>> But for services like cell phones and mail, people have a >> legitimate right to expect they can get the same service >> (for approximately the same cost) in Tinytown, Wyoming as >> in Megalopolis, New York.
> Why? It may be that the economics balance out between providing > mail or telephone service in Tinytown and Megaopolis and the > charges would be similar. If the economics do not balance out > there there should be NO guarantee that the charges to customer > should be expected to be similar for the two localities.
We're looking at this from two different and possibly incompatible points of view. I'm talking about setting public policy to govern services provided under a market that isn't truly free. This basis is part of the law, going back to electrical services, public gas, water, and sewer, and more recently, traditional telephones.
Cell phone companies own equipment; but they borrow the airwaves; a limited resource the government allows them use of in exchange for some control over how they use it.
You're looking at this from a purely free-market capitalist viewpoint. On that basis, the cell providers have a great product, but they have no right to expect unrestricted access to the airwaves. As a matter of public policy, I feel they should be required to provide universal service, to the degree that technology and the economics of the situation allow. I feel that history supports my view.
There's always been some conflict between private and public use of shared, limited resources. Water rights in the American Southwest, fencing in the grazing lands in England, the old Jewish Levitical laws governing the use of the land; history is full of examples, all over the world. How we manage these resources varies. But we always see the need to manage them.
> A cell company offered to pay a hefty sum per annum to build a > tower at my high school, which would be really good because of > all the extra dough the school would get, but they voted it down. > For whatever reason.
Might have been concerns over health concerns and/or liability for health problems, if the tower was going to be at the school. Or it could be the wrong phase of the moon. Decisions involving schools tend to be weird.
> The fact is that my town has been trying to get decent cell phone > reception for years. We even offered a company rent-free, tax-free > use of the land for 50 years. We'll secure it, and bring power to it. > > And we'll let them put the blasted thing just about anywhere. > > They just aren't interested, as "the service offered is adequate".
Very true. One of the reasons this happens is that the vendors look at unit sales. If they don't think it's going to get them the units (common in smaller towns; you can't sell 45,000 phones in a town of 15,000 people), they aren't interested.
This is why the government restricted FedEx and other package delivery services from carrying first class mail. USPS has a mandate to deliver anywhere; the package carriers don't want to deliver everywhere, just selected (more profitable) areas.
But for services like cell phones and mail, people have a legitimate right to expect they can get the same service (for approximately the same cost) in Tinytown, Wyoming as in Megalopolis, New York.
> "Why shouldn't I be able to read or "bypass" what I own like the 1 > and 0s on DVD/CDs/etc? "
> Nothing is stopping you from doing just that. The law actually > prohibits distributing, selling, and/or giving away such software.
Correct. This, of course, requires every ordinary user in the world to roll his own software. The law doesn't "prohibit" exercising your fair use rights. It just makes doing so in fact sufficiently difficult that it become effectively impossible for most people.
> You are perfectly within your rights to write your own software > to bypass what is on a DVD, etc. That is, as long as you are > engaging in fair usage. (archival purposes, educational, etc.)
Of course, you may still be sued by the MPAA or RIAA. The fact that you are not guilty doesn't mean they can't abuse the legal system against you. You may win, but defending yourself may be expensive.
> "How is the DMCA even constitutional?"
> It was passed by congress, and does not trash any rights promised > in the Constitution.
Correct; fair use rights are not enumerated in the Constitution, and their effective removal by DMCA is a technical side-effect. As explained above, these rights still exist. It's just prohibitively difficult to exercise them.
> There are only two ways to overturn this flawed law. The first is > for a constitutional amendment which will probably never happen. > And for congress to wake up.
Actually, three. The courts could still overturn it, or at least overturn some of the provisions. But someone would need to find a legal reason for them to do so, that hasn't yet been ruled on. This is somewhat unlikely.
> An RFID key is extremely useful to my family. My mother has really > bad arthritis in her hands which makes it difficult for her sometimes > to hold items like keys. My grandpa is also better off holding on > to his walker instead of reaching out to keys.
Two excellent examples. Despite my own preference for mechanical keys and locks, this example indicates that something like this can provide real value to a lot of people.
> in the US, you are free to do anything unless there is a > law prohibiting it, whereas for example in Britain from > what I understand you are not free to do something > unless there is a law allowing it.
Not really true. But England and other nations bring different preconceptions into the mix. They don't have the same views and these differences make for some significant communication disfunctions between the US and other nations.
Many things that are regulated and controlled in England could not be regulated in the same way in the US, because the power to regulate them was never granted to the federal government.
Tenth Amendment to the US constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
> To americans it makes absolutely no sense to talk of democracy > in the context of 'increasing' rights; when you vote in the US, > unless youre voting to do away with or modify an exising law, > by default you are ~decreasing~ the amount of rights people had > before the vote.
That's an interesting observation, that may well be true. Certainly, the historical American view is that that their rights are ordained by God, and the government's function is to back off until needed. This may well be a stumbling block for other nations trying to understand the US.
Paragraph 2 of the Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are -endowed by their Creator- (emphasis mine) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..."
> Next, the majority does ~not~ rule, no. If no single individual > has the right to dictate to you the choices you have to make in > life, then niether does a group of individuals.
Stated a little differently, if an action is wrong for one man, it's wrong for all men. The majority can be wrong just as easily as an individual. Slavery, murder, rape, arson, are wrong -even if all men agree to do it-.
This also seems a natural view to Americans, perhaps less so to others.
> Next, democracy is a means to an end, not an end in itself. > That end is individual freedom.
Excellently stated.
Preamble to the US Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and -secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity- (emphasis mine), do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The historical references are really just intended to emphasize that these ideaas are -very- tightly woven into the identity of Americans as a people. Whether you like or agree with these ideas isn't the point. But people need to understand why ordinary folk get really heated on these issues.
> When I was younger I thought all the world's problems could be > fixed by applying economic (monetary) pressures, and I still > feel that there is some very string merit to this approach.
Same with me, on both my earlier and revised views.
> Unfortunately there are some real probems with pure capitalism,
Also very true.
> and that reflects in a number of areas: > -The UN puts Norway, Sweden, Australia and Canada as the top > 4 (2004) in United Nation's Quality of Life survey. All these > countries have strong social policies (i.e. far less capitalistic > than the US)
It's good to know that these nations are felt to have high quality of life. While many people would say these results are correct, 'quality of life' is an amazingly nebulous and fuzzy concept. It sometimes says far more about the respondents personal sense of values than it does about the nation in question.
In some ways, they do have a higher quality of life, it is true. In other ways, they have a significantly lower quality of life. Slashdot has noted a number of invasions of personal privacy and property rights by the Australian government over the last few years. They don't matter to many people; they matter greatly to others.
Not saying the poll is wrong; just that it's not as valuable as it may seem at first glance.
> -Companies don't necessarily make what's best for the consumer: > products are now more and more often made to be disposable. > (how do I make more money: sell the best product once, or some > minimum-standard product 1000x. Engineered Obsolesence is a > capitalist phrase)
Yep. Selling crap because it's -new- crap is another. There is a large backlash in the US against more and more expensive razor blades. There have been articles about a lot of people going back to twin blade razors or to electric razors just because they are tired of paying so much for 3, 4, and 'coming soon, 5 bladed disposable blades, for that super-extra close shave'.
> -Capitalism doesn't take hidden costs into account (like > social problems, environmental problems) but looks only at the > costs/profits for the next quarter.
In it's current form, yes. I think it was a bit different in the past. Many big companies used to plan for the very long term. But with frequent job switching by everyone, including management, and more frequent mergers/spinoffs/layoffs/etc, the problem got much worse.
> To answer the original question: I use wikipedia as a "xyz for > dummies" reference. I don't expect to walk away an expert, but > I do expect to have an idea of what the word/phrase is all about.
Useful in many domain-specific ways. I find the history articles useful for providing a timeline overview; then I can further research the areas of interest.
> there's a big difference between trying your best to satisfy your > (acceptable) desires without unnecessarily alienating anyone, and > doing more or less exactly what you want and blatantly snubbing > the rest of the world.
True. And I feel the US has done a poor job of this.
> Nevertheless, there is a happy middle ground that most western > countries seem to find, where they balance satisfying their wants > against the desires of others, and respect world opinion without > being a slave to it.
Therein lies the problem. A lot of the Europeans I speak with regarding this define the middle ground as a picture I (and many Americans) find impossible to accept.
I am going to be saying a lot of things that many people could confidently state betray my provincialism, ignorance, selfishness, etc. Please understand that I am not ignorant of just how out of touch with modern European thinking many of the things I am saying are. But they are critical to my point, that America has significant cultural dissimilarities to modern Europe, and we are not ready to toss these ideas out the window, regardless of how provincial they may seem to Europe.
Here's one thing to keep in mind. Many in Europe feel that the average European mindset is the center, and America is off to the right somewhere. Americans feel that they may be right of center, but Europe is left of center, and finding commen ground requires Europe to move toward an American view while America moves to a more European view.
> For example, individually invading another sovereign country is > generally considered an exceedingly serious step,
Absolutely.
> and one which should be undertaken only with international approval, > or at least acceptance.
There is our first conflict. Please understand: I did not support invading Iraq without at least UN acceptance even -before- the fact, let alone in light of later indications. Nonetheless, I would have to modify that last statement to something more like, "and one which should be undertaken with international approval, or at least acceptance, except in the most extreme conditions."
Again, I do not feel that Iraq met this criteria. But your statement indicates a need for approval -always-, where mine indicates a strong preference for approval, which still permits the US to take unilateral action.
Note that this isn't because the US is 'special'. I also have no objection to England, France, Germany, etc. taking unilateral action, as long as they are willing to stand up to the world's criticism for it.
I debated about adding that comment. Certainly, your post has prompted me to consider this more fully, and I can see that this is something where the US may be best off to concede this at some point, and give up any privilege of unilateral action save a response to a direct attack (and defining 'direct attack' could well be something that could take much discussion). But not because unilateral action is "immoral"; merely because the right to take such action may not be worth the cost of hanging on to it.
But truly, the UN does not have the trust of the US government or the American people. We can't gloss over that; it needs to be worked through; it's not all since the US action in Iraq. The UN has been hostile to the US for a very long time, and the US has been hostile to the UN.
Further on I respond to your comments on America's inward-looking and selfishness. I'm going to snip several good comments you made, just because I don't have a reply.
> It's this kind of unjustified overreaching, and then total failure > to self-reflect or apologize afterwards that has caused such a > dramatic downturn in the USA's reputation.
All regrettable. You've given me some things to think about. I've been aware of these criticisms by other nations, but rarely seen them stated without a tremendous degree of specious critici
Sorry I offended you. As I stated in another reply, I feel I overstated things somewhat.
>...I'm antipodean
> What we do get pissed off about is US unilateral action that pisses all > over international democracy (and that is what the UN is about no matter > how much the UN / EU haters like to spin it)
>...We don't care how you run your lives internally, it's the US effect > on the rest of the world that the rest of the world cares about.
I feel certain I should have stated my point differently; it definitely generated more ill-feeling than I intended.
There is a tight link between America's internal politics and it's interaction with the world. Some things the US has done, such as the unilateral decision to go to war in Iraq, are not tied so much to the internal structure. They were a regrettable action, but they don't require America to change itself, only it's actions. The world's criticism of this can be a productive force for change.
Other complaints leveled against the US are a direct result of some of the core constitutional limitations on our government. UN and EU leaders have often criticised the US for failing to do things that the US federal government is forbidden to do, or for not doing things in the precise nationally mandated way that they are done in other countries.
Thank you for your comments. Again, I am sorry for having offended; it was not my intent.
> I'm not being a dick, but that seems to be the only answer for it. I've > talked to many Europeans who have an accurate knowledge of how the US > works, what it's done, and what it hasn't done.
Interesting. I've spoken with many Europeans as well, who have a very -poor- understanding of how America works. I suspect neither of our views is the accurate one, that we are each seeing only part of the picture.
> You'd be surprised at what lots of Europeans read about and see on > their TVs. As their media owes nothing to Bush or any US corporate > interests, their media doesn't mind saying stuff that would make the > average American reach for his flag with a tear in his eye.
Actually, it doesn't surprise me. I pay some attention to the foreign press (not as much as I probably should, I'll admit). The problem is that the picture they see isn't any more accurate than the picture the average American sees, just different. Sure, they see a view of America the American people aren't seeing. But it's still a limited view, from 5000 feet.
I don't intend this as a criticism of the foreign media. My reply to Shaper_pmp's post contains more detail on where I feel the problem lies.
But sometimes it's horribly biased. The coverage shows what America does, but rarely looks into why things are the way they are. A lot of the missteps taken by the US leadership have been made much worse by UN and EU leaders more interested in blame than solutions. The US leadership is not blameless, of course. There are a lot of people in leadership positions whose view is "screw the UN"; unfortunately, if we don't strive on both sides for mutual understanding, America's role in the UN is likely to continue to shrink, with increasing unilateral action to follow.
It's an ugly situation, and I fear it's getting worse.
> Again, I'm not being a dick here, but just giving my honest opinion.
And thoughtfully stated. I appreciate the opportunity to learn more about other viewpoints. Again, thanks.
I'm going to try to be as fair and neutral as possible in my reply. Bear with me if I don't manage it. Thank you for your comments.
>...in recent times your government has been play-acting the worst of the > American stereotype (arrogant, inward-looking, aggressively expansionist), > which has accordingly strengthened that stereotype worldwide.
This is difficult to respond to. Yes, certain actions taken by the US government are too arrogant, inward-looking, and aggressively expansionist. Where the difficulty I have in responding comes in is that the various voices around the world which criticize the US for these things desire the US to be not merely better, but very much fundamentally different.
If you will, these voices will not be satisfied with appropriate humility, a more globally aware view, and restricting natural expansionist tendencies.
They want US actions to be dominated by world opinion to the exclusion of the desires of the American people, to disregard the needs of the US in favor of the needs of other nations, and both maintain a completely hands-off policy regarding other nations activities, while providing any and all support requested by any nation.
More comments later.
> Most american's aren't arrogant or expansionist (they've got you bang to > rights on the inward-looking, though), but the ones you nominate to power > are, so you all cop the world-opinion fall-out.
Yes, but like it or not, the world needs to recognize that the US selects it's leaders -primarily- on the basis of their -domestic agendas-. I'm not happy with how various leaders handle world relations, but I would not even consider replacing them with the people who "world opinion" feels would be better.
Think of it this way: I don't like how John Doe handles [issue of global concern]; but I am not going to elect Richard Roe in his place, as long as Richard Roe's policies on [several domestic issues] are so completely offensive to me.
It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is. I believe most people around the world think and vote similarly.
>> "A large portion of the world wants the US to tear up our constitution >> and remake ourselves in the image of the EU."
> Again, this is a very common US perception. In fact, all the rest of the > world wants is for the US to stop telling them what to do.
Again, difficult to respond to. I perhaps overstated somewhat. But the truth of the matter is that many people who are speaking for "world opinion" very definitely wish to remake the US in the image of the EU. They have said so quite clearly. The situation is similar to the one you noted before, where US leaders are worsening the world's opinion of us. Similarly, various people who speak for "world opinion" are worsening the US opinion of the UN, the EU, and many nations, through their actions and speeches.
I don't have a solution for this, I'm sorry to say. All I can recommend is a little tolerance on both sides.
>> "Most of the what the world knows about the US is garbage, heavily >> influenced by Hollywood. Just as most of what most Americans know about >> the Middle East is from Hollywood bull and news reports showing scenes >> of war and terror."
> That's a very interesting assertion. So basically you're saying that: > > What the rest of the world knows about America comes from what America > tells them about itself, and What America knows about the middle east > is what America tells itself.
Good, but not exactly what I meant. We hear what people say loudest and most frequently. The average man on the street in England may feel one way, but the world hears that Tony Blair says, because the cameras are on him. We also hear what Victoria Beckham says, which may be quite different, but provides no sort of balance.
This is not a case of "what America says about itself" as much as a case of understa
>...and the US (through both direct government action and US mega-corps) > wants every other nation to tear up their constitutions and remake > themselves in the image of the US. And we aren't interested, now or ever.
> Examples: DMCA; 'harmonized' copyright and patent laws...
No argument, just a clarification. The majority of people in the US are also against the DMCA, and increasingly against these same copyright and patent laws.
I'm not trying to imply the US is blameless. Merely that there are problems on both sides, and solution will involve both sides conceding some things.
>> A large portion of the world wants the US to tear up our constitution and >> remake ourselves in the image of the EU.
> Also, I don't think anyone objects to the US constitution. It may not be the > best constitution in the world, but it's certainly not the worst.
Judging from the replies, I probably should have been more clear.
There are certain parts of the US constitution that produce effects that various other nations object to. Powers reserved to the states, certain constitutional protections and limits on federal power are the primary ones.
The US has been vilified many times for refusing to agree to various treaties, primarily because the US federal government doesn't have authority over these matters. These nations don't really care about our constitution, it's true. But they strongly desire the US federal government to start adopting various initiatives, regardless of the fact that we can't do it.
> Let's see how long the US holds together without the monetary support of the > rest of the world.
Just a point; if anyone tried to destroy the US monetarily, the effect on the rest of the workl would be easily as bad. The dependency works both ways. Yes, the US is dependent of foreign trade, but most of the nations we trade with are dependent on it as well. Some few nations would just suffer loss of income and products, but many would suffer pains equal to some of the worst natural disasters.
> And people with your attitude wonder why there is so much rampant > anti-Americanism around the world today. You're too arrogant and conceited > to see it.
Just a point. There are a few hundred million people in the US. All of them are not arrogant and conceited, any more than all the French are rude and smelly, all Muslims are terrorists, or all the Chinese are great at math.
Yes, there are legitimate grievances against the US. But much or what is perceived as US arrogance is merely the US attempting to retain it's own constitutional structure. A large portion of the world wants the US to tear up our constitution and remake ourselves in the image of the EU. And we aren't interested, now or ever.
> Thank goodness 99% of the Americans I know are fantastic people and > don't live up to this stereotype.
Good to hear it. But stereotypes are like that. Most of the what the world knows about the US is garbage, heavily influenced by Hollywood. Just as most of what most Americans know about the Middle East is from Hollywood bull and news reports showing scenes of war and terror.
>> It will be officially raised at a UN summit of world leaders next >> month and, faced with international consensus, there is little >> the US government can do but acquiesce.
> Is that a fact? Right or wrong have you looked at our Government lately? Do > you really think that international consensus will bother us in the least?
Truly. The only thing the UN can do without the cooperation of the US is split the internet into different networks, each under the control of a different body.
Eventually, that might be for the best, as long as they are all interoperable. But doing so by unilateral action without US cooperation strikes me as a poor way to start.
>...Isn't that whole argument just as silly as insisting that DoC hand over > the root servers? Where is the problem here that they want to fix?
There are issues that are driving this. Trademarks, patents, laws covering searches and protected speech all differ vastly by nation. ICANN is grossly ineffective in dealing with these issues, and they have pissed off nearly everyone. The internet is an international resource, and people in other nations are rightly concerned about the US government potentially taking ill-advised unilateral action, with physical control of the root servers being the ultimate hammer.
Of course, dealing with a -potential- for ill-advised unilateral action by the US by taking an -actual- ill-advised unilateral action -against- the US strikes me as both ironic and, bluntly, stupid.
>...as much as we may dislike cubicles, a blanket statement like "working in > cubicles is the sure sign that you're not working for a successful company" > is... well, a sure sign that the article's author hasn't worked at many > companies.
Agreed. Cubicles can be an indicator, though. There are so many different styles. I would look at the working environment provided in the cubicle, and determine if it's mindless penny-pinching or part of a reasonable plan.
- Is the desktop space adequate for the work you need to do? - Do you have adequate storage space, both shelves and file drawers? - Is the cubicle height reasonable? Higher walls minimize distractions. - Is the environment particularly noisy? - Is the size of most people's cubicles significantly reduced because they are used for storing supplies, equipment, and files that have nothing to do with their work? * - Are adequate conference facilities available for brainstorming sessions and other -productive- meetings? - Are developers actively discouraged from forwarding calls to voice mail or performing other tactics used to minimize interruptions temporarily? - Is hard disk space, either local or network, in unusually short supply?
Comments? Other warning factors?
-------- * I worked in one office where everyone's cubicle space was reduced by the size of between four and ten of those long boxes for file folders. Some people could barely get to their desks, and all because the company was too cheap to either get storage space or get rid of old (non-financial) files and obsolete hardware.
> The GPL impedes Linux more than it helps. Licensing issues, coupled with > patent and copyright FUD, have caused developers and VCs to think twice > before committing to Linux.
Damn right, which is why all those developers have instead been developing for FreeBSD instead of for Linux. Oh, wait; they haven't been.
Well, then, surely they've been making developing for Solaris instead. Oh, wait; they haven't been.
It's real easy for an armchair quarterback to drone on and on about how they could've really run that game.
The reality is that FreeBSD and the GNU projects were languishing; they had a strong core of technical people using them, but were making no perceptible inroads into mass market acceptance. Linux under the GPL got people exited enough do do what no one else has done, and make radically new software licensing models, development models, and a brand-new OS commercially viable.
NeXt, BeOS, Plan 9, every other great new OS people wrote about in the trade press is either gone or on life support.
> Murphy also suspects that desktop Linux is stuck on stupid." From the post: > "Basically, legal issues, or the threat of legal issues, caused some key > applications developers to back off Linux while the general negativism of > Linux marketing caused many of the individuals whose innovations should have > been driving Linux adoption to hang fire until MacOS X and Solaris for x86 > under the CDDL came along."
"Key applications developers" like who? Every time I've seen a writer who was convinced he know what application the world needed, or what was going to be the killer app, he was DEAD WRONG.
According to the columnists, by now we were all supposed to be running NetPCs from Sun, using office suites built in Java, buying time on the network server in an updated mainframe cost model.
That's the version they fed us after the one that had all of us using Corel Office or Lotus SmartSuite.
The reality is that many of the most exiting projects that have been done recently would never have been attempted without an OS under the GPL, and many of the next killer apps are likely to have been written by people who only took the time to do so -because- of Open Source and the GPL.
> For some of us the drugs plug the hole in the boat.
Very true; however, that is and generally should be a minority of chronic depression victims. Depression medications almost always have significant side-effects, so prescribing them cautiously is always indicated.
> There's a very common attitude, which I seein your post, that antidepressants > are only good as a temporary, often last minute, patch up solution.
I didn't see that in the original post. The poster may have overstated the typical case, but it's a substantially accurate portrayal. For most depression victims, medication should only be used in conjunction with an effort to root out the cause, which may be organic.
I recall reading a story a few months ago written by a man about his child, where doctors were content to continue the prior course of medication indefinitely, in spite of -massive- side-effects. The side effects rendered the child almost completely non-functional, symptoms similar to severe autism. After 3 years of fighting with the doctors and research on his own, the man was able to help identify the root cause and a treatment with minimal side effects.
> But actually some of us are better off taking them all the time, much like > people with other chronic diseases might take meds for the rest of their lives.
Very true. But only when other options have been exhausted. It's no different in that respect to high cholesterol, diabetes, or heart disease.
> Chronic depression is not something that will go away if you just 'buck up > and get over it', 'deal with the problem and move on', 'get to a safe > harbour', etc.
Agreed; but again, I didn't see that in the original post.
> Often it is a lifetime issue that can be managed with, among other things, medicine.
> I think it is more of an Issue of the Movie Quality vs. The price.
Agreed. The reality is, you're willing to take a flyer on a 'maybe not that great movie' if it's only a buck or two for a DVD rental, and you haven't planned your evening around it. If the first 20 minutes of a movie sucks, the hey, it's just a couple of bucks and a short period of time. You can pick up two backup movies in case it sucks and it still costs less than 10 bucks.
Contrast that with a trip to the theater; you drove to the theater, waited in line, bought expensive tickets, waited through advertisements in uncomfortable seats, and the movie sucks. Unless you feel like demanding a refund from the manager, you're out a lot more than a couple of bucks, and either way, the evening is pretty well shot.
And a lot of the movies in theaters are bad; not hackk! ptui!! bad; just not worth taking a chance on wasting a whole evening and a fair sized chunk of change on. Movies that wouldn't be made if the current pop tart with a hit bubble-gum single wasn't considered a 'hot enough property' to justify making a film without a decent script, direction, or actors.
A lot of what you wrote, I can agree with; however, I would like to note that some of your advice assumes that backstabbing is a law of nature.
> Re-orgs are a way of life where I work.
I feel for you, but while you have adapted to your environment, I'd get out if reorgs were that frequent in my workplace. They happen everywhere, but it sounds like they happen far too often in your workplace.
> Don't think you can take the high road and have your career survive.
Disagree completely. See next item.
> If someone's playing dirty, don't try to overlook it, deal with it.
VERY true. But you don't have to get down in the mud to deal with dirty players. You can respond in a fair and high-minded fashion, but firmly. The high road doesn't have to mean being a pushover. Those who take the high road can fight hard and with intent to -destroy- the enemy, if necessary, and still retain their own moral sense.
I like the way MooseByte phreased it in his reply: "...I wasn't going to stab them in the back. I'd be happy to stab them in the chest, mind you! But never in the back.;-)"
I will note that taking the high road doesn't mean you always win, but neither does taking the low. And taking the high road is particularly difficult in a poisonous environment.
> Perceptions count for a lot. Manage perceptions.
VERY true.
> When dealing with management, be insincere.
Can't agree. You can, and should, tell the truth. -How- you tell it is important; always, ALWAYS phrease things neutrally, leaving egos out of it, and always offer management a fair choice of options.
Lying can bite you far too easily. Others have replied well to this point, so I won't belabor it. I'll just point out that one reason lying bites people is that it's hard to keep consistent.
> If another group is reducing your effectiveness for reasons of overlapping > turf, jealousy, history, whatever, try make an accomodation with them
If you can. If you can't, see if you can get someone in power on your side to neutralize them. This may involve different things in different workplaces. Rather than crack the whip on them, your ally might just politely ask them to leace your folks alone until a project is finished, or divert the person elsewhere for now.
> Watch out for the agendas of underlings.
Underlings, peers, superiors, customers...basically everyone. Trust, but verify .
> If you have a politically motivated person working for you, get them gone.
There are a lot of types of people you might be better off without. If someone is a real problem in any way, talk to them, make it clear what behavior you want to change, and if they don't change it, get them gone.
> Maintain the avenues of communications. Don't allow someone to bypass you in > either direction.
Or soften, alter, change, corrupt, or screw-up the message. I recall how shocked I was the first time my boss completely changed a status report from me when he delivered it to his boss. The nasty part is I was called on to verify the complete bullshit he just handed out. Got out without making him look too bad or lying, but it was an unpleasant few minutes.
> Use dog psychology when dealing with people; reward good behavior, punish bad > behavior, be consistent.
That's just good psychology, not dog pyschology.
> Maintain perspective...Be prepared to move on and leave the work and project > behind.
> 'One proposal that countries have been discussing would wrest control of > domain names from the U.S.-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and > Numbers, or ICANN, and place it with an intergovernmental group, possibly > under the United Nations. > > Gross dismissed it as unacceptable. "...This is a matter of national policy."'
> The question is, why?
Just my opinions, but, several reasons. International law treats several patent, trademark, and IP issues -very- differently from US law. Even in Europe, which is more similar to the US than many nations, the differences are enormous. Free speech is an issue as well. There are any number of sites in the US that French law would not permit under their very different interpretations of 'what is protected speech'.
> "Some negotiators from other countries said there was a growing sense that a > compromise had to be reached and that no single country ought to be the > ultimate authority over such a vital part of the global economy."
> Could someone tell me why are they wrong? And if they are not wrong, what is > this US opposition?
There are not wrong in many ways. They -are- wrong in that it isn't something that can be trivially reassigned to UN authority -right now-. In addition to the issues I mentioned above, there is the issue of the security of the root servers. Note that, from a US perspective, this is security -from UN interference with US infrastructure- as well as security from terror and natural disaster.
I'm certain it can all be worked out in time, with a compromise that protects individual nation domains under the laws of the relevant nations, and which assures the US has control over the root servers needed for the US portion of the net, but it can't happen on the UN's agressive schedule.
> If the USA's position won't change, i guess people can just ignore the > states and set up an alternative dns servers/architecture.
Bad idea; this would lead to real fragmentation problems. Better to take it slow and work out the issues, both technical and political.
> If the USA doesn't like living in a world where there are multiple countries > to deal with, they can just close their borders and shut down their trade.
Sigh. Yes, the US is, perhaps, too isolationist. But the UN in general, and Europe, in particular, is constantly trying to ram expanded UN control over solely internal US issues down the throats of the US. The US has every right to remain separate from the UN's 'one world' vision. Many Americans, myself included, don't want to join that vision. If the UN can accept the US right to remain the US, and not become 'EU West', we can work out the details; the conflicts usually come when the UN refuses to allow the US to run the US.
>..it is easier for the "bad" guys to find the security holes in open source > software.
Is it? I wonder if this isn't a case where we don't look for proof becuase we've assumed we know the answer. Certainly, with open source, you can examine the source. But examining complex kernel source code is no trivial task. Given the large amount of practice and study on methods of hacking closed source systems, isn't is possible that this having the source doesn't really make it easier after all? That it just offers a method not available on closed source systems?
Never used the Sun Ray Station, but I've worked in organizations who've used similar ideas.
> The advantage this has over traditional thin clients is that the user is > allowed to roam to any available computer and simply "plug in". As soon as > the card is inserted, your desktop is brought up EXACTLY where you left it!
Always assuming the hardware on the given system is the same. I've been in offices where users needed zip drives, CDRWs, DVD drives, etc., and the company computer hardware varied enough that moving around was a hassle, even if the non-hardware configuration was the same every time the user logs in.
It's often little things. I've gotten stuck, more than once, with those STUPID Compaqs with the giant backspace key substituted for half the spacebar; giant pain in the a** for a touch-typist. Equally bad, of course, is a keyboard where the manufacturer decided to move the insert, delete, home, and end keys (which I use all the time) so they could stick in cute little keys for 'email', 'internet', etc.
Or trying to use software that's only comfortable at resolutions of 1024*786 and higher on a monitor that maxes out at 800*600.
Then, too, I've also been in offices where the network is such that some servers are unreachable if you move across the hall.
None of this is a problem with the idea; it's a problem with how the idea is executed. I don't know the Sun Rays, but I don't imagine they can prevent these network configuration glitches or inconsistent hardware (usually purchased at different times by different people, looking for the cheapest configuration). As companies get more cost-conscious all the time, it gets worse.
> But the concept is there, and further research and development by Sun > combined with more and more Wifi points popping up may very well lead to > the perfect solution that both centralizes your data yet gives employees > the mobility they need.
Nope, can't see it. Even with expanded WiFi, reliability is a major problem; reliability not being 'hardware does not fail/network does not fail' but in the sense that the access must be available -everywhere- the employees need to be, with the speed, security, and transparency to make it no more hassle than working at a dedicated desktop machine at a fixed location.
It's not just 'anywhere in the office', or 'in the office or at home'. To replace a dedicated laptop, it needs to function even where WiFi connections are not only not the best, but are on the low-end of the average (for many users; not everyone). We're getting better, but not that quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
>> But for services like cell phones and mail, people have a
>> legitimate right to expect they can get the same service
>> (for approximately the same cost) in Tinytown, Wyoming as
>> in Megalopolis, New York.
> Why? It may be that the economics balance out between providing
> mail or telephone service in Tinytown and Megaopolis and the
> charges would be similar. If the economics do not balance out
> there there should be NO guarantee that the charges to customer
> should be expected to be similar for the two localities.
We're looking at this from two different and possibly incompatible points of view. I'm talking about setting public policy to govern services provided under a market that isn't truly free. This basis is part of the law, going back to electrical services, public gas, water, and sewer, and more recently, traditional telephones.
Cell phone companies own equipment; but they borrow the airwaves; a limited resource the government allows them use of in exchange for some control over how they use it.
You're looking at this from a purely free-market capitalist viewpoint. On that basis, the cell providers have a great product, but they have no right to expect unrestricted access to the airwaves. As a matter of public policy, I feel they should be required to provide universal service, to the degree that technology and the economics of the situation allow. I feel that history supports my view.
There's always been some conflict between private and public use of shared, limited resources. Water rights in the American Southwest, fencing in the grazing lands in England, the old Jewish Levitical laws governing the use of the land; history is full of examples, all over the world. How we manage these resources varies. But we always see the need to manage them.
Thank you for your comments.
> A cell company offered to pay a hefty sum per annum to build a
> tower at my high school, which would be really good because of
> all the extra dough the school would get, but they voted it down.
> For whatever reason.
Might have been concerns over health concerns and/or liability for health problems, if the tower was going to be at the school. Or it could be the wrong phase of the moon. Decisions involving schools tend to be weird.
> The fact is that my town has been trying to get decent cell phone
> reception for years. We even offered a company rent-free, tax-free
> use of the land for 50 years. We'll secure it, and bring power to it.
>
> And we'll let them put the blasted thing just about anywhere.
>
> They just aren't interested, as "the service offered is adequate".
Very true. One of the reasons this happens is that the vendors look at unit sales. If they don't think it's going to get them the units (common in smaller towns; you can't sell 45,000 phones in a town of 15,000 people), they aren't interested.
This is why the government restricted FedEx and other package delivery services from carrying first class mail. USPS has a mandate to deliver anywhere; the package carriers don't want to deliver everywhere, just selected (more profitable) areas.
But for services like cell phones and mail, people have a legitimate right to expect they can get the same service (for approximately the same cost) in Tinytown, Wyoming as in Megalopolis, New York.
A couple of comments; note that IANAL.
> "Why shouldn't I be able to read or "bypass" what I own like the 1
> and 0s on DVD/CDs/etc? "
> Nothing is stopping you from doing just that. The law actually
> prohibits distributing, selling, and/or giving away such software.
Correct. This, of course, requires every ordinary user in the world to roll his own software. The law doesn't "prohibit" exercising your fair use rights. It just makes doing so in fact sufficiently difficult that it become effectively impossible for most people.
> You are perfectly within your rights to write your own software
> to bypass what is on a DVD, etc. That is, as long as you are
> engaging in fair usage. (archival purposes, educational, etc.)
Of course, you may still be sued by the MPAA or RIAA. The fact that you are not guilty doesn't mean they can't abuse the legal system against you. You may win, but defending yourself may be expensive.
> "How is the DMCA even constitutional?"
> It was passed by congress, and does not trash any rights promised
> in the Constitution.
Correct; fair use rights are not enumerated in the Constitution, and their effective removal by DMCA is a technical side-effect. As explained above, these rights still exist. It's just prohibitively difficult to exercise them.
> There are only two ways to overturn this flawed law. The first is
> for a constitutional amendment which will probably never happen.
> And for congress to wake up.
Actually, three. The courts could still overturn it, or at least overturn some of the provisions. But someone would need to find a legal reason for them to do so, that hasn't yet been ruled on. This is somewhat unlikely.
Good response. Thanks.
> An RFID key is extremely useful to my family. My mother has really
> bad arthritis in her hands which makes it difficult for her sometimes
> to hold items like keys. My grandpa is also better off holding on
> to his walker instead of reaching out to keys.
Two excellent examples. Despite my own preference for mechanical keys and locks, this example indicates that something like this can provide real value to a lot of people.
> in the US, you are free to do anything unless there is a
> law prohibiting it, whereas for example in Britain from
> what I understand you are not free to do something
> unless there is a law allowing it.
Not really true. But England and other nations bring different preconceptions into the mix. They don't have the same views and these differences make for some significant communication disfunctions between the US and other nations.
Many things that are regulated and controlled in England could not be regulated in the same way in the US, because the power to regulate them was never granted to the federal government.
Tenth Amendment to the US constitution:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
> To americans it makes absolutely no sense to talk of democracy
> in the context of 'increasing' rights; when you vote in the US,
> unless youre voting to do away with or modify an exising law,
> by default you are ~decreasing~ the amount of rights people had
> before the vote.
That's an interesting observation, that may well be true. Certainly, the historical American view is that that their rights are ordained by God, and the government's function is to back off until needed. This may well be a stumbling block for other nations trying to understand the US.
Paragraph 2 of the Declaration of Independence
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are -endowed by their Creator- (emphasis mine) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..."
> Next, the majority does ~not~ rule, no. If no single individual
> has the right to dictate to you the choices you have to make in
> life, then niether does a group of individuals.
Stated a little differently, if an action is wrong for one man, it's wrong for all men. The majority can be wrong just as easily as an individual. Slavery, murder, rape, arson, are wrong -even if all men agree to do it-.
This also seems a natural view to Americans, perhaps less so to others.
> Next, democracy is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
> That end is individual freedom.
Excellently stated.
Preamble to the US Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and -secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity- (emphasis mine), do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The historical references are really just intended to emphasize that these ideaas are -very- tightly woven into the identity of Americans as a people. Whether you like or agree with these ideas isn't the point. But people need to understand why ordinary folk get really heated on these issues.
Grain of salt follows.
> When I was younger I thought all the world's problems could be
> fixed by applying economic (monetary) pressures, and I still
> feel that there is some very string merit to this approach.
Same with me, on both my earlier and revised views.
> Unfortunately there are some real probems with pure capitalism,
Also very true.
> and that reflects in a number of areas:
> -The UN puts Norway, Sweden, Australia and Canada as the top
> 4 (2004) in United Nation's Quality of Life survey. All these
> countries have strong social policies (i.e. far less capitalistic
> than the US)
It's good to know that these nations are felt to have high quality of life. While many people would say these results are correct, 'quality of life' is an amazingly nebulous and fuzzy concept. It sometimes says far more about the respondents personal sense of values than it does about the nation in question.
In some ways, they do have a higher quality of life, it is true. In other ways, they have a significantly lower quality of life. Slashdot has noted a number of invasions of personal privacy and property rights by the Australian government over the last few years. They don't matter to many people; they matter greatly to others.
Not saying the poll is wrong; just that it's not as valuable as it may seem at first glance.
> -Companies don't necessarily make what's best for the consumer:
> products are now more and more often made to be disposable.
> (how do I make more money: sell the best product once, or some
> minimum-standard product 1000x. Engineered Obsolesence is a
> capitalist phrase)
Yep. Selling crap because it's -new- crap is another. There is a large backlash in the US against more and more expensive razor blades. There have been articles about a lot of people going back to twin blade razors or to electric razors just because they are tired of paying so much for 3, 4, and 'coming soon, 5 bladed disposable blades, for that super-extra close shave'.
> -Capitalism doesn't take hidden costs into account (like
> social problems, environmental problems) but looks only at the
> costs/profits for the next quarter.
In it's current form, yes. I think it was a bit different in the past. Many big companies used to plan for the very long term. But with frequent job switching by everyone, including management, and more frequent mergers/spinoffs/layoffs/etc, the problem got much worse.
> To answer the original question: I use wikipedia as a "xyz for
> dummies" reference. I don't expect to walk away an expert, but
> I do expect to have an idea of what the word/phrase is all about.
Useful in many domain-specific ways. I find the history articles useful for providing a timeline overview; then I can further research the areas of interest.
Many thanks for your thoughtful posts.
> there's a big difference between trying your best to satisfy your
> (acceptable) desires without unnecessarily alienating anyone, and
> doing more or less exactly what you want and blatantly snubbing
> the rest of the world.
True. And I feel the US has done a poor job of this.
> Nevertheless, there is a happy middle ground that most western
> countries seem to find, where they balance satisfying their wants
> against the desires of others, and respect world opinion without
> being a slave to it.
Therein lies the problem. A lot of the Europeans I speak with regarding this define the middle ground as a picture I (and many Americans) find impossible to accept.
I am going to be saying a lot of things that many people could confidently state betray my provincialism, ignorance, selfishness, etc. Please understand that I am not ignorant of just how out of touch with modern European thinking many of the things I am saying are. But they are critical to my point, that America has significant cultural dissimilarities to modern Europe, and we are not ready to toss these ideas out the window, regardless of how provincial they may seem to Europe.
Here's one thing to keep in mind. Many in Europe feel that the average European mindset is the center, and America is off to the right somewhere. Americans feel that they may be right of center, but Europe is left of center, and finding commen ground requires Europe to move toward an American view while America moves to a more European view.
> For example, individually invading another sovereign country is
> generally considered an exceedingly serious step,
Absolutely.
> and one which should be undertaken only with international approval,
> or at least acceptance.
There is our first conflict. Please understand: I did not support invading Iraq without at least UN acceptance even -before- the fact, let alone in light of later indications. Nonetheless, I would have to modify that last statement to something more like, "and one which should be undertaken with international approval, or at least acceptance, except in the most extreme conditions."
Again, I do not feel that Iraq met this criteria. But your statement indicates a need for approval -always-, where mine indicates a strong preference for approval, which still permits the US to take unilateral action.
Note that this isn't because the US is 'special'. I also have no objection to England, France, Germany, etc. taking unilateral action, as long as they are willing to stand up to the world's criticism for it.
I debated about adding that comment. Certainly, your post has prompted me to consider this more fully, and I can see that this is something where the US may be best off to concede this at some point, and give up any privilege of unilateral action save a response to a direct attack (and defining 'direct attack' could well be something that could take much discussion). But not because unilateral action is "immoral"; merely because the right to take such action may not be worth the cost of hanging on to it.
But truly, the UN does not have the trust of the US government or the American people. We can't gloss over that; it needs to be worked through; it's not all since the US action in Iraq. The UN has been hostile to the US for a very long time, and the US has been hostile to the UN.
Further on I respond to your comments on America's inward-looking and selfishness. I'm going to snip several good comments you made, just because I don't have a reply.
> It's this kind of unjustified overreaching, and then total failure
> to self-reflect or apologize afterwards that has caused such a
> dramatic downturn in the USA's reputation.
All regrettable. You've given me some things to think about. I've been aware of these criticisms by other nations, but rarely seen them stated without a tremendous degree of specious critici
Sorry I offended you. As I stated in another reply, I feel I overstated things somewhat.
...I'm antipodean
...We don't care how you run your lives internally, it's the US effect
>
> What we do get pissed off about is US unilateral action that pisses all
> over international democracy (and that is what the UN is about no matter
> how much the UN / EU haters like to spin it)
>
> on the rest of the world that the rest of the world cares about.
I feel certain I should have stated my point differently; it definitely generated more ill-feeling than I intended.
There is a tight link between America's internal politics and it's interaction with the world. Some things the US has done, such as the unilateral decision to go to war in Iraq, are not tied so much to the internal structure. They were a regrettable action, but they don't require America to change itself, only it's actions. The world's criticism of this can be a productive force for change.
Other complaints leveled against the US are a direct result of some of the core constitutional limitations on our government. UN and EU leaders have often criticised the US for failing to do things that the US federal government is forbidden to do, or for not doing things in the precise nationally mandated way that they are done in other countries.
Thank you for your comments. Again, I am sorry for having offended; it was not my intent.
Thank you for your comments.
> I'm not being a dick, but that seems to be the only answer for it. I've
> talked to many Europeans who have an accurate knowledge of how the US
> works, what it's done, and what it hasn't done.
Interesting. I've spoken with many Europeans as well, who have a very -poor- understanding of how America works. I suspect neither of our views is the accurate one, that we are each seeing only part of the picture.
> You'd be surprised at what lots of Europeans read about and see on
> their TVs. As their media owes nothing to Bush or any US corporate
> interests, their media doesn't mind saying stuff that would make the
> average American reach for his flag with a tear in his eye.
Actually, it doesn't surprise me. I pay some attention to the foreign press (not as much as I probably should, I'll admit). The problem is that the picture they see isn't any more accurate than the picture the average American sees, just different. Sure, they see a view of America the American people aren't seeing. But it's still a limited view, from 5000 feet.
I don't intend this as a criticism of the foreign media. My reply to Shaper_pmp's post contains more detail on where I feel the problem lies.
But sometimes it's horribly biased. The coverage shows what America does, but rarely looks into why things are the way they are. A lot of the missteps taken by the US leadership have been made much worse by UN and EU leaders more interested in blame than solutions. The US leadership is not blameless, of course. There are a lot of people in leadership positions whose view is "screw the UN"; unfortunately, if we don't strive on both sides for mutual understanding, America's role in the UN is likely to continue to shrink, with increasing unilateral action to follow.
It's an ugly situation, and I fear it's getting worse.
> Again, I'm not being a dick here, but just giving my honest opinion.
And thoughtfully stated. I appreciate the opportunity to learn more about other viewpoints. Again, thanks.
I'm going to try to be as fair and neutral as possible in my reply. Bear with me if I don't manage it. Thank you for your comments.
...in recent times your government has been play-acting the worst of the
>
> American stereotype (arrogant, inward-looking, aggressively expansionist),
> which has accordingly strengthened that stereotype worldwide.
This is difficult to respond to. Yes, certain actions taken by the US government are too arrogant, inward-looking, and aggressively expansionist. Where the difficulty I have in responding comes in is that the various voices around the world which criticize the US for these things desire the US to be not merely better, but very much fundamentally different.
If you will, these voices will not be satisfied with appropriate humility, a more globally aware view, and restricting natural expansionist tendencies.
They want US actions to be dominated by world opinion to the exclusion of the desires of the American people, to disregard the needs of the US in favor of the needs of other nations, and both maintain a completely hands-off policy regarding other nations activities, while providing any and all support requested by any nation.
More comments later.
> Most american's aren't arrogant or expansionist (they've got you bang to
> rights on the inward-looking, though), but the ones you nominate to power
> are, so you all cop the world-opinion fall-out.
Yes, but like it or not, the world needs to recognize that the US selects it's leaders -primarily- on the basis of their -domestic agendas-. I'm not happy with how various leaders handle world relations, but I would not even consider replacing them with the people who "world opinion" feels would be better.
Think of it this way: I don't like how John Doe handles [issue of global concern]; but I am not going to elect Richard Roe in his place, as long as Richard Roe's policies on [several domestic issues] are so completely offensive to me.
It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is. I believe most people around the world think and vote similarly.
>> "A large portion of the world wants the US to tear up our constitution
>> and remake ourselves in the image of the EU."
> Again, this is a very common US perception. In fact, all the rest of the
> world wants is for the US to stop telling them what to do.
Again, difficult to respond to. I perhaps overstated somewhat. But the truth of the matter is that many people who are speaking for "world opinion" very definitely wish to remake the US in the image of the EU. They have said so quite clearly. The situation is similar to the one you noted before, where US leaders are worsening the world's opinion of us. Similarly, various people who speak for "world opinion" are worsening the US opinion of the UN, the EU, and many nations, through their actions and speeches.
I don't have a solution for this, I'm sorry to say. All I can recommend is a little tolerance on both sides.
>> "Most of the what the world knows about the US is garbage, heavily
>> influenced by Hollywood. Just as most of what most Americans know about
>> the Middle East is from Hollywood bull and news reports showing scenes
>> of war and terror."
> That's a very interesting assertion. So basically you're saying that:
>
> What the rest of the world knows about America comes from what America
> tells them about itself, and What America knows about the middle east
> is what America tells itself.
Good, but not exactly what I meant. We hear what people say loudest and most frequently. The average man on the street in England may feel one way, but the world hears that Tony Blair says, because the cameras are on him. We also hear what Victoria Beckham says, which may be quite different, but provides no sort of balance.
This is not a case of "what America says about itself" as much as a case of understa
> ...and the US (through both direct government action and US mega-corps)
> wants every other nation to tear up their constitutions and remake
> themselves in the image of the US. And we aren't interested, now or ever.
> Examples: DMCA; 'harmonized' copyright and patent laws...
No argument, just a clarification. The majority of people in the US are also against the DMCA, and increasingly against these same copyright and patent laws.
I'm not trying to imply the US is blameless. Merely that there are problems on both sides, and solution will involve both sides conceding some things.
Thanks for your reply.
>> A large portion of the world wants the US to tear up our constitution and
>> remake ourselves in the image of the EU.
> Also, I don't think anyone objects to the US constitution. It may not be the
> best constitution in the world, but it's certainly not the worst.
Judging from the replies, I probably should have been more clear.
There are certain parts of the US constitution that produce effects that various other nations object to. Powers reserved to the states, certain constitutional protections and limits on federal power are the primary ones.
The US has been vilified many times for refusing to agree to various treaties, primarily because the US federal government doesn't have authority over these matters. These nations don't really care about our constitution, it's true. But they strongly desire the US federal government to start adopting various initiatives, regardless of the fact that we can't do it.
Thanks for your reply.
> Let's see how long the US holds together without the monetary support of the
> rest of the world.
Just a point; if anyone tried to destroy the US monetarily, the effect on the rest of the workl would be easily as bad. The dependency works both ways. Yes, the US is dependent of foreign trade, but most of the nations we trade with are dependent on it as well. Some few nations would just suffer loss of income and products, but many would suffer pains equal to some of the worst natural disasters.
> And people with your attitude wonder why there is so much rampant
> anti-Americanism around the world today. You're too arrogant and conceited
> to see it.
Just a point. There are a few hundred million people in the US. All of them are not arrogant and conceited, any more than all the French are rude and smelly, all Muslims are terrorists, or all the Chinese are great at math.
Yes, there are legitimate grievances against the US. But much or what is perceived as US arrogance is merely the US attempting to retain it's own constitutional structure. A large portion of the world wants the US to tear up our constitution and remake ourselves in the image of the EU. And we aren't interested, now or ever.
> Thank goodness 99% of the Americans I know are fantastic people and
> don't live up to this stereotype.
Good to hear it. But stereotypes are like that. Most of the what the world knows about the US is garbage, heavily influenced by Hollywood. Just as most of what most Americans know about the Middle East is from Hollywood bull and news reports showing scenes of war and terror.
Thanks for your observations.
>> It will be officially raised at a UN summit of world leaders next
...Isn't that whole argument just as silly as insisting that DoC hand over
>> month and, faced with international consensus, there is little
>> the US government can do but acquiesce.
> Is that a fact? Right or wrong have you looked at our Government lately? Do
> you really think that international consensus will bother us in the least?
Truly. The only thing the UN can do without the cooperation of the US is split the internet into different networks, each under the control of a different body.
Eventually, that might be for the best, as long as they are all interoperable. But doing so by unilateral action without US cooperation strikes me as a poor way to start.
>
> the root servers? Where is the problem here that they want to fix?
There are issues that are driving this. Trademarks, patents, laws covering searches and protected speech all differ vastly by nation. ICANN is grossly ineffective in dealing with these issues, and they have pissed off nearly everyone. The internet is an international resource, and people in other nations are rightly concerned about the US government potentially taking ill-advised unilateral action, with physical control of the root servers being the ultimate hammer.
Of course, dealing with a -potential- for ill-advised unilateral action by the US by taking an -actual- ill-advised unilateral action -against- the US strikes me as both ironic and, bluntly, stupid.
> ...as much as we may dislike cubicles, a blanket statement like "working in
> cubicles is the sure sign that you're not working for a successful company"
> is... well, a sure sign that the article's author hasn't worked at many
> companies.
Agreed. Cubicles can be an indicator, though. There are so many different styles. I would look at the working environment provided in the cubicle, and determine if it's mindless penny-pinching or part of a reasonable plan.
- Is the desktop space adequate for the work you need to do?
- Do you have adequate storage space, both shelves and file drawers?
- Is the cubicle height reasonable? Higher walls minimize distractions.
- Is the environment particularly noisy?
- Is the size of most people's cubicles significantly reduced because they are used for storing supplies, equipment, and files that have nothing to do with their work? *
- Are adequate conference facilities available for brainstorming sessions and other -productive- meetings?
- Are developers actively discouraged from forwarding calls to voice mail or performing other tactics used to minimize interruptions temporarily?
- Is hard disk space, either local or network, in unusually short supply?
Comments? Other warning factors?
--------
* I worked in one office where everyone's cubicle space was reduced by the size of between four and ten of those long boxes for file folders. Some people could barely get to their desks, and all because the company was too cheap to either get storage space or get rid of old (non-financial) files and obsolete hardware.
> The GPL impedes Linux more than it helps. Licensing issues, coupled with
> patent and copyright FUD, have caused developers and VCs to think twice
> before committing to Linux.
Damn right, which is why all those developers have instead been developing for FreeBSD instead of for Linux. Oh, wait; they haven't been.
Well, then, surely they've been making developing for Solaris instead. Oh, wait; they haven't been.
It's real easy for an armchair quarterback to drone on and on about how they could've really run that game.
The reality is that FreeBSD and the GNU projects were languishing; they had a strong core of technical people using them, but were making no perceptible inroads into mass market acceptance. Linux under the GPL got people exited enough do do what no one else has done, and make radically new software licensing models, development models, and a brand-new OS commercially viable.
NeXt, BeOS, Plan 9, every other great new OS people wrote about in the trade press is either gone or on life support.
> Murphy also suspects that desktop Linux is stuck on stupid." From the post:
> "Basically, legal issues, or the threat of legal issues, caused some key
> applications developers to back off Linux while the general negativism of
> Linux marketing caused many of the individuals whose innovations should have
> been driving Linux adoption to hang fire until MacOS X and Solaris for x86
> under the CDDL came along."
"Key applications developers" like who? Every time I've seen a writer who was convinced he know what application the world needed, or what was going to be the killer app, he was DEAD WRONG.
According to the columnists, by now we were all supposed to be running NetPCs from Sun, using office suites built in Java, buying time on the network server in an updated mainframe cost model.
That's the version they fed us after the one that had all of us using Corel Office or Lotus SmartSuite.
The reality is that many of the most exiting projects that have been done recently would never have been attempted without an OS under the GPL, and many of the next killer apps are likely to have been written by people who only took the time to do so -because- of Open Source and the GPL.
> For some of us the drugs plug the hole in the boat.
Very true; however, that is and generally should be a minority of chronic depression victims. Depression medications almost always have significant side-effects, so prescribing them cautiously is always indicated.
> There's a very common attitude, which I seein your post, that antidepressants
> are only good as a temporary, often last minute, patch up solution.
I didn't see that in the original post. The poster may have overstated the typical case, but it's a substantially accurate portrayal. For most depression victims, medication should only be used in conjunction with an effort to root out the cause, which may be organic.
I recall reading a story a few months ago written by a man about his child, where doctors were content to continue the prior course of medication indefinitely, in spite of -massive- side-effects. The side effects rendered the child almost completely non-functional, symptoms similar to severe autism. After 3 years of fighting with the doctors and research on his own, the man was able to help identify the root cause and a treatment with minimal side effects.
> But actually some of us are better off taking them all the time, much like
> people with other chronic diseases might take meds for the rest of their lives.
Very true. But only when other options have been exhausted. It's no different in that respect to high cholesterol, diabetes, or heart disease.
> Chronic depression is not something that will go away if you just 'buck up
> and get over it', 'deal with the problem and move on', 'get to a safe
> harbour', etc.
Agreed; but again, I didn't see that in the original post.
> Often it is a lifetime issue that can be managed with, among other things, medicine.
True. Thanks for your comments.
> I think it is more of an Issue of the Movie Quality vs. The price.
Agreed. The reality is, you're willing to take a flyer on a 'maybe not that great movie' if it's only a buck or two for a DVD rental, and you haven't planned your evening around it. If the first 20 minutes of a movie sucks, the hey, it's just a couple of bucks and a short period of time. You can pick up two backup movies in case it sucks and it still costs less than 10 bucks.
Contrast that with a trip to the theater; you drove to the theater, waited in line, bought expensive tickets, waited through advertisements in uncomfortable seats, and the movie sucks. Unless you feel like demanding a refund from the manager, you're out a lot more than a couple of bucks, and either way, the evening is pretty well shot.
And a lot of the movies in theaters are bad; not hackk! ptui!! bad; just not worth taking a chance on wasting a whole evening and a fair sized chunk of change on. Movies that wouldn't be made if the current pop tart with a hit bubble-gum single wasn't considered a 'hot enough property' to justify making a film without a decent script, direction, or actors.
> It can't be bad movies...alone.
;>
You're right. It's a bad movie experience overall.
> American movies have been...aimed at adolescents/adolescent mentalities for a long time.
That's insulting to adolescents and those with adolescent mentalities.
> There should be a required course at universities that warns students of the
> dangers of becoming too committed to your job.
College is too late. It should be part of the junior and high-school required courses.
A lot of what you wrote, I can agree with; however, I would like to note that some of your advice assumes that backstabbing is a law of nature.
;-)"
> Re-orgs are a way of life where I work.
I feel for you, but while you have adapted to your environment, I'd get out if reorgs were that frequent in my workplace. They happen everywhere, but it sounds like they happen far too often in your workplace.
> Don't think you can take the high road and have your career survive.
Disagree completely. See next item.
> If someone's playing dirty, don't try to overlook it, deal with it.
VERY true. But you don't have to get down in the mud to deal with dirty players. You can respond in a fair and high-minded fashion, but firmly. The high road doesn't have to mean being a pushover. Those who take the high road can fight hard and with intent to -destroy- the enemy, if necessary, and still retain their own moral sense.
I like the way MooseByte phreased it in his reply: "...I wasn't going to stab them in the back. I'd be happy to stab them in the chest, mind you! But never in the back.
I will note that taking the high road doesn't mean you always win, but neither does taking the low. And taking the high road is particularly difficult in a poisonous environment.
> Perceptions count for a lot. Manage perceptions.
VERY true.
> When dealing with management, be insincere.
Can't agree. You can, and should, tell the truth. -How- you tell it is important; always, ALWAYS phrease things neutrally, leaving egos out of it, and always offer management a fair choice of options.
Lying can bite you far too easily. Others have replied well to this point, so I won't belabor it. I'll just point out that one reason lying bites people is that it's hard to keep consistent.
> If another group is reducing your effectiveness for reasons of overlapping
> turf, jealousy, history, whatever, try make an accomodation with them
If you can. If you can't, see if you can get someone in power on your side to neutralize them. This may involve different things in different workplaces. Rather than crack the whip on them, your ally might just politely ask them to leace your folks alone until a project is finished, or divert the person elsewhere for now.
> Watch out for the agendas of underlings.
Underlings, peers, superiors, customers...basically everyone. Trust, but verify .
> If you have a politically motivated person working for you, get them gone.
There are a lot of types of people you might be better off without. If someone is a real problem in any way, talk to them, make it clear what behavior you want to change, and if they don't change it, get them gone.
> Maintain the avenues of communications. Don't allow someone to bypass you in
> either direction.
Or soften, alter, change, corrupt, or screw-up the message. I recall how shocked I was the first time my boss completely changed a status report from me when he delivered it to his boss. The nasty part is I was called on to verify the complete bullshit he just handed out. Got out without making him look too bad or lying, but it was an unpleasant few minutes.
> Use dog psychology when dealing with people; reward good behavior, punish bad
> behavior, be consistent.
That's just good psychology, not dog pyschology.
> Maintain perspective...Be prepared to move on and leave the work and project
> behind.
Leave it at work at the end of the day, as well.
> 'One proposal that countries have been discussing would wrest control of
> domain names from the U.S.-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
> Numbers, or ICANN, and place it with an intergovernmental group, possibly
> under the United Nations.
>
> Gross dismissed it as unacceptable. "...This is a matter of national policy."'
> The question is, why?
Just my opinions, but, several reasons. International law treats several patent, trademark, and IP issues -very- differently from US law. Even in Europe, which is more similar to the US than many nations, the differences are enormous. Free speech is an issue as well. There are any number of sites in the US that French law would not permit under their very different interpretations of 'what is protected speech'.
> "Some negotiators from other countries said there was a growing sense that a
> compromise had to be reached and that no single country ought to be the
> ultimate authority over such a vital part of the global economy."
> Could someone tell me why are they wrong? And if they are not wrong, what is
> this US opposition?
There are not wrong in many ways. They -are- wrong in that it isn't something that can be trivially reassigned to UN authority -right now-. In addition to the issues I mentioned above, there is the issue of the security of the root servers. Note that, from a US perspective, this is security -from UN interference with US infrastructure- as well as security from terror and natural disaster.
I'm certain it can all be worked out in time, with a compromise that protects individual nation domains under the laws of the relevant nations, and which assures the US has control over the root servers needed for the US portion of the net, but it can't happen on the UN's agressive schedule.
> If the USA's position won't change, i guess people can just ignore the
> states and set up an alternative dns servers/architecture.
Bad idea; this would lead to real fragmentation problems. Better to take it slow and work out the issues, both technical and political.
> If the USA doesn't like living in a world where there are multiple countries
> to deal with, they can just close their borders and shut down their trade.
Sigh. Yes, the US is, perhaps, too isolationist. But the UN in general, and Europe, in particular, is constantly trying to ram expanded UN control over solely internal US issues down the throats of the US. The US has every right to remain separate from the UN's 'one world' vision. Many Americans, myself included, don't want to join that vision. If the UN can accept the US right to remain the US, and not become 'EU West', we can work out the details; the conflicts usually come when the UN refuses to allow the US to run the US.
> ..it is easier for the "bad" guys to find the security holes in open source
> software.
Is it? I wonder if this isn't a case where we don't look for proof becuase we've assumed we know the answer. Certainly, with open source, you can examine the source. But examining complex kernel source code is no trivial task. Given the large amount of practice and study on methods of hacking closed source systems, isn't is possible that this having the source doesn't really make it easier after all? That it just offers a method not available on closed source systems?
Never used the Sun Ray Station, but I've worked in organizations who've used similar ideas.
> The advantage this has over traditional thin clients is that the user is
> allowed to roam to any available computer and simply "plug in". As soon as
> the card is inserted, your desktop is brought up EXACTLY where you left it!
Always assuming the hardware on the given system is the same. I've been in offices where users needed zip drives, CDRWs, DVD drives, etc., and the company computer hardware varied enough that moving around was a hassle, even if the non-hardware configuration was the same every time the user logs in.
It's often little things. I've gotten stuck, more than once, with those STUPID Compaqs with the giant backspace key substituted for half the spacebar; giant pain in the a** for a touch-typist. Equally bad, of course, is a keyboard where the manufacturer decided to move the insert, delete, home, and end keys (which I use all the time) so they could stick in cute little keys for 'email', 'internet', etc.
Or trying to use software that's only comfortable at resolutions of 1024*786 and higher on a monitor that maxes out at 800*600.
Then, too, I've also been in offices where the network is such that some servers are unreachable if you move across the hall.
None of this is a problem with the idea; it's a problem with how the idea is executed. I don't know the Sun Rays, but I don't imagine they can prevent these network configuration glitches or inconsistent hardware (usually purchased at different times by different people, looking for the cheapest configuration). As companies get more cost-conscious all the time, it gets worse.
> But the concept is there, and further research and development by Sun
> combined with more and more Wifi points popping up may very well lead to
> the perfect solution that both centralizes your data yet gives employees
> the mobility they need.
Nope, can't see it. Even with expanded WiFi, reliability is a major problem; reliability not being 'hardware does not fail/network does not fail' but in the sense that the access must be available -everywhere- the employees need to be, with the speed, security, and transparency to make it no more hassle than working at a dedicated desktop machine at a fixed location.
It's not just 'anywhere in the office', or 'in the office or at home'. To replace a dedicated laptop, it needs to function even where WiFi connections are not only not the best, but are on the low-end of the average (for many users; not everyone). We're getting better, but not that quickly.