First, and this should frighten you, Congress has the real control over this issue. The problem, as I stated above (another post) is the Moral Parenthood (my term), a conglomeration of bipartisan folks whose only desire is to protect the children from the evils of the world at all costs. It is these people that will get censorship legislation passed. The Republicans are backed by the Christian Right/Moral Majority, who would like to see anything they deem pornographic, to be removed from all eyes (video games, Michelangelo's 'David', don't even whisper Mapplethorpe). On the other side, the Democrats are brought to you by the 'well-meaning liberals' that keep pushing reports in our face on how video games and violent TV and media are destroying our children's psychological health.
The question over which internet censorship is best? I think I almost see your point. That at present, Bush's idea is the less intrusive, more acceptable (though still hated) plan, while Gore's is too intrusive to business, like Carnivore.
My first choice would be to force parents to actually pay attention to what their children are doing, when they are doing it. Second would be an easily viewable 'cache log' so that parents can see cached pages easily. I agree that this should not be on the shoulders of the ISP (Laissez Faire, mon frère!), nor do I think Gore (more importantly Lieberman and Tipper) will let it end there. I don't think libraries is where Bush is going to stop either, Jerry Fallwell, and Pat Robertson have big ass evangelist preacher-mouths and a bevy of bulky christians behind them, that have all made healthy campaign contributions to the Republicans, like they were tithes to God.
Forgive me if I don't take sides on which will end up being the 'better' censorship just yet.
Keep in mind, that I use these data only to show my point. I don't like either candidate, and have strong reservations about voting for any of them, including Harry Brown and li'l Ralphy Nader.
"The Bush campaign comes up with figures that are three times Clinton's 1992 budget or LBJ's spending plan at the start of the Great Society only by counting about half of Gore's tax cuts as spending increases. For example, they do that for Gore's subsidies to help middle-income families save for retirement. But applying the same rules to Bush makes him look like nearly as big a spender as Gore."
[Los Angeles Times, 10/5/00]
"Mr. Gore proposes to use about $3 trillion to reduce federal debt. By contrast, Mr. Bush's plan would reduce the debt by at most $1 trillion."
[New York Times, 9/8/00]
"Federal Tax Burden on Middle-Income Families is Lowest in Decades. According to a series of studies by liberal and conservative tax experts, the federal income tax burden for most American families has shrunk to its lowest level in decades."
[Washington Post, 3/27/00]
Texas has added 6,200 State employees.
[FY2001 Budget Analytical Perspectives, Texas State Auditors Office 7/24/00]
The Federal civilian workforce was cut by 377,000 between 1983 and 1999.
[Analytical Perspectives FY2001 Budget]
As for censorship, I don't feel confident that either candidate will leave the internet alone, no matter what Bush or Gore propose now. I say this because of liberal Soccer Moms, empowered by Tipper, Lieberman and the aging remnants of the PMRC; and The Christian Right/Moral Majority (minority).
It was exactly this mix that forced the Reagan presidency to re-establish the crumbling DEA and the ineffective war on drugs. Nixon had it right when he started the war and established the DEA, but it got mangled because it became 'for the children', instead of 'about the problem'.
By the way. Since Texas is one of the worst states when it comes to environmental damage, it better be the fastest improving state.
Further, Bush lied about the level of uninsured steadily decreasing in the state of Texas. Not true. Still steadily increasing.
I'm sure you didn't mean to be biased, since character is such an issue for you, why is it that a coke-head drunkard is okay with you? Not that he told the truth about that. He just decided to ignore the question.
Some of you people seem to think your republican leaders are saints. I've got news for you. They are also crooked as hell.
If you've listened to them, BOTH candidates are for dramatically increasing the size of our government at the taxpayers expense, its all a matter of deciding where you want that increase to happen.
And Gore also never made any pronouncement that he wishes to tax and control the internet. In fact Bush is the one that believes that it turns our children's hearts dark and must be controlled.
I didn't torture myself with three debates to learn nothing.
Just a quick note of fact as I see it. In 1996, the Reform party received 5% of the vote. This election season, the Reform party has benefitted greatly from matching funds. Yet they are still not viewed as a real contender in the party Ring. Why, even though there are many extreme right-wingers in the US, is it that Buchanan (Reform Party A) will not see 5% of the votes this year as a viable 3rd party?
Because the extreme rights know that there will be no real effect on them giving their vote to the Reform Party. They can agree with much, if not most, of what GW proposes, and that is good enough to get their foot in the door, to attempt a futile attempt at reform once the most favored (if not favorite) candidate wins.
Nader proponents seem to believe that this time, 5% will make a difference. What makes this time the charm after many years of 3rd Party Presidential attempts? If the Vote falls near the split, do you think the Democrats or Republicans will be aggressivley seeking those 5% of you who vote against the strict two-party rule? They won't, they will be aggressively seeking the votes of those that play by the 'rules' (two-party system).
That all said, I doubt it will make much difference. You are right in that a vote for Nader isn't a vote for Bush, nor is it for Nader. My feeling is Nader's Push for Presidency is more for symbolic protest of the system. Its just too bad he isn't willing to abuse the system as much as his opponents to get his message to the public.
I think you are mistaken that the bulk of the sentiment in the IT community is -Gee, I love my job, whats your problem?-
We are the bottom line. Maybe its different in huge companies, but in all the ones I have worked for, it is the IT people that everything hinges on. We can't hand out excuses like our ISPs (router down, someone hit a cable with a bulldozer), or our non-IT co-workers (database down, computer crashing--must...leave...early). The Machine has to work, and that is our problem. Programmers and Sysadmins have to work late to make sure the company will be running the next morning, IN ADDITION to staying on schedule with that project deadline 4 weeks earlier than it would be if wisely planned.
And what users need is usable stable programs and OSes. If programs were really useable, then users would not have the difficulties they have. A friend of mine is a usability engineer, her goal is to make UI effective for the stupidest 10% of users. Instead we have features in programs that 95% of people will never use.
They don't need to learn programming, they don't need to know regexps, however you may find them useful, not everyone is built for programming, which is why I'm not a gymnast. Of course, the end result is still more work for another IT professional.
Wrong. I worked for a company for 2 years, 12 hour days, more than 2/3 telecommuting. I was expected to have a laptop, phone and beeper with me at all times, even on vacation. I charged the company plenty of times for a cheap motel room that I could use for a modem connection while I was out camping, only to have what I thought was vacation shot because of some non-crisis that the CEO was panicking over.
My point: It sounds cherry as hell to work remotely, but telecommuting is not an escape from shitty bosses, and they will always expect more out of telecommuters than the commuters (especially if you are on the beach).
Re:Problems with the medium
on
Disconnected
·
· Score: 1
I've read and re-read all of your posts on this, and I have realized something after stopping myself from responding hastily several times. What you are forgetting is fairly simple, although to you it may not be fair. Business. Business operates not out of any need to contribute to society but to make money. Charity is a great word to add into PR material. I suspect that IBM dumping machines and cash into India and African nations has more to do with them realizing that at some point, these countries will move into the information age. When that happens, IBM will be in a great position, because of this 'goodwill'.
Similarly, Freewwweb was a company, interested in making money. Their business plan did not work, so it was either time for them to revise their business plan, or to go out of business, whatever happened to them, they didn't, nor did they need to consult their clients on the decision. Unless you are a major investor, Juno and Freewwweb owe you exactly nothing.
Still on business, most Linux users can afford a connection. Moreover, Windows still dominates the desktop, home-user market by at least 80%. Companies go for the numbers, not to cater to every possible eventuality. Again, they are in business to make money, not to foster goodwill to every possible customer.
As for rights... I need a car to get to my job that is not accessible by public transportation. Is it my right to have my car subsidized? Don't forget, 'emphasis' has nothing to do with real need.
Further, if you can afford a copy of Office 2000, then you can surely afford a net connection. If you are running Linux then why are you worried anyway? There are free alternatives for most programs. None that I know of require a net connection to use or register. If you could point out some real-world examples of important tasks that can ONLY be performed online (no meatspace alternative at all) then I might be inclined to lean in your favor, but there is nothing that comes to mind that would justify socialized internet connections for the American masses.
Understanding your point, shouldn't more people be as vocal about protecting their rights, as those who would like to take them away? If enough people felt as passionately about protecting the things we value, then we wouldn't see problems like this as often. Instead, "the people" just trust that the system will work for them.
Not in relation to this thread at all, but just a reminder to everyone, this has nothing to do with the First Amendment, which states clearly:
"Congress shall make no law..."
This means that these issues need your local support. The First Amendment can't back you on these sorts of things. Just like locally mandated prayer in school, etc.
While your non-marketeer logic sounds good, effective, and frequent-customer friendly, the opposite is actually the case. Print catalogs have had a long practice of raising prices for regular customers because their market research proves that people still think they are getting the best deal because of that first purchase. J. Crew and L.L.Bean are probably the best catalogs to test this with since regular customers get a new catalog every two months or so, and cold mailings go out to mailing listed potential customers at least twice a year
The company assumes (and their research proves this), that customers are driven to them because of past experience and future expectations of value. Therefore, a regular customer is less likely to shop around for a better deal, because they got great deals the first few times they shopped using that catalog.
Furthermore, catalog companies often have two or more catalogs per season. These will look the same, and many of the prices are the same, but the 'regular' customers mysteriously get the catalog with the higher prices. The logic is that they are already hooked, as I said before, because of prior experience and prices.
If you are a packrat like me, you can check catalog prices. I bought a bunch of stuff from J Crew, the next mailing the prices on many things were slightly-to-considerably higher than the original catalog I had ordered from (same season), my wife (different last name) recieved the same seasons catalog (cold mailing) whose prices were the same as the original catalog I had ordered from.
But you've slightly missed the point. It is true that the most publicized correspondence has been internal mail/memo/fax. But companies are responsible for email from their own domain. Your post assumes that it is something damning to the company, as in the racial slurs being used in training, or tobacco company internal correspondence, etc. Sexual harrassment as an example. If your employee is sending dirty loveletters to a person in another company within your companys domain, then you, as the employer, are legally responsible for that employees actions. These case aren't exactly as publicized as the M$ DOJ case, but it still happens.
Wrong. Simply, if/. takes responsibility for this one post that someone, somewhere finds offensive, then they will be personally responsible for everything that is posted here from now on. Remember how quickly that Microsoft letter regarding Kerberos source and the license agreement(sp?) was forgotten.
Links to DeCSS, and even the source has been posted by users in the past, the beauty?/. is not responsible for the actions of their users.
Most musicians I know begrudgingly buy new or at least recent CDs because they don't want to listen to the REO Speedwagon, Men at work and Spandau Ballet cutouts.
Napster is a commercial entity whose business plan permits attracting users by allowing the sharing/distribution/piracy of copyrighted material. They are there for the money, but they are making it on the backs of those who own the rights to the music. Napster also has not done an acceptable job at trying to curtail the illegal trading of copyrighted music on their servers. They don't want to do this because they know that very few people are interested in finding new (non-RIAA affiliated) music when they visit Napster. No one knows who 'Dog Head 9' is and don't want to download a song from a band they know nothing about, they do however want to find bands that they know, but due to RIAA price fixing, can't afford to buy the CD.
Lita and Joan were full-on Hotties in their day (non-sequitor, just a truth that must be stated).
Piracy is illegal. I wouldn't have a problem with Napster if they weren't in this for the money, and like Freenet, just wanted to provide an open and free file-sharing environment. But it is clear that they allowed this to happen for their own profit motives.
Right. So all those kids watching the Fox Kids Network don't know anything about commercialism? I think it is even more dangerous to block any influence from our children. We are supposed to raise our children with OUR morals in spite of the outside world, not blocked from the outside world. Your own anti-commercialism stance is probably a reflection of your own disgust while watching TV or looking around online, whatever. Your stance was formed by exposure, not shelter.
You suggest that the slightest exposure to any commercialism will trap our children in a never ending subservience to it. Wrong. That is why we teach values. And if you haven't checked, porn is very commercial.
I disagree. Pick your battles. If I stood up for every single ideal I have, I would get no where, since just about everything is against one of my ideals. Making censorware for small-scale use is nothing compared to the Civil Rights movement, or Apartheid.
As a matter of fact, I find the whole argument about censorware being ineffective to be kind of pointless. I will never use it, and there is presently no law in the US that would force me to use it. I wouldn't use it for my own children, just as I don't leave them alone to gaze at the television for hours on end.
In this case, I say do what you can do to get a paycheck and redeem yourself in your spare time by doing something more worthwhile.
Yes. In effect.
It is each country's responsibility to block content based on their law. China vs. Geocities as an example, China blocks Geocities because there are some sites that they consider dangerous to the state. In the US, it is legal for these sites to exist, but the Chinese know they have no leg to stand on regarding legal action against geocities. It is not geocities responsibility to block access to China.
French prosecutors have not yet met a knobby clue stick.
The problem with your whacky-weed analogy is that it is technically illegal to transport whacky-weed or seed across national borders. Therefore, the purchaser and seller can and should be prosecuted (if caught) by their local laws, rather than the laws of the country of origin, or even the laws of the location of the eBay server (in this case), who would suffer their own law-suit for hosting the sale of an illegal substance. A three parter.
And that is a shotgun version of why local laws are better than general laws. You can always move if you can't live with them.
Marketing aside, they are at least doing something. I have my own reservations about the solar vs. space consumption issue, especially in VA, where greenspace in Northern Virginia is disappearing, but they have made a first poke, where others have done Nothing.
No one can fix every problem, so you shouldn't blame this company for failing to fix every problem, when the rest haven't even attempted to fix a single one.
I wonder if they have a Big-Ass Diesel generator for backup? It's been rainy around here this summer.
Yeah, but he also put out that idiotic anti-drug pamphlet that suggested that if your teen wears baggy jeans, black t-shirts, is moody, and is interested in social issues, then he/she may be a drug user. That describes me perfectly today, and I couldn't be cleaner, except for that Sudafed this morning.
Generally Hatch is a respectable upstanding guy with real not-bought principles. I just don't happen to agree with him too often.
I understood your original point, we don't disagree, and I wasn't trying to uphold Nixon as a paragon of good policy decisions. However, irregardless of the original intent, we now have a drug war that has mutated so perversely that it will never be killed, and no politician is brave enough to stand against such idiocy. It is a reality that it is here to stay. So the only real option left, is to work with what we've got. Which seems a little like turbocharging a Yugo. <br><br> My own feelings? Legalize and do not regulate. Being a pessimist, and knowing that this will never happen in my lifetime, then I feel that we need to wage the war where it can actually be effective. In Treatment. Yes, I know it sounds just like welfare, giving away gov't money for other people's problems. Since that cash is already appropriated, it's better to use it on something that has a chance of working, rather than wasting it on more bullets and boats for this ineffective war that has been going on. <br><br> <b><i>...But it's a problem for THEM, not the government.</b></i><br><br> I disagree slightly here. Simply because there is a cause and effect for the communities that surround heavy users. I lived in a not-so good neighborhood until November. Huge place, extremely low rent. The upstanding citizens (majority) were being victimized by crackheads frequenting the local crackhouse. Crackhouse 'mysteriously' burns down, no more crime. Drugs weren't the problem, it was the effects of those drugs that are the problem. In a vaccum, I would agree with you on this point, thin out the gene pool a little more, without wasting [My] money.<br><br> Your points are exactly what I have been writing about and protesting for a while now. Lost Freedom in the interest of the Greater Good, which isn't so good.
What I have to say about DoubleClick is not so grand, or alarmist... But I had a few comments to one particular point of MoNsTeR's... If you are going to knock Nixon, do it for something he was actually guilty of, there is plenty to choose from. Nixon, surprisingly, had the BEST drug policy that has ever been in place in this country. It was laid by the side of the road during the Ford and Carter administrations, and totally trampled during the Reagan/Bush years (Mostly due to Nancy) which Clinton was perfectly happy to accept as-is. It has only gotten worse since then. Nixon approached the problem logically. Soldiers were returning from Vietnam with addictions, and Nixon saw this as a serious problem.
The simplest and most logical solution to the problems with soldiers, and addicts in society at large, is treatment. Nixon's policy called for most of the budget for his drug initiative to go to treatment and treatment facilities, not military action, not police action, not misleading or false marketing campaigns. In fact, 85% of the policies budget was for treatment alone.
Nixon's policy is the only drug policy the US has ever seen which actually proved a significant decrease in drug addiction.
The Reagan era brought us "Just say No!", which was a direct result of pressure from suburban parents being afraid that drugs were going to affect their children, so we allowed a very effective drug policy to be rewritten and dumbed down to allow for all the scared parents frightened that little Johnny was going to get high. Despite overwhelming proof that this was not the real problem, nor is it now.
This brought the campaign of lies. Where we suddenly saw an influx of advertising and PSAs that did not correctly portray drugs, drug usage, or drug users, all designed with little Johnny Stoner in mind, not the real root of the problem which is, and was the adult addicts. We started seeing military action against dealers and growers in other countries, increased penalties for possession and disribution, questionable (at best) search and seizure of property, and we still don't see any decrease in drug usage. In fact, we have seen a steady increase in casual drug usage since '82, while habitual drug use remains fairly steady.
The problem with DoubleClick's involvement in this site is a little overblown. Anyone looking for 'Drugs: Tips and Tricks!' on a government drug policy site has problems outside of being tracked by a DoubleClick cookie. If anything, the use of DoubleClick was simply another stupid governmental oversight.
Re:spying on children too... risky indeed
on
Mattel Spyware
·
· Score: 1
At the risk of sounding paranoid, that sort of management cluelessness and fumbling is what worries me. Once a Pudding-Brained CEO or marketing director realizes the fact that it is possible to get their greedy little hands on even more information, then they will do so.
Now they might be forced to think about how to hide it better, as well as how to gather more information. It may seem innocuous, MAC address, IP, last 5 sites visited, email address, system environment variables, a 'dir/s >mattelmarketinginfo.txt', etc. But the more information they are allowed to gather, the less we are able to protect our privacy.
We are being desensitized. What we found objectionable last year, pales to what we object this year, as a whole, with regard to privacy. People were almost screaming from the mountain tops over the Great Cookie Scare a couple of years back, nothing has changed, but no one is frightened of cookies anymore, even though the same information is available.
My point is, companies like Mattel will always take a mile when given an inch. They are in it for the money, and as long as they aren't breaking any laws, they will always be able to have the upper hand. Soothe a few geek parents nerves, like the Salon writer who noticed the anomaly, with promises to fix any problems that have occurred. Which is, ironically, good business.
Fsck the customer and then 'Help, in any way we can'.
You mean like the "liberal fascism" perpetuated by the conservative republican Orin Hatch when he suggested that "depression, an interest in social issues, and strange manners of dress" was evidence of teen drug use?
How about majority leader and house speaker Trent Lott(R-MS) suggesting in a local (Wash DC) interview following Columbine suggesting that students who are outcasts should be watched closely and monitored?
Maybe you should check up on those you've been voting for.
This contest does address browser-specific, non-standards-compliant HTML in that the contestants do not know which browsers the Judges will use to determine a winner.
Slashdot Mirror
First, and this should frighten you, Congress has the real control over this issue. The problem, as I stated above (another post) is the Moral Parenthood (my term), a conglomeration of bipartisan folks whose only desire is to protect the children from the evils of the world at all costs. It is these people that will get censorship legislation passed. The Republicans are backed by the Christian Right/Moral Majority, who would like to see anything they deem pornographic, to be removed from all eyes (video games, Michelangelo's 'David', don't even whisper Mapplethorpe). On the other side, the Democrats are brought to you by the 'well-meaning liberals' that keep pushing reports in our face on how video games and violent TV and media are destroying our children's psychological health.
The question over which internet censorship is best? I think I almost see your point. That at present, Bush's idea is the less intrusive, more acceptable (though still hated) plan, while Gore's is too intrusive to business, like Carnivore.
My first choice would be to force parents to actually pay attention to what their children are doing, when they are doing it. Second would be an easily viewable 'cache log' so that parents can see cached pages easily. I agree that this should not be on the shoulders of the ISP (Laissez Faire, mon frère!), nor do I think Gore (more importantly Lieberman and Tipper) will let it end there. I don't think libraries is where Bush is going to stop either, Jerry Fallwell, and Pat Robertson have big ass evangelist preacher-mouths and a bevy of bulky christians behind them, that have all made healthy campaign contributions to the Republicans, like they were tithes to God.
Forgive me if I don't take sides on which will end up being the 'better' censorship just yet.
Keep in mind, that I use these data only to show my point. I don't like either candidate, and have strong reservations about voting for any of them, including Harry Brown and li'l Ralphy Nader.
"The Bush campaign comes up with figures that are three times Clinton's 1992 budget or LBJ's spending plan at the start of the Great Society only by counting about half of Gore's tax cuts as spending increases. For example, they do that for Gore's subsidies to help middle-income families save for retirement. But applying the same rules to Bush makes him look like nearly as big a spender as Gore."
[Los Angeles Times, 10/5/00]
"Mr. Gore proposes to use about $3 trillion to reduce federal debt. By contrast, Mr. Bush's plan would reduce the debt by at most $1 trillion."
[New York Times, 9/8/00]
"Federal Tax Burden on Middle-Income Families is Lowest in Decades. According to a series of studies by liberal and conservative tax experts, the federal income tax burden for most American families has shrunk to its lowest level in decades."
[Washington Post, 3/27/00]
Texas has added 6,200 State employees.
[FY2001 Budget Analytical Perspectives, Texas State Auditors Office 7/24/00]
The Federal civilian workforce was cut by 377,000 between 1983 and 1999.
[Analytical Perspectives FY2001 Budget]
As for censorship, I don't feel confident that either candidate will leave the internet alone, no matter what Bush or Gore propose now. I say this because of liberal Soccer Moms, empowered by Tipper, Lieberman and the aging remnants of the PMRC; and The Christian Right/Moral Majority (minority).
It was exactly this mix that forced the Reagan presidency to re-establish the crumbling DEA and the ineffective war on drugs. Nixon had it right when he started the war and established the DEA, but it got mangled because it became 'for the children', instead of 'about the problem'.
Right, completely unbiased reporting.
By the way. Since Texas is one of the worst states when it comes to environmental damage, it better be the fastest improving state.
Further, Bush lied about the level of uninsured steadily decreasing in the state of Texas. Not true. Still steadily increasing.
I'm sure you didn't mean to be biased, since character is such an issue for you, why is it that a coke-head drunkard is okay with you? Not that he told the truth about that. He just decided to ignore the question.
Some of you people seem to think your republican leaders are saints. I've got news for you. They are also crooked as hell.
If you've listened to them, BOTH candidates are for dramatically increasing the size of our government at the taxpayers expense, its all a matter of deciding where you want that increase to happen.
And Gore also never made any pronouncement that he wishes to tax and control the internet. In fact Bush is the one that believes that it turns our children's hearts dark and must be controlled.
I didn't torture myself with three debates to learn nothing.
Just a quick note of fact as I see it. In 1996, the Reform party received 5% of the vote. This election season, the Reform party has benefitted greatly from matching funds. Yet they are still not viewed as a real contender in the party Ring. Why, even though there are many extreme right-wingers in the US, is it that Buchanan (Reform Party A) will not see 5% of the votes this year as a viable 3rd party?
Because the extreme rights know that there will be no real effect on them giving their vote to the Reform Party. They can agree with much, if not most, of what GW proposes, and that is good enough to get their foot in the door, to attempt a futile attempt at reform once the most favored (if not favorite) candidate wins.
Nader proponents seem to believe that this time, 5% will make a difference. What makes this time the charm after many years of 3rd Party Presidential attempts? If the Vote falls near the split, do you think the Democrats or Republicans will be aggressivley seeking those 5% of you who vote against the strict two-party rule? They won't, they will be aggressively seeking the votes of those that play by the 'rules' (two-party system).
That all said, I doubt it will make much difference. You are right in that a vote for Nader isn't a vote for Bush, nor is it for Nader. My feeling is Nader's Push for Presidency is more for symbolic protest of the system. Its just too bad he isn't willing to abuse the system as much as his opponents to get his message to the public.
I think you are mistaken that the bulk of the sentiment in the IT community is -Gee, I love my job, whats your problem?-
We are the bottom line. Maybe its different in huge companies, but in all the ones I have worked for, it is the IT people that everything hinges on. We can't hand out excuses like our ISPs (router down, someone hit a cable with a bulldozer), or our non-IT co-workers (database down, computer crashing--must...leave...early). The Machine has to work, and that is our problem. Programmers and Sysadmins have to work late to make sure the company will be running the next morning, IN ADDITION to staying on schedule with that project deadline 4 weeks earlier than it would be if wisely planned.
And what users need is usable stable programs and OSes. If programs were really useable, then users would not have the difficulties they have. A friend of mine is a usability engineer, her goal is to make UI effective for the stupidest 10% of users. Instead we have features in programs that 95% of people will never use.
They don't need to learn programming, they don't need to know regexps, however you may find them useful, not everyone is built for programming, which is why I'm not a gymnast. Of course, the end result is still more work for another IT professional.
Wrong. I worked for a company for 2 years, 12 hour days, more than 2/3 telecommuting. I was expected to have a laptop, phone and beeper with me at all times, even on vacation. I charged the company plenty of times for a cheap motel room that I could use for a modem connection while I was out camping, only to have what I thought was vacation shot because of some non-crisis that the CEO was panicking over.
My point: It sounds cherry as hell to work remotely, but telecommuting is not an escape from shitty bosses, and they will always expect more out of telecommuters than the commuters (especially if you are on the beach).
I've read and re-read all of your posts on this, and I have realized something after stopping myself from responding hastily several times. What you are forgetting is fairly simple, although to you it may not be fair. Business. Business operates not out of any need to contribute to society but to make money. Charity is a great word to add into PR material. I suspect that IBM dumping machines and cash into India and African nations has more to do with them realizing that at some point, these countries will move into the information age. When that happens, IBM will be in a great position, because of this 'goodwill'.
Similarly, Freewwweb was a company, interested in making money. Their business plan did not work, so it was either time for them to revise their business plan, or to go out of business, whatever happened to them, they didn't, nor did they need to consult their clients on the decision. Unless you are a major investor, Juno and Freewwweb owe you exactly nothing.
Still on business, most Linux users can afford a connection. Moreover, Windows still dominates the desktop, home-user market by at least 80%. Companies go for the numbers, not to cater to every possible eventuality. Again, they are in business to make money, not to foster goodwill to every possible customer.
As for rights... I need a car to get to my job that is not accessible by public transportation. Is it my right to have my car subsidized? Don't forget, 'emphasis' has nothing to do with real need.
Further, if you can afford a copy of Office 2000, then you can surely afford a net connection. If you are running Linux then why are you worried anyway? There are free alternatives for most programs. None that I know of require a net connection to use or register. If you could point out some real-world examples of important tasks that can ONLY be performed online (no meatspace alternative at all) then I might be inclined to lean in your favor, but there is nothing that comes to mind that would justify socialized internet connections for the American masses.
Understanding your point, shouldn't more people be as vocal about protecting their rights, as those who would like to take them away? If enough people felt as passionately about protecting the things we value, then we wouldn't see problems like this as often. Instead, "the people" just trust that the system will work for them.
Not in relation to this thread at all, but just a reminder to everyone, this has nothing to do with the First Amendment, which states clearly:
"Congress shall make no law..."
This means that these issues need your local support. The First Amendment can't back you on these sorts of things. Just like locally mandated prayer in school, etc.
While your non-marketeer logic sounds good, effective, and frequent-customer friendly, the opposite is actually the case. Print catalogs have had a long practice of raising prices for regular customers because their market research proves that people still think they are getting the best deal because of that first purchase. J. Crew and L.L.Bean are probably the best catalogs to test this with since regular customers get a new catalog every two months or so, and cold mailings go out to mailing listed potential customers at least twice a year
The company assumes (and their research proves this), that customers are driven to them because of past experience and future expectations of value. Therefore, a regular customer is less likely to shop around for a better deal, because they got great deals the first few times they shopped using that catalog.
Furthermore, catalog companies often have two or more catalogs per season. These will look the same, and many of the prices are the same, but the 'regular' customers mysteriously get the catalog with the higher prices. The logic is that they are already hooked, as I said before, because of prior experience and prices.
If you are a packrat like me, you can check catalog prices. I bought a bunch of stuff from J Crew, the next mailing the prices on many things were slightly-to-considerably higher than the original catalog I had ordered from (same season), my wife (different last name) recieved the same seasons catalog (cold mailing) whose prices were the same as the original catalog I had ordered from.
But you've slightly missed the point. It is true that the most publicized correspondence has been internal mail/memo/fax. But companies are responsible for email from their own domain. Your post assumes that it is something damning to the company, as in the racial slurs being used in training, or tobacco company internal correspondence, etc. Sexual harrassment as an example. If your employee is sending dirty loveletters to a person in another company within your companys domain, then you, as the employer, are legally responsible for that employees actions. These case aren't exactly as publicized as the M$ DOJ case, but it still happens.
Wrong. Simply, if /. takes responsibility for this one post that someone, somewhere finds offensive, then they will be personally responsible for everything that is posted here from now on. Remember how quickly that Microsoft letter regarding Kerberos source and the license agreement(sp?) was forgotten.
/. is not responsible for the actions of their users.
Links to DeCSS, and even the source has been posted by users in the past, the beauty?
Most musicians I know begrudgingly buy new or at least recent CDs because they don't want to listen to the REO Speedwagon, Men at work and Spandau Ballet cutouts.
Napster is a commercial entity whose business plan permits attracting users by allowing the sharing/distribution/piracy of copyrighted material. They are there for the money, but they are making it on the backs of those who own the rights to the music. Napster also has not done an acceptable job at trying to curtail the illegal trading of copyrighted music on their servers. They don't want to do this because they know that very few people are interested in finding new (non-RIAA affiliated) music when they visit Napster. No one knows who 'Dog Head 9' is and don't want to download a song from a band they know nothing about, they do however want to find bands that they know, but due to RIAA price fixing, can't afford to buy the CD.
Lita and Joan were full-on Hotties in their day (non-sequitor, just a truth that must be stated).
Piracy is illegal. I wouldn't have a problem with Napster if they weren't in this for the money, and like Freenet, just wanted to provide an open and free file-sharing environment. But it is clear that they allowed this to happen for their own profit motives.
Right. So all those kids watching the Fox Kids Network don't know anything about commercialism? I think it is even more dangerous to block any influence from our children. We are supposed to raise our children with OUR morals in spite of the outside world, not blocked from the outside world. Your own anti-commercialism stance is probably a reflection of your own disgust while watching TV or looking around online, whatever. Your stance was formed by exposure, not shelter.
You suggest that the slightest exposure to any commercialism will trap our children in a never ending subservience to it. Wrong. That is why we teach values. And if you haven't checked, porn is very commercial.
I disagree. Pick your battles. If I stood up for every single ideal I have, I would get no where, since just about everything is against one of my ideals. Making censorware for small-scale use is nothing compared to the Civil Rights movement, or Apartheid.
As a matter of fact, I find the whole argument about censorware being ineffective to be kind of pointless. I will never use it, and there is presently no law in the US that would force me to use it. I wouldn't use it for my own children, just as I don't leave them alone to gaze at the television for hours on end.
In this case, I say do what you can do to get a paycheck and redeem yourself in your spare time by doing something more worthwhile.
Would we want foreign users violating our laws?
Yes. In effect.
It is each country's responsibility to block content based on their law. China vs. Geocities as an example, China blocks Geocities because there are some sites that they consider dangerous to the state. In the US, it is legal for these sites to exist, but the Chinese know they have no leg to stand on regarding legal action against geocities. It is not geocities responsibility to block access to China.
French prosecutors have not yet met a knobby clue stick.
The problem with your whacky-weed analogy is that it is technically illegal to transport whacky-weed or seed across national borders. Therefore, the purchaser and seller can and should be prosecuted (if caught) by their local laws, rather than the laws of the country of origin, or even the laws of the location of the eBay server (in this case), who would suffer their own law-suit for hosting the sale of an illegal substance. A three parter.
And that is a shotgun version of why local laws are better than general laws. You can always move if you can't live with them.
Marketing aside, they are at least doing something. I have my own reservations about the solar vs. space consumption issue, especially in VA, where greenspace in Northern Virginia is disappearing, but they have made a first poke, where others have done Nothing.
No one can fix every problem, so you shouldn't blame this company for failing to fix every problem, when the rest haven't even attempted to fix a single one.
I wonder if they have a Big-Ass Diesel generator for backup? It's been rainy around here this summer.
Yeah, but he also put out that idiotic anti-drug pamphlet that suggested that if your teen wears baggy jeans, black t-shirts, is moody, and is interested in social issues, then he/she may be a drug user. That describes me perfectly today, and I couldn't be cleaner, except for that Sudafed this morning.
Generally Hatch is a respectable upstanding guy with real not-bought principles. I just don't happen to agree with him too often.
NuSphere, a part of Progress Software (Progress RDBMS) announced that they plan to offer commercial support and services for MySQL. Launch of NuSphere to Provide Open Source Services.
I understood your original point, we don't disagree, and I wasn't trying to uphold Nixon as a paragon of good policy decisions. However, irregardless of the original intent, we now have a drug war that has mutated so perversely that it will never be killed, and no politician is brave enough to stand against such idiocy. It is a reality that it is here to stay. So the only real option left, is to work with what we've got. Which seems a little like turbocharging a Yugo.
<br><br>
My own feelings? Legalize and do not regulate. Being a pessimist, and knowing that this will never happen in my lifetime, then I feel that we need to wage the war where it can actually be effective. In Treatment. Yes, I know it sounds just like welfare, giving away gov't money for other people's problems. Since that cash is already appropriated, it's better to use it on something that has a chance of working, rather than wasting it on more bullets and boats for this ineffective war that has been going on.
<br><br>
<b><i>...But it's a problem for THEM, not the government.</b></i><br><br>
I disagree slightly here. Simply because there is a cause and effect for the communities that surround heavy users. I lived in a not-so good neighborhood until November. Huge place, extremely low rent. The upstanding citizens (majority) were being victimized by crackheads frequenting the local crackhouse. Crackhouse 'mysteriously' burns down, no more crime. Drugs weren't the problem, it was the effects of those drugs that are the problem. In a vaccum, I would agree with you on this point, thin out the gene pool a little more, without wasting [My] money.<br><br>
Your points are exactly what I have been writing about and protesting for a while now. Lost Freedom in the interest of the Greater Good, which isn't so good.
What I have to say about DoubleClick is not so grand, or alarmist... But I had a few comments to one particular point of MoNsTeR's...
If you are going to knock Nixon, do it for something he was actually guilty of, there is plenty to choose from. Nixon, surprisingly, had the BEST drug policy that has ever been in place in this country. It was laid by the side of the road during the Ford and Carter administrations, and totally trampled during the Reagan/Bush years (Mostly due to Nancy) which Clinton was perfectly happy to accept as-is. It has only gotten worse since then. Nixon approached the problem logically. Soldiers were returning from Vietnam with addictions, and Nixon saw this as a serious problem.
The simplest and most logical solution to the problems with soldiers, and addicts in society at large, is treatment. Nixon's policy called for most of the budget for his drug initiative to go to treatment and treatment facilities, not military action, not police action, not misleading or false marketing campaigns. In fact, 85% of the policies budget was for treatment alone.
Nixon's policy is the only drug policy the US has ever seen which actually proved a significant decrease in drug addiction.
The Reagan era brought us "Just say No!", which was a direct result of pressure from suburban parents being afraid that drugs were going to affect their children, so we allowed a very effective drug policy to be rewritten and dumbed down to allow for all the scared parents frightened that little Johnny was going to get high. Despite overwhelming proof that this was not the real problem, nor is it now.
This brought the campaign of lies. Where we suddenly saw an influx of advertising and PSAs that did not correctly portray drugs, drug usage, or drug users, all designed with little Johnny Stoner in mind, not the real root of the problem which is, and was the adult addicts. We started seeing military action against dealers and growers in other countries, increased penalties for possession and disribution, questionable (at best) search and seizure of property, and we still don't see any decrease in drug usage. In fact, we have seen a steady increase in casual drug usage since '82, while habitual drug use remains fairly steady.
The problem with DoubleClick's involvement in this site is a little overblown. Anyone looking for 'Drugs: Tips and Tricks!' on a government drug policy site has problems outside of being tracked by a DoubleClick cookie. If anything, the use of DoubleClick was simply another stupid governmental oversight.
At the risk of sounding paranoid, that sort of management cluelessness and fumbling is what worries me. Once a Pudding-Brained CEO or marketing director realizes the fact that it is possible to get their greedy little hands on even more information, then they will do so.
/s >mattelmarketinginfo.txt', etc. But the more information they are allowed to gather, the less we are able to protect our privacy.
Now they might be forced to think about how to hide it better, as well as how to gather more information. It may seem innocuous, MAC address, IP, last 5 sites visited, email address, system environment variables, a 'dir
We are being desensitized. What we found objectionable last year, pales to what we object this year, as a whole, with regard to privacy. People were almost screaming from the mountain tops over the Great Cookie Scare a couple of years back, nothing has changed, but no one is frightened of cookies anymore, even though the same information is available.
My point is, companies like Mattel will always take a mile when given an inch. They are in it for the money, and as long as they aren't breaking any laws, they will always be able to have the upper hand. Soothe a few geek parents nerves, like the Salon writer who noticed the anomaly, with promises to fix any problems that have occurred. Which is, ironically, good business.
Fsck the customer and then 'Help, in any way we can'.
You mean like the "liberal fascism" perpetuated by the conservative republican Orin Hatch when he suggested that "depression, an interest in social issues, and strange manners of dress" was evidence of teen drug use?
How about majority leader and house speaker Trent Lott(R-MS) suggesting in a local (Wash DC) interview following Columbine suggesting that students who are outcasts should be watched closely and monitored?
Maybe you should check up on those you've been voting for.
This contest does address browser-specific, non-standards-compliant HTML in that the contestants do not know which browsers the Judges will use to determine a winner.
I would use Lynx just to be a jerk.