Missing: kaladorn, you address some really good points. I'm sure you have a lot of insight into the world at large, so I'm certain you'll recall the fact that the US used nuclear bombs on civilians in Japan, not only once, but twice - a practice that is, was, and forever will be thought of as an abhorrible crime against man.
If you'd said some sort of crime against the environment, I'd have had no bone to pick. Crimes against man is a bit different. On the surface, what you say tracks. But I'm not sure a deeper look doesn't bring up some issues - Hiroshima cost N thousand (too lazy to look it up) lives, all of them on the side of Japan. Contrast this with any possible invasion of Japan along with any continued losses due to a prolonged war and maybe the equation isn't quite so simple. Especially from the non-Japanese side, since zero casualties versus possibly many is quite a difference.
Now, Nagasaki is a far more arguable situation. I've read arguments that it was un-necessary, I've read arguments that the Japanese still hadn't given all the way up, and I've read theories that it was a warning to the Russians and a demonstration that the US could more or less bomb at will (which may well not have been the case at all) -- a good deterent perhaps to the dwellers in Moscow and elsewhere. But it is definitely a far more contestible action than Hiroshima, to my mind.
Mind you, you could also cite the firebombing of Dresden or the Allied strategic bombing campaign itself. But, at the same time, the Axis powers certainly did enough horrendous stuff as far as human rights goes to at best manage a claim of tit-for-tat.
Misisng: As to the vitriolic rhetoric of the left and right in this country, I would offer these words of caution:
There is a misconception, perpetuated by the media, that there are only two viewpoints on any issue. That is blatantly not the case in America. I identify with neither party, as is the case with 24 percent of us.
No argument here. I know enough Americans to know about the diversity and complexity of the reality of American opinion. There *are* some Yanks that fit the archetypal image, but there are a heck of a lot of very thoughtful people with nuanced opinions that ackowledge the complexities of the real world. It is just that a lot of the visible political power seems to side with "Bumper Sticker Wisdom". (and we know what that's worth...)
Missing: That taken care of, the topic of preemptive or supposedly corrective warfare is an interesting one. The concept wouldn't be that bad, excepting for the moral questions involved. Questions like "who decides who is evil?" and "what type of government is correct?".
I happen to believe this is a consensus issue and that we've laid a lot of the groundwork and arrived at some of the rules (international law, human rights and warfighting conventions, etc). I thought through the United Nations we had arrived at some common definitions of what is an is not considered 'human rights'. This doesn't exactly define oppressive governments, but it is pretty clear tha those that massively abuse the rights of their citizens are very heavily suspect....
I believe a number of very learned men have spoken to the concept of Just War and to the ideas of pre-emptive war over the years. I'm not sure I can better or even equal their wisdom, so I certainly won't insult them by trying.
Missing: These questions will always lead to debate and different conclusions. Mine is that the moral high ground required to decide others destiny is inherently immoral itself.
The problem here is that is a Catch-22. Once you decide that, then you have to suppose that if someone wishes to enforce their opinions on you, they are inherently immoral, right? So, there you have at last a minimalist definition. But your approach doesn't seem to acknowledge the power of communities and collectives and their place in determining the overall global values - I think this is am important role
I hope you would agree that the US has used WMD in a much more lethal and inhuman way than any other state. Giving any country an outright pass is wrongheaded.
Do you care to specify examples? I'm not American, and I think the American record is spotty in places, but I think your comment goes pretty far. I'm interested to see what examples you consider to support this theorem.
I find much of this debate about the US policy ends up descending to a level one can only call juvenile, on both sides. People end up making blanket statements about how evil the other side's leader is or how corrupt and self-serving.
The truth is probably a bit more adult, complex, and nuanced - in reality, I expect George W. thinks he is doing the best he can to fulfill the mandate he has been charged with, despite his critics.
I suspect the other side thinks that he is an unmitigated disaster, and they have some reasonable areas to criticise him, but they aren't entirely level headed either... there seems to be a lot of naivete on the other side...
The truth of the matter is no one motivation will take a country to war.
Are people making some money off this war? Undoubtedly. I don't think there has been a war where someone hasn't profited.
Are innocents getting killed? Yes of course, no news flash there.
Are soldiers getting killed? Yes, that's not a new thing either.
Are their territorial aims (if not directly territorial, at least call them aims of territorial influence...)? I think so, on more than two sides.
Are their self-serving political or financial ends represented from almost everyone, from politicians to NGOs to corporations to radical groups of various stripes to even religious sectarians? I think this has been shown to be the case by many other posters.
Is the situation going to be better for having had the war? On balance one might think not, but we're too close for a truly historical view yet. Ten years from now we might have a glimmering. Fifty or a hundred years from now we should have a good idea.
Has their been lying? We'd all get tired trying to figure out everyone who had lied in every direction and the reasons behind the lies and the results. Of course, everyone with an interest or agenda (and there are lots of parties) will be doing their own level best to spin things in their favour... disinformation is just one tool in the toolbox.
I just generally get bummed out when the average level of discourse drops to name calling, the use of obscenities instead of intelligence, the use of lies instead of facts, and the use of naivete in place of sound judgement... we might or might not have any idea what this war is really about (heck, even those who started it only may have an idea of what they think it is about, but each side contributes some component of the total and it will evolve).
And as bummed out as I am by the arguments about the war, the tragedy of the overall human inability to sort things out usefully without widepsread and less than sufficiently discriminate violence, and by the waste of human potential and resources such things entail, that pales in comparison to how horrified I am at people who defend supporting the continued existence of regimes that oppress women, make their own citizens 'disappear' on a fairly sizable scale, use chemical weapons against their own citizens, and who have supported and encouraged terrorist activities which are inevitably targeted at civilians and innocent people as often as at military targets.
I can't see how even the supporters of internationalism, collective action, and bodies like the UN, WTO, etc. can defend the habit we (those who supposedly are the guiding posts of the civilized world) of leaving horrible dictators, murderers, and thugs of all descriptions (yes, some of you will obviously argue with who fits this characterization more... but see my prior comments about naivete...) in positions of power.
When and where will the first Robolympics be held?
Just shortly before these things start going bonkers and killing people....
For some reason, having just seen I, Robot and having memories of Terminator, various anime bits, and of course, Magnus, Robot Fighter, I have a feeling that when we teach bots to kick the crap out of one another, the next step is them figuring out how to kick the crap out of a human... "Gee look, the squishy Pinky leaks red organic bio-lubricants...."
Actually, the founders of "my" country (to the extent that *I* can lay claim to a country), certainly did not make that proclamation.
Just because you think there is an absolute truth doesn't mean you can prove that case any different from each of us having a subjective truth (or even case #3, which is subjective truths interacting in some consensus manner to produce a communal consensus truth). By the mere presence of the indivdidual as observer (and in this case reciever) of the 'truth', one introduces the past history, character, and nature of that individual into the equation, changing the perception and immediately constituting some slightly alternate 'truth'. No two of these truths are probably the same, any more than any two people are. And the belief in a single absolute truth seems, consequently, flawed. But exist or not, in an absolute sense, in any practical sense there is no way to illustrate this nor to gain direct and unhampered access to it, so effectively, it does not exist.
Why must I have an absolute moral or social truth? My 'truths' are many, but I take them to apply to myself only and try not to project my views onto others. The same can't usually be said of those who percieve themselves as having access to 'The Truth' (The One Truth!).
As for whether you should believe a word I say or not, that's a personal decision. You might consider them, you might dismiss them. Was I trying to make an AC believe me? Or anyone in particular? No. To those who find the words useful, they'll take from them what they find useful, which is exactly what I'd want. If you don't take anything from them, then more is the pity, but nothing more than that.
The idea that one should go out and convince people or have them somehow 'believe' you smacks of the same kind of 'Me and my Truth' thinking that I find rather indefensable personally.
That might seem contradictive, but humans often are, and I admit openly to being human. And of course, to not having access to 'The Truth'.;)
We have several notable instances of some good coming out of things like this. I think we have a legion of examples of un-good things arising from this kind of conviction. I leave as an excercise of the student the determination of what conclusions one should draw from that. My own is that this is a very dangerous approach - if you think you know 'the truth' and you try to project that 'truth' upon others, you are setting yourself up for an unpleasant result. I think most of the world's worst conflicts have arisen out of someone attempting just such a projection of their truth (although, not being naive, I realize this is hardly the single genesis of any conflict).
I think the DMCA is garbage just like you do. I think it's a limitation on freedom of speech and I hate it, but I wouldn't use Natural Law to explain why.
No one of us can legitemately claim to have a particular access to any particular objective truth.
Poppycock. Welcome to science and logic.
There is nothing *particular* (as in particular to the individual) about the access to objective truth. And as almost any scientist will tell you, the act of observation of a situation introduces some new factor into that situation. Even if there is an objective reality, which you cannot definitively prove, everyone's perception of it is inherently different. Welcome to science and logic.
As to your other points:
I should have said "should" instead of must. It is my feeling they must but that wasn't clearly ellucidated as a personal opinion. I'm sure that I would disagree that every social struggle has been a matter of absolute moral view colliding as I'm sure economics have played as large a role as morality. But that is certainly a separate and debatable point.
I will conceded that some things perceived as good by some people have arisen from the blind belief one has the moral right. However, I will also stipulate I feel statistically that these are outnumbered by the converse case where perceived evil has been the result.
Re:"you're co-authors of this review."
on
We the Media
·
· Score: 1
I concur. I also find BBC world service and CBC news international (on in the middle of the night) service seem to have a higher standard of presentation and a bit less of the generic regurgitation of news you get on your 6pm network news. (Or ad infinitum on CNN)
Newsmagazines, investigative report magazines, and TV documentary production (some of the stuff for A&E or the History Channel or the like is better on the factual analysis front) and some websites go a long way towards trying to give the user some pathway for verifiability.
It is tough as undoubtedly verifiability is oppositional to 'quick' reporting of the news. Maybe we shouldn't be in such a rush for 'the facts' or 'an explanation'. It is human nature, but it militates against good work/journalism.
Or maybe we should just have our commentators and reporters learn to couch early reports in far more tentative language. They often sound definite, and are definitely wrong. And interesting way around this would be a CRTC or FCC rule saying if you do a story of duration X and blow it, you must spend duration X explaining how you blew it. I suppose that wouldn't work, but half the problem is when media outlets do blow it, their apologies and corrections are on the back page or broadcast at 3am and take about 9 seconds.
The best approach for now seems to be correlating news stories, trying to backtrack the original source (many net stories originate from one not-necessarily-true root), and alway always be skeptical until something is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt over time and with journalistic rigour.
Mind you, this takes time and effort and we are the type of folks (in some degree) who aren't ambitious enough to get off the Lazy Boy to change the channel... so we buy a remote....
Sure, but it is possible (and likely) that some people will decide to eat their ballot (I recall a camaign of this as civil disobedience) or shove it down their pants or whatever....
At least in Canada, this would somehow be noted by the DRO, because each ballot must be accounted for and only the DRO or Poll Clerk insert ballots into the ballot box. They don't look at them, but you hand the ballot back to them and watch them put it in the sealed ballot box.
The consequence of this is that ballot count does matter and discrepancies must be resolved. I think it might even be election tampering to eat your ballot (as it removes the N voters == N Ballots).
Note, I do think that (as in our provincial elections) the Federal Election here should support the idea of a declined ballot, which is recorded beside your name and kept as a statistic separate from the 'spoiled ballot' which can easily be considered incompetence. Refused ballots are clearly that - someone who cared enough to come out to vote but didn't like any of his choices. Having this option and tracking the numbers in this category should be an important facet of any electoral system as they give a reasonable idea of how satisfactory your electoral field is.
Anyway, the Canadian pencil and ballot, X marks the spot, approach seem verifiable, simple, administerable by poll clerks and DROs who are often just normal folks during the week (esp in Rural ridings). The whole electronic voting thing might eventually be workable, but I think it would require a large overhaul of the underlying election machinery (the people and organization) and that's not really justified as the old method works quite well. Up here, we don't have issued with hanging chads....
Re:"you're co-authors of this review."
on
We the Media
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Hmmm.
Insightful is clearly a mass perception thing - or at least, something can be individually insightful for N people. Hence a mass can determine if something is (in the large) seen as insightful.
On the other hand, just because a whole pile of people in a non-random sample population agree that something is factual doesn't actually make it factual or even necessarily more likely that it will be factual.
Moderation is interesting, but meta-moderation was one of the steps (and I'm sure things will continue to evolve) to address the weaknesses in basic moderation. Obviously, moderation is no Panacea.
One thing professional news sources can contribute is professional-grade investigative research, proper referencing and citation, along with providing identifiable reporters, employers, etc. thus allowing one a chance to ascertain whose self-interest might be being served, to assess the quality of the research and to evaluate the evidence. Bloggers rarely follow such a rigorous method.
On the other hand, with the Internet starting to affect the pace of modern news reporting (plus competition and cost cutting and media consolidation), the net effect may be *less* research, less validation, less formal citation, more op-ed pieces disguised as news items (very common today), and less verifiability, identifiability, and accountability overall in the news industry. That's a sad state of affairs, but it seems to be the way the world is going.
I'm unaware of an authoritative or canonical list of these so-callednatural truths. It occurs to me that one person's natural truth is likely to clash directly with another's. No one of us can legitemately claim to have a particular access to any particular objective truth. We've each got our own 'personal truth' and that is natural.
I don't disagree with your claim that people must exercise personal discretion and conscience and challenge laws they percieve as unust. But in doing so, they must be aware it is only their own point of view they represent, their own perception, not any particular idealized or absolute definition of what is true and right. That kind of thinking (that one is in possession of or has access some absolute moral or social truth) doesn't lead in very good directions - I think history speaks to that point.
I find it vastly hilarious this was considered a 'troll'. It doesn't advocate a particular position nor was it intended as provocatory. I'm not sure exactly what aspect makes it a troll.
I guess it might be the generalizations about computer gamers. But generalizations have a basis (often) in fact and I can't help but feel the average soldier is in better physical shape and is more disciplined than the average computer gamer. They are certainly better trained for military tasks, at least in the armies of the major powers.
But, maybe I stepped on someones toes. They'll probably mod this a troll using the same logic....
Ah, the wonders of moderation!
The idea that the military might recruit from championship 'cyberathletes' who excel at a none-too-simulatory (if that isn't inventing a word) computer game isn't a troll? Odd thinking, wot?!
Yes, obviously the government would recruit the Ghost Recon players since that's a game that forces you to not run around, to not hop around, and to use careful tactics.
Note: The prior paragraph was written with tongue firmly in cheek. I know members of the SF community (and I don't mean sci-fi) and the whole idea of recruiting out of shape (or even in shape) computer gamers for the type of work various Special Operations units do is rather hilarious. They lack the discipline, training, probably basic physical and dispositional requirements, and they may not have the required social skills. And there is a heck of a difference between blowing up someeone else in a video game and having to hold your buddy's hand while he bleeds out from a mine strike or bullet wound.:(
The idea is silly enough to have been a Monty Python skit....
I guess Kay-Becker is right out? Or the infamous Preston Manning Kwee-Becker?
As for the 'tongue troopers', the only thing they can do if they come to my place of residence (in which they have no jurisdiction) is to swab my loo.
Pardon my off colour comment, but I despise the Quebec Language Gestapo...
Re:I remember my time machine....
on
Primer
·
· Score: 1
Don't I recall having JFK shoot himself as a Red Dwarf episode? Something about seeing what might have happened if he survived and the nasty road that led down convincing him that offing himself was actually the better option?
I have notions, since pretty much everyone does. I'll at least admit that. They are obviously pre-conceived as they didn't leap out at my while I was typing this reply. But having said that, I hardly have a particular slant that is identifiable, as I've been labelled just about every shade from Communist to National Socialist and Anarchist... by different folks.
I call them discontent-formenting because this tends to be the nature of "news" media these days - the purpose of which is to generate viewership or readership and creating tempests in teacups seems to be a wonderful method. People love conflict! Even where it doesn't really exist.
Spin-doctoring? Please... if you don't think they do this, you don't listen too carefully to the types of language they use on our major national broadcaster. Often times it isn't even that the slant they take is itself problematic, it is the choice of language that they use that brings with it hidden assumptions and various logical fallacies embedded within.
Further, I call them opinionated - all you have to do is watch how much op-ed you get, even in the guise of documentaries and commentaries, and how little actual strictly factual news. Now, admittedly, it is sometimes difficult to present a fact without any context - but one can make a great attempt to show both sides of the story equitably. I don't see much evidence of this lately.
And as for free from influence - those at the CBC and elsewhere know what kind of a government would cut public broadcasting and what kind would support it (both for political reasons as much as any economic ones). So it only makes Darwinian sense for them to have a slant. It is, after all, their livelihood on the line.
Lastly, who died and made Reporters without Borders an unbiased entity with some sort of equitable assessment? I'm not saying they aren't, but your suggestion is that they are somehow a de facto or de jure authority is worth questioning. They may or may not be an appropriate source of judgement.
Besides, if you had to pick this one line out and follow it, when the main aspect of my comment was that Canadians have been singularly impolite to our neighbours over the last few years and that many have a singularly vitriolic attitude with very little experience, then I wonder if you missed the whole point.
I'm a Canadian, and I've found the same thing. I know plenty of Yankees (and a few South'ners) and almost uniformly, they've been interesting and worthwhile people. Whereas I don't agree with all of them on all things (some are tea-totallers, which I as a Canadian find bizarre, some are profoundly religious right (but in a quiet non-proselytizing way), some are very much of the 'America right or wrong' crowd...), but they've usually been able to have a sensible discussion of right and wrong and take into account the right of Canada and Canadians to differ with them. And while doing so, none of them have said unpleasant or belittling things about us.
Contrast this with how many of my allegedly university educated (and college educated) friends look at the Americans - often times the reactions are vitriolic, uncharitable, and reflect only a superficial interface with *actual* Americans, as opposed to some sort of caricature seen on TV or presented in Canadian (opinionated, spin-doctoring, discontent-formenting) media.
If they're all so smart and well educated, they should be able to 'walk a mile in the other guys shoes' and should know better than to form opinions of a whole body of people by the outliers. And they should know that it makes little sense to form opinions with little data. But this paucity of data seems to lead to very nasty and very mean-spirited opinions.
Whether we as Canadians should or should not have joined the war in Iraq, whether we should support the war on terror, whether we have serious border issues ourselves with our own intelligence and police agencies reporting fairly significant terrorist planning and fundraising activities within our borders, etc. - all of these things are things that should be calmly discussed and upon which differing points of view can be coped-with. We should still be able to maintain a civil relationships with our US neighbours.
It is no mark of distinction, no badge of honour, no sign of integrity or eductation to blindly bash those you've never met, to categorize them blankly based on a few noisy mouthpieces, nor to show your own small-hearted nature by vilifying people who have (for the most part) very similar aspirations, lives, and motivations...
To my mind, this kind of behaviour (especially given the way we open our arms to people the rest of the world over) is just pathetic. We should have our own opinions, but we shouldn't be obnoxious buttheads when it comes to our neighbours in the south.
Many of my American friends have apologized for the kind of stereo-typical American tourista that you sometimes encounter ("Those are the kind of people that we even wince about... they make us all look bad.") I feel very much that way about Canadians that can't disagree with their American counterparts without resorting to unthoughtful and unflattering epithets, errant classifications, and bilious polemic. This kind of conduct is unjustified and makes me want to disown these boorish clowns... or at least makes me embarassed to admit to being from the same country, which is sad, because I love the place and I took and Oath to defend it... I just wish some of the people would act a bit more like polite, rational adults and less like petulant, self-absorbed, egocentric children....
I wonder about people without stereoscopic vision
on
More 3D Displays to Come
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
There are a number of us out there (yes me...), I think around 1-3%, who have effectively no 3D (stereoscopic) vision. In my case, I can detect a profound shift from eye to eye. When I tested on the fancy opthomalogical(sp?) machine where you try to line up 4 lines into a + sign (roughly), I could only ever see two at a time, which two depending on which eye I 'looked' through. In university geology courses, I could never use a stereoscope to examine stereoscopic pictures (trying to estimate a slide-mass was really fun....).
So, I wonder which, if any, of these 3D technologies will work for people with these kinds of problems? Or, will we just become another group of 'informationally handicapped' people? (Which would suck, since I'm a programmer!)
Living in a nation where such gay marriage is allowed, my main comment is "no big deal, really".
For that matter, if it cuts down the competition by taking guys out of the pool (especially ones who can colour coordinate and understand a hair care regimen involving three or more products), then that's all to the good, in my books.
Further, what's the big deal about procreation? Methinks some of our environmental problems are a consequence of this world having too many people on it now. Is encouraging procreation going to help that? As we live longer, work later into life, and enjoy more vigour through that life, do we really need more generations piling on and greater population increase? Do we not already have issues with youngsters having trouble finding jobs and we're still talking about moving retirement ages up due to the cost of caring for retirees for longer periods....?
It seems to me that who you settle down with should be your choice. It should be based on affection and serious commitment. Gender is relevant to some, and irrelevant to others, and more power to them.
The ultimate argument is one about status: Why does one taxpayer enjoy a different ability to declare himself part of a relationship under the tax laws (and other related legal frameworks) that another does not? They both have the same liability to pay for these services. So they should recieve the same benefits.
And as to the whole "church wants sanctity of marriage preserved" aspect: If the church wants to have a 'church only' marriage, then fine, take it entirely OUT of other legal frameworks. Then your church marriage has NO legal standing, and your civil union is the choice of any two individuals and is defined in terms of tax and other legal frameworks, not some sort of 'holy matrimony'. The church wants it both ways - to have 'marriage' have some impact in law and finance, while also wanting to control it and apply it in an inequitable fashion to citizens. That isn't right.
Further, as long as the churches are underwritten by the state, they *should* be forced to adhere to the laws of the land, and that includes those fundamental laws about equality of persons under the law and therefore the rights to marriage/etc. If they want to have a separate view or somehow oppose some of those fundamental principals of law, then they should give up their tax exempt statuses and become what they really are - a private club for people of like mind or a lobby group for those wanting to see their view expounded, expanded and enforced.
I guess I just believe gov't should mostly leave people alone to live their lives and gaurantee equal rights under the law to all taxpayers. Call me 'satanic' if you must for holding such a heretical view of what a free and enlightened society might be, but I thank God that Canada (in this one particular) hews to the sensible position.
To put an element of humour in here, a US friend once said "What's going on with you guys? Gay marriage, legalized pot, not having to go fight in the desert - you're having too much fun up there! We might just have to invade!"
Engineers are a profession. They get paid like one, have legally protections and responsibilities, and are pretty picky about who they let in. Stuff developed with proper engineering method costs $$$.
So, if we put software in this category, your web browser would cost $900, it would be updated once every year for another $400, and it might or might not interoperate with any other software.
If the engineers (following proper engineering method and using design-for-testability or design-by-contract or inherently correct languages) had been the sole force in computer development, the PC would still be 60 pounds and run a 8 MHz. It'd be robust and stable, and no threat to public safety, and you could play a nice VGA game on it, if anyone was insane enough to write games in its underlying language, and they'd go broke doing it.
This is no disrespect to engineers - there are types of software where this approach is not only merited, but required. Their professional standards and legal liability make them careful about what they put their name to or what they let pass through their hands.
But a lot of the software *has* no public safety issue. Public safety and the safety of your bank account *may not be equivalent*.
And we always (WE, the Consumers!) want the newest game, the newest graphics, the best sound, the newest networking, blah blah blah - WE drive the development world by buying what it offers and demanding what it has barely thought of.
I'm all in favour of a rigorous development approach for mission critical software for police, fire departments, hospitals and the military. Oddly, this is where we see a lot of this stuff being done now. But I'm not in favour of requiring every PC user to invest $10000 to buy a 486-speed machine and another $1000 a year for the annual software update to the THREE programs anyone has ever written.
We need to develop software by having an eye to what the software must do, the market it must address, and the need for it to be robust vs. the cost to make it so.
By en large, the world as it stands with all the spam and viruses and such *seems to be working*. Yes, money is wasted, but the world keeps on turning, and a lot of security IT guys are employed, Network Nazis get extra large overtime paychecks, and the average user still manages to clunk ahead. Rarely do lives hang int he balance or does the world grind to a halt.
So, would I like to see a more stable and secure windows OS? Sure. Have I ran Windows (98, then NT4, then 2000, then WinXP Pro) for many years and NEVER had a virus strike or hacker zombify my boxes? Yes, I have. Do I security patch? Intermittently. But I do run a firewall or two (software, all), and I do follow some basic precautions. But with that, I've survived with little crisis.
So, is the problem causing the world to grind to a halt? No. A net slowdown or two until the head net engineers get some patches in place, but we can live with that. It's annoying, but hardly worth upending the entire model of how software is developed and why....
Don't take this the wrong way, but your Dad might have been a bit confused about his job. He obviously thought it was to satisfy customers. In truth, it was to satisfy the people paying his paycheck.
The customer has an indirect relationship to that, at best. If the company's management wants a tech to do a quick-n-dirty job, it is THEM that have to worry about the repercussions and it is THEIR place to make that call.
It is not the technician's place to decide what service level a customer is to be offered - that's a policy issue. The only decision they have to make is are they willing to deliver that service or do they have some objection great enough to cause them to part ways with the company....
I'm not advocating crappy service, but I am advocating management not being second guessed. If management advocates a particular approach to a problem (budget or time-on-task ahead of total and complete quality of end result), then that is their choice and that's the kind of decision they are there to make. In theory, they are accountable for those decisions and have to live with the consequences.
..when he showed up with the best sci-fi show ever shown on TV...
Okay, I *like* Firefly. I find the characters grow on you as you watch it (the DVD series lets you get that in a way the Fox presentation never did), but let's be reasonable. Best sci-fi show ever? That's pretty much contestable on many fronts.
It's a western with some spaceship trappings. It has a passing grasp of real science and the culture it portrays is probably unlikely in the extreme. Is it reasonable escapist entertainment? Undoubtedly. But the best sci-fi ever? One would have to have a very limited exposure to conclude that.
One could easily trot out a number of other competitors, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. Let's not get carried away.... Firefly was good, I look forward to a movie and a revived series, but it wasn't the Garden of Eden, Shangrila, Utopia, and Heaven all rolled into one with a sci-fi theme.
The prior poster said: ---------------------
As a male in that age range I've completely given up on TV. In my area I can't get any kind of reception and cable is too expensive for the few channels I would watch (TLC, Discovery, Comedy Central, etc).
Its more cost effective for me to not buy cable; which is about the cost of two uncapped DSL lines both with static IP's in my area. Instead, I buy the occasional DVD when I'm in the mood for a movie. ------------------
I live in the country where I can barely get 31 kbps on a good day (a bad day is 21 or 12 or 4.8). High Speed? Hah! I'm a heck of a lot further than 18000 ft from the PSTN main switch and many kilometers beyond cable. Satellite will reach, but the cost is exhorbant as it involves the $80 a month for Satellite Internet PLUS having a dialup account. And it'd still suck for games due to the front-end latencies of such systems.
So the net result is I still watch a bit of TV. Usually late night, usually history channel or discovery or other similar types of educational channels (read: lots of docos and entertainment programs about archaeology, history, anthropology, science, etc). And when I'm not watching that, I'll throw in a DVD and watch people blow stuff up. (Firefly, B5, the like).
Network TV (except for the aforementioned specialty cable channels) has sweet FA to offer. In fact, it isn't even a 'neutral offering'. I can't even sit in front of the TV when The Bride of Survivor: Millionaire Moles comes on.
Heck, most of the modern generation of reality TV makes Cops look entertaining (at least there you can laugh at really stupid criminals...).
The SciFi Channel and a few others make it worth (sort of) having Satellite. The nice thing about Satellite is you can somewhat tailor your offering (though not enough) and this allows you to support the networks who help fund the development of things like Simpsons, B5, Firefly, Farscape, varios historical documentaries, etc. You can avoid patronizing the crap CBC, NBC, CBS, etc. puts out.
The real funny part is, with a long commute and a typical high tech long-hours job, I've come to appreciate BBC World Service on the radio, but its only ever on locally late at night. If network TV could aspire to their level of insight into other cultures, current events, etc, then maybe there'd be some value.
I also can't quite figure out who the hot chick on the ultramatic adjustable bed is trying to sell it to. She keeps talking about 'getting lucky', but I associate the bed with old folks or the infirm. Taken together, that just presents a disturbing line of thinking. I know my reaction is to finish the commercial, have my brain come out of Testosterone flood, and say 'what was that about?' . It doesn't get me to drag out my wallet, my credit card, and the phone.... obviously I'm not the target demographic!
On the other hand, most of the time on earth, people get in car accidents not hundreds of miles from home, even given the number of miles driven, but right at their doorstep.
And you have to admit, 88 feet on *MARS* is somehow more impressive than me walking out to my mailbox and back...
Slashdot Mirror
Missing: kaladorn, you address some really good points. I'm sure you have a lot of insight into the world at large, so I'm certain you'll recall the fact that the US used nuclear bombs on civilians in Japan, not only once, but twice - a practice that is, was, and forever will be thought of as an abhorrible crime against man.
If you'd said some sort of crime against the environment, I'd have had no bone to pick. Crimes against man is a bit different. On the surface, what you say tracks. But I'm not sure a deeper look doesn't bring up some issues - Hiroshima cost N thousand (too lazy to look it up) lives, all of them on the side of Japan. Contrast this with any possible invasion of Japan along with any continued losses due to a prolonged war and maybe the equation isn't quite so simple. Especially from the non-Japanese side, since zero casualties versus possibly many is quite a difference.
Now, Nagasaki is a far more arguable situation. I've read arguments that it was un-necessary, I've read arguments that the Japanese still hadn't given all the way up, and I've read theories that it was a warning to the Russians and a demonstration that the US could more or less bomb at will (which may well not have been the case at all) -- a good deterent perhaps to the dwellers in Moscow and elsewhere. But it is definitely a far more contestible action than Hiroshima, to my mind.
Mind you, you could also cite the firebombing of Dresden or the Allied strategic bombing campaign itself. But, at the same time, the Axis powers certainly did enough horrendous stuff as far as human rights goes to at best manage a claim of tit-for-tat.
Misisng: As to the vitriolic rhetoric of the left and right in this country, I would offer these words of caution: There is a misconception, perpetuated by the media, that there are only two viewpoints on any issue. That is blatantly not the case in America. I identify with neither party, as is the case with 24 percent of us.
No argument here. I know enough Americans to know about the diversity and complexity of the reality of American opinion. There *are* some Yanks that fit the archetypal image, but there are a heck of a lot of very thoughtful people with nuanced opinions that ackowledge the complexities of the real world. It is just that a lot of the visible political power seems to side with "Bumper Sticker Wisdom". (and we know what that's worth...)
Missing: That taken care of, the topic of preemptive or supposedly corrective warfare is an interesting one. The concept wouldn't be that bad, excepting for the moral questions involved. Questions like "who decides who is evil?" and "what type of government is correct?".
I happen to believe this is a consensus issue and that we've laid a lot of the groundwork and arrived at some of the rules (international law, human rights and warfighting conventions, etc). I thought through the United Nations we had arrived at some common definitions of what is an is not considered 'human rights'. This doesn't exactly define oppressive governments, but it is pretty clear tha those that massively abuse the rights of their citizens are very heavily suspect....
I believe a number of very learned men have spoken to the concept of Just War and to the ideas of pre-emptive war over the years. I'm not sure I can better or even equal their wisdom, so I certainly won't insult them by trying.
Missing: These questions will always lead to debate and different conclusions. Mine is that the moral high ground required to decide others destiny is inherently immoral itself.
The problem here is that is a Catch-22. Once you decide that, then you have to suppose that if someone wishes to enforce their opinions on you, they are inherently immoral, right? So, there you have at last a minimalist definition. But your approach doesn't seem to acknowledge the power of communities and collectives and their place in determining the overall global values - I think this is am important role
Do you care to specify examples? I'm not American, and I think the American record is spotty in places, but I think your comment goes pretty far. I'm interested to see what examples you consider to support this theorem.
I find much of this debate about the US policy ends up descending to a level one can only call juvenile, on both sides. People end up making blanket statements about how evil the other side's leader is or how corrupt and self-serving.
The truth is probably a bit more adult, complex, and nuanced - in reality, I expect George W. thinks he is doing the best he can to fulfill the mandate he has been charged with, despite his critics.
I suspect the other side thinks that he is an unmitigated disaster, and they have some reasonable areas to criticise him, but they aren't entirely level headed either... there seems to be a lot of naivete on the other side...
The truth of the matter is no one motivation will take a country to war.
I just generally get bummed out when the average level of discourse drops to name calling, the use of obscenities instead of intelligence, the use of lies instead of facts, and the use of naivete in place of sound judgement... we might or might not have any idea what this war is really about (heck, even those who started it only may have an idea of what they think it is about, but each side contributes some component of the total and it will evolve).
And as bummed out as I am by the arguments about the war, the tragedy of the overall human inability to sort things out usefully without widepsread and less than sufficiently discriminate violence, and by the waste of human potential and resources such things entail, that pales in comparison to how horrified I am at people who defend supporting the continued existence of regimes that oppress women, make their own citizens 'disappear' on a fairly sizable scale, use chemical weapons against their own citizens, and who have supported and encouraged terrorist activities which are inevitably targeted at civilians and innocent people as often as at military targets.
I can't see how even the supporters of internationalism, collective action, and bodies like the UN, WTO, etc. can defend the habit we (those who supposedly are the guiding posts of the civilized world) of leaving horrible dictators, murderers, and thugs of all descriptions (yes, some of you will obviously argue with who fits this characterization more... but see my prior comments about naivete...) in positions of power.
I real
ackthpt said:
When and where will the first Robolympics be held?
Just shortly before these things start going bonkers and killing people....
For some reason, having just seen I, Robot and having memories of Terminator, various anime bits, and of course, Magnus, Robot Fighter , I have a feeling that when we teach bots to kick the crap out of one another, the next step is them figuring out how to kick the crap out of a human... "Gee look, the squishy Pinky leaks red organic bio-lubricants...."
Actually, the founders of "my" country (to the extent that *I* can lay claim to a country), certainly did not make that proclamation.
;)
:)
Just because you think there is an absolute truth doesn't mean you can prove that case any different from each of us having a subjective truth (or even case #3, which is subjective truths interacting in some consensus manner to produce a communal consensus truth). By the mere presence of the indivdidual as observer (and in this case reciever) of the 'truth', one introduces the past history, character, and nature of that individual into the equation, changing the perception and immediately constituting some slightly alternate 'truth'. No two of these truths are probably the same, any more than any two people are. And the belief in a single absolute truth seems, consequently, flawed. But exist or not, in an absolute sense, in any practical sense there is no way to illustrate this nor to gain direct and unhampered access to it, so effectively, it does not exist.
Why must I have an absolute moral or social truth? My 'truths' are many, but I take them to apply to myself only and try not to project my views onto others. The same can't usually be said of those who percieve themselves as having access to 'The Truth' (The One Truth!).
As for whether you should believe a word I say or not, that's a personal decision. You might consider them, you might dismiss them. Was I trying to make an AC believe me? Or anyone in particular? No. To those who find the words useful, they'll take from them what they find useful, which is exactly what I'd want. If you don't take anything from them, then more is the pity, but nothing more than that.
The idea that one should go out and convince people or have them somehow 'believe' you smacks of the same kind of 'Me and my Truth' thinking that I find rather indefensable personally.
That might seem contradictive, but humans often are, and I admit openly to being human. And of course, to not having access to 'The Truth'.
Lighten up... you'll live longer.
We have several notable instances of some good coming out of things like this. I think we have a legion of examples of un-good things arising from this kind of conviction. I leave as an excercise of the student the determination of what conclusions one should draw from that. My own is that this is a very dangerous approach - if you think you know 'the truth' and you try to project that 'truth' upon others, you are setting yourself up for an unpleasant result. I think most of the world's worst conflicts have arisen out of someone attempting just such a projection of their truth (although, not being naive, I realize this is hardly the single genesis of any conflict).
Precisely. Well said.
There is nothing *particular* (as in particular to the individual) about the access to objective truth. And as almost any scientist will tell you, the act of observation of a situation introduces some new factor into that situation. Even if there is an objective reality, which you cannot definitively prove, everyone's perception of it is inherently different. Welcome to science and logic.
As to your other points:
I should have said "should" instead of must. It is my feeling they must but that wasn't clearly ellucidated as a personal opinion. I'm sure that I would disagree that every social struggle has been a matter of absolute moral view colliding as I'm sure economics have played as large a role as morality. But that is certainly a separate and debatable point.
I will conceded that some things perceived as good by some people have arisen from the blind belief one has the moral right. However, I will also stipulate I feel statistically that these are outnumbered by the converse case where perceived evil has been the result.
I concur. I also find BBC world service and CBC news international (on in the middle of the night) service seem to have a higher standard of presentation and a bit less of the generic regurgitation of news you get on your 6pm network news. (Or ad infinitum on CNN)
Newsmagazines, investigative report magazines, and TV documentary production (some of the stuff for A&E or the History Channel or the like is better on the factual analysis front) and some websites go a long way towards trying to give the user some pathway for verifiability.
It is tough as undoubtedly verifiability is oppositional to 'quick' reporting of the news. Maybe we shouldn't be in such a rush for 'the facts' or 'an explanation'. It is human nature, but it militates against good work/journalism.
Or maybe we should just have our commentators and reporters learn to couch early reports in far more tentative language. They often sound definite, and are definitely wrong. And interesting way around this would be a CRTC or FCC rule saying if you do a story of duration X and blow it, you must spend duration X explaining how you blew it. I suppose that wouldn't work, but half the problem is when media outlets do blow it, their apologies and corrections are on the back page or broadcast at 3am and take about 9 seconds.
The best approach for now seems to be correlating news stories, trying to backtrack the original source (many net stories originate from one not-necessarily-true root), and alway always be skeptical until something is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt over time and with journalistic rigour.
Mind you, this takes time and effort and we are the type of folks (in some degree) who aren't ambitious enough to get off the Lazy Boy to change the channel... so we buy a remote....
Sure, but it is possible (and likely) that some people will decide to eat their ballot (I recall a camaign of this as civil disobedience) or shove it down their pants or whatever....
At least in Canada, this would somehow be noted by the DRO, because each ballot must be accounted for and only the DRO or Poll Clerk insert ballots into the ballot box. They don't look at them, but you hand the ballot back to them and watch them put it in the sealed ballot box.
The consequence of this is that ballot count does matter and discrepancies must be resolved. I think it might even be election tampering to eat your ballot (as it removes the N voters == N Ballots).
Note, I do think that (as in our provincial elections) the Federal Election here should support the idea of a declined ballot, which is recorded beside your name and kept as a statistic separate from the 'spoiled ballot' which can easily be considered incompetence. Refused ballots are clearly that - someone who cared enough to come out to vote but didn't like any of his choices. Having this option and tracking the numbers in this category should be an important facet of any electoral system as they give a reasonable idea of how satisfactory your electoral field is.
Anyway, the Canadian pencil and ballot, X marks the spot, approach seem verifiable, simple, administerable by poll clerks and DROs who are often just normal folks during the week (esp in Rural ridings). The whole electronic voting thing might eventually be workable, but I think it would require a large overhaul of the underlying election machinery (the people and organization) and that's not really justified as the old method works quite well. Up here, we don't have issued with hanging chads....
Hmmm.
Insightful is clearly a mass perception thing - or at least, something can be individually insightful for N people. Hence a mass can determine if something is (in the large) seen as insightful.
On the other hand, just because a whole pile of people in a non-random sample population agree that something is factual doesn't actually make it factual or even necessarily more likely that it will be factual.
Moderation is interesting, but meta-moderation was one of the steps (and I'm sure things will continue to evolve) to address the weaknesses in basic moderation. Obviously, moderation is no Panacea.
One thing professional news sources can contribute is professional-grade investigative research, proper referencing and citation, along with providing identifiable reporters, employers, etc. thus allowing one a chance to ascertain whose self-interest might be being served, to assess the quality of the research and to evaluate the evidence. Bloggers rarely follow such a rigorous method.
On the other hand, with the Internet starting to affect the pace of modern news reporting (plus competition and cost cutting and media consolidation), the net effect may be *less* research, less validation, less formal citation, more op-ed pieces disguised as news items (very common today), and less verifiability, identifiability, and accountability overall in the news industry. That's a sad state of affairs, but it seems to be the way the world is going.
I'm unaware of an authoritative or canonical list of these so-called natural truths. It occurs to me that one person's natural truth is likely to clash directly with another's. No one of us can legitemately claim to have a particular access to any particular objective truth. We've each got our own 'personal truth' and that is natural.
I don't disagree with your claim that people must exercise personal discretion and conscience and challenge laws they percieve as unust. But in doing so, they must be aware it is only their own point of view they represent, their own perception, not any particular idealized or absolute definition of what is true and right. That kind of thinking (that one is in possession of or has access some absolute moral or social truth) doesn't lead in very good directions - I think history speaks to that point.
I find it vastly hilarious this was considered a 'troll'. It doesn't advocate a particular position nor was it intended as provocatory. I'm not sure exactly what aspect makes it a troll.
I guess it might be the generalizations about computer gamers. But generalizations have a basis (often) in fact and I can't help but feel the average soldier is in better physical shape and is more disciplined than the average computer gamer. They are certainly better trained for military tasks, at least in the armies of the major powers.
But, maybe I stepped on someones toes. They'll probably mod this a troll using the same logic.... Ah, the wonders of moderation!
The idea that the military might recruit from championship 'cyberathletes' who excel at a none-too-simulatory (if that isn't inventing a word) computer game isn't a troll? Odd thinking, wot?!
Yes, obviously the government would recruit the Ghost Recon players since that's a game that forces you to not run around, to not hop around, and to use careful tactics. Note: The prior paragraph was written with tongue firmly in cheek. I know members of the SF community (and I don't mean sci-fi) and the whole idea of recruiting out of shape (or even in shape) computer gamers for the type of work various Special Operations units do is rather hilarious. They lack the discipline, training, probably basic physical and dispositional requirements, and they may not have the required social skills. And there is a heck of a difference between blowing up someeone else in a video game and having to hold your buddy's hand while he bleeds out from a mine strike or bullet wound. :(
The idea is silly enough to have been a Monty Python skit....
I guess Kay-Becker is right out? Or the infamous Preston Manning Kwee-Becker?
As for the 'tongue troopers', the only thing they can do if they come to my place of residence (in which they have no jurisdiction) is to swab my loo.
Pardon my off colour comment, but I despise the Quebec Language Gestapo...
Don't I recall having JFK shoot himself as a Red Dwarf episode? Something about seeing what might have happened if he survived and the nasty road that led down convincing him that offing himself was actually the better option?
I have notions, since pretty much everyone does. I'll at least admit that. They are obviously pre-conceived as they didn't leap out at my while I was typing this reply. But having said that, I hardly have a particular slant that is identifiable, as I've been labelled just about every shade from Communist to National Socialist and Anarchist... by different folks.
I call them discontent-formenting because this tends to be the nature of "news" media these days - the purpose of which is to generate viewership or readership and creating tempests in teacups seems to be a wonderful method. People love conflict! Even where it doesn't really exist.
Spin-doctoring? Please... if you don't think they do this, you don't listen too carefully to the types of language they use on our major national broadcaster. Often times it isn't even that the slant they take is itself problematic, it is the choice of language that they use that brings with it hidden assumptions and various logical fallacies embedded within.
Further, I call them opinionated - all you have to do is watch how much op-ed you get, even in the guise of documentaries and commentaries, and how little actual strictly factual news. Now, admittedly, it is sometimes difficult to present a fact without any context - but one can make a great attempt to show both sides of the story equitably. I don't see much evidence of this lately.
And as for free from influence - those at the CBC and elsewhere know what kind of a government would cut public broadcasting and what kind would support it (both for political reasons as much as any economic ones). So it only makes Darwinian sense for them to have a slant. It is, after all, their livelihood on the line.
Lastly, who died and made Reporters without Borders an unbiased entity with some sort of equitable assessment? I'm not saying they aren't, but your suggestion is that they are somehow a de facto or de jure authority is worth questioning. They may or may not be an appropriate source of judgement.
Besides, if you had to pick this one line out and follow it, when the main aspect of my comment was that Canadians have been singularly impolite to our neighbours over the last few years and that many have a singularly vitriolic attitude with very little experience, then I wonder if you missed the whole point.
I'm a Canadian, and I've found the same thing. I know plenty of Yankees (and a few South'ners) and almost uniformly, they've been interesting and worthwhile people. Whereas I don't agree with all of them on all things (some are tea-totallers, which I as a Canadian find bizarre, some are profoundly religious right (but in a quiet non-proselytizing way), some are very much of the 'America right or wrong' crowd...), but they've usually been able to have a sensible discussion of right and wrong and take into account the right of Canada and Canadians to differ with them. And while doing so, none of them have said unpleasant or belittling things about us.
Contrast this with how many of my allegedly university educated (and college educated) friends look at the Americans - often times the reactions are vitriolic, uncharitable, and reflect only a superficial interface with *actual* Americans, as opposed to some sort of caricature seen on TV or presented in Canadian (opinionated, spin-doctoring, discontent-formenting) media.
If they're all so smart and well educated, they should be able to 'walk a mile in the other guys shoes' and should know better than to form opinions of a whole body of people by the outliers. And they should know that it makes little sense to form opinions with little data. But this paucity of data seems to lead to very nasty and very mean-spirited opinions.
Whether we as Canadians should or should not have joined the war in Iraq, whether we should support the war on terror, whether we have serious border issues ourselves with our own intelligence and police agencies reporting fairly significant terrorist planning and fundraising activities within our borders, etc. - all of these things are things that should be calmly discussed and upon which differing points of view can be coped-with. We should still be able to maintain a civil relationships with our US neighbours.
It is no mark of distinction, no badge of honour, no sign of integrity or eductation to blindly bash those you've never met, to categorize them blankly based on a few noisy mouthpieces, nor to show your own small-hearted nature by vilifying people who have (for the most part) very similar aspirations, lives, and motivations...
To my mind, this kind of behaviour (especially given the way we open our arms to people the rest of the world over) is just pathetic. We should have our own opinions, but we shouldn't be obnoxious buttheads when it comes to our neighbours in the south.
Many of my American friends have apologized for the kind of stereo-typical American tourista that you sometimes encounter ("Those are the kind of people that we even wince about... they make us all look bad.") I feel very much that way about Canadians that can't disagree with their American counterparts without resorting to unthoughtful and unflattering epithets, errant classifications, and bilious polemic. This kind of conduct is unjustified and makes me want to disown these boorish clowns... or at least makes me embarassed to admit to being from the same country, which is sad, because I love the place and I took and Oath to defend it... I just wish some of the people would act a bit more like polite, rational adults and less like petulant, self-absorbed, egocentric children....
There are a number of us out there (yes me...), I think around 1-3%, who have effectively no 3D (stereoscopic) vision. In my case, I can detect a profound shift from eye to eye. When I tested on the fancy opthomalogical(sp?) machine where you try to line up 4 lines into a + sign (roughly), I could only ever see two at a time, which two depending on which eye I 'looked' through. In university geology courses, I could never use a stereoscope to examine stereoscopic pictures (trying to estimate a slide-mass was really fun....).
So, I wonder which, if any, of these 3D technologies will work for people with these kinds of problems? Or, will we just become another group of 'informationally handicapped' people? (Which would suck, since I'm a programmer!)
Living in a nation where such gay marriage is allowed, my main comment is "no big deal, really".
For that matter, if it cuts down the competition by taking guys out of the pool (especially ones who can colour coordinate and understand a hair care regimen involving three or more products), then that's all to the good, in my books.
Further, what's the big deal about procreation? Methinks some of our environmental problems are a consequence of this world having too many people on it now. Is encouraging procreation going to help that? As we live longer, work later into life, and enjoy more vigour through that life, do we really need more generations piling on and greater population increase? Do we not already have issues with youngsters having trouble finding jobs and we're still talking about moving retirement ages up due to the cost of caring for retirees for longer periods....?
It seems to me that who you settle down with should be your choice. It should be based on affection and serious commitment. Gender is relevant to some, and irrelevant to others, and more power to them.
The ultimate argument is one about status: Why does one taxpayer enjoy a different ability to declare himself part of a relationship under the tax laws (and other related legal frameworks) that another does not? They both have the same liability to pay for these services. So they should recieve the same benefits.
And as to the whole "church wants sanctity of marriage preserved" aspect: If the church wants to have a 'church only' marriage, then fine, take it entirely OUT of other legal frameworks. Then your church marriage has NO legal standing, and your civil union is the choice of any two individuals and is defined in terms of tax and other legal frameworks, not some sort of 'holy matrimony'. The church wants it both ways - to have 'marriage' have some impact in law and finance, while also wanting to control it and apply it in an inequitable fashion to citizens. That isn't right.
Further, as long as the churches are underwritten by the state, they *should* be forced to adhere to the laws of the land, and that includes those fundamental laws about equality of persons under the law and therefore the rights to marriage/etc. If they want to have a separate view or somehow oppose some of those fundamental principals of law, then they should give up their tax exempt statuses and become what they really are - a private club for people of like mind or a lobby group for those wanting to see their view expounded, expanded and enforced.
I guess I just believe gov't should mostly leave people alone to live their lives and gaurantee equal rights under the law to all taxpayers. Call me 'satanic' if you must for holding such a heretical view of what a free and enlightened society might be, but I thank God that Canada (in this one particular) hews to the sensible position.
To put an element of humour in here, a US friend once said "What's going on with you guys? Gay marriage, legalized pot, not having to go fight in the desert - you're having too much fun up there! We might just have to invade!"
Engineers are a profession. They get paid like one, have legally protections and responsibilities, and are pretty picky about who they let in. Stuff developed with proper engineering method costs $$$. So, if we put software in this category, your web browser would cost $900, it would be updated once every year for another $400, and it might or might not interoperate with any other software. If the engineers (following proper engineering method and using design-for-testability or design-by-contract or inherently correct languages) had been the sole force in computer development, the PC would still be 60 pounds and run a 8 MHz. It'd be robust and stable, and no threat to public safety, and you could play a nice VGA game on it, if anyone was insane enough to write games in its underlying language, and they'd go broke doing it. This is no disrespect to engineers - there are types of software where this approach is not only merited, but required. Their professional standards and legal liability make them careful about what they put their name to or what they let pass through their hands. But a lot of the software *has* no public safety issue. Public safety and the safety of your bank account *may not be equivalent*. And we always (WE, the Consumers!) want the newest game, the newest graphics, the best sound, the newest networking, blah blah blah - WE drive the development world by buying what it offers and demanding what it has barely thought of. I'm all in favour of a rigorous development approach for mission critical software for police, fire departments, hospitals and the military. Oddly, this is where we see a lot of this stuff being done now. But I'm not in favour of requiring every PC user to invest $10000 to buy a 486-speed machine and another $1000 a year for the annual software update to the THREE programs anyone has ever written. We need to develop software by having an eye to what the software must do, the market it must address, and the need for it to be robust vs. the cost to make it so. By en large, the world as it stands with all the spam and viruses and such *seems to be working*. Yes, money is wasted, but the world keeps on turning, and a lot of security IT guys are employed, Network Nazis get extra large overtime paychecks, and the average user still manages to clunk ahead. Rarely do lives hang int he balance or does the world grind to a halt. So, would I like to see a more stable and secure windows OS? Sure. Have I ran Windows (98, then NT4, then 2000, then WinXP Pro) for many years and NEVER had a virus strike or hacker zombify my boxes? Yes, I have. Do I security patch? Intermittently. But I do run a firewall or two (software, all), and I do follow some basic precautions. But with that, I've survived with little crisis. So, is the problem causing the world to grind to a halt? No. A net slowdown or two until the head net engineers get some patches in place, but we can live with that. It's annoying, but hardly worth upending the entire model of how software is developed and why....
Don't take this the wrong way, but your Dad might have been a bit confused about his job. He obviously thought it was to satisfy customers. In truth, it was to satisfy the people paying his paycheck. The customer has an indirect relationship to that, at best. If the company's management wants a tech to do a quick-n-dirty job, it is THEM that have to worry about the repercussions and it is THEIR place to make that call. It is not the technician's place to decide what service level a customer is to be offered - that's a policy issue. The only decision they have to make is are they willing to deliver that service or do they have some objection great enough to cause them to part ways with the company.... I'm not advocating crappy service, but I am advocating management not being second guessed. If management advocates a particular approach to a problem (budget or time-on-task ahead of total and complete quality of end result), then that is their choice and that's the kind of decision they are there to make. In theory, they are accountable for those decisions and have to live with the consequences.
..when he showed up with the best sci-fi show ever shown on TV...
Okay, I *like* Firefly. I find the characters grow on you as you watch it (the DVD series lets you get that in a way the Fox presentation never did), but let's be reasonable. Best sci-fi show ever? That's pretty much contestable on many fronts.
It's a western with some spaceship trappings. It has a passing grasp of real science and the culture it portrays is probably unlikely in the extreme. Is it reasonable escapist entertainment? Undoubtedly. But the best sci-fi ever? One would have to have a very limited exposure to conclude that.
One could easily trot out a number of other competitors, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. Let's not get carried away.... Firefly was good, I look forward to a movie and a revived series, but it wasn't the Garden of Eden, Shangrila, Utopia, and Heaven all rolled into one with a sci-fi theme.
The prior poster said:
---------------------
As a male in that age range I've completely given up on TV. In my area I can't get any kind of reception and cable is too expensive for the few channels I would watch (TLC, Discovery, Comedy Central, etc).
Its more cost effective for me to not buy cable; which is about the cost of two uncapped DSL lines both with static IP's in my area. Instead, I buy the occasional DVD when I'm in the mood for a movie.
------------------
I live in the country where I can barely get 31 kbps on a good day (a bad day is 21 or 12 or 4.8). High Speed? Hah! I'm a heck of a lot further than 18000 ft from the PSTN main switch and many kilometers beyond cable. Satellite will reach, but the cost is exhorbant as it involves the $80 a month for Satellite Internet PLUS having a dialup account. And it'd still suck for games due to the front-end latencies of such systems.
So the net result is I still watch a bit of TV. Usually late night, usually history channel or discovery or other similar types of educational channels (read: lots of docos and entertainment programs about archaeology, history, anthropology, science, etc). And when I'm not watching that, I'll throw in a DVD and watch people blow stuff up. (Firefly, B5, the like).
Network TV (except for the aforementioned specialty cable channels) has sweet FA to offer. In fact, it isn't even a 'neutral offering'. I can't even sit in front of the TV when The Bride of Survivor: Millionaire Moles comes on.
Heck, most of the modern generation of reality TV makes Cops look entertaining (at least there you can laugh at really stupid criminals...).
The SciFi Channel and a few others make it worth (sort of) having Satellite. The nice thing about Satellite is you can somewhat tailor your offering (though not enough) and this allows you to support the networks who help fund the development of things like Simpsons, B5, Firefly, Farscape, varios historical documentaries, etc. You can avoid patronizing the crap CBC, NBC, CBS, etc. puts out.
The real funny part is, with a long commute and a typical high tech long-hours job, I've come to appreciate BBC World Service on the radio, but its only ever on locally late at night. If network TV could aspire to their level of insight into other cultures, current events, etc, then maybe there'd be some value.
I also can't quite figure out who the hot chick on the ultramatic adjustable bed is trying to sell it to. She keeps talking about 'getting lucky', but I associate the bed with old folks or the infirm. Taken together, that just presents a disturbing line of thinking. I know my reaction is to finish the commercial, have my brain come out of Testosterone flood, and say 'what was that about?' . It doesn't get me to drag out my wallet, my credit card, and the phone.... obviously I'm not the target demographic!
I wonder if they used Inform for the control interface.
Well, it might be worse. Maybe they used LISP, and the poor thing was still stripping brackets.It is ironic, as you point out.
On the other hand, most of the time on earth, people get in car accidents not hundreds of miles from home, even given the number of miles driven, but right at their doorstep.
And you have to admit, 88 feet on *MARS* is somehow more impressive than me walking out to my mailbox and back...