Hopefully Novell will cooperate a little better so we can get some Netware administration tools available for Linux.
Penguin Computing was also there with a nifty new server on display. Red Hat didn't have its own setup, but Dell had a Red Hat section for its Power Edge (?) server line. There was also a company displaying its Linux router product. And I forget which company was displaying its Alpha servers designed for Linux.
While searching for info on Linux-friendly laptops I received a great deal of interest from Gateway and Toshiba. Hopefully they will move this interest out of the "informal" mode into officially supporting Linux on their products.
And one last ironic thing. While discussing VPN software with Checkpoint, they showed me their new product that runs with Firewall-1. Problem is, they don't have a Linux client for it. I kindly suggested that a firewall admin is very likely to want Linux VPN support at home, and that for some of us Windows is not a desirable choice. Apparently Checkpoint employees are being rebuffed when they suggest that a Linux VPN client would be a good thing. I told them to let the PHBs know that some of their potential VPN customers insist upon it.
All in all, it was a great show. I was very happy to see the visible interest in Linux this year.
I agree with you completely. I watched the flamewars prior to installing either desktop, and could not figure out why only one had to be "right." Then, after installing each one for a trial period, I was really confused at the insistence that only one can survive.
There are some things in KDE that I prefer over Gnome. There are also some things in Gnome that I prefer over KDE. In my view, they will each get better. Hopefully there will be some sort of idea sharing as both projects go forward.
To the folks at each project, I thank you for all of your efforts in providing a fine desktop environment. I don't feel that I have been cheated by your parallel efforts. On the contrary, I feel that I have benefitted.
I must've read my post at least a dozen times now to see where my message was not getting across. I am not condoning the killers' actions at all. I have no sympathy for them. What I don't understand is the mean-spirited approaches taken by either side in this case. These 2 guys claimed that the "jocks" and others were responsible for their oppression. But instead of attempting to bring themselves up, they chose to bring everyone down.
And as for the students, whoever it was that screwed with those two should not be surprised with the results. That does not mean that the results are justified, only that they could be expected. (Although maybe not expected on this scale.)
Point #1 was that people who go out of their way for attention are very likely to get it, good or bad. Point #2 was that people who play with fire are likely to get burned. Neither point justifies the actions. They are both wrong.
I do not condone the treatment that these 2 guys claim they endured. Neither do I condone their subsequent actions.
I have read several posts from people claiming that they did not choose to be different, yet endured similar treatment. I understand that completely. I have not condemned them in any way. My comments were directed at people who intentionally exhibit behavior that is extremely likely to get them a lot of attention (again, good or bad).
The reason this whole situation sucks so bad is that EITHER SIDE at the core could have prevented this situation by simply acting responsibly. That is not sympathizing with the killers.
I guess your last paragraph sums it all up. "Don't torment others" is probably the best way to state it.
>Suppose you did not have the option to choose... then what? Should you still resign yourselves to being treated differently?
Nope. Not having the option to choose would fall under the category of "not choosing to be different." I never said that it is right for people to relentlessly pick on anybody. I've both witnessed and experienced the mean-spiritedness of others. I'm sure everyone has. It sucks, but life sometimes works that way.
>I am an engineer of Asian Indian origin. I speak with what most Americans would consider to be a foriegn accent. I am also not a Christian.
There are many like me here. We work in the high-tech sector and our children, who are born here and are American citizens, go to good
schools here.
Congratulations. Nothing unusual about any of that.
>Thanks for letting us know that we should just expect to be treated differently. After all, we are different, right?
Take of the martyr hat for a minute. I don't recall saying that you should expect to be treated differently. If you need a different frame of reference, picture the Trenchcoat Mafia who made it into the news. They intentionally dressed and acted differently. Folks who dye their hair purple or wear a safety pin through their cheek seem to want attention too. Does that make them bad people? No. Does it mean that they are going to get attention? Yep.
Your point that people can be mean-spirited is well taken. Yeah, it sucks. Yeah, it is unnecessary and counterproductive. If you paid any attention at all to my full post, you would have noticed that I said that I had friends from the various "groups" of kids in school. I was willing to treat people as equals. Others are not. Not everyone is willing to view a person as a person.
>And how do we not `antagonize' these people who are different from us?
What kind of question is that? A good start would be to not ridicule, scorn, exclude, avoid, or ostracize them. I'd even go so far as to recommend ignoring their attention-seeking behavior. In other words, treat people as people.
If I chose to antagonize members of Hell's Angels, I would probably end up getting the tar beat out of me (if I was lucky). Though their activity (assault) would be illegal, I would not expect a lot of sympathy. Why? Because what I did was stupid. It did not make their actions right, but I should have known better.
My point stands: People must begin taking responsibility for their own actions. Did you or your friends go on a murderous rampage because of the persecution you suffered? Or did you grow up to become productive members of society?
I agree with your zero sympathy statement. This whole incident is a microcosm of what's wrong in this country. It seems that everyone is using it as a platform for their causes, even those who claim they have no cause. Just on the face of it, there are a couple of items that we can learn from:
1. If you choose to be different, expect to be treated differently.
2. If you choose to antagonize someone who is different, be prepared for a different kind of response.
There is absolutely no excuse for the actions of the killers. It is one thing to sympathize for the treatment by their classmates. It is quite another to excuse the behavior. I was not an athlete in school. I did not belong to the "in crowd." My passion for computing definitely set me apart from my trendier classmates.
But there are several differences here. First, I did not go postal on my classmates. Second, I did not behave in a way that drew unwanted attention to myself. Third, I made an attempt to make friends. So even though I did not fit into any of the groups that prevailed (stoners, surfers, preppies, freaks) I still interacted with individuals from each of the groups.
People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions. The gunmen in Littleton apparently did, but it was after the fact. No more excuses.
Check this out. Ramachandran is a neuroscientist and relays some interesting information. I'm not studying philosophy, psychology, or anything else for that matter. But this book is an excellent read.
This sounds like an entertaining read. I just finished "Phantoms in the Brain" by V.S. Ramachandran (ISBN: 0688152473), and would highly recommend it. I was wondering what to read next, and it looks like this might be the one.
Thanks for the pointer and review!
The only one I noticed was views@vineyard.com. If that isn't him, I'm sure they can get it to him.