Travel for business sounds wonderful, until you actually have to do it. You read about it in books or watch it on TV and it all looks great -- you go to fun places, you eat at fancy restaurants and unlimited free drinks that are paid for, you get to stay at great hotels etc. But what they don't tell you is that you don't enjoy any of it. Not a moment.
Amen, brother. I never understood why my B-School classmates thought my million miler status on an airline was cool - It's God's way of reminding you you have no life.
When I interview someone and they say traveling is one reason they want to be a consultant I wonder if the are just stupid, naive, or both.
Why are manhole covers round? Only the ones that are designed to be removable from the same side of the opening that they are set into are round, the one that go through the hole when removed are ovoid.
I'm sure very generation found the next challenging because of differing viewpoints. Most of the older staff realize once the grow up a bit they'll be all right.
My experience is many simply do not understand that it is simply not technical knowledge that is needed for a job. You send experienced people overseas because you know they can do the job when things go wrong. You've worked with them, you trust them; an they have the scars from dealing with problems. Of course, they know overseas travel is a pain in the butt and would just as soon let the new hires suffer through it.
Most whining I chalk up to youth. I've known some friends in other companies say the new hires were upset over the small raises this year; and didn't understand when the experienced staff's reaction was STFU and be happy we got any this year. Eventually they'll learn.
So before you would turn in an online rental and get a new in-store rental AND be sent a new online rental DVD as well? So lets say I had a 2 at a time plan... I turn in one, get an in-store rental and a new online one sent as well.. I then turn in my new online one and get another in-store rental and have a new online one sent.. so I now have 2 in-store rentals and 2 online.. rinse and repeat and I can have infinite in-store rentals?
This makes no sense. It also makes no sense to expect this. Please tell me I am missing something.
Basically, yes. Some plans had a limit to the number of in store free rentals; others do not. In addition, you got a coupon for a free game or movie rental once or twice a month.
Learning to drive has little to do with the complexity of the device- you can drive quite well and never have a clue about why the car works.
This is true.
You do need to know the basic principles, however. You don't need to know the physics of how hydroplaning works, but you do need to know to slow down when there's water on the road. You don't need to know exactly how shifting into reverse on the highway will tear your transmission to shreds -- actually, I don't have a clue, maybe the transmission is fine and the engine explodes -- you just need to know it is a Bad Idea.
But you haven't provided a case for why computer users shouldn't be required to attain at least a basic level of competency.
Competency is different from complexity. The notion that simply because a device is complex that it should require greater effort to master is nonsense. You stated:./P>
A car is a rather complex piece of machinery, and takes a lot of training -- typically an entire class of driver's education.
The need for driver's ed has nothing to do with the complexity of the car; rather it's about the motor skills, judgment, and understanding of the rules of the road. Look at basketball, for instance. It's machinery is simple - a ball, a hoop; and yet mastering it takes a lot longer than learning to drive and even then many will never be good at it yet are decent drivers.
A salesperson only needs to be able to understand how to produce the material they need to make sales; not what's under the keyboard.
But they do need to understand how to do their job effectively, which includes not screwing up what's under the keyboard.
I could, for example, slam on the brakes at every intersection, tires squealing, because it's the only way I know to stop. I could leave the key at the "start" position for a full two minutes because someone told me it was a good idea. I could leave my seatbelt unbuckled, because it really has nothing to do with getting where I'm going -- if anything, it's an annoyance, slowing me down when I need to reach for something. And I could be willfully ignorant of basic maintenance, never changing the oil.
Again, that has nothing to do with the complexity of the device; it's about a failure to understand the basic rules of effective and safe operation.
Then, I would either be killed, or I would bring the car in for maintenance much more often, spending much more money on replacement parts that I destroyed through my own ignorance, and all the while complaining that it's somehow the manufacturer's fault -- if skidding is so bad, a car shouldn't let me do it! The ignition should just be an on-off switch -- or better yet, a button, like computers have! The oil should tell me it needs to be changed! That light is unintuitive -- it should tell me in plain english, like any good error message!?
Actually, you've hit on a key problem with design - poor human factors. Proper design goes a long way to eliminating human error; and far to many people blame the operator when the system design lead to the error. An ignition switch can be designed to cutoff or not engage the starter solenoid when the engine is running; and the Prius actually has a start button. Good design lessens the need for training an helps reduce errors.
Understanding why something works is not necessary. But there is a basic level of competence that is generally required in every other industry. If someone behaved as I've described with a car, they'd be lucky to still have their license -- yet people behave this way every day with computers.
And keep in mind: There is an entire high school class called "Driver's Education". I see no reason there couldn't be a similar class on basic computer usage and maintenance. And I don't mean "this is a mouse" education -- everyone knows, no one holds up a steering wheel and says
At any rate, he should have an opportunity to clear his name; if in fact he actions were innocent errors and not intentionally deceptive.
No one is arguing with you. Everyone is saying they can't believe the court is saying even if he can't clear his name, because it is dirty, they are still in trouble.
I realize no one is arguing that he shouldn't be able to clear his name and that truth should be an affirmative defense to libel.
However, how the truth is presented could present him in a false light and thus open the employer up to a libel lawsuit. In that case, truth alone is not enough; and there need not, IMHO, be a need to prove malice.
Look at it this way - the consensus on/. seems to be the employee was guilty. What if it wasn't as the company contends? shouldn't you have the chance to prove them wrong?
If the client wasn't guilty, then clearly it would be libel (not to mention wrongful dismissal in many places).
I'm not saying it was a good thing, and it might very well be that there are privacy statutes that might have been violated (that really is very dependent on where you are, of course). But I don't think one should be able to sue for libel when, in fact, the statements being made were true.
From the article it's not clear if the original statement was true; nor the context of the email and what it implied.
At any rate, he should have an opportunity to clear his name; if in fact he actions were innocent errors and not intentionally deceptive.
No, the key point is that the legal principle that truth is an absolute defense against a charge of libel is under attack in Massachusetts.
This principle is one of the bedrocks upon which our freedom of speech is built.
You're right that it's not a bad ruling. It's a terrible ruling.
While I am 100% in agreement with your statement about the dangers of not allowing truth as an absolute libel defense, it would seem the truth of the statement may well be on doubt. I do not think it would be unreasonable to allow a court to decide if:
1 - the statement was in fact truthful and not merely one side's opinion and thus potentially libelous
Of course. That's why we have jury trials. But that's not what this court ruling was about. This ruling was that it doesn't matter whether or not it's true; truth is not a defense.
Oddly enough, I agree with your concern over the ruling; however I do not think it is unreasonable to allow the employee for defamation. Part of for problem is it is not clear from the article all of the details surrounding the case. While each individual statement may be true the context of the email may be such to present a false picture of the circumstances
For example, citing specific parts of a policy would imply that the employee violated them. You did not say they did; so they are still true statements, but their juxtaposition creates a false impression about why the person was fired
2 - it violated contractual agreements between the two parties
That's a completely different issue, which has nothing to do with libel.
Certainly.
In either case, I think the court should have allowed him to argue the truthfulness of the statement, in light of how the email was worded and the terms of any termination agreement, and sidestepped the whole malice issue.
Maybe it's nobody's business, but the fact is that if it isn't a lie, and the company didn't sign an NDA, then it shouldn't be permissible to claim you were libeled.
Look at it this way - the consensus on/. seems to be the employee was guilty. What if it wasn't as the company contends? shouldn't you have the chance to prove them wrong?
The key point is that the trial court here has not considered any evidence yet. It made a purely legal ruling under Massachusetts law, and it was wrong because it failed to take into account the actual malice law.
No, the key point is that the legal principle that truth is an absolute defense against a charge of libel is under attack in Massachusetts.
This principle is one of the bedrocks upon which our freedom of speech is built.
You're right that it's not a bad ruling. It's a terrible ruling.
While I am 100% in agreement with your statement about the dangers of not allowing truth as an absolute libel defense, it would seem the truth of the statement may well be on doubt. I do not think it would be unreasonable to allow a court to decide if:
1 - the statement was in fact truthful and not merely one side's opinion and thus potentially libelous
2 - it violated contractual agreements between the two parties
Oh, come on. This is just more hysteria manufactured by people looking for money, fame and fortune.
A DDOS attack is hardly the same the thing as a shell and mortar attack. For one thing, a DDOS doesn't do, and by definition, can't do permanent damage, nor can it kill people.
Can we all just lay off the hype machine a little bit?
That's right, because it's only information flow that is being disrupted; the core information is intact. It's not like a hospital, emergency services, electric grid, air traffic control or other networks actually need to pass information to work properly.
You'd be surprised how easy it is get to sleep after eating a few babies. Knocks me right out. And I work in the intelligence community if that makes any difference to you.
Damn. What agency do you work for? Our budget for baby's got cut in the last budget cycle. We have to read policy statements to get a good night's rest.
Dilemma, both options bad: Either
The FBI's recordkeeping and information handling internally are as poor as for FOIA requests, which would mean that it has no coherent idea what is going on, and is thus only effective in cases where minimally coordinated local offices can do the job.
Actually, that's not that unusual in large organizations; and is acerbated by government bureaucracy and funding methods. For eh really serious stuff, organizations are generally good at coordination, but there's a lot of other lower level stuff that gets done pretty much on a local level and never is seen elsewhere; so unless you know it exists through experience or an informal network (let me call Bob in New York and see what he knows) it is lost to the broader organization. Most government organizations would love google-like access and searching to their files because it would make their job easier and they'd be more effective; the reality is they don't have the money to buy the technology that enables that capability; TV and Movies aside many organizations are years behind the tech curve.
Or,
The FBI finds it convenient to know nothing when those pesky people with their "rights" come knocking; which would mean that they are a cabal of hooverite scum and a threat to liberty and transparency.
My experience with government organizations is they really care about things like rights and liberty; probably more so than many of their fellow citizens and are willing to risk their lives defending their fellow citizens. Sure, there are a few bad apples, but that's not representative of the whole organization.
In the end, never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by bureaucracy.
Plenty of higher educational institutions (going back at least 30+ years (from my limited knowledge), especially with technical colleges) have great ways of determining success via core competency tracking of individual students. If the majority of students are not scoring well in their own individual required competencies, then it's a pretty good indicator (along with other tracked metrics and comparisons to other educators teaching the same competencies to other students) that the specific teacher is not performing well.
Personally I don't know what the solution is but to say that it's difficult to track this due to an individual student's learning capacity, ability, and desire is just nonsense to me.
Part of the problem is how do you ensure a reasonable level of ability across a population? In higher ed, in theory, you at least have entrance exam scores and HS grades to establish a rough baseline. While you have standardized test scores at the K-12 level to help id abilities you could then adjust competency levels to abilities but I don't see much of a move towards that type of analysis.
Unless you account for differing abilities you'll penalize teachers with the special ed kids in their class since some fraction of them will score below the required level; alternatively you may see a rise in SPEDs as schools and teachers realize that by mandating a child receive special adaptations during a test (as required by law) they can raise scores.
I think teachers would like some sort of merit pay - many that I know are frustrated with peers who simply cannot teach or are poor teachers; but they want a system that actually rewards performance and is not just another political "fix" that is ultimately ineffective.
Registered Coward,
I'm replying to a response you gave me a while ago (but since the story is archived, I couldn't reply over there).
While I've heard a lot of people say BB censors, beyond not carrying certain movies (such as NC17) I've never seen any hard evidence that they force studios to edit films prior to carrying them.
Now, studios may edit a movie with an eye towards will WalMart/BB et al carry it; but that's noting new - they've worried about what rating a movie will get before videotape.
I'd be curious to her about verified examples of BB editing a film before carrying it; not just refusing to carry a certain rated film or carrying an edited version that was released to general sales and not BB specific.
Blockbuster doesn't ask the movie studios to censor the movies they get from them, they go a step further, they censor the content themselves, and they replace it with an alternative to make the alteration seamless. For instance, Blockbuster censored "Team America" by the creators of South Park, and not to get a lower age rating. Blockbuster was also sued by some Holywood directors for censoring Movies without consulting them, and without even telling their audience that they did so. But Blockbuster won that case, the judge felt that the usual notice "This movie has been reformatted and edited to fit your screen. Blah, blah." was enough of a disclaimer to consumers, and that he really didn't want judges to get into the details of what part was cut for what reason, and what part wasn't.
And while I don't claim to be a film specialist, nor would I know how to edit a movie to make it fit a smaller screen that's not even proportional to the original one. If you do watch "Team America" in both the normal Blockbuster DVD version and the normal Netflix DVD version, I can pretty much guarantee you that you'll come to the same conclusion I did, that the Blockbuster version was really edited for offensive content, the examples are pretty glaring -- at least in that movie especially. Entire scenes have been cut from it, and even the dialogue was changed, so much so, that most of the jokes stopped making sense in the Blockbuster version (not that the original movie was that funny to begin with, I'm just saying...).
A quick check of Netflix and BB Online shows that NF rents the uncut version while BB rents the R rated theatrical release. BB didn't edit the disk, they simply only carried the R rated theatrical version; which was edited by the producers to avoid an NC-17 from the MPAA raters. Both DVD's are for sale at Amazon, BTW - so I doubt it was some special pressing for BB alone.
I can understand you don't agree with BB's stance of not carrying NC-17 movies (I'm not sure if they carry any unrated ones as well). That is a business decision, not censorship.
Quite frankly, the cost to BB to edit and press their own DVD's would not be worth it. It's far more lucrative to buy DVD's in bulk at a substantial discount, make rental income and then sell the DVD's for what they cost you or at a profit as a used DVD.
The only references to editing of DVDs and court cases were about products that allowed individuals to edit DVD's and an independent video store renting edit versions of DVD's (who bought an original for each edited copy to try to avoid being accused of piracy.) None of these involved BB - do you have a specific reference?
I'm guessing that not carrying NC-17/unrated movies doesn't cost them that much money to make it worthwhile. Personally, I think they should carry both and let customers decide what to rent; but that's their choice.
Obviously I am not in the market for one of these netbooks, but, I'm just wondering, WHO is the large target audience for these small screened, underpowered computers?
Is it for people that ONLY do a little websurfing and email? Even with that...why not pony up just a few more $$ and get a real laptop?
This is a question in general about the netbooks, not just the Apple one.
For many users web, email, and word.excel/powerpoint tasks can be done quite nicely on a netbook; and the savings in size and weight are very worthwhile; especially for people who travel a lot. The only down size is the small screen size in terms of larger spreadsheets or presentations.
I would seriously consider a MAC Netbook to replace my MacBook.
They aren't competent because they have no incentive to be -- if they screw up their computers, that's IT's problem. If it suddenly became their problem, they might see things a little differently.
Just for fun, here's a car analogy: A car is a rather complex piece of machinery, and takes a lot of training -- typically an entire class of driver's education. While some people go on to master it and become stunt drivers, or simply improve their skills and get a truck license, etc, most are content to at least reach some level of competence.
Complexity of a device has very little to do with the skills needed to operate it. A TV is a very complex device, yet 5 year olds can operate it effectively since it has a very simple UI.
Learning to drive has little to do with the complexity of the device- you can drive quite well and never have a clue about why the car works. Most people who drive couldn't tell the difference between the OBDC connector and the MAF; yet they can drive the car.
Good UI design and human factors allows people to operate very complex devices successfully with minimal or no knowledge of why they work - cell phones are one example; while poor design hinders the operation of the device. Even a simple thing as a door can hinder proper operation by poor design - such as how the handles are designed or what clues are given where to push to open a door.
Now, granted, many corporations don't like the idea of having to fire their best salesmen because said salesmen are morons about computers. But that only perpetuates the myth that it's somehow hard to attain some level of competence, and allows the salesmen to continue to see computer knowledge as somehow beneath them.
The computer is a tool - as long as it does what the user needs they need not understand why it works. A salesperson only needs to be able to understand how to produce the material they need to make sales; not what's under the keyboard.
Understanding why something works as it does is only necessary when you need to make decisions based on indications - for example, a nuke plant operator needs to understand a lot about the science behind the plant in order to make the right diagnostics and decisions based on plant conditions.
Effectively enforcing IT policies will seriously do harm to the work of many others.
When I need something, I ask for it. IT policy used to be the answer NO. To me that was the most ideal situation. I could just say: Sorry, can't do my job, because I do not have the tools. No PC? IT should bring me one. No web browser? IT should bring me one. No specialized program? IT should take care that I get it.
And I often need specialized programs that I alone need in the company. So either I get them, or I can not do my job.
And that goes in against IT policy where they say only programs X, Y and Z are allowed, while I need A, B or C. And I look then for FOSS programs, so there is no license issue. So I (and IT) either break the IT policy, so I can do my work, or they keep faithfull to it and I can't.
You are confusing stupid policies with effective controls. A company can maintain effective control of systems while still meeting user needs. I've worked for companies like that.
Please do not forget that IT is a service. To me that means thinking together. Not one or the other deciding what is important.
I wholeheartedly agree. It's amazing what you can get done if you follow the old dictum of playing nice in the sandbox. I go to IT with a reasoned argument for why I need X, and we come to a solution that works. Sometimes it's buy X, other times it's something else but I never felt like they were stopping me from getting what I need; in fact I've always felt they were doing their best to help me.
Unfortunately, many people here have this knee jerk reaction to the idea of having IT policies and enforcing them.
You think using technology to help enforce an IT policy and respecting your employees are mutually exclusive aims? I strongly disagree.
A small contingent of 'bad apples' can do serious harm if you do not effectively enforce IT policies. It's not possible to guarantee there is no one like this in your company, so you should protect the company and other staff from from them.
I don't think we disagree - while most users will be fine without restrictions, it's that one or two that will cause problems that necessitate the lockdown. My experience if you work with IT you can get a lot of what you need without hassle.
Respecting staff won't stop douchebags being douchebags and screwing up your systems.
Never underestimate the the cleverness of douchebags. Even if they all are piss and vinegar...
How often have I bought a component and had it shipped, and the packaging is about 20 times larger than necessary?
It's not like I'm buying nitroglycerin, damn it.
Part of the problem is a company generally doesn't know what size boxes it would need in advance, so it's often cheaper to have a few standard sizes to handle all of the boxed shipping requirements. The can by a few sizes in bulk for a lot less than a lot of random sizes. In addition, it speeds the packing process because you don't have to decide what size box you need from a large set of sizes and repack if you run out of space. I'd guess, even if you had a variety of sizes some 80% of the shipments would go out in one of two or three box sizes; so standardizing makes sense from a cost perspective.
Companies that ship the same item over and over, especially via airfreight, find it useful to have a special box for those items; and work with box engineers at the shipper to design the best possible box. Shippers like dense packing - so they don't run out of space before the run out of payload weight; especially since they tend to charge by the pound rather than cubic meter.
Having worked at this facility in the '80's as an engineer, I can say definitively that this scenario is either misunderstood, or incorrectly reported, or deliberately obfuscated, or a lie, or postulated from sketchy evidence, but it is factually and wholly wrong.
Every project for every material or product, special or otherwise, was properly documented. These files would not be destroyed. (Note here that I'm assuming the files on "fogbank" were not lost in an accident or by malicious destruction.)
Now, has the practical and hands-on knowledge of the step-by-step, moment-by-moment synthesis reaction to make this material been lost? Perhaps in the course of 25 years it has. Lots of people have left the plant since then. But all the information, notations and observations necessary to reconstruct the process/project do exist, I assure you.
Great point. My experience is often when people we say "we lost the instructions..." they really mean:
1. We've scrapped the production line and its components so we do not have the physical capability to build x anymore, or
2. We have the instructions but since we last did this 25 years ago all the people who knew the little tricks to really make it work are long gone.
Another possibility is the files have been moved so many times over the years to make space for new material that nobody remembers where they are anymore.Probably locked up in some obscure SCIF, waiting to be moved again when the space is needed.
Because at one time they were an AWESOME company. They were the first big chain to accept returns for any reason, no questions asked. At the time, it was a big idea, there were newspaper articles trying to figure out how they could afford to do that. Their motto was "Come to circuit city. Where service is state of the art."
Then over time, other companies started accepting returns for any reason as well. The gimmick of "matching your competitor's price" stopped bringing in as much traffic. People in the US aren't actually willing to pay for good service, so the service quality started to decline, and they failed to keep up with their competitors.
But back in the day, they were really innovative (well, as innovative as one can be as a chain retailer).
Well, the price match deal is a way to keep prices high; and isn't that new of an idea. Crazy Eddie did it in the early 80's on Long Island.
CC may best be remembered for starting CarMax; an idea that seems to have staying power. The idea, of course, being to remove the negotiations from a car deal and have reasonable (read below Blue Book) pricing and decent cars.
God job avoiding the question, but no fair changing the rules. Please remain devil's advocate,
Would being an advocate for teh devil not require me toi believe in his existance?
Metaphor is certainly a useful tool in building a basis for understanding in students or layfolk. Continuing with the metaphor as fact after that however is rather a problem.
That is the difference, IMHO, between religion and faith. Faith is a personal belief in a creator who has a plan (which we cannot fathom) and a willingness to accept that plan. It is, to me, a deeply personal thing that does not require either the validation or understanding of others; nor my attempting to force it on others.
Religion, on the other hand is a set of dogma that attempts to impose rules on its adherence and often, IMHO, interferes with faith. Religion, not faith, is the cause of many problems; especially when it is blindly followed by people who cannot accept divergent viewpoints and seek to force their correct beliefs on others.
It leads to all sorts of nastiness like insistence that the metaphor is The Truth rather than simply a metaphor.
Clinging to a metaphor such that it warms the heart is entirely understandable. One must nevertheless endeavor to separate fantasy from reality, and not excuse those who fail to do so, because those are the people who will make your children's lives miserable with their foolishness.
That's because religion can result in narrow minded fools who must have the right answer; and are to weak to think for themselves.
Religious stories,if viewed as that - stories that provide insight and attempt to explain the why, not the how, of God's plan are fine. Taking them as gospel and literal depictions of the how is where religion starts to go wrong.
I understand and share your concern about the impact of such literal interpretations on others. I had a friend who the local Fellowship of Christian Athletes did not went to let join because he was Catholic, and hence not Christian (according to their religious views). Once again religion rears it's ugly head. To his credit, he said FU and joined anyway.
That's not say religion is bad - if it gives you comfort to have a structure and defined beliefs, fine. Just don't attempt to force others to follow your dogma. Explain it, live it, take comfort in it just leave me out of it.
So, to sum up; I think you need to separate faith from religion. Once you do that; there is no conflict between science and God. In fact, you could say God was a pretty darn good engineer for developing the evolutionary process; or you can say there is no God and continue to work in the realm of science.
Slashdot Mirror
Travel for business sounds wonderful, until you actually have to do it. You read about it in books or watch it on TV and it all looks great -- you go to fun places, you eat at fancy restaurants and unlimited free drinks that are paid for, you get to stay at great hotels etc. But what they don't tell you is that you don't enjoy any of it. Not a moment.
Amen, brother. I never understood why my B-School classmates thought my million miler status on an airline was cool - It's God's way of reminding you you have no life.
When I interview someone and they say traveling is one reason they want to be a consultant I wonder if the are just stupid, naive, or both.
Why are manhole covers round? Only the ones that are designed to be removable from the same side of the opening that they are set into are round, the one that go through the hole when removed are ovoid.
Why aren't the ovoid ones rectangular?
Word to the wise. If you can't discuss something in your field outside of your class work, you failed college regardless of what your final GPA was.
yeah it's a b**ch to interview with me. ;-)
I've always thought the best and most important part of the interview was when I get to ask things like:
Why are manhole covers round?
How many ping pong balls can you fit in a shoebox?
If you don't pass the airline seat test I don't recommend hiring you.
I'm sure very generation found the next challenging because of differing viewpoints. Most of the older staff realize once the grow up a bit they'll be all right.
My experience is many simply do not understand that it is simply not technical knowledge that is needed for a job. You send experienced people overseas because you know they can do the job when things go wrong. You've worked with them, you trust them; an they have the scars from dealing with problems. Of course, they know overseas travel is a pain in the butt and would just as soon let the new hires suffer through it.
Most whining I chalk up to youth. I've known some friends in other companies say the new hires were upset over the small raises this year; and didn't understand when the experienced staff's reaction was STFU and be happy we got any this year. Eventually they'll learn.
So before you would turn in an online rental and get a new in-store rental AND be sent a new online rental DVD as well? So lets say I had a 2 at a time plan... I turn in one, get an in-store rental and a new online one sent as well.. I then turn in my new online one and get another in-store rental and have a new online one sent.. so I now have 2 in-store rentals and 2 online.. rinse and repeat and I can have infinite in-store rentals?
This makes no sense. It also makes no sense to expect this. Please tell me I am missing something.
Basically, yes. Some plans had a limit to the number of in store free rentals; others do not. In addition, you got a coupon for a free game or movie rental once or twice a month.
Learning to drive has little to do with the complexity of the device- you can drive quite well and never have a clue about why the car works.
This is true.
You do need to know the basic principles, however. You don't need to know the physics of how hydroplaning works, but you do need to know to slow down when there's water on the road. You don't need to know exactly how shifting into reverse on the highway will tear your transmission to shreds -- actually, I don't have a clue, maybe the transmission is fine and the engine explodes -- you just need to know it is a Bad Idea.
But you haven't provided a case for why computer users shouldn't be required to attain at least a basic level of competency.
Competency is different from complexity. The notion that simply because a device is complex that it should require greater effort to master is nonsense. You stated:./P>
A car is a rather complex piece of machinery, and takes a lot of training -- typically an entire class of driver's education.
The need for driver's ed has nothing to do with the complexity of the car; rather it's about the motor skills, judgment, and understanding of the rules of the road. Look at basketball, for instance. It's machinery is simple - a ball, a hoop; and yet mastering it takes a lot longer than learning to drive and even then many will never be good at it yet are decent drivers.
A salesperson only needs to be able to understand how to produce the material they need to make sales; not what's under the keyboard.
But they do need to understand how to do their job effectively, which includes not screwing up what's under the keyboard.
I could, for example, slam on the brakes at every intersection, tires squealing, because it's the only way I know to stop. I could leave the key at the "start" position for a full two minutes because someone told me it was a good idea. I could leave my seatbelt unbuckled, because it really has nothing to do with getting where I'm going -- if anything, it's an annoyance, slowing me down when I need to reach for something. And I could be willfully ignorant of basic maintenance, never changing the oil.
Again, that has nothing to do with the complexity of the device; it's about a failure to understand the basic rules of effective and safe operation.
Then, I would either be killed, or I would bring the car in for maintenance much more often, spending much more money on replacement parts that I destroyed through my own ignorance, and all the while complaining that it's somehow the manufacturer's fault -- if skidding is so bad, a car shouldn't let me do it! The ignition should just be an on-off switch -- or better yet, a button, like computers have! The oil should tell me it needs to be changed! That light is unintuitive -- it should tell me in plain english, like any good error message!?
Actually, you've hit on a key problem with design - poor human factors. Proper design goes a long way to eliminating human error; and far to many people blame the operator when the system design lead to the error. An ignition switch can be designed to cutoff or not engage the starter solenoid when the engine is running; and the Prius actually has a start button. Good design lessens the need for training an helps reduce errors.
Understanding why something works is not necessary. But there is a basic level of competence that is generally required in every other industry. If someone behaved as I've described with a car, they'd be lucky to still have their license -- yet people behave this way every day with computers.
And keep in mind: There is an entire high school class called "Driver's Education". I see no reason there couldn't be a similar class on basic computer usage and maintenance. And I don't mean "this is a mouse" education -- everyone knows, no one holds up a steering wheel and says
No one is arguing with you. Everyone is saying they can't believe the court is saying even if he can't clear his name, because it is dirty, they are still in trouble.
I realize no one is arguing that he shouldn't be able to clear his name and that truth should be an affirmative defense to libel.
However, how the truth is presented could present him in a false light and thus open the employer up to a libel lawsuit. In that case, truth alone is not enough; and there need not, IMHO, be a need to prove malice.
If the client wasn't guilty, then clearly it would be libel (not to mention wrongful dismissal in many places).
I'm not saying it was a good thing, and it might very well be that there are privacy statutes that might have been violated (that really is very dependent on where you are, of course). But I don't think one should be able to sue for libel when, in fact, the statements being made were true.
From the article it's not clear if the original statement was true; nor the context of the email and what it implied.
At any rate, he should have an opportunity to clear his name; if in fact he actions were innocent errors and not intentionally deceptive.
No, the key point is that the legal principle that truth is an absolute defense against a charge of libel is under attack in Massachusetts.
This principle is one of the bedrocks upon which our freedom of speech is built.
You're right that it's not a bad ruling. It's a terrible ruling.
While I am 100% in agreement with your statement about the dangers of not allowing truth as an absolute libel defense, it would seem the truth of the statement may well be on doubt. I do not think it would be unreasonable to allow a court to decide if:
1 - the statement was in fact truthful and not merely one side's opinion and thus potentially libelous
Of course. That's why we have jury trials. But that's not what this court ruling was about. This ruling was that it doesn't matter whether or not it's true; truth is not a defense.
Oddly enough, I agree with your concern over the ruling; however I do not think it is unreasonable to allow the employee for defamation. Part of for problem is it is not clear from the article all of the details surrounding the case. While each individual statement may be true the context of the email may be such to present a false picture of the circumstances
For example, citing specific parts of a policy would imply that the employee violated them. You did not say they did; so they are still true statements, but their juxtaposition creates a false impression about why the person was fired
2 - it violated contractual agreements between the two parties
That's a completely different issue, which has nothing to do with libel.
Certainly.
In either case, I think the court should have allowed him to argue the truthfulness of the statement, in light of how the email was worded and the terms of any termination agreement, and sidestepped the whole malice issue.
Maybe it's nobody's business, but the fact is that if it isn't a lie, and the company didn't sign an NDA, then it shouldn't be permissible to claim you were libeled.
Look at it this way - the consensus on /. seems to be the employee was guilty. What if it wasn't as the company contends? shouldn't you have the chance to prove them wrong?
The key point is that the trial court here has not considered any evidence yet. It made a purely legal ruling under Massachusetts law, and it was wrong because it failed to take into account the actual malice law.
No, the key point is that the legal principle that truth is an absolute defense against a charge of libel is under attack in Massachusetts.
This principle is one of the bedrocks upon which our freedom of speech is built.
You're right that it's not a bad ruling. It's a terrible ruling.
While I am 100% in agreement with your statement about the dangers of not allowing truth as an absolute libel defense, it would seem the truth of the statement may well be on doubt. I do not think it would be unreasonable to allow a court to decide if:
1 - the statement was in fact truthful and not merely one side's opinion and thus potentially libelous
2 - it violated contractual agreements between the two parties
Oh, come on. This is just more hysteria manufactured by people looking for money, fame and fortune.
A DDOS attack is hardly the same the thing as a shell and mortar attack. For one thing, a DDOS doesn't do, and by definition, can't do permanent damage, nor can it kill people.
Can we all just lay off the hype machine a little bit?
That's right, because it's only information flow that is being disrupted; the core information is intact. It's not like a hospital, emergency services, electric grid, air traffic control or other networks actually need to pass information to work properly.
You'd be surprised how easy it is get to sleep after eating a few babies. Knocks me right out. And I work in the intelligence community if that makes any difference to you.
Damn. What agency do you work for? Our budget for baby's got cut in the last budget cycle. We have to read policy statements to get a good night's rest.
Dilemma, both options bad: Either The FBI's recordkeeping and information handling internally are as poor as for FOIA requests, which would mean that it has no coherent idea what is going on, and is thus only effective in cases where minimally coordinated local offices can do the job.
Actually, that's not that unusual in large organizations; and is acerbated by government bureaucracy and funding methods. For eh really serious stuff, organizations are generally good at coordination, but there's a lot of other lower level stuff that gets done pretty much on a local level and never is seen elsewhere; so unless you know it exists through experience or an informal network (let me call Bob in New York and see what he knows) it is lost to the broader organization. Most government organizations would love google-like access and searching to their files because it would make their job easier and they'd be more effective; the reality is they don't have the money to buy the technology that enables that capability; TV and Movies aside many organizations are years behind the tech curve.
Or, The FBI finds it convenient to know nothing when those pesky people with their "rights" come knocking; which would mean that they are a cabal of hooverite scum and a threat to liberty and transparency.
My experience with government organizations is they really care about things like rights and liberty; probably more so than many of their fellow citizens and are willing to risk their lives defending their fellow citizens. Sure, there are a few bad apples, but that's not representative of the whole organization.
In the end, never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by bureaucracy.
Plenty of higher educational institutions (going back at least 30+ years (from my limited knowledge), especially with technical colleges) have great ways of determining success via core competency tracking of individual students. If the majority of students are not scoring well in their own individual required competencies, then it's a pretty good indicator (along with other tracked metrics and comparisons to other educators teaching the same competencies to other students) that the specific teacher is not performing well.
Personally I don't know what the solution is but to say that it's difficult to track this due to an individual student's learning capacity, ability, and desire is just nonsense to me.
Part of the problem is how do you ensure a reasonable level of ability across a population? In higher ed, in theory, you at least have entrance exam scores and HS grades to establish a rough baseline. While you have standardized test scores at the K-12 level to help id abilities you could then adjust competency levels to abilities but I don't see much of a move towards that type of analysis.
Unless you account for differing abilities you'll penalize teachers with the special ed kids in their class since some fraction of them will score below the required level; alternatively you may see a rise in SPEDs as schools and teachers realize that by mandating a child receive special adaptations during a test (as required by law) they can raise scores.
I think teachers would like some sort of merit pay - many that I know are frustrated with peers who simply cannot teach or are poor teachers; but they want a system that actually rewards performance and is not just another political "fix" that is ultimately ineffective.
Registered Coward, I'm replying to a response you gave me a while ago (but since the story is archived, I couldn't reply over there).
Blockbuster doesn't ask the movie studios to censor the movies they get from them, they go a step further, they censor the content themselves, and they replace it with an alternative to make the alteration seamless. For instance, Blockbuster censored "Team America" by the creators of South Park, and not to get a lower age rating. Blockbuster was also sued by some Holywood directors for censoring Movies without consulting them, and without even telling their audience that they did so. But Blockbuster won that case, the judge felt that the usual notice "This movie has been reformatted and edited to fit your screen. Blah, blah." was enough of a disclaimer to consumers, and that he really didn't want judges to get into the details of what part was cut for what reason, and what part wasn't.
And while I don't claim to be a film specialist, nor would I know how to edit a movie to make it fit a smaller screen that's not even proportional to the original one. If you do watch "Team America" in both the normal Blockbuster DVD version and the normal Netflix DVD version, I can pretty much guarantee you that you'll come to the same conclusion I did, that the Blockbuster version was really edited for offensive content, the examples are pretty glaring -- at least in that movie especially. Entire scenes have been cut from it, and even the dialogue was changed, so much so, that most of the jokes stopped making sense in the Blockbuster version (not that the original movie was that funny to begin with, I'm just saying...).
A quick check of Netflix and BB Online shows that NF rents the uncut version while BB rents the R rated theatrical release. BB didn't edit the disk, they simply only carried the R rated theatrical version; which was edited by the producers to avoid an NC-17 from the MPAA raters. Both DVD's are for sale at Amazon, BTW - so I doubt it was some special pressing for BB alone.
I can understand you don't agree with BB's stance of not carrying NC-17 movies (I'm not sure if they carry any unrated ones as well). That is a business decision, not censorship.
Quite frankly, the cost to BB to edit and press their own DVD's would not be worth it. It's far more lucrative to buy DVD's in bulk at a substantial discount, make rental income and then sell the DVD's for what they cost you or at a profit as a used DVD.
The only references to editing of DVDs and court cases were about products that allowed individuals to edit DVD's and an independent video store renting edit versions of DVD's (who bought an original for each edited copy to try to avoid being accused of piracy.) None of these involved BB - do you have a specific reference?
I'm guessing that not carrying NC-17/unrated movies doesn't cost them that much money to make it worthwhile. Personally, I think they should carry both and let customers decide what to rent; but that's their choice.
Obviously I am not in the market for one of these netbooks, but, I'm just wondering, WHO is the large target audience for these small screened, underpowered computers?
Is it for people that ONLY do a little websurfing and email? Even with that...why not pony up just a few more $$ and get a real laptop?
This is a question in general about the netbooks, not just the Apple one.
For many users web, email, and word.excel/powerpoint tasks can be done quite nicely on a netbook; and the savings in size and weight are very worthwhile; especially for people who travel a lot. The only down size is the small screen size in terms of larger spreadsheets or presentations.
I would seriously consider a MAC Netbook to replace my MacBook.
They aren't competent because they have no incentive to be -- if they screw up their computers, that's IT's problem. If it suddenly became their problem, they might see things a little differently.
Just for fun, here's a car analogy: A car is a rather complex piece of machinery, and takes a lot of training -- typically an entire class of driver's education. While some people go on to master it and become stunt drivers, or simply improve their skills and get a truck license, etc, most are content to at least reach some level of competence.
Complexity of a device has very little to do with the skills needed to operate it. A TV is a very complex device, yet 5 year olds can operate it effectively since it has a very simple UI.
Learning to drive has little to do with the complexity of the device- you can drive quite well and never have a clue about why the car works. Most people who drive couldn't tell the difference between the OBDC connector and the MAF; yet they can drive the car.
Good UI design and human factors allows people to operate very complex devices successfully with minimal or no knowledge of why they work - cell phones are one example; while poor design hinders the operation of the device. Even a simple thing as a door can hinder proper operation by poor design - such as how the handles are designed or what clues are given where to push to open a door.
Now, granted, many corporations don't like the idea of having to fire their best salesmen because said salesmen are morons about computers. But that only perpetuates the myth that it's somehow hard to attain some level of competence, and allows the salesmen to continue to see computer knowledge as somehow beneath them.
The computer is a tool - as long as it does what the user needs they need not understand why it works. A salesperson only needs to be able to understand how to produce the material they need to make sales; not what's under the keyboard.
Understanding why something works as it does is only necessary when you need to make decisions based on indications - for example, a nuke plant operator needs to understand a lot about the science behind the plant in order to make the right diagnostics and decisions based on plant conditions.
Effectively enforcing IT policies will seriously do harm to the work of many others.
When I need something, I ask for it. IT policy used to be the answer NO. To me that was the most ideal situation. I could just say: Sorry, can't do my job, because I do not have the tools. No PC? IT should bring me one. No web browser? IT should bring me one. No specialized program? IT should take care that I get it. And I often need specialized programs that I alone need in the company. So either I get them, or I can not do my job.
And that goes in against IT policy where they say only programs X, Y and Z are allowed, while I need A, B or C. And I look then for FOSS programs, so there is no license issue. So I (and IT) either break the IT policy, so I can do my work, or they keep faithfull to it and I can't.
You are confusing stupid policies with effective controls. A company can maintain effective control of systems while still meeting user needs. I've worked for companies like that.
Please do not forget that IT is a service. To me that means thinking together. Not one or the other deciding what is important.
I wholeheartedly agree. It's amazing what you can get done if you follow the old dictum of playing nice in the sandbox. I go to IT with a reasoned argument for why I need X, and we come to a solution that works. Sometimes it's buy X, other times it's something else but I never felt like they were stopping me from getting what I need; in fact I've always felt they were doing their best to help me.
Unfortunately, many people here have this knee jerk reaction to the idea of having IT policies and enforcing them.
You think using technology to help enforce an IT policy and respecting your employees are mutually exclusive aims? I strongly disagree.
A small contingent of 'bad apples' can do serious harm if you do not effectively enforce IT policies. It's not possible to guarantee there is no one like this in your company, so you should protect the company and other staff from from them.
I don't think we disagree - while most users will be fine without restrictions, it's that one or two that will cause problems that necessitate the lockdown. My experience if you work with IT you can get a lot of what you need without hassle.
Respecting staff won't stop douchebags being douchebags and screwing up your systems.
Never underestimate the the cleverness of douchebags. Even if they all are piss and vinegar...
Instead of spending $$$ on bondage and discipline, how about treating your users like adult human beings?
Because a number of them will wind up installing aps that put the company at risk?
are not being used as it is.
How often have I bought a component and had it shipped, and the packaging is about 20 times larger than necessary?
It's not like I'm buying nitroglycerin, damn it.
Part of the problem is a company generally doesn't know what size boxes it would need in advance, so it's often cheaper to have a few standard sizes to handle all of the boxed shipping requirements. The can by a few sizes in bulk for a lot less than a lot of random sizes. In addition, it speeds the packing process because you don't have to decide what size box you need from a large set of sizes and repack if you run out of space. I'd guess, even if you had a variety of sizes some 80% of the shipments would go out in one of two or three box sizes; so standardizing makes sense from a cost perspective.
Companies that ship the same item over and over, especially via airfreight, find it useful to have a special box for those items; and work with box engineers at the shipper to design the best possible box. Shippers like dense packing - so they don't run out of space before the run out of payload weight; especially since they tend to charge by the pound rather than cubic meter.
Having worked at this facility in the '80's as an engineer, I can say definitively that this scenario is either misunderstood, or incorrectly reported, or deliberately obfuscated, or a lie, or postulated from sketchy evidence, but it is factually and wholly wrong.
Every project for every material or product, special or otherwise, was properly documented. These files would not be destroyed. (Note here that I'm assuming the files on "fogbank" were not lost in an accident or by malicious destruction.)
Now, has the practical and hands-on knowledge of the step-by-step, moment-by-moment synthesis reaction to make this material been lost? Perhaps in the course of 25 years it has. Lots of people have left the plant since then. But all the information, notations and observations necessary to reconstruct the process/project do exist, I assure you.
Great point. My experience is often when people we say "we lost the instructions..." they really mean:
1. We've scrapped the production line and its components so we do not have the physical capability to build x anymore, or
2. We have the instructions but since we last did this 25 years ago all the people who knew the little tricks to really make it work are long gone.
Another possibility is the files have been moved so many times over the years to make space for new material that nobody remembers where they are anymore.Probably locked up in some obscure SCIF, waiting to be moved again when the space is needed.
Because at one time they were an AWESOME company. They were the first big chain to accept returns for any reason, no questions asked. At the time, it was a big idea, there were newspaper articles trying to figure out how they could afford to do that. Their motto was "Come to circuit city. Where service is state of the art." Then over time, other companies started accepting returns for any reason as well. The gimmick of "matching your competitor's price" stopped bringing in as much traffic. People in the US aren't actually willing to pay for good service, so the service quality started to decline, and they failed to keep up with their competitors. But back in the day, they were really innovative (well, as innovative as one can be as a chain retailer).
Well, the price match deal is a way to keep prices high; and isn't that new of an idea. Crazy Eddie did it in the early 80's on Long Island.
CC may best be remembered for starting CarMax; an idea that seems to have staying power. The idea, of course, being to remove the negotiations from a car deal and have reasonable (read below Blue Book) pricing and decent cars.
God job avoiding the question, but no fair changing the rules. Please remain devil's advocate,
Would being an advocate for teh devil not require me toi believe in his existance?
Metaphor is certainly a useful tool in building a basis for understanding in students or layfolk. Continuing with the metaphor as fact after that however is rather a problem.
That is the difference, IMHO, between religion and faith. Faith is a personal belief in a creator who has a plan (which we cannot fathom) and a willingness to accept that plan. It is, to me, a deeply personal thing that does not require either the validation or understanding of others; nor my attempting to force it on others.
Religion, on the other hand is a set of dogma that attempts to impose rules on its adherence and often, IMHO, interferes with faith. Religion, not faith, is the cause of many problems; especially when it is blindly followed by people who cannot accept divergent viewpoints and seek to force their correct beliefs on others.
It leads to all sorts of nastiness like insistence that the metaphor is The Truth rather than simply a metaphor.
Clinging to a metaphor such that it warms the heart is entirely understandable. One must nevertheless endeavor to separate fantasy from reality, and not excuse those who fail to do so, because those are the people who will make your children's lives miserable with their foolishness.
That's because religion can result in narrow minded fools who must have the right answer; and are to weak to think for themselves.
Religious stories,if viewed as that - stories that provide insight and attempt to explain the why, not the how, of God's plan are fine. Taking them as gospel and literal depictions of the how is where religion starts to go wrong.
I understand and share your concern about the impact of such literal interpretations on others. I had a friend who the local Fellowship of Christian Athletes did not went to let join because he was Catholic, and hence not Christian (according to their religious views). Once again religion rears it's ugly head. To his credit, he said FU and joined anyway.
That's not say religion is bad - if it gives you comfort to have a structure and defined beliefs, fine. Just don't attempt to force others to follow your dogma. Explain it, live it, take comfort in it just leave me out of it.
So, to sum up; I think you need to separate faith from religion. Once you do that; there is no conflict between science and God. In fact, you could say God was a pretty darn good engineer for developing the evolutionary process; or you can say there is no God and continue to work in the realm of science.