A problem some people have is they feel they have to answer each e-mail as if the person was right in front of them.
One variation on this theme is that there are more than a few users who treat e-mail much the same way we would treat instant messaging. Regardless of the merits of their e-mail ("Hey, wanna do lunch?"), if you don't reply immediately, they feel slighted. There have been more than a few occasionss where postings to mailing lists that fell into an approval queue (due to excessive size, or unrecognized sender addresses) have brought formal complaints ("Why is he blocking my messages!?!").
What I've noticed is that these types of people generally work in areas with a lower level of activity. They have more free time on their hands to check their e-mail, so why shouldn't everyone else do the same? They expect instant response, and when they don't get it, they stress.
Someone deep inside the National Security Agency helpfully adds a line to the disambiguation page for "NSA." The addition: "National Softball Association".
There are several U.S. government sites (mostly HUD and HHS), and a large chunk of state (GA) sites. Most of these are data entry systems they've created for sub-grantees to report on funding activities. To be fair to the feds, they are in the process of trying to fudge together upgrades (and, oh, is that fun), but as far as the state goes, their official stance is IE 6.0 is it and are refusing (for now) to support any other browsers.
I've often observed even hardcore FireFox advocate using IE
I can't speak for everyone, but the only times I've had to advise my users to go back to IE is due to several government agencies having web sites that require it.
You have a good point, but we do know that the pollution we produce has negative effects outside of global warming.
Right now I hear two arguments with no proposed solutions:
Global warming is bad and it might eventually kill us all.
Halting or slowing global warming will cost a lot of money.
The former is threateningly non-specific, the latter just sounds like a selfish prick too fond of his Hummer and big screen TV.
Why not just try to clean some stuff up if only to preserve our basic health? We're already seeing increases in pollution-related health issues: asthma attacks, cancers from dangerous chemicals in the water supply. I think a good starting point would be to ask how much money do we spend dealing with the after effects of pollution versus how much would it cost to to eliminate the pollution itself?
Once that's sorted, then we could all start arguing over whether or not we can live with what the elimination of pollution would entail (i.e., Can we actually live without carbonated beverages?)
I think the smart artists and studios will realize that there is a golden opportunity here to shed the 800 lb. gorilla of the record company and its distribution networks.
I don't know, man. Who'll be left to sort out the brown M&M's?
For twenty some odd years I've been stressed and disturbed. It's high time somebody else shared the pain.
Computer users have a responsibility - to themselves and their family to keep themselves knowledgeable and safe. Networked computer users have a greater responsibility, as the risks affect others in their immediate environment. Internet-worked computer users have the highest responsibility, as their failures can impact millions around the world.
People need to let go of this notion that there is some kind of "right to remain ignorant".
"Here is a guy I tracked down in 5 hours. He controls 10,000 bots he can do $50,000 worth of damage an hour. He has probably misappropriated 1000 identities. Etc."
Would classify so much vigilanteism as it would a standard investigation. You hunted, and you identified.
Now, if you'd gone further - found the guy, knee-capped him, and stood over his flailing body lecturing him about how his immediate handicap could have been avoided if he'd just acted like a decent human being instead of a prick (you know, "Christian values") - well then, that would be vigilanteism.
It would also be highly amusing to watch on YouTube . . .
You think that is funny until it's your own seven year old that tells a teacher to fuck off, or starts cursing in a WalMart.
Funny, the first time I tried something like this my dad brained me so fast and so hard I had trouble spelling four letter words for a couple of days. I was extremely polite in public from that moment forward.
Seriously, people, just punish the kids who pull crap like this. You don't have to beat them, but you do have a responsibility to teach them it's unacceptable. Having a "time out" or taking away XBox privileges for a couple of hours just ain't gonna do it.
If the child mouths off to a teacher, see to it that he's expelled, even if the teacher disagrees. If he curses in a Walmart, drag his ass out of there kicking and screaming and explain that his behavior is the reason you're leaving. Bring him back when he's calmer and make him apologize to the store manager.
Sit down with the child and explain that while you can't strip away his knowledge of the words, you can bloody well enforce when he will be allowed to use them. Then, to be fair, define a set of circumstances when you might allow their "accidental" usage - i.e. immediately after severing a thumb, or, when arguing with another family member in the privacy of your own home.
It seems as if parents these days carry too much paranoia over whether or not their kid will be psychologically "damaged" somehow if punished.
Trust me, they won't.
A child with no discipline will turn out far worse than a child with discipline (sociopathy can be a learned behavior). It's far more traumatic, and socially embarrassing to raise a criminal than a kid with a bruised ego.
Do you really think giving him a virus that could infect innocent people he might come into contact with would really be a punishment that fits the crime?
How about flesh eating bacteria? They could be put under isolation . . .
If it weren't for spyware...You might not be sitting here right now and your neighborhood might have more of a crater shape. Think about that the next time you boot up Windows.
Funny thing about might, it don't always equal will.
I might also be sitting here right now in a perfectly normal neighborhood, without any craters beyond the ones my dogs are digging. I might win the lottery . . . one day.
I might live in a country that stops to consider the "why" of bad behavior, instead of just the "how to" of punishment. The leadership of this country might think something like, "You know, people seem to be generally angry, and a large part of the anger seems to be directed at those in positions of power. I wonder if a little self analysis might be in order."
I've heard some twisted shit from both ends of the political spectrum, but some of those folks went well beyond crazy, and settled firmly in the land of the criminally insane.
To my left, I find a middle-aged Floridian with a neat beard. To my right are two elderly New Yorkers who look and sound like late-era Dorothy Parkers, minus the alcohol poisoning. They live on Park Avenue, they explain in precise Northern tones. "You must live near the UN building," the Floridian says to one of the New York ladies after the entree is served. Yes, she responds, shaking her head wearily. "They should suicide-bomb that place," he says. They all chuckle gently. How did that happen? How do you go from sweet to suicide-bomb in six seconds?
I think I now have a pretty good idea where the next "terrist" attacks are going to come from . . .
Because some of us, deep down, believe that with hard work, determination, and a little luck, we just might be the lucky guy stealing BILLIONS of dollars someday.
Absolutely.;-)
You see, this is one of the things we like to call "American values". Sure Christianity is nice, but them Christians would get a whole lot more done if they'd stop fussin' with the wrong people.
You see, God wants us to be rich. Them Christians? They want us to help the poor and needy. What's up with that? How can I get rich if I'm helping a bunch of people who can't fend for themselves?
Let's face it. Jesus is great and all, but Jesus never bought me a big screen T.V.. And I for damn sure ain't about to hang around with no smelly poor people.
Note: For the humor impaired, the above submission was a work of satire.
I don't think they'd be silly enough to convert the punishments for these kinds of offenses to "time servers", either. Like you said, they lose a revenue stream, and it wouldn't just be political suicide, they'd face outright revolution.
What they will do, though, is keep these offenses on file indefinitely. And what is on file will be shared. And what is shared will be used in ways they, hopefully, didn't imagine.
One of the biggest problems I have with the idea of "total" enforcement via total surveillance is that there is no distinction made between actions that are minor, or mistakes, and actions that are unadulterated acts of malice.
How many times in life have we done something that we later learned was against the law? Jaywalking; making a right on red when a sign says not to; parking outside the posted acceptable hours; ignoring the crosswalk lights; changing lanes without a signal; going five miles an hour over the speed limit; spitting on the sidewalk; playing a radio too loud; protesting outside of a "free speech zone"; wearing white after Labor day?
All of these are minor infractions and, in most cases, not worthy of police attention. Under a total surveillance society, all of these will become punishable events that can stay on an individual's record. The lists of "known criminals" will increase, along with the reasons for government to exclude someone's participation in Democracy. Employer's will deny jobs, or reduce wages, to those with long lists of minor offenses. Insurance companies will deny coverage, or will drastically increase rates to known "criminal risks".
Total surveillance is not Democracy; it is closer to KGB. And for something like this to come from a country that hated communism with the white heat of a holy crusade, is a sad irony indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
How about . . .
I for one welcome our galactic immigrant ancestors!
One variation on this theme is that there are more than a few users who treat e-mail much the same way we would treat instant messaging. Regardless of the merits of their e-mail ("Hey, wanna do lunch?"), if you don't reply immediately, they feel slighted. There have been more than a few occasionss where postings to mailing lists that fell into an approval queue (due to excessive size, or unrecognized sender addresses) have brought formal complaints ("Why is he blocking my messages!?!").
What I've noticed is that these types of people generally work in areas with a lower level of activity. They have more free time on their hands to check their e-mail, so why shouldn't everyone else do the same? They expect instant response, and when they don't get it, they stress.
Now this was just silly . . .
There are several U.S. government sites (mostly HUD and HHS), and a large chunk of state (GA) sites. Most of these are data entry systems they've created for sub-grantees to report on funding activities. To be fair to the feds, they are in the process of trying to fudge together upgrades (and, oh, is that fun), but as far as the state goes, their official stance is IE 6.0 is it and are refusing (for now) to support any other browsers.
I can't speak for everyone, but the only times I've had to advise my users to go back to IE is due to several government agencies having web sites that require it.
You have a good point, but we do know that the pollution we produce has negative effects outside of global warming.
Right now I hear two arguments with no proposed solutions:
The former is threateningly non-specific, the latter just sounds like a selfish prick too fond of his Hummer and big screen TV.
Why not just try to clean some stuff up if only to preserve our basic health? We're already seeing increases in pollution-related health issues: asthma attacks, cancers from dangerous chemicals in the water supply. I think a good starting point would be to ask how much money do we spend dealing with the after effects of pollution versus how much would it cost to to eliminate the pollution itself?
Once that's sorted, then we could all start arguing over whether or not we can live with what the elimination of pollution would entail (i.e., Can we actually live without carbonated beverages?)
I don't know, man. Who'll be left to sort out the brown M&M's?
;-)
Or, a monopolistic phone company could make it a condition of service, thereby leaving their customers with no choice.
Nope.
You mean, there's a difference?
...why corporate America has more rights to my personal information than I do.
Second.
For twenty some odd years I've been stressed and disturbed. It's high time somebody else shared the pain.
Computer users have a responsibility - to themselves and their family to keep themselves knowledgeable and safe. Networked computer users have a greater responsibility, as the risks affect others in their immediate environment. Internet-worked computer users have the highest responsibility, as their failures can impact millions around the world.
People need to let go of this notion that there is some kind of "right to remain ignorant".
Not to nitpick too much, but I don't think . . .
Would classify so much vigilanteism as it would a standard investigation. You hunted, and you identified.
Now, if you'd gone further - found the guy, knee-capped him, and stood over his flailing body lecturing him about how his immediate handicap could have been avoided if he'd just acted like a decent human being instead of a prick (you know, "Christian values") - well then, that would be vigilanteism.
It would also be highly amusing to watch on YouTube . . .
Well, that would blow a PG-13 rating . . .
Still though, your suggestion does merit props for making me reverse snort my cereal . . .
Bravo. It's nice to see an honest soul in what's become an increasingly greedy, and exploitative world.
Funny, the first time I tried something like this my dad brained me so fast and so hard I had trouble spelling four letter words for a couple of days. I was extremely polite in public from that moment forward.
Seriously, people, just punish the kids who pull crap like this. You don't have to beat them, but you do have a responsibility to teach them it's unacceptable. Having a "time out" or taking away XBox privileges for a couple of hours just ain't gonna do it.
If the child mouths off to a teacher, see to it that he's expelled, even if the teacher disagrees. If he curses in a Walmart, drag his ass out of there kicking and screaming and explain that his behavior is the reason you're leaving. Bring him back when he's calmer and make him apologize to the store manager.
Sit down with the child and explain that while you can't strip away his knowledge of the words, you can bloody well enforce when he will be allowed to use them. Then, to be fair, define a set of circumstances when you might allow their "accidental" usage - i.e. immediately after severing a thumb, or, when arguing with another family member in the privacy of your own home.
It seems as if parents these days carry too much paranoia over whether or not their kid will be psychologically "damaged" somehow if punished.
Trust me, they won't.
A child with no discipline will turn out far worse than a child with discipline (sociopathy can be a learned behavior). It's far more traumatic, and socially embarrassing to raise a criminal than a kid with a bruised ego.
How about flesh eating bacteria? They could be put under isolation . . .
;-)
You know, this has always been amusing to me.
Just how are they going to punish a suicide for breaking the law? Extra nails in the coffin?
Funny thing about might, it don't always equal will.
I might also be sitting here right now in a perfectly normal neighborhood, without any craters beyond the ones my dogs are digging. I might win the lottery . . . one day.
I might live in a country that stops to consider the "why" of bad behavior, instead of just the "how to" of punishment. The leadership of this country might think something like, "You know, people seem to be generally angry, and a large part of the anger seems to be directed at those in positions of power. I wonder if a little self analysis might be in order."
Then again, they might not think any such thing.
OMFG . . .
I've heard some twisted shit from both ends of the political spectrum, but some of those folks went well beyond crazy, and settled firmly in the land of the criminally insane.
I think I now have a pretty good idea where the next "terrist" attacks are going to come from . . .
Absolutely. ;-)
You see, this is one of the things we like to call "American values". Sure Christianity is nice, but them Christians would get a whole lot more done if they'd stop fussin' with the wrong people.
You see, God wants us to be rich. Them Christians? They want us to help the poor and needy. What's up with that? How can I get rich if I'm helping a bunch of people who can't fend for themselves?
Let's face it. Jesus is great and all, but Jesus never bought me a big screen T.V.. And I for damn sure ain't about to hang around with no smelly poor people.
Note: For the humor impaired, the above submission was a work of satire.
I don't think they'd be silly enough to convert the punishments for these kinds of offenses to "time servers", either. Like you said, they lose a revenue stream, and it wouldn't just be political suicide, they'd face outright revolution.
What they will do, though, is keep these offenses on file indefinitely. And what is on file will be shared. And what is shared will be used in ways they, hopefully, didn't imagine.
You know, it'd be a whole lot easier to just refuse to answer the question.
One of the biggest problems I have with the idea of "total" enforcement via total surveillance is that there is no distinction made between actions that are minor, or mistakes, and actions that are unadulterated acts of malice.
How many times in life have we done something that we later learned was against the law? Jaywalking; making a right on red when a sign says not to; parking outside the posted acceptable hours; ignoring the crosswalk lights; changing lanes without a signal; going five miles an hour over the speed limit; spitting on the sidewalk; playing a radio too loud; protesting outside of a "free speech zone"; wearing white after Labor day?
All of these are minor infractions and, in most cases, not worthy of police attention. Under a total surveillance society, all of these will become punishable events that can stay on an individual's record. The lists of "known criminals" will increase, along with the reasons for government to exclude someone's participation in Democracy. Employer's will deny jobs, or reduce wages, to those with long lists of minor offenses. Insurance companies will deny coverage, or will drastically increase rates to known "criminal risks".
Total surveillance is not Democracy; it is closer to KGB. And for something like this to come from a country that hated communism with the white heat of a holy crusade, is a sad irony indeed.
Bush's Law: As an online discussion concerning ethical behavior grows longer, the probability of a mention of George W. Bush approaches one.