I'm sitting here with a mingled Office XP / 97 environment because of the huge compatibility problems between Access 97 and 2000. Since when does Microsoft give a flying frip about sharing information between its own products, much less anyone else's? Do you really think they'll give a damn even if they lose market dominance?
Why is the grandparent FUD? Because you decided to start a different argument? Just because there are jobs NOW - which is what you said - doesn't mean there will be the same types of jobs in the FUTURE - which is what the grandparent said.
No, the grandparent is making a prediction. Perhaps it's a weak one, but you didn't argue that. You didn't argue with the poster at all. In fact, you started a whole different subject. Please, if you're going to try and refute someone's predictions, think through the post before you do it and make sure you're at least talking about the same thing the person you're trying to refute was.
You always hear about "swift" kicks. How, exactly, would you give someone a "slow" kick, anyhow? I mean... even assuming they stood there and let you kick them, I don't think it would really hurt.
With the caveat that "now" and "good" are relative and only apply to the browser 4 years ago, not today. This very minute, Internet Explorer is to the browser market as Yugos are to the sports car market.
They can accept or reject it as they please. But if they reject it in any manner, then they can't redistribute anything licensed under it and if they do they're just making themselves lawsuit fodder. My point is that Fyodor isn't making any special exceptions that would be forbidden by the GPL, he's just saying "look, you say the GPL is invalid which, to me, says you're rejecting it. Fine, I'm putting you on formal notice that the continued distribution of nmap by SCO is illegal because you don't have a license to do so and it's my copyrighted material". If SCO ignores him, the next step is to sue, but I imagine unless FSF or EFF helped out, that wouldn't happen.
I hope it does though. This is EXACTLY what the GPL is meant to do - turn ridiculous copyright enforcements back on people that seek to take advantage of, and more importantly, monopolize, software using ridiculous copyright enforcement. It's a part of the bittersweet irony that the GPL is meant to bring about.
Fyodor is not "retracting" the license. The GPL clearly states that if you want to redistribute any code that has been licensed under it then you need to accept the GPL in its entirety. SCO has said the GPL is invalid, so they must not be accepting the GPL, so they haven't accepted a license at all.
They're not retracting a license because there's nothing to retract. If SCO won't accept the GPL, they have no license to distribute the software and are legally liable for violating. If SCO thinks that the license is invalid, that's fine. But then somebody needs to sue Darl's pants off (on second thought..) for copyright violations because they're distributing unlicensed software.
It would be sort of like you clicking "I Do Not Agree" on a Windows installation, then somehow getting the software installed anyway. Microsoft wouldn't RETRACT your license, rather, they'd sue you because you're using the software without one.
You're right though. Under the GPL, you can't explicitly deny anyone rights to distribute your code as long as they accept the GPL themselves. The problem is SCO has not accepted the GPL so they never had rights to distribute the code in the first place that could be revoked.
Yea, stupid me to think that a multi-thousand dollar system could actually be updated like, say, Linux or BSD, without some totally unrelated application bringing down the house. HA! HA! I'm such an idiot, what, with my thinking that only a stuttering moron (or in Microsoft's case, whole teams of stuttering morons "guiding" development) would build a system so inconveniently locked together at the seams that a simple code editor could bring it to a screeching halt! How dumb of me!
I don't know which is scarier, the fact that you have to keep track of every god damn molecule that ever touches a Windows machine lest you be in for a horrid surprise when it comes time to update it, or that you think this is "normal". Some of us are used to boxes that can actually be updated in such a way that - hey, get this, you'll never believe it - unrelated things won't break each other!
Crazy shit, huh? An operating system that doesn't break when the wind blows. Novel idea! Here's the real kicker: they were around 15 years before Microsoft even existed! Wow!
Each time Microsoft comes out with a new OS or product upgrade, it usually IS the most secure and state-of-the-art example of WINDOWS.
Microsoft is twenty years behind the development curve on stability and security because they spent the early years building up something that's usable. Linux is playing catch up on the usability side and Microsoft is playing catch up on the security and stability side. Each is making good ground, but IMHO, Linux is going to be the winner in the race because Microsoft has to figure out how to keep things usable AND make them secure. Linux just has to add a usability layer on top of things and make sure the new layer is secure while trusting the guts of the machine.
Heh.. then there's BSD out there actually pretending to be UNIX and not giving a crap about either of those two nutjobs.
It depends if you run updates through regression testing on a series of "standard" machines in the office and all goes well until you actually try to patch the systems. Then, some obscure third party app that you completely forgot even existed clashes with the freshly updated machine and fucks the whole thing but good because of some bizarre bug that prevents the machine from even getting to first stage boot. On 350 desktops. In the middle of the night. On the weekend.
As compared to the boxes that kernel-upgraded flawlessly even though we didn't list out half the stuff being used on said boxes.
Windows update for home use? (Usually) painless. Windows update for wide deployments. Potentially, the most painful fucking nightmare you will ever experience unless you have a completely homogenous environment.
Is this a joke, or what? The rich vote their conscience? Have there been in-depth studies of this societal quirk that I've never heard of?
Larger than life? You want someone with their head in the clouds to lead people who are buried in shit by comparison? Global terror? Free democratic societies? Ignore the mundane? I'm sorry, but by combining those two, it's not much of a leap of faith to say you're calling domestic issues - you know.. the things that affect those of us who actually elected whatever latest asswipe happens to be "running" the country in - something that aren't within the scope of the president's duties.
You're a goon. Don't get me wrong, I respect your right to have an opinion on the subject and all... but you're still a goon.
No, he didn't. That's the point I'm getting at. He cracked a joke. All those things MIGHT be true, but it MIGHT be true that he's a green-skinned alien from the other side of the Universe and 4.5 billion years in the past. It doesn't mean it's LIKELY.
What he said does not in any way, shape, or form provide any evidence to support any dehumanizing or segregating thoughts in the poster's mind. You have no idea whether or not "charlie" is the first thing that jumped into his head and, even if it was, you have no idea why. Maybe he was wathing Platoon or something. Based on the evidence, that's just as plausible a reason as assuming that he's somehow racist. The point is, the only way you could be offended by that comment is if you either come into it assuming the worst, or if you take it as anything more than it really is. There is no implication. None. At all. Anything you derive from that comment as anything more than a joke is just assumption on your part because you have no further context and no knowledge of the poster's intent.
This constant insistence on being overly sensitive to avoid hurting people's precious feelings is utter nonsense and it's extremely dangerous. There is a huge difference between being malicious and just having fun. Consistently calling someone a nigger, particularly in a negative context as an insult, is malicious. Using it once as a joke in a manner that does not even necessarily single out a discernible individual is not. It's all about context. Why do so many people laugh at a black man talking about crackers in a comedy club, but hiss through their teeth if a white man says nigger? The context is the same, shouldn't they either be insulted or amused?
It's all about context. Yes, undoubtedly there will be misunderstandings when somebody makes a lousy joke and it comes out sounding like a slur, but get over it. That's never going to go away because interpretation is part of human nature as is miscommunication. There's no use in trying to eliminate it completely. It would be better to educate people so it happens less frequently and make sure they learn from their mistakes.
The joke is offensive because it implies that the most interesting or important thing about Vietnamese people is that they were involved in a war in the 1970s and that somehow they should all be stigmatized by it.
I'm wholly convinced that shreiking yutzes who take offense at lame jokes go looking to be offended, and this suggestion that the joke "implies" anything just reinforces my opinion on the matter. I didn't get that implication at all. I thought back to a Vietnam era nickname, applied it to the context of nationality (oh no... we can't crack jokes about nationality, uh uh. In fact, from now on, I think I'll feel stigmatized at the constant cracks about white folks on some stations and shows since we all have to be "sensitive" to everyone but them and can't take anything with a little bit of poise and stride), and found it to be a mildly amusing joke. The thought that this was somehow a slur against him - much less an entire nation - never crossed my mind. In fact, maybe you ought to reconsider what you actually took offense at. Which is worse, that I got a chuckle and forgot about it, or that you had racist thoughts leap into your head?
MODS: For the love of God, DO NOT MOD THIS UP (unless you have an odd sense of humor, I suppose, and want to mark it Funny)! It's a waste of mod points when someone else has to come back and mod it back down. That's why I'm posting it at 1... now, back to your regularly scheduled flamefest.
How convenient... I was just posting a quick rail in another thread and you happened to drop by in the meantime. Two birds with one stone, as it were.
First of all, funny you should call anybody a "pedantic little cunt" (for shame - your mother ought to wash your mouth out with soap... and mine too while she's at it) when your sole journal entry is a bitch-fest about YA.* and recursive acronyms for projects.
But, I digress. Amazing as it may seem, I actually struggled through the meaningless market babble that comprised an article of responses from a man who chose the path of least resistance through school (one might argue that business majors are worse than marketers, but it's a tough call for me). Not once was he asked to characterize Linux Enterprise against Windows, he just did. Now, if he'd like to do that, that's fine, but the fact still remains that the post that originally got your panties in a bunch called bullshit on his half-assed marketspeak since a competent Linux sysadmin could follow the traditional (and time tested, mind you) philosophy of piecemealing the system to the task at hand. Compare this to the shotgun approach of Windows and one imbecilic markteters inability to grasp the difference between the two styles, and you have what amounts to nothing more than a steaming pile of bullshit that's only fit for executive-level consumption.
Or, to put it another way: nobody with at least half a brain would take anything in that article as anything more than a shifty response to tough questions that some management moron doesn't understand well enough to respond to directly.
Oh, and I might note that, although no question referred specifically to Enterprise Distributions, some DID refer specifically to desktop. I call bullshit on your entire response to this story.
Oh brother. It's a joke. Anybody without a strong, direct connection to the Vietnam War really has no grounds to be offended. Half the people here are probably either a) two young to get it or b) too ignorant of history to get it.
If you really are one of those people that's offended, that's fine. But rather than waste everyone else's time, just smile, shut up, and have a coke. You can't live your life running around pointing and shrieking like a schoolgirl all the time.
Great... now I probably offended some psycho feminist chick with the schoolgirl crack. And I probably offended a lesbian with the feminist crack. Oh shit.. now I really done did it...
RTFP, dipshit. He mentions the fact that he's productizing Linux and IGNORING LINUX IN GENERAL while making no claims to be speaking to the marketing drek that the microdroid is spitting. He then goes on to toss his own two cents in on what the microdroid is ignoring and what Linux "really is". He's voicing an opinion on what Microsoft "doesn't get" about Linux, or, at least, chooses to ignore, in this type of interview so they can focus on narrowly defined numbers that don't speak to the whole of Linux.
Maybe if you took the time to actually read and digest the post before ripping into the poster like some dick-stroking wanker you'd sound like a little bit less of a lobotomized, shit-flinging moron. Get your nose out of your own shit for a few seconds and try some critical thinking for once. You may actually find you like it better than licking your own sweaty balls and stroking your over-inflated ego.
Strange? No. The firearms industry has lots of money, the movie industry has lots of money, and politicians want lots of money. It makes perfect sense to me.
In the meantime, I'll continue buying both as I damn well see fit (although to date I've not seen fit to buy either).
Question. Does it actually HURT you, or do you THINK it hurts you? I've never understood the whole needle thing. I can't say that I enjoy being stuck with a nice long pointy thing, but I also don't recall it ever hurting so much as being an annoying feeling of pressure. Same with giving blood. The jab in the finger tip (when they grab blood to test for disease) hurts much more than the needle in the arm, although my arm always got sore when I was done. People always tell me how much it hurts though. I'm curious whether or not there's some physical difference between people that would cause it to hurt for some and not others.
I lot of people keep missing the point. Remembering a terrible event for the sake of remembering how terrible it was in the context of understanding and prevention is not the same as remembering it in the context of PTSD. If you develop PTSD based on the experience, little things can set you off - smells, sounds, faces. At that point, the memory becomes so painfully vivid that it can be completely incapacitating. The moments in question come back so acutely that the victim is left totally unable to function until the memory passes again. Imagine what would happen if every time you saw something about 9/11 you were so acutely overcome with feelings of greif or helplessness that you couldn't react to people around you, move, or think clearly in any capacity what-so-ever.
The point is to overcome this horrendous reaction, not make them "not care" or forget about it. Desensitizing the patient takes on the meaning of "allowing them to continue functioning normally when they recall the event(s) in question". They'll still care about it and may even continue to be burdened by it, but the memories won't bring them to a screeching halt and prevent them from functioning normally in society.
I will attempt to help back up the article with a resounding "yes, a call center is meant to take a lot of calls, not solve problems".
See, I work in a generic call center. We do our own support here for member accounts (non-technical) and we attempt to bring in farmed work from other businesses. When the management goes to talk to companies, they automatically reject anyone who says they want quality numbers. They come armed only with quantity. Average call times are to be under two and a half minutes and full time reps are required to take over 200 calls per day lest they be put on the chopping block.
There's two benefits to this approach: 1) management can claim a high quality call center to prosepective outsourcers based on the fact that we take a lot of calls and 2) H.R. can keep average salaries low by firing people who are not meeting quality standards and unrealistic quantity standards. Effectively, the only way to make these mutually exclusive goals is to remain as generic and unhelpful as possible. I was once told flat out by a caller that I'm "really good at saying nothing in as many words as possible". Trying to solve a person's problem inevitably leads to complexity which slows down call times which leads to a meeting with a manager.
Don't blame me though... I'm just a code monkey now, nobody listens to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, yes! Definitely that too. Calvin sneazes like Bill always sounds!
Random interjection riiiiight... aboooout.... now:
Your name reminds me of Calvin and Hobbes.
I'm sitting here with a mingled Office XP / 97 environment because of the huge compatibility problems between Access 97 and 2000. Since when does Microsoft give a flying frip about sharing information between its own products, much less anyone else's? Do you really think they'll give a damn even if they lose market dominance?
Egads, you people can be really bizarre.
Why is the grandparent FUD? Because you decided to start a different argument? Just because there are jobs NOW - which is what you said - doesn't mean there will be the same types of jobs in the FUTURE - which is what the grandparent said.
No, the grandparent is making a prediction. Perhaps it's a weak one, but you didn't argue that. You didn't argue with the poster at all. In fact, you started a whole different subject. Please, if you're going to try and refute someone's predictions, think through the post before you do it and make sure you're at least talking about the same thing the person you're trying to refute was.
4) Finally SCO Group GmbH is prohibited to threaten to sue Linux users unless they bought SCO Linux or Caldera Linux.
Hello, Darl? This is irony calling.
You always hear about "swift" kicks. How, exactly, would you give someone a "slow" kick, anyhow? I mean... even assuming they stood there and let you kick them, I don't think it would really hurt.
With the caveat that "now" and "good" are relative and only apply to the browser 4 years ago, not today. This very minute, Internet Explorer is to the browser market as Yugos are to the sports car market.
They can accept or reject it as they please. But if they reject it in any manner, then they can't redistribute anything licensed under it and if they do they're just making themselves lawsuit fodder. My point is that Fyodor isn't making any special exceptions that would be forbidden by the GPL, he's just saying "look, you say the GPL is invalid which, to me, says you're rejecting it. Fine, I'm putting you on formal notice that the continued distribution of nmap by SCO is illegal because you don't have a license to do so and it's my copyrighted material". If SCO ignores him, the next step is to sue, but I imagine unless FSF or EFF helped out, that wouldn't happen.
I hope it does though. This is EXACTLY what the GPL is meant to do - turn ridiculous copyright enforcements back on people that seek to take advantage of, and more importantly, monopolize, software using ridiculous copyright enforcement. It's a part of the bittersweet irony that the GPL is meant to bring about.
Fyodor is not "retracting" the license. The GPL clearly states that if you want to redistribute any code that has been licensed under it then you need to accept the GPL in its entirety. SCO has said the GPL is invalid, so they must not be accepting the GPL, so they haven't accepted a license at all.
They're not retracting a license because there's nothing to retract. If SCO won't accept the GPL, they have no license to distribute the software and are legally liable for violating. If SCO thinks that the license is invalid, that's fine. But then somebody needs to sue Darl's pants off (on second thought..) for copyright violations because they're distributing unlicensed software.
It would be sort of like you clicking "I Do Not Agree" on a Windows installation, then somehow getting the software installed anyway. Microsoft wouldn't RETRACT your license, rather, they'd sue you because you're using the software without one.
You're right though. Under the GPL, you can't explicitly deny anyone rights to distribute your code as long as they accept the GPL themselves. The problem is SCO has not accepted the GPL so they never had rights to distribute the code in the first place that could be revoked.
Yea, stupid me to think that a multi-thousand dollar system could actually be updated like, say, Linux or BSD, without some totally unrelated application bringing down the house. HA! HA! I'm such an idiot, what, with my thinking that only a stuttering moron (or in Microsoft's case, whole teams of stuttering morons "guiding" development) would build a system so inconveniently locked together at the seams that a simple code editor could bring it to a screeching halt! How dumb of me!
I don't know which is scarier, the fact that you have to keep track of every god damn molecule that ever touches a Windows machine lest you be in for a horrid surprise when it comes time to update it, or that you think this is "normal". Some of us are used to boxes that can actually be updated in such a way that - hey, get this, you'll never believe it - unrelated things won't break each other!
Crazy shit, huh? An operating system that doesn't break when the wind blows. Novel idea! Here's the real kicker: they were around 15 years before Microsoft even existed! Wow!
Each time Microsoft comes out with a new OS or product upgrade, it usually IS the most secure and state-of-the-art example of WINDOWS.
Microsoft is twenty years behind the development curve on stability and security because they spent the early years building up something that's usable. Linux is playing catch up on the usability side and Microsoft is playing catch up on the security and stability side. Each is making good ground, but IMHO, Linux is going to be the winner in the race because Microsoft has to figure out how to keep things usable AND make them secure. Linux just has to add a usability layer on top of things and make sure the new layer is secure while trusting the guts of the machine.
Heh.. then there's BSD out there actually pretending to be UNIX and not giving a crap about either of those two nutjobs.
It depends if you run updates through regression testing on a series of "standard" machines in the office and all goes well until you actually try to patch the systems. Then, some obscure third party app that you completely forgot even existed clashes with the freshly updated machine and fucks the whole thing but good because of some bizarre bug that prevents the machine from even getting to first stage boot. On 350 desktops. In the middle of the night. On the weekend.
As compared to the boxes that kernel-upgraded flawlessly even though we didn't list out half the stuff being used on said boxes.
Windows update for home use? (Usually) painless. Windows update for wide deployments. Potentially, the most painful fucking nightmare you will ever experience unless you have a completely homogenous environment.
Is this a joke, or what? The rich vote their conscience? Have there been in-depth studies of this societal quirk that I've never heard of?
Larger than life? You want someone with their head in the clouds to lead people who are buried in shit by comparison? Global terror? Free democratic societies? Ignore the mundane? I'm sorry, but by combining those two, it's not much of a leap of faith to say you're calling domestic issues - you know.. the things that affect those of us who actually elected whatever latest asswipe happens to be "running" the country in - something that aren't within the scope of the president's duties.
You're a goon. Don't get me wrong, I respect your right to have an opinion on the subject and all... but you're still a goon.
No, he didn't. That's the point I'm getting at. He cracked a joke. All those things MIGHT be true, but it MIGHT be true that he's a green-skinned alien from the other side of the Universe and 4.5 billion years in the past. It doesn't mean it's LIKELY.
What he said does not in any way, shape, or form provide any evidence to support any dehumanizing or segregating thoughts in the poster's mind. You have no idea whether or not "charlie" is the first thing that jumped into his head and, even if it was, you have no idea why. Maybe he was wathing Platoon or something. Based on the evidence, that's just as plausible a reason as assuming that he's somehow racist. The point is, the only way you could be offended by that comment is if you either come into it assuming the worst, or if you take it as anything more than it really is. There is no implication. None. At all. Anything you derive from that comment as anything more than a joke is just assumption on your part because you have no further context and no knowledge of the poster's intent.
This constant insistence on being overly sensitive to avoid hurting people's precious feelings is utter nonsense and it's extremely dangerous. There is a huge difference between being malicious and just having fun. Consistently calling someone a nigger, particularly in a negative context as an insult, is malicious. Using it once as a joke in a manner that does not even necessarily single out a discernible individual is not. It's all about context. Why do so many people laugh at a black man talking about crackers in a comedy club, but hiss through their teeth if a white man says nigger? The context is the same, shouldn't they either be insulted or amused?
It's all about context. Yes, undoubtedly there will be misunderstandings when somebody makes a lousy joke and it comes out sounding like a slur, but get over it. That's never going to go away because interpretation is part of human nature as is miscommunication. There's no use in trying to eliminate it completely. It would be better to educate people so it happens less frequently and make sure they learn from their mistakes.
What, you mean if they yank IE and WMP? You know, if someone shits in your happy meal, it's not a good deal just because you're getting more.
The joke is offensive because it implies that the most interesting or important thing about Vietnamese people is that they were involved in a war in the 1970s and that somehow they should all be stigmatized by it.
I'm wholly convinced that shreiking yutzes who take offense at lame jokes go looking to be offended, and this suggestion that the joke "implies" anything just reinforces my opinion on the matter. I didn't get that implication at all. I thought back to a Vietnam era nickname, applied it to the context of nationality (oh no... we can't crack jokes about nationality, uh uh. In fact, from now on, I think I'll feel stigmatized at the constant cracks about white folks on some stations and shows since we all have to be "sensitive" to everyone but them and can't take anything with a little bit of poise and stride), and found it to be a mildly amusing joke. The thought that this was somehow a slur against him - much less an entire nation - never crossed my mind. In fact, maybe you ought to reconsider what you actually took offense at. Which is worse, that I got a chuckle and forgot about it, or that you had racist thoughts leap into your head?
MODS: For the love of God, DO NOT MOD THIS UP (unless you have an odd sense of humor, I suppose, and want to mark it Funny)! It's a waste of mod points when someone else has to come back and mod it back down. That's why I'm posting it at 1... now, back to your regularly scheduled flamefest.
How convenient... I was just posting a quick rail in another thread and you happened to drop by in the meantime. Two birds with one stone, as it were.
First of all, funny you should call anybody a "pedantic little cunt" (for shame - your mother ought to wash your mouth out with soap... and mine too while she's at it) when your sole journal entry is a bitch-fest about YA.* and recursive acronyms for projects.
But, I digress. Amazing as it may seem, I actually struggled through the meaningless market babble that comprised an article of responses from a man who chose the path of least resistance through school (one might argue that business majors are worse than marketers, but it's a tough call for me). Not once was he asked to characterize Linux Enterprise against Windows, he just did. Now, if he'd like to do that, that's fine, but the fact still remains that the post that originally got your panties in a bunch called bullshit on his half-assed marketspeak since a competent Linux sysadmin could follow the traditional (and time tested, mind you) philosophy of piecemealing the system to the task at hand. Compare this to the shotgun approach of Windows and one imbecilic markteters inability to grasp the difference between the two styles, and you have what amounts to nothing more than a steaming pile of bullshit that's only fit for executive-level consumption.
Or, to put it another way: nobody with at least half a brain would take anything in that article as anything more than a shifty response to tough questions that some management moron doesn't understand well enough to respond to directly.
Oh, and I might note that, although no question referred specifically to Enterprise Distributions, some DID refer specifically to desktop. I call bullshit on your entire response to this story.
Oh brother. It's a joke. Anybody without a strong, direct connection to the Vietnam War really has no grounds to be offended. Half the people here are probably either a) two young to get it or b) too ignorant of history to get it.
If you really are one of those people that's offended, that's fine. But rather than waste everyone else's time, just smile, shut up, and have a coke. You can't live your life running around pointing and shrieking like a schoolgirl all the time.
Great... now I probably offended some psycho feminist chick with the schoolgirl crack. And I probably offended a lesbian with the feminist crack. Oh shit.. now I really done did it...
RTFP, dipshit. He mentions the fact that he's productizing Linux and IGNORING LINUX IN GENERAL while making no claims to be speaking to the marketing drek that the microdroid is spitting. He then goes on to toss his own two cents in on what the microdroid is ignoring and what Linux "really is". He's voicing an opinion on what Microsoft "doesn't get" about Linux, or, at least, chooses to ignore, in this type of interview so they can focus on narrowly defined numbers that don't speak to the whole of Linux.
Maybe if you took the time to actually read and digest the post before ripping into the poster like some dick-stroking wanker you'd sound like a little bit less of a lobotomized, shit-flinging moron. Get your nose out of your own shit for a few seconds and try some critical thinking for once. You may actually find you like it better than licking your own sweaty balls and stroking your over-inflated ego.
Go ahead, punk. I dare you to try and flame back.
Strange? No. The firearms industry has lots of money, the movie industry has lots of money, and politicians want lots of money. It makes perfect sense to me.
In the meantime, I'll continue buying both as I damn well see fit (although to date I've not seen fit to buy either).
There's always google cache and the wayback machine. I'm sure some idiot has a goatse archive too. Nothing that sinister can be killed so easily.
Question. Does it actually HURT you, or do you THINK it hurts you? I've never understood the whole needle thing. I can't say that I enjoy being stuck with a nice long pointy thing, but I also don't recall it ever hurting so much as being an annoying feeling of pressure. Same with giving blood. The jab in the finger tip (when they grab blood to test for disease) hurts much more than the needle in the arm, although my arm always got sore when I was done. People always tell me how much it hurts though. I'm curious whether or not there's some physical difference between people that would cause it to hurt for some and not others.
I lot of people keep missing the point. Remembering a terrible event for the sake of remembering how terrible it was in the context of understanding and prevention is not the same as remembering it in the context of PTSD. If you develop PTSD based on the experience, little things can set you off - smells, sounds, faces. At that point, the memory becomes so painfully vivid that it can be completely incapacitating. The moments in question come back so acutely that the victim is left totally unable to function until the memory passes again. Imagine what would happen if every time you saw something about 9/11 you were so acutely overcome with feelings of greif or helplessness that you couldn't react to people around you, move, or think clearly in any capacity what-so-ever.
The point is to overcome this horrendous reaction, not make them "not care" or forget about it. Desensitizing the patient takes on the meaning of "allowing them to continue functioning normally when they recall the event(s) in question". They'll still care about it and may even continue to be burdened by it, but the memories won't bring them to a screeching halt and prevent them from functioning normally in society.
Reference for the culturally impaired. ;^)
I will attempt to help back up the article with a resounding "yes, a call center is meant to take a lot of calls, not solve problems".
See, I work in a generic call center. We do our own support here for member accounts (non-technical) and we attempt to bring in farmed work from other businesses. When the management goes to talk to companies, they automatically reject anyone who says they want quality numbers. They come armed only with quantity. Average call times are to be under two and a half minutes and full time reps are required to take over 200 calls per day lest they be put on the chopping block.
There's two benefits to this approach: 1) management can claim a high quality call center to prosepective outsourcers based on the fact that we take a lot of calls and 2) H.R. can keep average salaries low by firing people who are not meeting quality standards and unrealistic quantity standards. Effectively, the only way to make these mutually exclusive goals is to remain as generic and unhelpful as possible. I was once told flat out by a caller that I'm "really good at saying nothing in as many words as possible". Trying to solve a person's problem inevitably leads to complexity which slows down call times which leads to a meeting with a manager.
Don't blame me though... I'm just a code monkey now, nobody listens to me.