The problem is that the definition of "something wrong" will be drawn ever more widely by right wingnuts.
This isn't limited to the right. The left are just as likely to pass laws limiting freedoms as the right are, they'll just have a different set of criteria for choosing the laws. Both left and right are equally interesting in telling everyone else what to do and how to live their lives.
The point is, it's hard to know. So your best bet is really to just get off the internet so we can all stop wasting our time on stories like these winding up on the front page.
No, the best bet would be for us to do whatever the fuck we want with our browsers - including refusing cookies or tossing them out when the session ends. End of discussion. I mean, really - what're going to do about it? Tell us to get off "the web" again? Oooh, I'm impressed!
there is no PET scan or any kind of thing that would tell you definately, 'this person has depression'.
I don't see your point. It's possible with imaging technology to see chemical changes in the brain associated with certain behaviors. Severe depressives have a markedly altered brain chemistry that sets them apart from people who're just plain ol' depressed. They're even more distinguished in that the radical imbalance lasts for inordinate periods of time.
You can correlate these two things, just as you can use a PET scan to identify classical schizophrenia.
Severe depression IS a biologically-based disorder, just as schizophrenia and severe OCD are. All of these things stem from a malfunction, genetic defect, or outright brain damage. You CANNOT 'cure' severe depressives with therapy any more than you can cure appendicitis by chatting about it with your doctor.
The brain is an organ like any other. And it can be damaged like any other. To think that you can 'talk' someone out of a physical dysfunction is ludicrous.
If anything, it's the opposite: though I take my employer's money, he takes large portions of my life. Which do you think is more valuable? Who should be more grateful?
No one. It's a business relationship. It's called "capitalism". You contract your time and energy to the employer in return for wages. Neither party has any reason to be "grateful" for anything; that's just socialist nonsense.
Given that so many employers aren't willing to keep up their end of the bargin (decent treatment), it's no wonder that employees won't keep up their end (productivity/results).
You don't get to define what is or is not decent treatment, unless it's stipulated by law or a clause in your contract. If that bothers you then quit the job you think is treating you poorly and remember to include those clauses in your next contract.
So of course it's up to me to make the decision of how much work is appropriate for me to do that day.
No, it isn't. You've entered into a contract to specifically work a number of hours for employer X. Fail to work those hours - violate your contract - but take pay for them anyway and you're committing the crime of 'fraud'.
Employers should recognize, however, that they are employing PEOPLE and not machines, and people, very much like gorillas, need healthy social interaction and pleasant environments in order to be their best.
Yet another whining liberal who can't stand the thought that he actually has to honor his obligations - and that those obligations aren't his to determine once he takes the job. Run all the smoke you want, in the end you're just a scamming little loser trying to justify screwing your employer.
Not that this makes you unusual. People like you are a dime a dozen.
Their concerns aren't my concerns. If their business model has some holes in it, it isn't my job to help plug 'em. I don't give a shit about their "worries", nor am I obligated in any way, shape or form to help them on the road to profit.
My computer is my own. If I say you can't install a cookie on my browser then you don't get to install a cookie on my browser. It doesn't matter WHAT the cookie does; the only thing that matters is that I've said "it's my property, and I'm tell you to fuck off. So fuck off already." The fact that you may not like that *doesn't matter for shit*.
The difference is we have no objective way of knowing if someone is depressed because their mind is reacting reasonably to their environment, or if their brain is not working properly.
I don't know why you'd think this. It's fairly easy even for an amateur to discern whether or not the reaction of a person in response to their environment is reasonable or not. In fact, our entire justice system is based upon that idea.
Severe depressives, just like schizophrenics, paranoids, etc. are clearly not reacting to their environment in anything like a reasonable manner. For a good number of disorders you can corroborate the existence of a problem via diagnostic tools like the PET scan.
It may not be possible for the PATIENT to objectively determine the severity of their problem, but it certainly is possible for a trained professional with modern diagnostic tools to do so, at least when it comes to these biologically-based disorders.
You may be able to improve the quality of life of a patient through therapy in select cases, but if the underlying problem is a defect in the brain then no amount of counseling is going to cure the person in question. The depressives that're going to use this device are severe cases, and there's a heap of evidence that shows that this sort of depression stems from a biological malfunction completely independent of outside influences.
Therapy won't help these people any more than therapy will help a classic schizophrenic.
It's as if I had said, "Why shouldn't you expect to be treated with a base minimum of respect?" and you replied that I could be a hermit.
No, I pointed out that your situation is in no way, shape or form like that of the gorillas. You have a choice about where you want to be; they don't.
So why shouldn't we, as people, expect to be treated humanely? Saying that I can quit doesn't answer the question.
You seem to think it's a given that screwing around while you're supposed to be working is the same as being "treated humanely". Me, I call that "cheating the company" and "violating your contract". You're there to WORK, and not just whatever portion of the day you feel is appropriate; it isn't up to YOU to make that decision. If you want that sort of power then start your own business instead of ripping your current employer off and trying to justify your actions on Slashdot.
Don't even try to come back with some "lunch hour" bullcrap, 'cause you said it yourself, that you're being paid to work "ALL OF THE TIME".
One of the perks of owning your own business is that since you're the boss you get to work WHENEVER THE HELL YOU FEEL LIKE IT. You're the boss - you make the rules.
Can't say I've been to Radio Shack much, but the last time I went was to pick up a $9 cable while I was out running some errands. Went up to the counter, plunked down the cable and a $10 bill, and spent the next five minutes telling the obnoxious little shit at the register that he wasn't ever going to get my name and phone number no matter what he argued. This conversation wouldn't even have lasted that long had I not been startled and more than a bit confused over why the snot-nosed punk was asking for personal information when CASH was sitting on the counter.
Finally it came down to me telling him to either sell me the damn cable right then and there, or forget about the sale altogether. I walked out with both the cable and the resolve to never, ever set foot in a Radio Shack again, anywhere, for any reason. And I haven't.
Perhaps there aren't enough folks like me to make much of a difference, but when a company pisses me I tend to boycott it - forever. And that includes companies who've called my home when I've expressly told them to piss off and never bother me again. I eventually ended up terminating my land-line service, but not before a number of companies ended up on the Eternal Shit List (e.g., AT&T).
No thanks. As it currently stands the laws that apply are those of the state of the person that's being called. My state has some pretty tough laws concerning telemarketing and I seriously doubt the bought-and-paid-for feds will set anything like the standards that we have. As long as I live in this state everyone who calls me MUST abide by the those laws, regardless of where they themselves happen to be.
A federal law may 'simplify' things for telemarketers, but all it'll do for the rest of us is strip us of yet more local power and authority.
It is illegal. We did the same thing - threw out the land line - and now we don't get ANY telemarketing calls. Or annoying calls from politicians looking for a buck.
Pretty sweet. Wouldn't go back to having a land line if YOU paid ME.
Quite simply, it'd almost undoubtably be a huge violation of the first amendment in the US to pass a law which says "you can't phone people and promote your political views"
Not true. You have a right to free speech. You dont' have a right to *make anyone listen to you*.
Think about it: when we capture gorillas and put them in a zoo, we insist that they're provided with the company of other gorillas. We give them toys. We try to make their habitat as "natural" as possible. In the zoo exhibit that is your cubical, why shouldn't you be given the same courtesy?
Because the gorillas don't have a choice in the matter; you do. If you think the company is demanding too much of your time, you can always quit and go look for a less-demanding job.
Some people still goof off the old fashioned way. One of my coworkers seems to be on the phone constantly. I see people reading magazines. There's a guy with a guitar in his office. People zone out and listen to iPods. I knocked on one guy's door, got no answer and found him asleep on the floor.
But that is a management problem not a technology problem
Exactly right. If the employee has the time to dick around surfing the internet then the manager obviously isn't giving that employee enough work, nor keeping tabs on what that employee is doing. After all, that employee is being paid to WORK while at work, not screw around on sites like Slashdot.
It's incumbent upon the manager to make sure that the employee's day is filled with work, and to fire employees who just can't seem to wrap their brains around the fact that they're being paid to work ALL OF THE TIME, not just some fraction of it. And in this economy there are plenty of folks available to replace some lazy little prick who thinks he has a 'right' to screw around on the company dime.
Managers, chuck the employees who never grew up or who're dead weight for hours out of the day and you won't have to waste company resources monitoring your work force in the first place. Don't give the losers and slackers a free ride.
It only needs to last long enough for the crowd to get up to the police, and the police will get to see what a real riot looks like. I doubt people will take too lightly to attempts to fry them with a weapon like this.
That's a good point. Tear gas is unpleasant and certainly disabling, but it isn't "unbelieveably agonizing", as test subjects have reported. Being tear gassed won't leave you with memories of unimaginable pain.
This weapon will. And after the fear wears off it'll be replaced with anger and hatred - especially if the "riot" was actually a group of peaceful protesters who got nailed because a planted undercover cop threw a bottle at the riot squad.
This weapon has the potential to leave its victims with a burning hatred for whoever used it on them that something as mild as tear gas (in comparison) just can't do.
If you put someone in a room and filled it with CS, then it probably would.
When I went through basic this was exactly how you were exposed. Your squad walks into a room filled with the stuff, everyone takes off their masks, and you all get to experience the joys of the gas first-hand. Stumble out of said room (after the drill sergeants try to make you sing songs and do pushups) and spend the next 30-60 minutes recovering from the experience.
Believe me, after hearing what the folks who served as guinea pigs said about the weapon, I'll take the gas over the ray gun any day of the week.
Although, what would suck would be on asshole ruining the whole peaceful demonstration thing and then the whole group gets the ray gun.
Apparently you're too young to remember the Viet Nam protests. It was common practice for undercover cops to join a peaceful protest, launch an attack of some sort against nearby riot cops (thrown bottles, stones, etc.), thereby giving said riot cops a reason to beat the hell out of the protesters and haul the whole lot off to jail on a variety of trumped-up charges.
This wasn't an unusual practice. It worked and it worked well (at least from the viewpoint of the people in power).
This ray gun can and will be used in the very same way, after a 'protestor' starts off the festivities and gives the cops an excuse to zap everyone within range. I'm sure it'll be used to great effect on any group protesting a political convention or something like the G8 summit. And unlike tear gas and bean bags, this one weapon can sweep an entire crowd with ease. It's reported that the pain is unimaginable and can't be withstood, so it'll be a city father's wet dream when it comes to clearing out the 'undesirables'.
Society does need some regulation of public behavior for public good though
It isn't 'society' that needs anything; it's individuals who'd otherwise be harmed by the inappropriate behavior. For example, it isn't 'society' that benefits by making murder illegal; it's the individual who otherwise might be gunned down by his neighbor over a trivial dispute. Of course that still happens, but I'd hazard a guess that it happens less often than it would if murder were legal.
The Constitution addresses the rights and protections of INDIVIDUALS; nowhere does it mention "society".
To ask parents to put their kids in a cocoon and never let them out (they may get exposed to something horrible outside of the house), is unreasonable.
To ask other individuals to modify behavior that isn't harmful and, in this case, is entirely voluntary (e.g., you don't have to purchase the game), is ludicrous. It isn't incumbent upon your neighbors to conform to your particular brand of morals simply because you say so.
At some point you have to regulate some things everyone gets exposed to so that some of them don't have psychological trauma from the experience.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that the definition of "something wrong" will be drawn ever more widely by right wingnuts.
This isn't limited to the right. The left are just as likely to pass laws limiting freedoms as the right are, they'll just have a different set of criteria for choosing the laws. Both left and right are equally interesting in telling everyone else what to do and how to live their lives.
Max
Try "pet scan mood disorder" on Google. Go ahead, knock yourself out.
Max
The point is, it's hard to know. So your best bet is really to just get off the internet so we can all stop wasting our time on stories like these winding up on the front page.
No, the best bet would be for us to do whatever the fuck we want with our browsers - including refusing cookies or tossing them out when the session ends. End of discussion. I mean, really - what're going to do about it? Tell us to get off "the web" again? Oooh, I'm impressed!
Max
there is no PET scan or any kind of thing that would tell you definately, 'this person has depression'.
I don't see your point. It's possible with imaging technology to see chemical changes in the brain associated with certain behaviors. Severe depressives have a markedly altered brain chemistry that sets them apart from people who're just plain ol' depressed. They're even more distinguished in that the radical imbalance lasts for inordinate periods of time.
You can correlate these two things, just as you can use a PET scan to identify classical schizophrenia.
Severe depression IS a biologically-based disorder, just as schizophrenia and severe OCD are. All of these things stem from a malfunction, genetic defect, or outright brain damage. You CANNOT 'cure' severe depressives with therapy any more than you can cure appendicitis by chatting about it with your doctor.
The brain is an organ like any other. And it can be damaged like any other. To think that you can 'talk' someone out of a physical dysfunction is ludicrous.
Max
If anything, it's the opposite: though I take my employer's money, he takes large portions of my life. Which do you think is more valuable? Who should be more grateful?
No one. It's a business relationship. It's called "capitalism". You contract your time and energy to the employer in return for wages. Neither party has any reason to be "grateful" for anything; that's just socialist nonsense.
Given that so many employers aren't willing to keep up their end of the bargin (decent treatment), it's no wonder that employees won't keep up their end (productivity/results).
You don't get to define what is or is not decent treatment, unless it's stipulated by law or a clause in your contract. If that bothers you then quit the job you think is treating you poorly and remember to include those clauses in your next contract.
So of course it's up to me to make the decision of how much work is appropriate for me to do that day.
No, it isn't. You've entered into a contract to specifically work a number of hours for employer X. Fail to work those hours - violate your contract - but take pay for them anyway and you're committing the crime of 'fraud'.
Employers should recognize, however, that they are employing PEOPLE and not machines, and people, very much like gorillas, need healthy social interaction and pleasant environments in order to be their best.
Yet another whining liberal who can't stand the thought that he actually has to honor his obligations - and that those obligations aren't his to determine once he takes the job. Run all the smoke you want, in the end you're just a scamming little loser trying to justify screwing your employer.
Not that this makes you unusual. People like you are a dime a dozen.
Max
If I wanted to quickly search for factual information about a particular subject, I might use wikipedia's search instead of google.
Boy, that one made me laugh out loud. Wikipedia as a trusted source for "factual information"....
Max
Their concerns aren't my concerns. If their business model has some holes in it, it isn't my job to help plug 'em. I don't give a shit about their "worries", nor am I obligated in any way, shape or form to help them on the road to profit.
My computer is my own. If I say you can't install a cookie on my browser then you don't get to install a cookie on my browser. It doesn't matter WHAT the cookie does; the only thing that matters is that I've said "it's my property, and I'm tell you to fuck off. So fuck off already." The fact that you may not like that *doesn't matter for shit*.
Max
The same goes for the website you visit.
And
You can either accept the logging/tracking/analysis or you can stop using the web
You've managed to generalize the behavior of specific web sites to the entire web in one fell stroke. Nice trick, that.
Max
Some people take Slashdot too seriously. My Freaks list proves it.
It isn't Slashdot they take too seriously, it's YOU they take too seriously.
Max
The difference is we have no objective way of knowing if someone is depressed because their mind is reacting reasonably to their environment, or if their brain is not working properly.
I don't know why you'd think this. It's fairly easy even for an amateur to discern whether or not the reaction of a person in response to their environment is reasonable or not. In fact, our entire justice system is based upon that idea.
Severe depressives, just like schizophrenics, paranoids, etc. are clearly not reacting to their environment in anything like a reasonable manner. For a good number of disorders you can corroborate the existence of a problem via diagnostic tools like the PET scan.
It may not be possible for the PATIENT to objectively determine the severity of their problem, but it certainly is possible for a trained professional with modern diagnostic tools to do so, at least when it comes to these biologically-based disorders.
Max
You may be able to improve the quality of life of a patient through therapy in select cases, but if the underlying problem is a defect in the brain then no amount of counseling is going to cure the person in question. The depressives that're going to use this device are severe cases, and there's a heap of evidence that shows that this sort of depression stems from a biological malfunction completely independent of outside influences.
Therapy won't help these people any more than therapy will help a classic schizophrenic.
Max
It's as if I had said, "Why shouldn't you expect to be treated with a base minimum of respect?" and you replied that I could be a hermit.
No, I pointed out that your situation is in no way, shape or form like that of the gorillas. You have a choice about where you want to be; they don't.
So why shouldn't we, as people, expect to be treated humanely? Saying that I can quit doesn't answer the question.
You seem to think it's a given that screwing around while you're supposed to be working is the same as being "treated humanely". Me, I call that "cheating the company" and "violating your contract". You're there to WORK, and not just whatever portion of the day you feel is appropriate; it isn't up to YOU to make that decision. If you want that sort of power then start your own business instead of ripping your current employer off and trying to justify your actions on Slashdot.
Max
Don't even try to come back with some "lunch hour" bullcrap, 'cause you said it yourself, that you're being paid to work "ALL OF THE TIME".
One of the perks of owning your own business is that since you're the boss you get to work WHENEVER THE HELL YOU FEEL LIKE IT. You're the boss - you make the rules.
Moron.
Max
I used to do this to Radio Shack:
Can't say I've been to Radio Shack much, but the last time I went was to pick up a $9 cable while I was out running some errands. Went up to the counter, plunked down the cable and a $10 bill, and spent the next five minutes telling the obnoxious little shit at the register that he wasn't ever going to get my name and phone number no matter what he argued. This conversation wouldn't even have lasted that long had I not been startled and more than a bit confused over why the snot-nosed punk was asking for personal information when CASH was sitting on the counter.
Finally it came down to me telling him to either sell me the damn cable right then and there, or forget about the sale altogether. I walked out with both the cable and the resolve to never, ever set foot in a Radio Shack again, anywhere, for any reason. And I haven't.
Perhaps there aren't enough folks like me to make much of a difference, but when a company pisses me I tend to boycott it - forever. And that includes companies who've called my home when I've expressly told them to piss off and never bother me again. I eventually ended up terminating my land-line service, but not before a number of companies ended up on the Eternal Shit List (e.g., AT&T).
Max
You've somehow confused capitalism with corporatism. The two are not one and the same.
Max
No thanks. As it currently stands the laws that apply are those of the state of the person that's being called. My state has some pretty tough laws concerning telemarketing and I seriously doubt the bought-and-paid-for feds will set anything like the standards that we have. As long as I live in this state everyone who calls me MUST abide by the those laws, regardless of where they themselves happen to be.
A federal law may 'simplify' things for telemarketers, but all it'll do for the rest of us is strip us of yet more local power and authority.
Max
It is illegal. We did the same thing - threw out the land line - and now we don't get ANY telemarketing calls. Or annoying calls from politicians looking for a buck.
Pretty sweet. Wouldn't go back to having a land line if YOU paid ME.
Max
Quite simply, it'd almost undoubtably be a huge violation of the first amendment in the US to pass a law which says "you can't phone people and promote your political views"
Not true. You have a right to free speech. You dont' have a right to *make anyone listen to you*.
Max
Think about it: when we capture gorillas and put them in a zoo, we insist that they're provided with the company of other gorillas. We give them toys. We try to make their habitat as "natural" as possible. In the zoo exhibit that is your cubical, why shouldn't you be given the same courtesy?
Because the gorillas don't have a choice in the matter; you do. If you think the company is demanding too much of your time, you can always quit and go look for a less-demanding job.
Max
Some people still goof off the old fashioned way. One of my coworkers seems to be on the phone constantly. I see people reading magazines. There's a guy with a guitar in his office. People zone out and listen to iPods. I knocked on one guy's door, got no answer and found him asleep on the floor.
You must work for HP.
Max
But that is a management problem not a technology problem
Exactly right. If the employee has the time to dick around surfing the internet then the manager obviously isn't giving that employee enough work, nor keeping tabs on what that employee is doing. After all, that employee is being paid to WORK while at work, not screw around on sites like Slashdot.
It's incumbent upon the manager to make sure that the employee's day is filled with work, and to fire employees who just can't seem to wrap their brains around the fact that they're being paid to work ALL OF THE TIME, not just some fraction of it. And in this economy there are plenty of folks available to replace some lazy little prick who thinks he has a 'right' to screw around on the company dime.
Managers, chuck the employees who never grew up or who're dead weight for hours out of the day and you won't have to waste company resources monitoring your work force in the first place. Don't give the losers and slackers a free ride.
Max
It only needs to last long enough for the crowd to get up to the police, and the police will get to see what a real riot looks like. I doubt people will take too lightly to attempts to fry them with a weapon like this.
That's a good point. Tear gas is unpleasant and certainly disabling, but it isn't "unbelieveably agonizing", as test subjects have reported. Being tear gassed won't leave you with memories of unimaginable pain.
This weapon will. And after the fear wears off it'll be replaced with anger and hatred - especially if the "riot" was actually a group of peaceful protesters who got nailed because a planted undercover cop threw a bottle at the riot squad.
This weapon has the potential to leave its victims with a burning hatred for whoever used it on them that something as mild as tear gas (in comparison) just can't do.
Max
If you put someone in a room and filled it with CS, then it probably would.
When I went through basic this was exactly how you were exposed. Your squad walks into a room filled with the stuff, everyone takes off their masks, and you all get to experience the joys of the gas first-hand. Stumble out of said room (after the drill sergeants try to make you sing songs and do pushups) and spend the next 30-60 minutes recovering from the experience.
Believe me, after hearing what the folks who served as guinea pigs said about the weapon, I'll take the gas over the ray gun any day of the week.
Max
Although, what would suck would be on asshole ruining the whole peaceful demonstration thing and then the whole group gets the ray gun.
Apparently you're too young to remember the Viet Nam protests. It was common practice for undercover cops to join a peaceful protest, launch an attack of some sort against nearby riot cops (thrown bottles, stones, etc.), thereby giving said riot cops a reason to beat the hell out of the protesters and haul the whole lot off to jail on a variety of trumped-up charges.
This wasn't an unusual practice. It worked and it worked well (at least from the viewpoint of the people in power).
This ray gun can and will be used in the very same way, after a 'protestor' starts off the festivities and gives the cops an excuse to zap everyone within range. I'm sure it'll be used to great effect on any group protesting a political convention or something like the G8 summit. And unlike tear gas and bean bags, this one weapon can sweep an entire crowd with ease. It's reported that the pain is unimaginable and can't be withstood, so it'll be a city father's wet dream when it comes to clearing out the 'undesirables'.
Max
Society does need some regulation of public behavior for public good though
It isn't 'society' that needs anything; it's individuals who'd otherwise be harmed by the inappropriate behavior. For example, it isn't 'society' that benefits by making murder illegal; it's the individual who otherwise might be gunned down by his neighbor over a trivial dispute. Of course that still happens, but I'd hazard a guess that it happens less often than it would if murder were legal.
The Constitution addresses the rights and protections of INDIVIDUALS; nowhere does it mention "society".
To ask parents to put their kids in a cocoon and never let them out (they may get exposed to something horrible outside of the house), is unreasonable.
To ask other individuals to modify behavior that isn't harmful and, in this case, is entirely voluntary (e.g., you don't have to purchase the game), is ludicrous. It isn't incumbent upon your neighbors to conform to your particular brand of morals simply because you say so.
At some point you have to regulate some things everyone gets exposed to so that some of them don't have psychological trauma from the experience.
Apparently you haven't watched the news...ever.
Max