As a small business owner in Australia, I would like to make it clear that I would never read my employees' emails even if I thought they were stealing from me. I consider privacy invasion to be wrong, and as the phrase goes, two wrongs don't make a right. Invading privacy to stop them stealing is as wrong as breaking into their house to steal back whatever they took.
It is not possible for employees, in the modern day and age, to sterilise themselves personally when they walk into the workplace. They still have friends they talk to, they still have families they think about, they still have pressing non-work issues they need to deal with. Expecting this to all disappear at 9am and reappear at 5:30pm is unreasonable, and as a business owner, I don't expect it of my staff, even though (assuming it's even possible which it isn't) it may increase productivity.
If I have an issue with a staff member stealing or doing something else that breaks the boundaries or law or morality, I don't want to deal with that issue by breaking the boundaries of law or morality. I can and will intervene to protect my business, but only if I don't violate their rights in the process. I have yet (in 8 years) to come across a scenario where I was not able to protect myself and still follow this principle. I don't believe I ever will. This experience affirms my belief that one does NOT have to trade freedom and/or morality for security and/or order.
Sheesh. This feeling of "anything goes" in the pursuit of security and law and order has gone way too far.
Feeding the poor and wasting large amounts of resources unnecessary are not.
Yes, the OP gave in to a little hyperbole. No, I don't feel he was completely off, as the global efforts by other vendors to implement OOXML will result in a gigantic global waste of resources that could be better spent elsewhere. It is wrong to say that one should give up all but the basic survival requirements before being able to criticise other vastly more egregious cases of waste.
Now now, there's no need to be angry and start name-calling. After all, even uninsightful people are still human after all. Shakespeare said that a rose by any other name would... oh, never mind.
I agree fully. Internet vigilantism basically amounts to a "guilty until proven innocent" result, with the punishment irrevocably carried out before the suspect has a chance to say "hey I bought the car from someone else!".
In this case it may be the case that the guy they caught was guilty, but as you rightly point out, there are a number of things that can happen hat could cause these internet schmucks to get the wrong guy under many circumstances.
The false positive rate would be high. It is often said that 100 free guilty men is better than 1 incarcerated innocent man. With this system of "mob sourced" justice, you'd likely end up with 1 condemned innocent for every 10 guilty parties. Using vigilantism to social problems is like using a backhoe to remove a brain tumour; it's just not clean or accurate enough.
"isn't it great living in a world where it is bad to attack another country unless they have an evil dictator"
Much of the world considers the institution of the US government to be an evil dictator thinly veiled as a two party democracy. How would you take it if another nation decided to take it upon themselves to "liberate" you?
"Iraq WILL be left better off than we found it."
More have died since the invasion due to collapsed infrastructure and abject failure of management than died in the entire history of Saddam's rule. Even if the US decided to rebuild everything for free, it would not be possible for Iraq to ever be in a better position. It has been made irrevocably worse off.
"If, after we have left, they do decide to start selling oil in Euros, there will be nothing the US can do militarily to stop them."
Do you really think the US will leave until a government has been formed that will only ever make decisions that benefit the US? You need a history lesson if you think that's how this works.
"BTW, we didn't start this thing. I know the argument, how the U.S. is has supported evil regimes for selfish reasons, but we've never used terrorism the way our enemies have."
I didn't see Iraqi troops in the US before the invasion, and just because our side uses Apaches helicopters and has a PR department doesn't make it any different. Killing is killing.
If you think that US forces have only ever responded to threats, perhaps you heard of a little country called Vietnam. No? How about Chile? Nicaragua? Go look up US involvement in those countries, and then see how straight a face you can pull when you try to say that the US only ever fights defensive wars.
Yes, I know quite a number of people who left it, describing it as just another appendage by which the US government wields influence over foreign nations. Have you ever travelled with the Peace Corps? Not being a US citizen I can't officially do so, but I've been with them before, and met many, many members.
Do you think it would be better if the US didn't give out any money?
Actually, that's precisely what I'm saying.
It is to point out that despite the bad things in the US, there is also a good side, and if we are ever hoping to create change in the US, indeed in the world, we need to focus on the good and help it grow, not merely condemn the bad. It is a weak mind that can only see that bad.
And it is a naive mind that can actually see good in US foreign policy. While you may think that the US has good intentions, an honest look around the world will reveal otherwise. Good intentions hey? Look at the history of US involvement in: Vietnam, Korea, Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Haiti, El Salvador... Then try to tell me that I shouldn't be cynical when looking at US foreign policy in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In both countries there as billions in oil dollars at stake. Then there's the Saddam deal with France and Germany to sell oil in Euros, all of a sudden he's an imminent threat and has WMD ready to fire straight into the Land of the Free. Not to mention the huge ideological and geopolitical strategic value of both of these nations.
If the US was so concerned with the welfare of mankind, why do a million people a year die of Malaria in Africa, when treating every single case would cost about $20m? Are you telling me that the US doesn't have $20m to save the lives of millions? What about all the other problems that can be solved with equally small sums. Why give $1b to some government for the construction of a dam? I'll tell you why: Because that government will give that money straight to a US construction firm like Bechtel or Halliburton, so that it goes right back into the US economy, leaving the government forever after in debt by $1b and the US none the worse off.
I'm sorry, but I'm just not able to swallow the kool aid any more, the lies that come out of the US government are not even hidden any more.
I get text alerts from my cell network letting me know about remaining talk time etc. Recently they have started embedding targetted ads in them. Perhaps that'll happen with this system too?
"National Alert: An attack is being carried out in Washington. The White House has been bombed. This week only, half price survival gear at Mitchell's Disposals. Compasses, water bottles, camp stoves and outdoor gear as well as army surplus equipment. Get it while it's hot!"
Billions in aid? Perhaps you need to have a good, hard look at just how USAID operates, and the role the IMF plays in global development with it's so called "development loans".
Oh, and the tone of your message is basically "Sure we killed millions of innocents and plundered natural wealth to which we had no legal or moral claim. But hey, at least our heart was in the right place!".
As a sheepish self-vindication, my experience with psychology comes from the fact that I am the sysadmin and general fixit guy in the surgery that my parents own. In addition to the sysadmin stuff I do general management tasks as well as liaise with other practices. They rent a room to a psychiatrist, with whom I've had lengthy discussions about psychiatry and psychology. She readily admits that she's nothing more than a paid friend, and tries to carry out her job that way, rather than pretending to her patients that she has some miracle cure to fix $problem.
That's pretty much what I did. There is now someone running around the world who earnestly believes that kangaroos in Australia are tied up with bike locks.
In my view, that's like saying "please don't let bad voodoo speak for voodoo in general".
In my experience (and I have a fair bit of exposure to and experience with the medical psychology) psychology is only good when the practitioners ignore their trade and just act like friends to their patients. That has nothing to do with the fact that they are psychologists, and more to do with the fact that they are good people. The world needs more good people, not psychologists.
You know, they do a lot more in those weekly therapy sessions than cram pills down your throat.
Yea, they sit there dilligently counting the billable seconds. That rapt look isn't about the fascination they have with your life story.
Professional counsellors are to friends what hookers are to spouses. Paid versions who are in it for the money and only deliver their bare (excuse the pun) physical presence, and nothing more.
You want a real counsellor? Go talk to your parents, your friends or your family. If you don't have any of the above, meditate on a society so sick that it is so efficient at disconnecting people from each other.
As for the psychoactive drugs bit, a) I acknowledged that it was a generalisation and b) what else would you call giving Xanax to a person worried about the future? Simply medicating away worry doesn't cure whatever the patient was worried about. I've got a lot of exposure to primary care, and psychiatrists' primary treatment is whatever drugs gets the patient a cheap fix for their worries. There is no acknowledgement that they have no fix for depression or anxiety, because what you really need for those ailments is the shoulder of a good friend or family member. Not Xanax, Valium or some other drug.
The fact that I can post this without boots at my door means that a) we're still in the nascent stages of dictatorship formation and b) I don't live in the US.
Psychologists don't know math, nor do they know anything about psychology.
Personally, I have nothing but disdain for the psychological fraternity, I've never once seen a solution to a non-trivial problem other than "treat depression with Valium". Psychology and psychiatry in my books are just the business of carrying out chemical lobotomies and charging exorbitant fees for it.
That's my view anyway, and I'm aware that its a sweeping generalisation that is probably not universally true.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not about fighting terrorism. It never was. It's about power pooling into the hands of the few.
As a small business owner in Australia, I would like to make it clear that I would never read my employees' emails even if I thought they were stealing from me. I consider privacy invasion to be wrong, and as the phrase goes, two wrongs don't make a right. Invading privacy to stop them stealing is as wrong as breaking into their house to steal back whatever they took.
It is not possible for employees, in the modern day and age, to sterilise themselves personally when they walk into the workplace. They still have friends they talk to, they still have families they think about, they still have pressing non-work issues they need to deal with. Expecting this to all disappear at 9am and reappear at 5:30pm is unreasonable, and as a business owner, I don't expect it of my staff, even though (assuming it's even possible which it isn't) it may increase productivity.
If I have an issue with a staff member stealing or doing something else that breaks the boundaries or law or morality, I don't want to deal with that issue by breaking the boundaries of law or morality. I can and will intervene to protect my business, but only if I don't violate their rights in the process. I have yet (in 8 years) to come across a scenario where I was not able to protect myself and still follow this principle. I don't believe I ever will. This experience affirms my belief that one does NOT have to trade freedom and/or morality for security and/or order.
Sheesh. This feeling of "anything goes" in the pursuit of security and law and order has gone way too far.
Feeding the poor and wasting large amounts of resources unnecessary are not.
Yes, the OP gave in to a little hyperbole. No, I don't feel he was completely off, as the global efforts by other vendors to implement OOXML will result in a gigantic global waste of resources that could be better spent elsewhere. It is wrong to say that one should give up all but the basic survival requirements before being able to criticise other vastly more egregious cases of waste.
I think a more appropriate request would be "stop doing things that make everyone want to get you".
...says the MiG to the F-16
Dude, are you sure you are wearing deodorant and not crude oil?
Now now, there's no need to be angry and start name-calling. After all, even uninsightful people are still human after all. Shakespeare said that a rose by any other name would... oh, never mind.
I agree fully. Internet vigilantism basically amounts to a "guilty until proven innocent" result, with the punishment irrevocably carried out before the suspect has a chance to say "hey I bought the car from someone else!".
In this case it may be the case that the guy they caught was guilty, but as you rightly point out, there are a number of things that can happen hat could cause these internet schmucks to get the wrong guy under many circumstances.
The false positive rate would be high. It is often said that 100 free guilty men is better than 1 incarcerated innocent man. With this system of "mob sourced" justice, you'd likely end up with 1 condemned innocent for every 10 guilty parties. Using vigilantism to social problems is like using a backhoe to remove a brain tumour; it's just not clean or accurate enough.
If you don't stop using MySQL I'm going to tell the teacher! Also you're a poopy head locks no returnies!
"isn't it great living in a world where it is bad to attack another country unless they have an evil dictator"
Much of the world considers the institution of the US government to be an evil dictator thinly veiled as a two party democracy. How would you take it if another nation decided to take it upon themselves to "liberate" you?
"Iraq WILL be left better off than we found it."
More have died since the invasion due to collapsed infrastructure and abject failure of management than died in the entire history of Saddam's rule. Even if the US decided to rebuild everything for free, it would not be possible for Iraq to ever be in a better position. It has been made irrevocably worse off.
"If, after we have left, they do decide to start selling oil in Euros, there will be nothing the US can do militarily to stop them."
Do you really think the US will leave until a government has been formed that will only ever make decisions that benefit the US? You need a history lesson if you think that's how this works.
No! I was only borrowing it! I was going to give it back, honest!
"BTW, we didn't start this thing. I know the argument, how the U.S. is has supported evil regimes for selfish reasons, but we've never used terrorism the way our enemies have."
I didn't see Iraqi troops in the US before the invasion, and just because our side uses Apaches helicopters and has a PR department doesn't make it any different. Killing is killing.
If you think that US forces have only ever responded to threats, perhaps you heard of a little country called Vietnam. No? How about Chile? Nicaragua? Go look up US involvement in those countries, and then see how straight a face you can pull when you try to say that the US only ever fights defensive wars.
Yes, I know quite a number of people who left it, describing it as just another appendage by which the US government wields influence over foreign nations. Have you ever travelled with the Peace Corps? Not being a US citizen I can't officially do so, but I've been with them before, and met many, many members.
Actually, that's precisely what I'm saying.
And it is a naive mind that can actually see good in US foreign policy. While you may think that the US has good intentions, an honest look around the world will reveal otherwise. Good intentions hey? Look at the history of US involvement in: Vietnam, Korea, Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Haiti, El Salvador... Then try to tell me that I shouldn't be cynical when looking at US foreign policy in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In both countries there as billions in oil dollars at stake. Then there's the Saddam deal with France and Germany to sell oil in Euros, all of a sudden he's an imminent threat and has WMD ready to fire straight into the Land of the Free. Not to mention the huge ideological and geopolitical strategic value of both of these nations.
If the US was so concerned with the welfare of mankind, why do a million people a year die of Malaria in Africa, when treating every single case would cost about $20m? Are you telling me that the US doesn't have $20m to save the lives of millions? What about all the other problems that can be solved with equally small sums. Why give $1b to some government for the construction of a dam? I'll tell you why: Because that government will give that money straight to a US construction firm like Bechtel or Halliburton, so that it goes right back into the US economy, leaving the government forever after in debt by $1b and the US none the worse off.
I'm sorry, but I'm just not able to swallow the kool aid any more, the lies that come out of the US government are not even hidden any more.
If I posted a joke on Slashdot, do you honestly think you'd know it was a joke?
I get text alerts from my cell network letting me know about remaining talk time etc. Recently they have started embedding targetted ads in them. Perhaps that'll happen with this system too?
"National Alert:
An attack is being carried out in Washington. The White House has been bombed.
This week only, half price survival gear at Mitchell's Disposals. Compasses, water bottles, camp stoves and outdoor gear as well as army surplus equipment. Get it while it's hot!"
Billions in aid? Perhaps you need to have a good, hard look at just how USAID operates, and the role the IMF plays in global development with it's so called "development loans".
Oh, and the tone of your message is basically "Sure we killed millions of innocents and plundered natural wealth to which we had no legal or moral claim. But hey, at least our heart was in the right place!".
Holey moley... that's a nasty boo boo :(
As a sheepish self-vindication, my experience with psychology comes from the fact that I am the sysadmin and general fixit guy in the surgery that my parents own. In addition to the sysadmin stuff I do general management tasks as well as liaise with other practices. They rent a room to a psychiatrist, with whom I've had lengthy discussions about psychiatry and psychology. She readily admits that she's nothing more than a paid friend, and tries to carry out her job that way, rather than pretending to her patients that she has some miracle cure to fix $problem.
That's pretty much what I did. There is now someone running around the world who earnestly believes that kangaroos in Australia are tied up with bike locks.
You're American, aren't you? I'm Australia. Yes, I ride to work on a kangaroo.
And yes, I've been asked that seriously by an American I once met while travelling.
One would assume that the US can't (yet) put boots at the door of someone not living in the US. Unless of course they're chasing media pirates. Arr!
In my view, that's like saying "please don't let bad voodoo speak for voodoo in general".
In my experience (and I have a fair bit of exposure to and experience with the medical psychology) psychology is only good when the practitioners ignore their trade and just act like friends to their patients. That has nothing to do with the fact that they are psychologists, and more to do with the fact that they are good people. The world needs more good people, not psychologists.
Yea, they sit there dilligently counting the billable seconds. That rapt look isn't about the fascination they have with your life story.
Professional counsellors are to friends what hookers are to spouses. Paid versions who are in it for the money and only deliver their bare (excuse the pun) physical presence, and nothing more.
You want a real counsellor? Go talk to your parents, your friends or your family. If you don't have any of the above, meditate on a society so sick that it is so efficient at disconnecting people from each other.
As for the psychoactive drugs bit, a) I acknowledged that it was a generalisation and b) what else would you call giving Xanax to a person worried about the future? Simply medicating away worry doesn't cure whatever the patient was worried about. I've got a lot of exposure to primary care, and psychiatrists' primary treatment is whatever drugs gets the patient a cheap fix for their worries. There is no acknowledgement that they have no fix for depression or anxiety, because what you really need for those ailments is the shoulder of a good friend or family member. Not Xanax, Valium or some other drug.
The fact that I can post this without boots at my door means that a) we're still in the nascent stages of dictatorship formation and b) I don't live in the US.
kthnx.
That use of a colon should have been a semicolon.
Do I win the prize for the most anally retentive grammarnazi on Slashdot?
Psychologists don't know math, nor do they know anything about psychology.
Personally, I have nothing but disdain for the psychological fraternity, I've never once seen a solution to a non-trivial problem other than "treat depression with Valium". Psychology and psychiatry in my books are just the business of carrying out chemical lobotomies and charging exorbitant fees for it.
That's my view anyway, and I'm aware that its a sweeping generalisation that is probably not universally true.