Sounds good in a logical world. In this one, he doesn't need to understand anything.
All he needs to do is push his lobbyists' political/economic agendas and say the right things that make his party like him and get him re-elected.
He already does his job perfectly.
We in the USA do not really believe that other countries are independent. We do not care about scientific proof nearly as much as we care about sensational headlines and soundbites. We do not care of copyright extension because the police is not yet kicking our doors for singing Happy Birthday. And we don't know what laws govern us. Ask the average person on the street about DMCA or the Patriot Act or about Copyright law terms... and don't hold your breath.
We don't really care what our politicians are doing and they've been on a rampage for decades, selling the rights to raping the public, the land and the environment to the highest bidder.
The issue being violent behavior coming at you (passive agressive or rude or angry or very anxious etc.) I think there are a few different options at hand.
What you are discussing are the options of escalating the violence they came with, turning it against them, possibly with the elegance of an aikido master, making them feel miserable for f**ing with you.
That's righteous, they deserve it etc. I agree. But fear, humiliation and remorse do not equal respect, unless you strive to be a bully.
There's one more possibility, though, that addresses the respect thing.
Turn them into your friend. It may not work for every case but it will work for some and will change how you feel on the job.
The main issue with angry customers is that they are angry. They don't only have a technical issue, they also have an emotional problem. What your job description includes is taking care of the technical side of things. What your job demands, however, is taking care of both.
This calls for emotional intelligence.
The good news is that it is easy to acquire. Here's the simple formula of nonviolent communication (think defusing situations versus escalating them):
1. Acknowledge to yourself how you feel. Give yourself a moment (5 seconds may be enough, while you are listening) and mentally acknowledge what you feel. Example: I feel angry because I don't like it when people raise their voice and this woman is screaming at me for something I have nothing to do with.
The structure is "I feel... right now, because I... " If you say I feel... because YOU/HE/SHE, you give the responsibility of your emotional well being to whoever is on the other side. Are they fit to be your caretaker at this moment? I didn't think so.
2. Once you get in touch with yourself, acknowledge their emotional state. You never know what's happening for them for sure, so always use a question / open ended statement allowing them to confirm or correct your perception.
"Are you upset because you lost your file?" If you get "Damn right I am upset! &%$@#" that's good. You just made that person feel FELT. Now you and they are ON THE SAME SIDE.
You don't need to change their feelings. Just acknowledge them in a way that makes them feel understood and acknowledged.
That's it. Now you can start the technical side of your work. You can transition by:
"I can imagine how disappointing it is to lose your work. I will try to help you restore the file."
And take it from there. If you don't succeed, acknowledge their disappointment, tell them you did all you could do and tell them how disappointed you are yourself because you really wanted to help them.
You will be surprised how the taste of your job will change. You are now the IT whisperer and the war between you and your clients is over.
Agreed. What is also important is exposing the fact that RIAA does not really protect artists' profit but has built litigation into their business model instead with the intention to maximize their own profit. And as they are doing litigation as a business practice, they are doing everything possible to make it a streamlined, efficient, automated process by going around the laws binding the current judicial system.
And let's not forget that the judicial system costs a lot of taxpayer money. One entity putting a lot of load on said system costs us a lot of dollars which is one more way RIAA robs the public domain.
Exactly. I expect and look forward to more and more kids hacking the system. After all, money & grades, can be gotten in ways more efficient than learning. As learning is unpleasant and streamlined towards making children good workers at the cost of killing their natural creativity, curiosity and artistic abilities, as well as turning them into prisoners for 8+ hours every day, I see schools as a challenge to the ones that will not be oppressed. I hope they find ways out and around.
Grading paying kids corrupts the notion of learning for education's sake alone.
Fixed that for you.
Studies show that conditioning human beings with treats (and threats) does not instill values, but results in modified behavior that goes away if the pattern of rewards is stopped. Seems to work with dogs, tho.
The current education system is highly oppressive and does not cater to the children's needs for activity, play and natural way of learning. Let's not call mandatory children camps schools.
Pushing censorship has clear goals: to give one the power to dictate another's information flow and ultimately thoughts; and, to incriminate large amounts of people and thus give one power over their freedom, lives, income.
The idea behind such intiatives is to mandate and implement a method for censorship. The reason does not matter. Once we have that, especially for the web, "inconvenient" websites will start getting labeled with "hate speech," "sex" etc. and disappear from the map for a lot of non-geeks. Just look at netnanny and websense, it's already happening.
China does it, and I think governments from all over the world are watching and hoping and learning.
Now, who exactly is trying to put their hands on your thoughts, and take your freedom away?
...when governments realize that the truth of what they are actually doing will shock, disgust, appall their people.
IMHO free flowing information is what ultimately caused taking down the Berlin wall.
Now, that we know that our governments torture, steal, abuse their power, serve the money-printing oligarchy instead of serving us, what are we going to do?
Similarly to another/.-er's fantasy, I imagine the world when *I* become an overlord and hire my own army of clowns to would slap politicians who say things like:
"Promoting innovation" - SLAP!
"For the sake of the children!" - SLAP!
"Free markets" "The GNP" - SLAP
"It's the Jews" "It's the communists" "It's the Arabs" "It's teh tehrorists!" - SLAP!
There are two kinds of people. Ones that enjoy killing and ones that do not.
Who should be on the receiving side of the sledgehammer is a question of rationalization and you can rationalize anything. All it takes is framing it as The Enemy.
The issue lies in fundamentalism. Religion would be fine if taken with the understanding that the books contain parables and myths. It is only logical that taking works of fantasy and fiction literally and trying to maintain that the fictional reality is the correct one would certainly cause a certain tension with reality perceived via the scientific research methodology.
Indoctrination of human children with religious myths represented as facts is what all religions have been emphasizing on, resulting in adults who have a "gut feeling" that "their" "faith" is sound.
Imagine a world where children would choose their spiritual / religious appropriation independently of their parent's, school's etc. views, at an age when they can make a choice. As free people, defining their own relationship with the divine.
This is what happened as a side effect in Eastern Europe when "Religion is an opium for the masses." was turned into actionable policy and for some time people were oppressed for their religious practices. It took only one generation growing up without the presence of the church to break the cycle. The children of that generation did not get indoctrinated with religious beliefs.
This is what the Church-es are really scared of. Without being the middlemen to people's own relationship with divinity, they lose their power, political influence and ultimately money.
You already knew organized religion was mostly about the power and the money, didn't you?
"Removing adverts and altering how other peoples work is used without their permission is about as similar to democracy as the concept of being able to punch someone in the face for saying something you don't like. "
This doesn't ring true to me. Using ad blocking I only alter how *I* see people's work. I see my attention as a valuable, finite resource and most advertising does not respect that resource. Just check out IMDB, opening a popup window almost every time I click a link. So, to stop this abuse, I am taking measures.
I would rather compare this situation to wearing glasses that make advertising messages disappear. The only person on the receiving end of this is me. Nobody gets punched, including my eyeballs.
Look at how polluted our public spaces are with advertising. Reading these messages because I have no other choice (reading is automatic and I have to keep my eyes open when driving) and unconsciously repeating the written messages in my own head, with my own energy, on my own time, without consent, is unacceptable.
"A paddle is just a tool. It can be used to play ping pong, and it can be used to correct behavior (to a certain degree). As long as it's not being used maliciously I don't see the problem with it."
Causing pain to another human without their consent violates trust, respect and their core dignity. It is abuse.
Please consider another point of view, backed by research.
Sitting in a confined space and listening to boring facts is just not appropriate for human children. We learn by playing, experiencing, moving, experimenting, exploring, doing. Schools are more akin to training camps for factory workers.
Judgments like this one contain information about the one giving them and not the topic discussed.
Thank you for offering an excellent example of how empty/rich this kind of language is:
Parsing the data: the author is mystified (and maybe irritated) author thinks CD is irrelevant (to what? presuming to author's criteria of relevance of people) and a blowhard (??) CD has a website (a useful fact!) and the author thinks it's a stupid one (according to author's criteria? compared to what? can websites be stupid?)
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds good in a logical world. In this one, he doesn't need to understand anything.
All he needs to do is push his lobbyists' political/economic agendas and say the right things that make his party like him and get him re-elected.
He already does his job perfectly.
We in the USA do not really believe that other countries are independent. We do not care about scientific proof nearly as much as we care about sensational headlines and soundbites. We do not care of copyright extension because the police is not yet kicking our doors for singing Happy Birthday. And we don't know what laws govern us. Ask the average person on the street about DMCA or the Patriot Act or about Copyright law terms... and don't hold your breath.
We don't really care what our politicians are doing and they've been on a rampage for decades, selling the rights to raping the public, the land and the environment to the highest bidder.
Legally.
Have a nice day.
We all know where. His royal senator a$$.
And yes, I am considering moving there, thanks for asking.
The issue being violent behavior coming at you (passive agressive or rude or angry or very anxious etc.) I think there are a few different options at hand.
What you are discussing are the options of escalating the violence they came with, turning it against them, possibly with the elegance of an aikido master, making them feel miserable for f**ing with you.
That's righteous, they deserve it etc. I agree. But fear, humiliation and remorse do not equal respect, unless you strive to be a bully.
There's one more possibility, though, that addresses the respect thing.
Turn them into your friend. It may not work for every case but it will work for some and will change how you feel on the job.
The main issue with angry customers is that they are angry. They don't only have a technical issue, they also have an emotional problem. What your job description includes is taking care of the technical side of things. What your job demands, however, is taking care of both.
This calls for emotional intelligence.
The good news is that it is easy to acquire. Here's the simple formula of nonviolent communication (think defusing situations versus escalating them):
1. Acknowledge to yourself how you feel. Give yourself a moment (5 seconds may be enough, while you are listening) and mentally acknowledge what you feel. Example: I feel angry because I don't like it when people raise their voice and this woman is screaming at me for something I have nothing to do with.
The structure is "I feel ... right now, because I ... "
If you say I feel... because YOU/HE/SHE, you give the responsibility of your emotional well being to whoever is on the other side. Are they fit to be your caretaker at this moment? I didn't think so.
2. Once you get in touch with yourself, acknowledge their emotional state. You never know what's happening for them for sure, so always use a question / open ended statement allowing them to confirm or correct your perception.
"Are you upset because you lost your file?"
If you get "Damn right I am upset! &%$@#" that's good. You just made that person feel FELT. Now you and they are ON THE SAME SIDE.
You don't need to change their feelings. Just acknowledge them in a way that makes them feel understood and acknowledged.
That's it. Now you can start the technical side of your work. You can transition by:
"I can imagine how disappointing it is to lose your work. I will try to help you restore the file."
And take it from there. If you don't succeed, acknowledge their disappointment, tell them you did all you could do and tell them how disappointed you are yourself because you really wanted to help them.
You will be surprised how the taste of your job will change. You are now the IT whisperer and the war between you and your clients is over.
Cheers
Andre
Agreed. What is also important is exposing the fact that RIAA does not really protect artists' profit but has built litigation into their business model instead with the intention to maximize their own profit. And as they are doing litigation as a business practice, they are doing everything possible to make it a streamlined, efficient, automated process by going around the laws binding the current judicial system.
And let's not forget that the judicial system costs a lot of taxpayer money. One entity putting a lot of load on said system costs us a lot of dollars which is one more way RIAA robs the public domain.
The shareholders are the customers. Service subscribers (you) are the product. Your only power is to vote with your dollar, by the numbers.
Know your place, know your options.
Oh, and apple product update cycles are pretty predictable.
Twitter's killer feature is limiting entries to 140 characters.
And let's keep in mind that some of the dumb shits (as measured by the schools' broken measuring sticks) are actually geniuses slowly suffocating.
Exactly. I expect and look forward to more and more kids hacking the system. After all, money & grades, can be gotten in ways more efficient than learning. As learning is unpleasant and streamlined towards making children good workers at the cost of killing their natural creativity, curiosity and artistic abilities, as well as turning them into prisoners for 8+ hours every day, I see schools as a challenge to the ones that will not be oppressed. I hope they find ways out and around.
Grading paying kids corrupts the notion of learning for education's sake alone.
Fixed that for you.
Studies show that conditioning human beings with treats (and threats) does not instill values, but results in modified behavior that goes away if the pattern of rewards is stopped. Seems to work with dogs, tho.
The current education system is highly oppressive and does not cater to the children's needs for activity, play and natural way of learning. Let's not call mandatory children camps schools.
For more info check Alfie Kohn's work and Sir Ken Robinson's TED talk on schools and creativity.
Well said.
Pushing censorship has clear goals: to give one the power to dictate another's information flow and ultimately thoughts; and, to incriminate large amounts of people and thus give one power over their freedom, lives, income.
The idea behind such intiatives is to mandate and implement a method for censorship. The reason does not matter. Once we have that, especially for the web, "inconvenient" websites will start getting labeled with "hate speech," "sex" etc. and disappear from the map for a lot of non-geeks. Just look at netnanny and websense, it's already happening.
China does it, and I think governments from all over the world are watching and hoping and learning.
Now, who exactly is trying to put their hands on your thoughts, and take your freedom away?
...when governments realize that the truth of what they are actually doing will shock, disgust, appall their people.
IMHO free flowing information is what ultimately caused taking down the Berlin wall.
Now, that we know that our governments torture, steal, abuse their power, serve the money-printing oligarchy instead of serving us, what are we going to do?
I guess... http://www.flickr.com/photos/andreinla/235687297/
and
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andreinla/3135176066/
Similarly to another /.-er's fantasy, I imagine the world when *I* become an overlord and hire my own army of clowns to would slap politicians who say things like:
"Promoting innovation" - SLAP!
"For the sake of the children!" - SLAP!
"Free markets" "The GNP" - SLAP
"It's the Jews" "It's the communists" "It's the Arabs" "It's teh tehrorists!" - SLAP!
"For your safety" - SLAP, KICK, SLAP!
Thanks, Bozo, I needed that.
Makes sense to have a trust-based, full-disclosure solution between a parent and child where the child participates in the agreement.
There are two kinds of people. Ones that enjoy killing and ones that do not.
Who should be on the receiving side of the sledgehammer is a question of rationalization and you can rationalize anything. All it takes is framing it as The Enemy.
>>No modern value system should be based on such terrible nonsense.
That's pretty much the point I am trying to make.
iWish you good iHealth and a long iLife.
It's more difficult to sue someone for satire.
And, my guess is, John Stewart's directive is not "Sell X party's policy (or you're fired)." but rather "Make it funny and keep the ratings up."
The issue lies in fundamentalism. Religion would be fine if taken with the understanding that the books contain parables and myths. It is only logical that taking works of fantasy and fiction literally and trying to maintain that the fictional reality is the correct one would certainly cause a certain tension with reality perceived via the scientific research methodology.
Indoctrination of human children with religious myths represented as facts is what all religions have been emphasizing on, resulting in adults who have a "gut feeling" that "their" "faith" is sound.
Imagine a world where children would choose their spiritual / religious appropriation independently of their parent's, school's etc. views, at an age when they can make a choice. As free people, defining their own relationship with the divine.
This is what happened as a side effect in Eastern Europe when "Religion is an opium for the masses." was turned into actionable policy and for some time people were oppressed for their religious practices. It took only one generation growing up without the presence of the church to break the cycle. The children of that generation did not get indoctrinated with religious beliefs.
This is what the Church-es are really scared of. Without being the middlemen to people's own relationship with divinity, they lose their power, political influence and ultimately money.
You already knew organized religion was mostly about the power and the money, didn't you?
"Removing adverts and altering how other peoples work is used without their permission is about as similar to democracy as the concept of being able to punch someone in the face for saying something you don't like. "
This doesn't ring true to me. Using ad blocking I only alter how *I* see people's work. I see my attention as a valuable, finite resource and most advertising does not respect that resource. Just check out IMDB, opening a popup window almost every time I click a link. So, to stop this abuse, I am taking measures.
I would rather compare this situation to wearing glasses that make advertising messages disappear. The only person on the receiving end of this is me. Nobody gets punched, including my eyeballs.
Look at how polluted our public spaces are with advertising. Reading these messages because I have no other choice (reading is automatic and I have to keep my eyes open when driving) and unconsciously repeating the written messages in my own head, with my own energy, on my own time, without consent, is unacceptable.
Anyone got a hold of a pair of theseshades?
I recommend seeing "The Century of the Self" and Carpenter's "They Live." Eye opening :)
Interesting how the oppressive nature of schools touches everyone involved.
"A paddle is just a tool. It can be used to play ping pong, and it can be used to correct behavior (to a certain degree). As long as it's not being used maliciously I don't see the problem with it."
Causing pain to another human without their consent violates trust, respect and their core dignity. It is abuse.
Please consider another point of view, backed by research.
You may start here. http://www.alice-miller.com/flyers_en.php?page=7
And here http://www.alfiekohn.com/articles.htm
Thank you.
"...And bring back the paddle."
You may be interested in learning about the consequences of using violence and physical abuse as a tool for obedience conditioning of humans.
http://www.alice-miller.com/flyers_en.php?page=7
http://www.alice-miller.com/index_en.php
Sitting in a confined space and listening to boring facts is just not appropriate for human children. We learn by playing, experiencing, moving, experimenting, exploring, doing. Schools are more akin to training camps for factory workers.
As for ADHD, parents and organizations ought to consider feeding children non-toxic food. http://www.myomancy.com/2006/07/add_adhd_diet_a
Judgments like this one contain information about the one giving them and not the topic discussed.
Thank you for offering an excellent example of how empty/rich this kind of language is:
Parsing the data:
the author is mystified (and maybe irritated)
author thinks CD is irrelevant (to what? presuming to author's criteria of relevance of people)
and a blowhard (??)
CD has a website (a useful fact!)
and the author thinks it's a stupid one (according to author's criteria? compared to what? can websites be stupid?)