I am a computer programmer. I work for a law firm.
When I have to send certain types of progams, my office email will not allow it.
When I complained, IT told me to use my personal yahoo account to do it, instead of giving me special permission for my work account.
This is actually typical. The problem with having IT departments block X because it also has feature Y that you don't want, is that X has features Z, and next year they gain Features A,B, and C that your USERS want and need, and honestly, your little IT department simply does not have the time and skill to implement.
The policy of blocking external IT sources puts a severe penalty on innovation and work on the users. Yes, you block one single kind of problem, but you also block tons of GOOD things, without realizing it.
You should only block the 'essential computers', not block all users. Treat your users like they are OUTSIDE your firewall for most things, not inside them. That way they can take full advantage of the innovation from the Web, etc.
You are failing to understand something, in part because I wrote it poorly.
It is not the fact that you are not thinking about the road, so much that you are concentrating on something else, in particular with someone that is not in the car so can not themselves stop talking when it becomes 'dangerous'. Your conversation partner keeps talking even though you begin to brake, etc.
When using the hand held phone, few if any people actually take their eyes off the road during any significant time. You dial while at a stop light, or use a press to talk button. Or your wife dials the phone, talks to your mother, then hands you the phone cause "Mom wants to say 'hi'." The eyes off the road is not at all relevant, it does not endager you. When day dreaming, you are not concentrating on something else, but when talking, you often are. In fact, some people get angry at the person they are talking to.
The basic fact is that the hands free headphones do NOT reduce accidents.
You can reject it because you don't think it makes any sense, but it is honest truth. If I have not explained it well enough, you should learn more about it before just denying it.
As far as a I know, not a single study comparing hands free cell phones has shown them to be reasonably safe. They all show them as being about as dangerous as driving while on a hand needed phone.
Not that long ago, there was an article about the cost of 0wnership (that first letter is a zero, not an o). It basically stated that it was cheaper to take control over a Windows computer than a Linux, and that by implication, it was more expensive to provide proper security for Windows than for Linux.
I wonder if Novel fairily included the higher cost to make a Windows system as secure as a Linux is.
Now, please note that much of that security is based on "security by unpopularity". However, if Linux were to become more popular, then the costs to find trained people and to pay them to support Linux would drop, probably just as much as the security costs went up.
Studies have conclusively shown that 95% of the 'distraction' is caused by not THINKING about the road.
Those hands free car phones? They don't solve the problem at all - people are just as likely to get in an accident while using them as when you use a regular cell phone.
When the Ethano runs out, the engine begins to "knock". It ignites before the right time. This decreases fuel efficiancy quite a bit, and could theoretically damage the engine if you did it long enough.
But as you pointed out, a smart engine should be able to recognize that Knock is occuring. While the computer can not change the size of the cylinders, it could change the amount of fuel/air injected. This would reduce the chance of damage, but severly impair engine performance.
The rest of your ideas are good, but will take quite some time. Nuclear power still needs both some more advancements and some better press before we begin to truly accept it. (And Russia should shoot anyone that suggets "Our plant is so good we don't need the essential safety feature X" - which is what they said when they decided not to put a containment roof over Chernobyl.)
False positive with regards to internet browsing. The RIAA is seeing that kind of thing right now (kid downloads on grandma's account). But here is a non-musical, higher scare tactic (yeah, I know, it is possible to be scarier than the RIAA).
Assume I am gay. I go to my non-gay friends house. I ask him if I can check my email, while he is in the bathroom. I open up my yahoo account, and open an email from my gay lover. 1/2 down, embedded in the email is a link to a Nambla site, done as a joke. I even have to click on it a couple of times to get rid of pop-ups. My totally straight friend's ISP now has incriminating evidence that he likes to screw little boys.
Now assume, I have anonymous internet browsing, and always use it, even when checking my email.
Ah, the classic fascist question (What do you have to hide, my slave.). Despite the obvious fact that you don't own me, and have no right to even ask the question, I will reply, in 4 parts:
1st: Throughout history, there have been wonderfull governments, but also some horrible governments. And even the Wonderfull Governments often keep records, that get passed on to their replacement, horrible governments when the evil SOB's have revolution. Governments have in the past killed people for: Being Jewish. Being Gay. Belonging to a political party that objected to that government. Asking if the government had killed other people. Being a family member of any of the above people. Looking at Pornography. While I trust (just barely) the current government, I do not trust the unknown government that will take power in 4 years, because I don't know who they are yet.
2nd: If you have nothing to hide, then that quite literally means you are willing to let me photograph you naked? And I get full rights to that photograph - so I can show it to your neighbors?
Because THAT is what you are saying. You DO have things you do not want people to see. So do I. Yours might be your pretty body. Mine might be the fact that I am gay. And a member of the legalize marijuana political action group. And a member of the "Send the Africans back to Africa" Charity. Also, I routinely travel 56 mph in a 55 mph zone. And get drunk 1/month in my closet. And I once masturbated while looking at pictures of dead dogs. And I collect my own snot and eat it. I still wet my bed. I won't do business with those dirty, thieving Jews. And I am a card carrying member of the ACLU. And I despise children.
All of these things are legal (or at least not serious crimes worthy of being investigated). Now, assuming I was not being sarcastic, do you think I would have a job tomorrow if my boss knew them?
3rd consider this: I have a right to privacy, not because I have things to hide, but because trust is a two way street. Think about a parent. What would you think of a father that says "My honor student has never done anything wrong. But just to be 'sure', I hired a private investigator to follow them around all the time, sneak into his bedroom at night and check his computer, diary, underwear draw" It takes WAY too much effort and cost for the government to actually fairly investigate everyone. So we tell them that if they want to investigate people, they must prove it to a judge that they are worth investigating.
If the cop can't do that, then THE COPS ARE THE SICKO PERVERTS. Just like the dad/mom that treated their honor student like a gangbanger, if the government does the same to us, THEY demonstrate that they are A) poor government, B) can't be trusted themselves and C) have serious emotional problems.
4th: The last, best argument is simple. Every test has a false positive rate as well as a false negative rate. If you test too many people, you end up convicting the innocent more than the guilty. I.E. if you have a test that 5% of the time falsely says "drug user" even if they are not, and use it on a population where only 1% of the people use drugs, than you arrest, charge and try 5 innocent people for every 1 guilty. Those innocent had nothing to hide. Hackers break into your computer, zombifie it and use it to store child porn. You don't know about this, till the police track down your computer as the server for a child porn ring, break down your door and arrest you. (Several cases like this exist).
The right to publish anonymously is the right to publish without having the government insist on knowing who you are. They can't arrest you/charge you just for trying.
The right to remain anonymous is the right not to have other people reveal who you are.
You definitely need the right to publish anonymously if you have the right to remain anonymous, but you don't have to have the right to remain anonymous if you have the right to publish anonymously.
It is sort of like the right to buy vs. the right to use. Typically americans have the right to buy ammo, but not the right to use it (with some specific exceptions).
Trailers are real Ads.
They are listings of products for sale at that theater. It is the same thing as going into Burger King and seeing a picture of a burger - that is a listing of what is for sale there, not a real advertisement to get you to do something you don't already want to do.
Even if the trailer is for a movie that is not out yet, it still is different from a regular ad. That is why you like them, but dislike the coke, etc. ads.
Allowing the movie theaters to convince you that a trailer is like a regular ad is how they snuck them in in the first place.
Similarly, if I have to watch even a 10 second commercial before I can begin my game, I will want my money back. Don't let them get away with it.
Universities of ANY kind live on donations from alumni.
Email is a great way to keep in touch and retain contact with your alumni. You want them to:
1. Keep the email that says @my_university.com Forever. Preferablly as their 'prime' personal email. Particullary for job interviews, etc. where you don't want to use your current business'es email.
2. Think of their email as a live connection to the school
3. Get as little advertisement as possible,... except from the school themselves
4. Respect the school as a bastion of intelligence and competence
Letting MS host them is stupid. They should run it themselves, with special features, for free. It is a BENEFIT to the school, not a cost.
We have seen Jupiter hit by a killer comet. While not 'destroyed', the damage created a violent weather system that lasted for YEARS over an area many times larger than the planet earth. In addition, we have record that our own planet has undergone massive extinctions that we believe was likely caused by asteroids or commets. So I would say that we have in fact seen a planet sufficiently damaged and have records of others, so the case is made.
The real problem is that what NASA wants to do is pay $1 billion to FIND the asteroid, not to deal with the problem. Preventing it may not be possible, and if it is possible, could cost a lot more than the mere $1 billion.
So, the question is, is it worth x cash to get a smoke detector if the house is locked up tight and we can't get out of it. Or is it better for us to not know, as we can't do anything about it, and just continue on with our lives without worldwide panic.
I am not against political/societal interference, that is your cross to bear. I think sometimes it is appropriate. If we had done it earlier during WWII, a lot of innocent jews, gypsies, homosexual, and communist civilians would have lived instead of veing burned in gas ovens. We might even have saved quite a few French, Belgium, Russian, Dutch and Polish lives by stopping Hitler cold. No, it is not always appropriate, but sometimes it is.
My point is that what the Republicans did, was NEVER appropriate. It was incredibally stupid, thinking "I can help these horrible, evil men, just because we currently have a common enemey."
I don't deny that Democrats bailed on the fascist pigs. That is not objectionable, it sometimes is laudable, if not always the best political decision.
What is objectionable is making friends with them in the first place. Americans need to admit that hey, the Republicans sometimes pick the wrong people to be friends with and we should NOT let them forget about their past 'mistakes'.
I prefer to be honest. We have not been 'interefering with their politics".
Instead we let Republican Presidents (yes, it was ALWAYS Republicans that did this, Carter and Clinton did not make this mistake) search out and finding the most vicious, obnoxious, totalitarian, Facists we can find, giving them large amounts of aid, helping them to gain power. Then when we looked at who are friends were and what they were doing, we abandon them, often when they have grown dependent on our aid. This pissed them off, and either they declare us traitors, or they get thrown out of power and the revolutionaries hate us. We did it with Iran (Shah/Khomeni), Panama (Noreiga), Iraq (Hussein), and Afganistan (Bin Laden)
I would love to know what 'excuse' Archive.org gave for removing such essential internet history information. It seems to be there reason for existence.
As she appears to have copied and sold music without the proper licenses, the RIAA will be hunting here down.
Merely being Dead will not stop the RIAA from making your existence a living hell.
You don't know much about business. Yes, some one with no business sense could think the way you did. But the Lycos Management does not.
The guy she was talking to was "the head of Customer Service".
His Boss could have called him "Head of User Service". He does not. His Boss wants him to treat "the cattle" as you so rudely called people, as CUSTOMERS.
People are NOT commodities, not products Thinking that is incredibally poor business sense. Anyone with any real MBA training knows that thinking of people like that is a sure way to destroy your business, as "the cattle" are always smart enough to stampede away from your rude service.. That same thinking is part of why many government services stink - some foolish childish rude person thinks "they are not paying me money, so it is OK if I treat them like cattle". It does not matter if they are not paying you any money. If you provide a SERVICE to them, they are your customer, and you have to treat them well, no matter how rude they are to you. Otherwise they go away, and you find yourself out of a job. Happened in the USSR, can happen here, and is happening right now to Lycos, because of the bad PR they got.
She was a customer. She was a rude, bad customer, but a customer notheless. The Customer Service guy SCREWED UP. He could have kept her as a customer and avoided a ton of bad publicity. He choose to return her rudeness with greater rudeness and if I were his boss would have fired him for making a mountain out of a molehill, for turning a rude, upset customer into a raving lunatic that blasts it all over the internet.
Also, terms of service is written by lawyers. That means it is protection against law suits, NOT an excuse to treat your customers like crap. Because it is written by lawyers, it is designed to stand up in a court of law, and can not be expected to be understood sufficiently by non-lawyers, anymore than you would expect to be able to read a court settlement without a lawyer going over it.
Yes, Lycos did not violate the law. That should not be the standard of care applied to them. A good company goes BEYOND what they promise to do in the Terms of Service. That is, you write down into the terms of service the minimum that you know you can do, then try to do better than that.
Lycos severely failed to do that here. They did the minimum. It would be like going to buy a hamburger at Burger King and having them hand it to you, no box, no paper wrapping, no tray, no napkins, no bathroom, just the burger handed to you. The minimum you have to do is not enough for any real business.
They are a customer. They pay with their attention, which Lycos sells to advertisers.
The fact that someone is not paying you cash does not change the fact that they are a customer.
It is NOT a free service, anymore than TV is free. Just as I have the right to call up and complain about NBC having stupid shows on, she has the right to call up Lycos and complain.
She may or may not have been a pain in the butt.
But a GOOD customer service rep handles pains in the butt all the time. A good customer service rep could probably find a way to fix this situation without having it get blasted all over the internet, which I assure you his boss is NOT HAPPY about. They are in the business of selling PR (ads) and that damn fool of a Customer Service Rep just gave his own business a whole bunch of negative PR.
The point of democracy is NOT to get the best man in power. Anyone that thinks having millions of average citizens who don't pay any attention to politics make the decision will result in the 'best man in power' is a fool.
Instead, the point of democracy is two fold:
1) To get the man in power to spend at least SOME time attempting to figure out what the rest of the country wants. He doesn't have to give them what they want, but he should make an attempt to figure it out.
2) To convince those NOT in power that their is a safe, non-violent way to get into power, so there is no need to raise an army and have a revolution.
Accuracy of the count is almost completely irrelevant, as long as it is within say 2%-4% error, which would be very hard to screw up. But Honesty is supremely important. If ambitious and/or crusading men think the current leaders will cheat and not allow their voice to be heard, they will start a revolution. I would, and I am not that ambitiuous or a crusader.
Most of the businessmen in the US recognize that the Bush administration will be the LAST to be anti-global warming.
The next administration, whether it be Republican or Democratic will almost certainly admit to Global Warming and take MUCH greater steps than Bush did. Bush is in effect, the worst of the republicans when it comes to global warming.
You are correct that mass mailings happen in the non-e world as well.
But there are several differences, that make YOUR analogy different. The major one is that email is NOT like the real world postal service.
1) E-Spam is a far worse problem and crime than what you discuss. I don't get viagra adds in the mail. I don't get nigerian scams in the mail. Etc. etc. If the postal mail was as bad as e-spam, then YES, it would be illegal to send advertisements through the world
2)Postal service costs them money, spam is for effective purposes free. This is the reason why spam is a real problem, as opposed to postal mail.
3)Yes, some mass mailings are legitamate. I never denied that.
What I am saying is that NO, IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE to use email to deliver mass mailings. We need a new system, just as email is a bad Instant Message system so we developed another set of systems for IM'ing, similarly we need to admit that Email is a BAD mass mailing system and we need another system just for mass mailing
YOu want to do mass mailings? Fine. But don't use email to deliver it, just as AOL and yahoo don't use Email to deliver their Instant Messaging.
The system we have now does NOT work, it is like using the same tub to do your dishes and bathe your children. It results in a disgusting mess.
Please note that by your own admission " serious conversations about best-practices typically end in yelling matches. " That only happens if one side is refusing to even listen to what the other has to say. You want mass mailings so bad you refuse to hear what I have to say:
I am not against legitimate mass mailings, (although I do think that quite a few fools believe they are doing legitiamte mass mailings when they are really doing spam). I am against putting them in my email box. They should go to a seperate service, just as my IM does not get dumped into my email box, just as I don't use the same tub to wash my dishes and also to wash my body.
I agree there IS no room left. Honestly, there never was. Email was not intended for this kind of re-occuring mass mailing. It should in fact be as illegal as spam, even for political parties, even for churches, even for charities.
Why?
For the same reason that you would be arrested if you went around with your business card in your hand and stuck it into the back pocket of random people on the street.
Slashdot Mirror
When I have to send certain types of progams, my office email will not allow it.
When I complained, IT told me to use my personal yahoo account to do it, instead of giving me special permission for my work account.
This is actually typical. The problem with having IT departments block X because it also has feature Y that you don't want, is that X has features Z, and next year they gain Features A,B, and C that your USERS want and need, and honestly, your little IT department simply does not have the time and skill to implement.
The policy of blocking external IT sources puts a severe penalty on innovation and work on the users. Yes, you block one single kind of problem, but you also block tons of GOOD things, without realizing it.
You should only block the 'essential computers', not block all users. Treat your users like they are OUTSIDE your firewall for most things, not inside them. That way they can take full advantage of the innovation from the Web, etc.
It is not the fact that you are not thinking about the road, so much that you are concentrating on something else, in particular with someone that is not in the car so can not themselves stop talking when it becomes 'dangerous'. Your conversation partner keeps talking even though you begin to brake, etc.
When using the hand held phone, few if any people actually take their eyes off the road during any significant time. You dial while at a stop light, or use a press to talk button. Or your wife dials the phone, talks to your mother, then hands you the phone cause "Mom wants to say 'hi'." The eyes off the road is not at all relevant, it does not endager you. When day dreaming, you are not concentrating on something else, but when talking, you often are. In fact, some people get angry at the person they are talking to.
The basic fact is that the hands free headphones do NOT reduce accidents. You can reject it because you don't think it makes any sense, but it is honest truth. If I have not explained it well enough, you should learn more about it before just denying it.
Read here for one article about one stufy or here for another article about an entirely seperate stufy or here for an article about a third study.
As far as a I know, not a single study comparing hands free cell phones has shown them to be reasonably safe. They all show them as being about as dangerous as driving while on a hand needed phone.
I wonder if Novel fairily included the higher cost to make a Windows system as secure as a Linux is.
Now, please note that much of that security is based on "security by unpopularity". However, if Linux were to become more popular, then the costs to find trained people and to pay them to support Linux would drop, probably just as much as the security costs went up.
Studies have conclusively shown that 95% of the 'distraction' is caused by not THINKING about the road.
Those hands free car phones? They don't solve the problem at all - people are just as likely to get in an accident while using them as when you use a regular cell phone.
But as you pointed out, a smart engine should be able to recognize that Knock is occuring. While the computer can not change the size of the cylinders, it could change the amount of fuel/air injected. This would reduce the chance of damage, but severly impair engine performance.
The rest of your ideas are good, but will take quite some time. Nuclear power still needs both some more advancements and some better press before we begin to truly accept it. (And Russia should shoot anyone that suggets "Our plant is so good we don't need the essential safety feature X" - which is what they said when they decided not to put a containment roof over Chernobyl.)
Assume I am gay. I go to my non-gay friends house. I ask him if I can check my email, while he is in the bathroom. I open up my yahoo account, and open an email from my gay lover. 1/2 down, embedded in the email is a link to a Nambla site, done as a joke. I even have to click on it a couple of times to get rid of pop-ups. My totally straight friend's ISP now has incriminating evidence that he likes to screw little boys.
Now assume, I have anonymous internet browsing, and always use it, even when checking my email.
1st: Throughout history, there have been wonderfull governments, but also some horrible governments. And even the Wonderfull Governments often keep records, that get passed on to their replacement, horrible governments when the evil SOB's have revolution. Governments have in the past killed people for: Being Jewish. Being Gay. Belonging to a political party that objected to that government. Asking if the government had killed other people. Being a family member of any of the above people. Looking at Pornography. While I trust (just barely) the current government, I do not trust the unknown government that will take power in 4 years, because I don't know who they are yet.
2nd: If you have nothing to hide, then that quite literally means you are willing to let me photograph you naked? And I get full rights to that photograph - so I can show it to your neighbors?
Because THAT is what you are saying. You DO have things you do not want people to see. So do I. Yours might be your pretty body. Mine might be the fact that I am gay. And a member of the legalize marijuana political action group. And a member of the "Send the Africans back to Africa" Charity. Also, I routinely travel 56 mph in a 55 mph zone. And get drunk 1/month in my closet. And I once masturbated while looking at pictures of dead dogs. And I collect my own snot and eat it. I still wet my bed. I won't do business with those dirty, thieving Jews. And I am a card carrying member of the ACLU. And I despise children. All of these things are legal (or at least not serious crimes worthy of being investigated). Now, assuming I was not being sarcastic, do you think I would have a job tomorrow if my boss knew them?
3rd consider this: I have a right to privacy, not because I have things to hide, but because trust is a two way street. Think about a parent. What would you think of a father that says "My honor student has never done anything wrong. But just to be 'sure', I hired a private investigator to follow them around all the time, sneak into his bedroom at night and check his computer, diary, underwear draw" It takes WAY too much effort and cost for the government to actually fairly investigate everyone. So we tell them that if they want to investigate people, they must prove it to a judge that they are worth investigating. If the cop can't do that, then THE COPS ARE THE SICKO PERVERTS. Just like the dad/mom that treated their honor student like a gangbanger, if the government does the same to us, THEY demonstrate that they are A) poor government, B) can't be trusted themselves and C) have serious emotional problems.
4th: The last, best argument is simple. Every test has a false positive rate as well as a false negative rate. If you test too many people, you end up convicting the innocent more than the guilty. I.E. if you have a test that 5% of the time falsely says "drug user" even if they are not, and use it on a population where only 1% of the people use drugs, than you arrest, charge and try 5 innocent people for every 1 guilty. Those innocent had nothing to hide. Hackers break into your computer, zombifie it and use it to store child porn. You don't know about this, till the police track down your computer as the server for a child porn ring, break down your door and arrest you. (Several cases like this exist).
The right to remain anonymous is the right not to have other people reveal who you are.
You definitely need the right to publish anonymously if you have the right to remain anonymous, but you don't have to have the right to remain anonymous if you have the right to publish anonymously.
It is sort of like the right to buy vs. the right to use. Typically americans have the right to buy ammo, but not the right to use it (with some specific exceptions).
Even if the trailer is for a movie that is not out yet, it still is different from a regular ad. That is why you like them, but dislike the coke, etc. ads.
Allowing the movie theaters to convince you that a trailer is like a regular ad is how they snuck them in in the first place.
Similarly, if I have to watch even a 10 second commercial before I can begin my game, I will want my money back. Don't let them get away with it.
But I would demand my money back if they did the kind of crap the movies let people get away with (Ads where trailers used to be, etc.)
Email is a great way to keep in touch and retain contact with your alumni. You want them to:
1. Keep the email that says @my_university.com Forever. Preferablly as their 'prime' personal email. Particullary for job interviews, etc. where you don't want to use your current business'es email.
2. Think of their email as a live connection to the school
3. Get as little advertisement as possible, ... except from the school themselves
4. Respect the school as a bastion of intelligence and competence
Letting MS host them is stupid. They should run it themselves, with special features, for free. It is a BENEFIT to the school, not a cost.
The real problem is that what NASA wants to do is pay $1 billion to FIND the asteroid, not to deal with the problem. Preventing it may not be possible, and if it is possible, could cost a lot more than the mere $1 billion.
So, the question is, is it worth x cash to get a smoke detector if the house is locked up tight and we can't get out of it. Or is it better for us to not know, as we can't do anything about it, and just continue on with our lives without worldwide panic.
On the other hand, I would DEFINITELY buy what he made, it looks a lot better than most of the plastic crap out there.
My point is that what the Republicans did, was NEVER appropriate. It was incredibally stupid, thinking "I can help these horrible, evil men, just because we currently have a common enemey."
What is objectionable is making friends with them in the first place. Americans need to admit that hey, the Republicans sometimes pick the wrong people to be friends with and we should NOT let them forget about their past 'mistakes'.
Instead we let Republican Presidents (yes, it was ALWAYS Republicans that did this, Carter and Clinton did not make this mistake) search out and finding the most vicious, obnoxious, totalitarian, Facists we can find, giving them large amounts of aid, helping them to gain power. Then when we looked at who are friends were and what they were doing, we abandon them, often when they have grown dependent on our aid. This pissed them off, and either they declare us traitors, or they get thrown out of power and the revolutionaries hate us. We did it with Iran (Shah/Khomeni), Panama (Noreiga), Iraq (Hussein), and Afganistan (Bin Laden)
I would love to know what 'excuse' Archive.org gave for removing such essential internet history information. It seems to be there reason for existence.
As she appears to have copied and sold music without the proper licenses, the RIAA will be hunting here down. Merely being Dead will not stop the RIAA from making your existence a living hell.
Joe Shmoe, Spammer is selling illegal copies of MS office with trojans, worms, and viruses built into it, for $2.
The guy she was talking to was "the head of Customer Service".
His Boss could have called him "Head of User Service". He does not. His Boss wants him to treat "the cattle" as you so rudely called people, as CUSTOMERS.
People are NOT commodities, not products Thinking that is incredibally poor business sense. Anyone with any real MBA training knows that thinking of people like that is a sure way to destroy your business, as "the cattle" are always smart enough to stampede away from your rude service.. That same thinking is part of why many government services stink - some foolish childish rude person thinks "they are not paying me money, so it is OK if I treat them like cattle". It does not matter if they are not paying you any money. If you provide a SERVICE to them, they are your customer, and you have to treat them well, no matter how rude they are to you. Otherwise they go away, and you find yourself out of a job. Happened in the USSR, can happen here, and is happening right now to Lycos, because of the bad PR they got.
She was a customer. She was a rude, bad customer, but a customer notheless. The Customer Service guy SCREWED UP. He could have kept her as a customer and avoided a ton of bad publicity. He choose to return her rudeness with greater rudeness and if I were his boss would have fired him for making a mountain out of a molehill, for turning a rude, upset customer into a raving lunatic that blasts it all over the internet.
Also, terms of service is written by lawyers. That means it is protection against law suits, NOT an excuse to treat your customers like crap. Because it is written by lawyers, it is designed to stand up in a court of law, and can not be expected to be understood sufficiently by non-lawyers, anymore than you would expect to be able to read a court settlement without a lawyer going over it.
Yes, Lycos did not violate the law. That should not be the standard of care applied to them. A good company goes BEYOND what they promise to do in the Terms of Service. That is, you write down into the terms of service the minimum that you know you can do, then try to do better than that.
Lycos severely failed to do that here. They did the minimum. It would be like going to buy a hamburger at Burger King and having them hand it to you, no box, no paper wrapping, no tray, no napkins, no bathroom, just the burger handed to you. The minimum you have to do is not enough for any real business.
The fact that someone is not paying you cash does not change the fact that they are a customer.
It is NOT a free service, anymore than TV is free. Just as I have the right to call up and complain about NBC having stupid shows on, she has the right to call up Lycos and complain.
She may or may not have been a pain in the butt.
But a GOOD customer service rep handles pains in the butt all the time. A good customer service rep could probably find a way to fix this situation without having it get blasted all over the internet, which I assure you his boss is NOT HAPPY about. They are in the business of selling PR (ads) and that damn fool of a Customer Service Rep just gave his own business a whole bunch of negative PR.
Instead, the point of democracy is two fold:
1) To get the man in power to spend at least SOME time attempting to figure out what the rest of the country wants. He doesn't have to give them what they want, but he should make an attempt to figure it out.
2) To convince those NOT in power that their is a safe, non-violent way to get into power, so there is no need to raise an army and have a revolution.
Accuracy of the count is almost completely irrelevant, as long as it is within say 2%-4% error, which would be very hard to screw up. But Honesty is supremely important. If ambitious and/or crusading men think the current leaders will cheat and not allow their voice to be heard, they will start a revolution. I would, and I am not that ambitiuous or a crusader.
Most of the businessmen in the US recognize that the Bush administration will be the LAST to be anti-global warming.
The next administration, whether it be Republican or Democratic will almost certainly admit to Global Warming and take MUCH greater steps than Bush did. Bush is in effect, the worst of the republicans when it comes to global warming.
But there are several differences, that make YOUR analogy different. The major one is that email is NOT like the real world postal service.
1) E-Spam is a far worse problem and crime than what you discuss. I don't get viagra adds in the mail. I don't get nigerian scams in the mail. Etc. etc. If the postal mail was as bad as e-spam, then YES, it would be illegal to send advertisements through the world
2)Postal service costs them money, spam is for effective purposes free. This is the reason why spam is a real problem, as opposed to postal mail.
3)Yes, some mass mailings are legitamate. I never denied that. What I am saying is that NO, IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE to use email to deliver mass mailings. We need a new system, just as email is a bad Instant Message system so we developed another set of systems for IM'ing, similarly we need to admit that Email is a BAD mass mailing system and we need another system just for mass mailing
YOu want to do mass mailings? Fine. But don't use email to deliver it, just as AOL and yahoo don't use Email to deliver their Instant Messaging.
The system we have now does NOT work, it is like using the same tub to do your dishes and bathe your children. It results in a disgusting mess.
Please note that by your own admission " serious conversations about best-practices typically end in yelling matches. " That only happens if one side is refusing to even listen to what the other has to say. You want mass mailings so bad you refuse to hear what I have to say:
I am not against legitimate mass mailings, (although I do think that quite a few fools believe they are doing legitiamte mass mailings when they are really doing spam). I am against putting them in my email box. They should go to a seperate service, just as my IM does not get dumped into my email box, just as I don't use the same tub to wash my dishes and also to wash my body.
Keep seperate things seperate,
Why?
For the same reason that you would be arrested if you went around with your business card in your hand and stuck it into the back pocket of random people on the street.
The act is too close to an illegal act.