Oh, gee. Sorry to hold you up for the 20 seconds it takes to pass someone driving 5mph slower than I am when I'm in my car with a 4-cylinder engine.
As the driver of a modest 4-cylinder vehicle myself, I just don't buy it. I have no problem accelerating and overtaking the guy beside me, it's called opening the throttle. That's particularly true when the person I am passing maintains a steady speed. My vehicle has no horsepower modifications and no after-market parts, neither under the hood nor for the exhaust.
I can tell you something that really helps this. I plan ahead when I am driving. I don't wait until I am bearing down on another driver before I realize I am going faster than he is and should pass him. I know a lot of people do that but it's just plain stupid. It's stupid because on a highway you can realize the inevitability of needing to either pass him or slow down when you're still a mile behind the other driver. I get in the passing lane a little ahead of time, while continuing to accelerate. Then by the time I am right beside the guy, I AM going significantly faster than he is (usually 10-15mph faster) and can quickly get out of the passing lane so someone else can use it.
Human beings are fucking weird. We're the only species with the ability to reason and to use foresight that still chooses not to do so. Then we think other people are assholes for not liking it when this creates a problem or a needless delay for them.
Simple. You maintain a safe distance...so the guy weaving through traffic cuts you off because there's room between you and the car ahead of you to fit his car. So you have to back off from the guy who cut you off to maintain a safe distance again. So the next guy weaving through traffic cuts you off because there's room to fit his car there.. So you have to back off to maintain a safe distance. So the next guy weaving through traffic...and so on, ad infinitum. Eventually you just give up and make sure that the jerks weaving through traffic don't have room to wedge their cars in ahead of you.
Except that if he is ABLE to do that, it's because he is driving faster than you are. If he is driving faster than you are, why shouldn't he be able to get in front of you?
In which case yes, they've made the practice as safe as it is likely to get. Unfortunately, drivers in most areas are still not used to motorcycles engaging in lane splitting because it just doesn't happen all that often, and are unlikely to be specifically watching for it.
It's supremely arrogant to think that you are always going to know the nature and the timing of any and all possible problems or threats. That's why whether they are "used to it" should be completely irrelevant. There should be no concept of checking off a list of which dangers you expected to find and whether they were present. There should instead be a concept of seeing for yourself that the way is clear and will remain so for long enough for you to perform whatever maneuver you need to make. I like that much better than trying to figure out how you're supposed to sleep at night when a man is dead or maimed who would have been unharmed had you been more difficult to surprise.
To give a related example, ever notice that some people (particularly SUV drivers) will follow you too closely but they will back off when they know you have to stop, like when you are coming towards a red light? Their arrogance is the false believe that they will always know when I have to stop, that there are no such things as deer, pedestrians, drivers who pull out in front of you, or other surprises. I strongly discourage this and make myself a very unpleasant driver to tailgate, particularly when the person has an easy opportunity to pass me. That's because I do not recognize their right to guarantee that the next near-miss will automatically become a crash.
It's also because a tailgater is trying to use the increased threat of an accident to intimidate me into submitting to what they would have me do. This is maladaptive behavior and should never be allowed to succeed, as that would only encourage more of the same.
No, you're taking my comments to an illogical extreme.
That's a favorite tactic on this Web site, usually by people who can't concede when you make a point and have a strong need to feel clever or "right" about something. Anything to avoid actually addressing what you said and either acknowledging its correctness or showing that there is a superior way to look at the situation (the only solid basis for dissent and constructive criticism). On the upside, such "hostile audience" tendencies have give me a great deal of practice at writing in a way that does not lend itself to such demagoguery.
Except when you have a jerk on your backside that will clearly blow past you at warp 2 the second he has a chance. THEN pacing the car next to you is the only sensible option to teach those insensitive clods a lesson./me runs away and sings Dennis Leary's "Asshole"...
There's nothing inherently dangerous about the fact that he would travel faster than you do, especially when you're talking about a highway. There is something quite dangerous about blocking his way, especially if you have to pace someone to do it. For one, it's predictable that most people will lose their patience and will start tailgating you, endangering both you and them. Second, you are limiting both your maneuverability and that of the guy you are pacing, which means that the first obstacle you encounter will needlessly be a real danger. Third, you can expect the person you're blocking to cut right in front of you or someone else at the first opportunity, in order to get around you. Whether they should or should not do that is a separate discussion; you can count on the fact that they will if they think they can.
Just admit you enjoy being an asshole and having some control over random strangers. Maybe it makes you feel powerful that you can do this to people who otherwise wouldn't have to behave the way you think they should. At least then your behavior would serve some semblence of a purpose and would be selfish instead of just stupid (your behavior, not you personally). As it stands you are not benefitting anyone, not even yourself, and are increasing the risk for everyone around you.
If you must teach someone a lesson, slow down every time you are tailgated. That's one behavior that could use a negative incentive. Of course, if you are in the passing lane and are pacing someone in the slow lane, then there's a reason why you are being tailgated, so obviously I refer to situations where this is not the case.
You make it sound like it a character flaw particular to specific people, but I'm sure it's just an instinctual thing we all have.
It IS a character flaw. It comes from mindlessly carrying out a task. It's the opposite of acting in a deliberate, strategic, planned fashion based on your own independent decision-making. How character flaws and personal shortcomings reduce the quality of life for other people is not really my business, not unless they come to me for help and I decide to give it. However, it becomes my business when they inflict it on me by producing situations that are needlessly annoying or even dangerous. I believe that's quite fair -- you are entitled to whatever foibles you want right until the moment you make them my problem.
Sometimes I get some stupid responses when I say something like that. Among them is the person who badly wants to feel like he's clever so he says a thing like "yeah right like you don't have your own flaws" and doesn't understand why he's missing my point. Indeed I do, and I never claimed otherwise but rather, I am referring to how these are managed. I see them as something I need to actively address and constantly work to overcome. They are my problem and I get to deal with them as part of the process of knowing myself and exploring what it means to be alive. It's called personal growth. However, I have never felt like I have a license to inflict my shortcomings on other people and that's the difference I am talking about here.
You can consciously choose not to participate to some degree, but I bet that when you aren't paying very close attention, you fall into some of these patterns yourself.
Failing to pay close attention is not an option when my mistakes could get me and/or someone else killed. If I were not naturally inclined towards cultivating mindfulness and self-discipline, if I did not value awareness, I would still feel like I can goof off on anything else but for this one thing I have a duty to pay careful attention. If I absolutely could not manage to do that, I would decide that maybe driving isn't for me and perhaps I should look into carpooling or public transportation. Either way, I do not have the right to endanger other people just because I couldn't be bothered to take care of things. It would be supreme arrogance to think otherwise.
Some degree of road hypnosis is common.
It's common if you aren't consciously aware that there is such a tendency. That road hypnosis does not happen without your participation which is why becoming conscious that you have a choice in the matter prevents it. Likewise, assuming it's inevitable and inescapable will destroy your ability to prevent it. Read sometime about what the Buddhists have to say about "mindfulness" if you want a high-quality explanation of what I am talking about. Of course they are not the only source for this information, just one of the most accessible ones.
Have you ever been driving somewhere where you're familiar with the trip, thinking about something else, and suddenly you arrive without really remembering how you got there?
Actually no, I have never done this. I would have to deliberately decide to think about something else, which would mean making a decision as to whether I can afford to devote attention to it. If I can afford to do that, then it's because I can think about it while deliberately driving, which would not lead to me wondering how I got there. If I could not afford to do that, then I would not think about that thing at that time which also would not lead to me wondering how I got to my destination.
As far as mental discipline goes, this is a very basic level that is relatively easy to attain. It is incredibly modest and humble compared to the feats of perception and self-knowledge that some people have achieved. To use a money analogy, in a world where
his thread is quite therapeutic for me. I run into the exact same stuff all the time. The blind spot deal particularly bothers me because one of the main lessons they teach you at Bondurant and it applies to Nascar as well as street driving is that braking to avoid a collision is almost never the right move and that changing lanes to avoid collision is far likely to work out better for you given that braking hard usually just results in you getting rear-ended instead of rear-ending the person in front of you.
Indeed. I haven't personally seen anyone teaching that but I have always preferred to maneuver around an obstacle rather than relying on my brakes. It just seems natural to me that this would work better, given what I know my car can and cannot do. This is the main reason why I won't allow people to hang out in my blind spot. Sorry but they are sheep. They are not thinking individuals. If you drive daily for years, it's inevitable that one day you will be confronted with an obstacle. The only question is whether you allow for this in your planning and are prepared for it when it happens, or whether you are surprised and caught off-guard. Suddenly having an obstacle in your lane is the wrong time to discover that you can't dodge it without hitting the guy who has no reason for being right beside you. These things don't just happen and I wish people would quit pretending like they do.
I've also noticed that most people don't use their mirrors for some reason, particularly the side mirrors preferring to turn their entire bodies instead causing them to swerve. Keep track of the cars around you people! It's not that hard to pay attention. That way when something unexpected happens you know that the lane next to you has room for you or if there is no such condition you can adjust your speed accordingly to create such a condition. Of course never slow down past a certain point depending on the speed of traffic.
You really should do a shoulder-check when you change lanes but that shouldn't require twisting your entire torso. It should be a quick glance just to cover your blind spots and should be done with the awareness that looking to the side might make you unconsciously steer with the movement. Again it happens because people are surprised by it; if you do it with awareness then it doesn't have that effect. And yes, you should be aware at all times of what's going on around you. You should know that guy is beside you, even if he is in your blind spot, because you saw him earlier in your rear-view and have not seen him pass you; the shoulder-check is just an extra precaution, an opportunity to catch any errors in this process.
Many studies have shown that the speed limit doesn't dramatically effect traffic fatalities, it's the difference in speed that travelers are going that causes the most problems which is why it's recommended that most roads have their speed limit set to whatever speed 80% of the drivers are naturally going. There will always be speed demons and slow pokes but make the speed limit something realistic!
If people knew what the passing lane was for, the "speed demons and slow pokes" would sort themselves out naturally. Also, it's quite clear to me that all of the emphasis on speeding occurs because it's an effective revenue-generation device for the state. Speeding doesn't cause accidents nearly as often as failing to yield or following too closely, it's just a hell of a lot easier to catch people doing.
Okay, none of these people are allowed to drive any car with an automatic transmission, ever again. They can drive when they can think.
Hah! I have also wondered if that alone would change much of this.
When I was a teenager and had a learner's permit I had a choice of whether I would start out with a manual or an automatic transmission as my parents had each. I chose the manual. I have never regretted that. The extra involvement with what the vehicle is doing helped to give me a better awareness of what's going on around me, because to operate a manual transmission smoothly you can't just react, you have to anticipate what the traffic around and in front of you is doing. That is, it's best to see ahead of time that traffic is slowing down or speeding up so you can already be in the right gear when it does. Learning to use a manual skillfully also implied extra time practicing, giving more opportunities for my parents to notice and correct what would otherwise have become bad habits. Not to mention that if you are familiar with a manual then you can drive nearly any vehicle (at least, any vehicle a normal license would allow you to drive).
I wish I could prove it but I am convinced that if automatics were outlawed there would be a strong reduction in the number of accidents.
Ditto on the D.C. beltway. I don't understand people who slowdown for bridges or curves. It's not going to kill you to take the curve at 65mph. That's why the sign says 65 - because it was designed for high-speed travel
I don't know what part of the beltway you're driving on, but it seems like all the parts I've been on are 55 MPH speed limits.
And I have a theory about why people slow down on curves - recall that acceleration is dv/dt, and that turning causes a dv (direction). This dv is interpreted by some as an acceleration and so their deceleration is not noticed. You SHOULD feel a dv on a curve or you ARE slowing down.
For that I blame the state DMVs. For all that they preach about "driving is a privilege, not a right" they hand out driver's licenses like candy with little regard for whether the person can actually handle a motor vehicle. The result is that the most basic physics are unknown to most drivers. It's surprising that most drivers don't seem to have an understanding of exactly what their vehicle can and cannot do, as though they've never had to make an evasive maneuver before and are convinced that they will never need to. They are not strategic thinkers so they don't decide "waiting until the shit hits the fan is the wrong time to discover I'm not as familiar with my vehicle as I should be." If they were familiar with the capabilities of their vehicle, whatever that vehicle may be, they would know that it's normal to feel that force when taking a curve and would not feel a need to compensate for it. That's particularly true on major highways, which around my local area look more like drag strips and certainly don't require you to slow for the curves.
If it were anything other than life-and-limb on the line I'd understand that most people don't view things that way.
Another cure for traffic jams is to make our highways 20-lanes wide (like in Asimov's novels).
Two words, separated by a hyphen: rubber-neckers.
They are the cause of almost all traffic jams.
(I live in Sterling, couldn't fathom driving into or out of DC every day. I'd do what you do and leave at 5. My neighbor does that as well.)
I notice a lot of other little tendencies that also contribute to the problem. There's one in particular that comes to mind.
I usually see this on four-lane highways, where you have two lanes going one way and two lanes going the other way. Anytime there are only two other cars, they are right beside each other, in lock-step, doing the exact same speed over the course of miles. That way no one can pass them. If you tap (not lay on) your horn to try to get the guy in the passing lane to do some crazy like y'know, pass the other driver so you can get by them, they often think you're challenging their manhood rather than asking them not to monopolize a public resource. When I see this shit all the time, it becomes easier to understand why impatient drivers get fed up with it and will make dangerous maneuvers (like cutting right in front of someone) to get around these people. I'm not saying it's an excuse, only that if you create a strong enough temptation some people WILL succumb to it even if they aren't supposed to.
I often notice people will try to stay in my blind spot so they can do this. There's just no way that they are accidentally going my exact same speed over the course of miles. Any fraction faster or slower would eventually cause one car to pass the other over distances. I also see that when I have to stop for a traffic light, the guy beside me will slow down at the same time that I slow down even though there may be cars in front of me that require me to slow down earlier than he does. This often causes them to stop short, or to stop short, realize it, and then pull up to the light. Or if you take an exit ramp off the highway and you are slowing down in a turning lane, watch the guy who is still on the highway; often he will slow down on the highway lane just because you are slowing down in the separate turning lane, needlessly holding up anyone behind him. I refer to highways that are specifically designed so that turning traffic has its own lane and need not slow down the main road. I think drivers don't understand that groups of cars exhibit wave-like behaviors, so a minor needless slowdown can contribute to jams miles behind you. That is, it does not occur to them to even think at all of how their decisions are affecting other people, which sums up nearly all traffic problems.
I really don't think they intend to do it. I think they're just such sheep that they cannot even independently choose their own speed. Doing as others around them are doing is just so deeply ingrained. I won't allow someone to hang out in my blind spot for very long at all and will alter my speed to prevent it, both because it prevents me from being able to change lanes and because it limits my maneuverability if I ever had to dodge an obstacle. It has these two downsides and it has no upside for anyone so it's not even selfish of the other drivers, just stupid.
Another issue that causes some jams is the traffic lights themselves. Traffic lights seem to be why cars travel in these huge packs because they all line up at the red light. The tendencies I mentioned above guarantee that the packs usually don't disperse over distances. If I can manage to get in front of or just behind such a pack of cars, it makes things much easier for me than when I'm stuck within one. I'd be interested in whether something like traffic circles would prevent these large packs from forming.
Looks like I may have misunderstood what you meant by "FOSS". You were talking Adobe, someone brought up Microsoft. So I mistook your comments about FOSS developers to refer to smaller, non-Linux Kernel projects such as gnash, apache, firefox, etc compared to patching Windows. That's where I was going with my comparison.
I initially was talking about Adobe specifically and very generally also about the timeframes needed to patch new vulnerabilities. Microsoft was mentioned as well (by someone else to whom I replied) because they represent one way to handle the situation. I apologize if I dealt with this in an ambiguous way; I did not mean to confuse.
I also think you might have things a bit off. Not sure if you follow the CVEs released against MS software, but typically shortly after they're released there's a security advisory with temporary mitigation steps released by Microsoft. Not always, but for most of the big hitters (>5.0 CVSS base score).
I admit I don't stay up-to-date on Windows or Windows-related vulnerabilities though I have a good reason for it: I don't use that software. The principles though are easy enough to understand. The temporary mitigation steps you mentioned are a good thing, though I must tell you I greatly prefer the way FOSS projects generally handle things. Instead of mitigation steps (which are also often provided), I can usually download a new version or a source code patch almost immediately, and I am forced to regard that as superior. There is also usually a lot more I can do with a Linux system to limit privileges, sandbox, or isolate a running program from the rest of the system (particularly so for PaX, GrSecurity, a hardened toolchain, and maybe SELinux). Not to mention, there are often multiple projects that implement the same functionality and with no licensing restrictions, it is often a simple matter to replace a piece of software with a similar one.
My point is that if you add up the number of developers who have direct access to modify the Linux kernel and the core userspace software necessary to have a basic, working system, both the number of personnel and the financial resources available to them will be greatly dwarfed by what Microsoft commands. Microsoft is a giant in its industry any way you look at it. All things being equal, this would lead one to expect that Microsoft could do a better and more timely job of dealing with inevitable issues like software bugs. In my opinion, they do not.
You'll also recall that several years back MS would release patches much more frequently. They made the decision to release them once a month though to assist IT deployment. However if there's a big one they'll release out of cycle (see today's two out of band patches).
My hopefully-reasonable guess is that they are trying to balance business interests against the desire to fix problems ASAP. What you mention about IT deployment is a good basis for my guess. I think it best when users make their own decisions as to whether Microsoft is striking a balance that is favorable for them. For me, the need to avoid getting hit by a vulnerability and all of the implications that entails (botnets, etc.) is paramount, so their concern for the management of someone else's IT department is not suited to what I want.
Do they fix everything? Nope, still have CVEs opened from way back. If you really want to hate on a big company with deep pockets not fixing their vulnerabilities, take a look at Apple's patch deployment schedule.
I don't like Microsoft but I also don't hate them. Hating anyone would do nothing to them but would make me suffer and generally would reduce my quality of life. It would also cloud my ability to see a better way. So, if I did hate them I would see that as a personal weakness that it is my task to remedy. I would not just blindly embrace it.
annoying but then what...the advantage of a near monoculture in comupters outweight greatly this annoyance.
The answer to that is to have independent implementations of widely-supported open standards. Then you get the benefits that you cite, with the one exception that the maintainers of each implementation would need to issue their own patches. I believe this would be outweighed by the fact that it's unlikely for each independent implementation to have the exact same flaw. The result would be a superior experience for users while maintaining similar capabilities across different systems.
Because a "rag-tag band" doesn't have to QA their source change against an entire operating system? Remember how people tend to get pissed when MS releases patches that break functionality?
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying this is an unfair comparison, like comparing an apple and an orange.
I disagree because the concern you have raised applies to every general-purpose operating system on the planet. Certainly the software license (MS EULA or GPL) does not change this situation. If a bug is found in the Linux kernel or an important piece of userspace software, the people who patch it also have the same concerns about whether their fix is going to break anything else. So, I am satisfied that we are comparing an orange to an orange. We are still without a good explanation as to why the entity with superior resources and superior manpower is not doing the better job.
Wait a minute, you mean errors can't be willful ? So if someone does something willfully, deliberately and with an intent, he can't later realise his mistake and make amends ? I think you need to review your position on this.
Indeed. I wonder how many people who are saying this would really want to be held to that standard. I know I wouldn't.
Compassion instead of condemnation is appropriate when you are dealing with someone who has changed their ways. If you must punish and condemn, save it for the unrepentant.
How is that Offtopic? It's exactly spot on. Mod parent up, if you're not Noscript shill.
Agreed. Mods, please promote the GP post. This really should be discussed and resolved.
I also disagree with the GP but censoring him is not the Way. I do think it is akin to censorship because nothing he said is detrimental to the discussion. Also, a lot of people feel the way that he does and they should have their say. At least, this is what I believe. I have written a post describing why I disagree and why I think there is a better way to handle the situation. I think that in an open discussion, the truth will win out, and on this one I also believe that I have summarized the truth of the matter. If I'm wrong about that, modding down the "other side" of the discussion will not help me to discover where I have erred.
If it were an actual mistake, then I would agree with you. It wasn't an error.
He purposefully did it and when he got caught he then apologized for it. What I'm saying is, if nobody said anything, he'd still be doing it.
This is a hard thing to understand and you raise a very valid question. I hope to answer that without just dismissing it or pretending like it isn't important. I don't know the man personally and have to go by what he and others have written, so please consider this just my opinion as I cannot speak for him.
You are right that he deliberately coded the functionality that made unauthorized and underhanded modifications of another, unrelated add-on (ABP). The mistake or error was in believing that the ends justify the means, that there is ever a good reason to do such a thing. All improper actions he took were rooted in that one error. But not for that belief, he would have probably regarded the temptation as "what the hell, I can't do that." Sometimes people get lucky and they see what's wrong with such an error on their own, before anything has to blow up in their face. Other times they have to see for themselves why it's harmful, often by being harmed by it or harming others by it, before their regret at having spectacularly failed reveals the error of their ways. It's sort of like the religious idea of "forgive them because they know not what they do," though if you asked them what they were doing they could describe their behavior accurately -- this is not really a contradiction.
I'm not an impeccably perfect person either. I have had to learn some lessons the hard way and I suspect every other human being could say the same. So no, I don't share the willingness to condemn someone who has fully come clean and has turned away from what he was doing. I think doing that would say more about me than about him. If anything, I celebrate his courage and wish it were more common.
Capable? I'm sure they could, I just get the distinct feeling that they don't feel like doing it. Which would be fairly typical, MS for instance likes to get angry when people mention the fact that they've been taking months to patch a serious vulnerability. Admittedly you don't want a patch to cause another vulnerability, but how long does it really take to get a proper fix?
If the FOSS community is any indication, it takes anywhere from a few hours to a couple of days after the vulnerability is disclosed.
I am surprised how Microsoft often gets a pass on these issues, considering the vast resources at their command and the fact that Windows is a monoculture so their mistakes simultaneously affect millions of people. Most FOSS software is written by a "rag-tag band" by comparison, so why isn't Microsoft held to a higher standard of responsibility?
The noscript author is an assclown who silently enables ads (And disables noscript) for his own financial advantage.
He admitted his error and has stopped doing this. See this link. The very first line? "I screwed up. Big time."
Any fool can make a mistake. It takes some guts to admit it, correct it, and try to move on especially in public like that. For that reason I do not count myself among the folks who still want to figuratively crucify him.
Browsing the web without a few browser mods is the only to surf these days anyway.
Yeah. When I read this headline my first impression was "should I try to act surprised?"
This is just history repeating itself. Even if it required an NDA, if Adobe were smart they'd try to hire the OpenBSD folks to audit their code as they're obviously not capable of securing it themselves.
How long have been watching this debate repeat itself over and over and over again in the precise and exact same and identical manner?
Oh, right, only since we have Slashdot.
To be fair, ubiquitous internet is still new enough that an extremely disproportionate number of users are only grades 7-10, so I'd say the problem is perhaps less dire than you might think.
That said, until the day comes when we can stop greedy anarchists from gutting education on the rationale that it somehow harms society to raise the standards of literacy and knowledge through public institutions, there is very little anyone can do to cure the disease rather than accommodate the symptoms. Don't hold your breath.
The only feasible remedy I can see in the immediate future would be for parents to start a widespread homeschooling movement. Perhaps they could create communities centered around the concept so that the socialization and athletic events associated with public schooling could also be available. This would be so much better than treating the care of their own children as the government's responsibility.
So let me get this straight- people there considered each other friends. They company was sponsoring socializing events on company time, and requesting you go. And I'm assuming that they adjusted the schedule to account for this, not expected you to do overtime to make up for loss of work time, otherwise you would be complaining about that. You aren't complaining about the type of team activity, so I'm going to assume they weren't excessively stupid. And you have a problem with this?
Sorry to tell you this, but the problem is you. Finding friendship, or even just acquaintances among coworkers is both natural and healthy. Same with enjoying socializing with them. And the company was allowing you to do this, giving up money to enable it (although most likely the increased morale improved productivity by more than the loss of time). You weren't being forced to give up personal time for after hours activities, you were losing nothing by participating. If you really have a problem with this you have some personal issues you need to work out.
I think you have a hard time understanding that the environment you just described would have been the case except for a very vocal and very small minority who ruined much of it because they were very good at playing office politics. It is they whom I was describing. They cared only about getting their way and knew how to put a nice smiling face on this because if they were honest about it, no one would go along with it. Forced, mandatory friendship is not friendship. For the most part, we really did have a close-kint work unit and it was in spite of these attempts to artificially produce it. The mutual respect and trust was based on things like competence and willingness to help others, and it happened quite naturally. It was not because you can make someone sit through a movie they don't like, though the few people who did that were more than willing to take credit for it. Those few actually had a rather well-deserved reputation for taking advantage of others, something they could do because they knew people who knew people, which is called cronyism. They would be slapped on the wrist for things that would probably have gotten me fired. The people driving the problems I mentioned were not considered friends by anyone, not unless "someone you can't really trust at all" is your idea of a friend. We have no common ground at all if any of this is hard for you to understand.
I will admit I made a mistake. I made the mistake of forgetting that people like you feel very free to think that you know what the situation was like and will assume pathology on my part before assuming that you don't have all of the facts. I could play your game and describe what that says about you, but I don't care to have this activity in common with you. Now I get to take responsibility for my mistake and play this silly game of correcting your presumptions. So be it, my fault because I have seen this before and should have known better than to allow room for the possibility. The very same people who put on nice happy faces during the mandatory socializations were also the first to stab someone in the back. It was quite obvious they didn't care for the others very much and were just getting off on feeling important because they were allowed to organize something. Bosses won't say no to "team-building exercise" any more than politicians will say no to "stopping terrorism" and they knew that very well and took full advantage. I don't support being two-faced like this and no, I won't apologize to you for that. You actually want to pontificate to me and declare that I should be enthusiastic about this and I don't know if that's amusing or merely pathetic. I salute your nerve if nothing else; it certainly exceeds mine.
I'm fine with having a good time, parties, and being able to take a break. It's the way that these things were done that bothered me. You can grok that right, that an objection to doing a thing the shittiest way
Maybe its because I work in higher education or because 75% of the management here are women who would rather play social games with each other.
Reminds me of where I used to work. There, we had meetings and also had what they called "team-building exercises" which mostly meant forced socialization with your co-workers. As a relatively rank-and-file employee (i.e. I actually produced), the company's financial goals and long-term strategy discussed in the meetings was irrelevant to me, in the sense that I try to do the best job that I can and knowing how the CEO wants to spend the profits on things that I will never see does not change this. The majority of coworkers were women, and I don't know if that's the reason why or not, but they jumped on every possible excuse to have "food days" where you are obligated to buy or cook something (meaning this also wasted my personal time) and bring it in. They enjoyed wasting time in other, similar ways.
I had the strong impression that none of them had any sort of social life outside of the workplace. That's a bit sad considering that what they might regard as a "close friend" would be more like a "superficial acquaintance" to me. In other words they didn't know each other as well as they pretended to.
The fact that not wanting to participate was some kind of stigma is what bothered me. If it was limited to people who wanted to do this on their own I'd have no problem with it, especially if it was after-hours (it wasn't). The mark of weak, insecure people is that they feel threatened by someone who does not believe as they do. They probably also derive some kind of reassurance from being able to needlessly impose on other people, because quite frankly they lack the courage to address their own personal shortcomings.
Personally, I come to the workplace to get work done. I don't go there to have a mockery of a social life. I have my own social life, in which I participate voluntarily, with my own real friends whom I can actually trust. Other than a very few unusually-trustworthy exceptions, I have no desire to get too personal with co-workers, nor do I want to get caught up in the petty office politics that goes along with doing that. I was very good at what I did and was happy doing it and then going home, without all the extra baggage. I was kind to my co-workers and went out of my way to assist them anytime they needed it, but I refused to pretend like they were my best friends. Most of them are not people I would have wanted to hang out with for various reasons, either because they were married women, old enough to be my grandmother, or otherwise inappropriate or incompatible.
Thankfully I had a very good rapport with my boss. She was a wise person whom I truly respected; if she asked me to do something, I did it because she asked and not because she had authority. Unfortunately, while she understood my objections it was not within her power to single-handedly change the corporate culture, although she did make things easier for me to understand and accept.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, gee. Sorry to hold you up for the 20 seconds it takes to pass someone driving 5mph slower than I am when I'm in my car with a 4-cylinder engine.
As the driver of a modest 4-cylinder vehicle myself, I just don't buy it. I have no problem accelerating and overtaking the guy beside me, it's called opening the throttle. That's particularly true when the person I am passing maintains a steady speed. My vehicle has no horsepower modifications and no after-market parts, neither under the hood nor for the exhaust.
I can tell you something that really helps this. I plan ahead when I am driving. I don't wait until I am bearing down on another driver before I realize I am going faster than he is and should pass him. I know a lot of people do that but it's just plain stupid. It's stupid because on a highway you can realize the inevitability of needing to either pass him or slow down when you're still a mile behind the other driver. I get in the passing lane a little ahead of time, while continuing to accelerate. Then by the time I am right beside the guy, I AM going significantly faster than he is (usually 10-15mph faster) and can quickly get out of the passing lane so someone else can use it.
Human beings are fucking weird. We're the only species with the ability to reason and to use foresight that still chooses not to do so. Then we think other people are assholes for not liking it when this creates a problem or a needless delay for them.
Simple. You maintain a safe distance...so the guy weaving through traffic cuts you off because there's room between you and the car ahead of you to fit his car. So you have to back off from the guy who cut you off to maintain a safe distance again. So the next guy weaving through traffic cuts you off because there's room to fit his car there.. So you have to back off to maintain a safe distance. So the next guy weaving through traffic...and so on, ad infinitum. Eventually you just give up and make sure that the jerks weaving through traffic don't have room to wedge their cars in ahead of you.
Except that if he is ABLE to do that, it's because he is driving faster than you are. If he is driving faster than you are, why shouldn't he be able to get in front of you?
In which case yes, they've made the practice as safe as it is likely to get. Unfortunately, drivers in most areas are still not used to motorcycles engaging in lane splitting because it just doesn't happen all that often, and are unlikely to be specifically watching for it.
It's supremely arrogant to think that you are always going to know the nature and the timing of any and all possible problems or threats. That's why whether they are "used to it" should be completely irrelevant. There should be no concept of checking off a list of which dangers you expected to find and whether they were present. There should instead be a concept of seeing for yourself that the way is clear and will remain so for long enough for you to perform whatever maneuver you need to make. I like that much better than trying to figure out how you're supposed to sleep at night when a man is dead or maimed who would have been unharmed had you been more difficult to surprise.
To give a related example, ever notice that some people (particularly SUV drivers) will follow you too closely but they will back off when they know you have to stop, like when you are coming towards a red light? Their arrogance is the false believe that they will always know when I have to stop, that there are no such things as deer, pedestrians, drivers who pull out in front of you, or other surprises. I strongly discourage this and make myself a very unpleasant driver to tailgate, particularly when the person has an easy opportunity to pass me. That's because I do not recognize their right to guarantee that the next near-miss will automatically become a crash.
It's also because a tailgater is trying to use the increased threat of an accident to intimidate me into submitting to what they would have me do. This is maladaptive behavior and should never be allowed to succeed, as that would only encourage more of the same.
That's a favorite tactic on this Web site, usually by people who can't concede when you make a point and have a strong need to feel clever or "right" about something. Anything to avoid actually addressing what you said and either acknowledging its correctness or showing that there is a superior way to look at the situation (the only solid basis for dissent and constructive criticism). On the upside, such "hostile audience" tendencies have give me a great deal of practice at writing in a way that does not lend itself to such demagoguery.
Except when you have a jerk on your backside that will clearly blow past you at warp 2 the second he has a chance. THEN pacing the car next to you is the only sensible option to teach those insensitive clods a lesson. /me runs away and sings Dennis Leary's "Asshole"...
There's nothing inherently dangerous about the fact that he would travel faster than you do, especially when you're talking about a highway. There is something quite dangerous about blocking his way, especially if you have to pace someone to do it. For one, it's predictable that most people will lose their patience and will start tailgating you, endangering both you and them. Second, you are limiting both your maneuverability and that of the guy you are pacing, which means that the first obstacle you encounter will needlessly be a real danger. Third, you can expect the person you're blocking to cut right in front of you or someone else at the first opportunity, in order to get around you. Whether they should or should not do that is a separate discussion; you can count on the fact that they will if they think they can.
Just admit you enjoy being an asshole and having some control over random strangers. Maybe it makes you feel powerful that you can do this to people who otherwise wouldn't have to behave the way you think they should. At least then your behavior would serve some semblence of a purpose and would be selfish instead of just stupid (your behavior, not you personally). As it stands you are not benefitting anyone, not even yourself, and are increasing the risk for everyone around you.
If you must teach someone a lesson, slow down every time you are tailgated. That's one behavior that could use a negative incentive. Of course, if you are in the passing lane and are pacing someone in the slow lane, then there's a reason why you are being tailgated, so obviously I refer to situations where this is not the case.
It IS a character flaw. It comes from mindlessly carrying out a task. It's the opposite of acting in a deliberate, strategic, planned fashion based on your own independent decision-making. How character flaws and personal shortcomings reduce the quality of life for other people is not really my business, not unless they come to me for help and I decide to give it. However, it becomes my business when they inflict it on me by producing situations that are needlessly annoying or even dangerous. I believe that's quite fair -- you are entitled to whatever foibles you want right until the moment you make them my problem.
Sometimes I get some stupid responses when I say something like that. Among them is the person who badly wants to feel like he's clever so he says a thing like "yeah right like you don't have your own flaws" and doesn't understand why he's missing my point. Indeed I do, and I never claimed otherwise but rather, I am referring to how these are managed. I see them as something I need to actively address and constantly work to overcome. They are my problem and I get to deal with them as part of the process of knowing myself and exploring what it means to be alive. It's called personal growth. However, I have never felt like I have a license to inflict my shortcomings on other people and that's the difference I am talking about here.
Failing to pay close attention is not an option when my mistakes could get me and/or someone else killed. If I were not naturally inclined towards cultivating mindfulness and self-discipline, if I did not value awareness, I would still feel like I can goof off on anything else but for this one thing I have a duty to pay careful attention. If I absolutely could not manage to do that, I would decide that maybe driving isn't for me and perhaps I should look into carpooling or public transportation. Either way, I do not have the right to endanger other people just because I couldn't be bothered to take care of things. It would be supreme arrogance to think otherwise.
It's common if you aren't consciously aware that there is such a tendency. That road hypnosis does not happen without your participation which is why becoming conscious that you have a choice in the matter prevents it. Likewise, assuming it's inevitable and inescapable will destroy your ability to prevent it. Read sometime about what the Buddhists have to say about "mindfulness" if you want a high-quality explanation of what I am talking about. Of course they are not the only source for this information, just one of the most accessible ones.
Actually no, I have never done this. I would have to deliberately decide to think about something else, which would mean making a decision as to whether I can afford to devote attention to it. If I can afford to do that, then it's because I can think about it while deliberately driving, which would not lead to me wondering how I got there. If I could not afford to do that, then I would not think about that thing at that time which also would not lead to me wondering how I got to my destination.
As far as mental discipline goes, this is a very basic level that is relatively easy to attain. It is incredibly modest and humble compared to the feats of perception and self-knowledge that some people have achieved. To use a money analogy, in a world where
Indeed. I haven't personally seen anyone teaching that but I have always preferred to maneuver around an obstacle rather than relying on my brakes. It just seems natural to me that this would work better, given what I know my car can and cannot do. This is the main reason why I won't allow people to hang out in my blind spot. Sorry but they are sheep. They are not thinking individuals. If you drive daily for years, it's inevitable that one day you will be confronted with an obstacle. The only question is whether you allow for this in your planning and are prepared for it when it happens, or whether you are surprised and caught off-guard. Suddenly having an obstacle in your lane is the wrong time to discover that you can't dodge it without hitting the guy who has no reason for being right beside you. These things don't just happen and I wish people would quit pretending like they do.
You really should do a shoulder-check when you change lanes but that shouldn't require twisting your entire torso. It should be a quick glance just to cover your blind spots and should be done with the awareness that looking to the side might make you unconsciously steer with the movement. Again it happens because people are surprised by it; if you do it with awareness then it doesn't have that effect. And yes, you should be aware at all times of what's going on around you. You should know that guy is beside you, even if he is in your blind spot, because you saw him earlier in your rear-view and have not seen him pass you; the shoulder-check is just an extra precaution, an opportunity to catch any errors in this process.
If people knew what the passing lane was for, the "speed demons and slow pokes" would sort themselves out naturally. Also, it's quite clear to me that all of the emphasis on speeding occurs because it's an effective revenue-generation device for the state. Speeding doesn't cause accidents nearly as often as failing to yield or following too closely, it's just a hell of a lot easier to catch people doing.
Okay, none of these people are allowed to drive any car with an automatic transmission, ever again. They can drive when they can think.
Hah! I have also wondered if that alone would change much of this.
When I was a teenager and had a learner's permit I had a choice of whether I would start out with a manual or an automatic transmission as my parents had each. I chose the manual. I have never regretted that. The extra involvement with what the vehicle is doing helped to give me a better awareness of what's going on around me, because to operate a manual transmission smoothly you can't just react, you have to anticipate what the traffic around and in front of you is doing. That is, it's best to see ahead of time that traffic is slowing down or speeding up so you can already be in the right gear when it does. Learning to use a manual skillfully also implied extra time practicing, giving more opportunities for my parents to notice and correct what would otherwise have become bad habits. Not to mention that if you are familiar with a manual then you can drive nearly any vehicle (at least, any vehicle a normal license would allow you to drive).
I wish I could prove it but I am convinced that if automatics were outlawed there would be a strong reduction in the number of accidents.
Ditto on the D.C. beltway. I don't understand people who slowdown for bridges or curves. It's not going to kill you to take the curve at 65mph. That's why the sign says 65 - because it was designed for high-speed travel I don't know what part of the beltway you're driving on, but it seems like all the parts I've been on are 55 MPH speed limits. And I have a theory about why people slow down on curves - recall that acceleration is dv/dt, and that turning causes a dv (direction). This dv is interpreted by some as an acceleration and so their deceleration is not noticed. You SHOULD feel a dv on a curve or you ARE slowing down.
For that I blame the state DMVs. For all that they preach about "driving is a privilege, not a right" they hand out driver's licenses like candy with little regard for whether the person can actually handle a motor vehicle. The result is that the most basic physics are unknown to most drivers. It's surprising that most drivers don't seem to have an understanding of exactly what their vehicle can and cannot do, as though they've never had to make an evasive maneuver before and are convinced that they will never need to. They are not strategic thinkers so they don't decide "waiting until the shit hits the fan is the wrong time to discover I'm not as familiar with my vehicle as I should be." If they were familiar with the capabilities of their vehicle, whatever that vehicle may be, they would know that it's normal to feel that force when taking a curve and would not feel a need to compensate for it. That's particularly true on major highways, which around my local area look more like drag strips and certainly don't require you to slow for the curves.
If it were anything other than life-and-limb on the line I'd understand that most people don't view things that way.
Another cure for traffic jams is to make our highways 20-lanes wide (like in Asimov's novels).
Two words, separated by a hyphen: rubber-neckers.
They are the cause of almost all traffic jams.
(I live in Sterling, couldn't fathom driving into or out of DC every day. I'd do what you do and leave at 5. My neighbor does that as well.)
I notice a lot of other little tendencies that also contribute to the problem. There's one in particular that comes to mind.
I usually see this on four-lane highways, where you have two lanes going one way and two lanes going the other way. Anytime there are only two other cars, they are right beside each other, in lock-step, doing the exact same speed over the course of miles. That way no one can pass them. If you tap (not lay on) your horn to try to get the guy in the passing lane to do some crazy like y'know, pass the other driver so you can get by them, they often think you're challenging their manhood rather than asking them not to monopolize a public resource. When I see this shit all the time, it becomes easier to understand why impatient drivers get fed up with it and will make dangerous maneuvers (like cutting right in front of someone) to get around these people. I'm not saying it's an excuse, only that if you create a strong enough temptation some people WILL succumb to it even if they aren't supposed to.
I often notice people will try to stay in my blind spot so they can do this. There's just no way that they are accidentally going my exact same speed over the course of miles. Any fraction faster or slower would eventually cause one car to pass the other over distances. I also see that when I have to stop for a traffic light, the guy beside me will slow down at the same time that I slow down even though there may be cars in front of me that require me to slow down earlier than he does. This often causes them to stop short, or to stop short, realize it, and then pull up to the light. Or if you take an exit ramp off the highway and you are slowing down in a turning lane, watch the guy who is still on the highway; often he will slow down on the highway lane just because you are slowing down in the separate turning lane, needlessly holding up anyone behind him. I refer to highways that are specifically designed so that turning traffic has its own lane and need not slow down the main road. I think drivers don't understand that groups of cars exhibit wave-like behaviors, so a minor needless slowdown can contribute to jams miles behind you. That is, it does not occur to them to even think at all of how their decisions are affecting other people, which sums up nearly all traffic problems.
I really don't think they intend to do it. I think they're just such sheep that they cannot even independently choose their own speed. Doing as others around them are doing is just so deeply ingrained. I won't allow someone to hang out in my blind spot for very long at all and will alter my speed to prevent it, both because it prevents me from being able to change lanes and because it limits my maneuverability if I ever had to dodge an obstacle. It has these two downsides and it has no upside for anyone so it's not even selfish of the other drivers, just stupid.
Another issue that causes some jams is the traffic lights themselves. Traffic lights seem to be why cars travel in these huge packs because they all line up at the red light. The tendencies I mentioned above guarantee that the packs usually don't disperse over distances. If I can manage to get in front of or just behind such a pack of cars, it makes things much easier for me than when I'm stuck within one. I'd be interested in whether something like traffic circles would prevent these large packs from forming.
I initially was talking about Adobe specifically and very generally also about the timeframes needed to patch new vulnerabilities. Microsoft was mentioned as well (by someone else to whom I replied) because they represent one way to handle the situation. I apologize if I dealt with this in an ambiguous way; I did not mean to confuse.
I admit I don't stay up-to-date on Windows or Windows-related vulnerabilities though I have a good reason for it: I don't use that software. The principles though are easy enough to understand. The temporary mitigation steps you mentioned are a good thing, though I must tell you I greatly prefer the way FOSS projects generally handle things. Instead of mitigation steps (which are also often provided), I can usually download a new version or a source code patch almost immediately, and I am forced to regard that as superior. There is also usually a lot more I can do with a Linux system to limit privileges, sandbox, or isolate a running program from the rest of the system (particularly so for PaX, GrSecurity, a hardened toolchain, and maybe SELinux). Not to mention, there are often multiple projects that implement the same functionality and with no licensing restrictions, it is often a simple matter to replace a piece of software with a similar one.
My point is that if you add up the number of developers who have direct access to modify the Linux kernel and the core userspace software necessary to have a basic, working system, both the number of personnel and the financial resources available to them will be greatly dwarfed by what Microsoft commands. Microsoft is a giant in its industry any way you look at it. All things being equal, this would lead one to expect that Microsoft could do a better and more timely job of dealing with inevitable issues like software bugs. In my opinion, they do not.
My hopefully-reasonable guess is that they are trying to balance business interests against the desire to fix problems ASAP. What you mention about IT deployment is a good basis for my guess. I think it best when users make their own decisions as to whether Microsoft is striking a balance that is favorable for them. For me, the need to avoid getting hit by a vulnerability and all of the implications that entails (botnets, etc.) is paramount, so their concern for the management of someone else's IT department is not suited to what I want.
I don't like Microsoft but I also don't hate them. Hating anyone would do nothing to them but would make me suffer and generally would reduce my quality of life. It would also cloud my ability to see a better way. So, if I did hate them I would see that as a personal weakness that it is my task to remedy. I would not just blindly embrace it.
I just
The answer to that is to have independent implementations of widely-supported open standards. Then you get the benefits that you cite, with the one exception that the maintainers of each implementation would need to issue their own patches. I believe this would be outweighed by the fact that it's unlikely for each independent implementation to have the exact same flaw. The result would be a superior experience for users while maintaining similar capabilities across different systems.
Because a "rag-tag band" doesn't have to QA their source change against an entire operating system? Remember how people tend to get pissed when MS releases patches that break functionality?
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying this is an unfair comparison, like comparing an apple and an orange.
I disagree because the concern you have raised applies to every general-purpose operating system on the planet. Certainly the software license (MS EULA or GPL) does not change this situation. If a bug is found in the Linux kernel or an important piece of userspace software, the people who patch it also have the same concerns about whether their fix is going to break anything else. So, I am satisfied that we are comparing an orange to an orange. We are still without a good explanation as to why the entity with superior resources and superior manpower is not doing the better job.
Wait a minute, you mean errors can't be willful ? So if someone does something willfully, deliberately and with an intent, he can't later realise his mistake and make amends ? I think you need to review your position on this.
Indeed. I wonder how many people who are saying this would really want to be held to that standard. I know I wouldn't.
Compassion instead of condemnation is appropriate when you are dealing with someone who has changed their ways. If you must punish and condemn, save it for the unrepentant.
How is that Offtopic? It's exactly spot on. Mod parent up, if you're not Noscript shill.
Agreed. Mods, please promote the GP post. This really should be discussed and resolved.
I also disagree with the GP but censoring him is not the Way. I do think it is akin to censorship because nothing he said is detrimental to the discussion. Also, a lot of people feel the way that he does and they should have their say. At least, this is what I believe. I have written a post describing why I disagree and why I think there is a better way to handle the situation. I think that in an open discussion, the truth will win out, and on this one I also believe that I have summarized the truth of the matter. If I'm wrong about that, modding down the "other side" of the discussion will not help me to discover where I have erred.
If it were an actual mistake, then I would agree with you. It wasn't an error.
He purposefully did it and when he got caught he then apologized for it. What I'm saying is, if nobody said anything, he'd still be doing it.
This is a hard thing to understand and you raise a very valid question. I hope to answer that without just dismissing it or pretending like it isn't important. I don't know the man personally and have to go by what he and others have written, so please consider this just my opinion as I cannot speak for him.
You are right that he deliberately coded the functionality that made unauthorized and underhanded modifications of another, unrelated add-on (ABP). The mistake or error was in believing that the ends justify the means, that there is ever a good reason to do such a thing. All improper actions he took were rooted in that one error. But not for that belief, he would have probably regarded the temptation as "what the hell, I can't do that." Sometimes people get lucky and they see what's wrong with such an error on their own, before anything has to blow up in their face. Other times they have to see for themselves why it's harmful, often by being harmed by it or harming others by it, before their regret at having spectacularly failed reveals the error of their ways. It's sort of like the religious idea of "forgive them because they know not what they do," though if you asked them what they were doing they could describe their behavior accurately -- this is not really a contradiction.
I'm not an impeccably perfect person either. I have had to learn some lessons the hard way and I suspect every other human being could say the same. So no, I don't share the willingness to condemn someone who has fully come clean and has turned away from what he was doing. I think doing that would say more about me than about him. If anything, I celebrate his courage and wish it were more common.
Capable? I'm sure they could, I just get the distinct feeling that they don't feel like doing it. Which would be fairly typical, MS for instance likes to get angry when people mention the fact that they've been taking months to patch a serious vulnerability. Admittedly you don't want a patch to cause another vulnerability, but how long does it really take to get a proper fix?
If the FOSS community is any indication, it takes anywhere from a few hours to a couple of days after the vulnerability is disclosed.
I am surprised how Microsoft often gets a pass on these issues, considering the vast resources at their command and the fact that Windows is a monoculture so their mistakes simultaneously affect millions of people. Most FOSS software is written by a "rag-tag band" by comparison, so why isn't Microsoft held to a higher standard of responsibility?
The noscript author is an assclown who silently enables ads (And disables noscript) for his own financial advantage.
He admitted his error and has stopped doing this. See this link. The very first line? "I screwed up. Big time."
Any fool can make a mistake. It takes some guts to admit it, correct it, and try to move on especially in public like that. For that reason I do not count myself among the folks who still want to figuratively crucify him.
Browsing the web without a few browser mods is the only to surf these days anyway.
Yeah. When I read this headline my first impression was "should I try to act surprised?"
This is just history repeating itself. Even if it required an NDA, if Adobe were smart they'd try to hire the OpenBSD folks to audit their code as they're obviously not capable of securing it themselves.
How long have been watching this debate repeat itself over and over and over again in the precise and exact same and identical manner? Oh, right, only since we have Slashdot.
How long ... Oh, right.
Hah, argue with THAT!
...not know what a condom is?
Does the average slashdot crowd?
Nah, "Palmela and her Five Sisters" is infertile.
To be fair, ubiquitous internet is still new enough that an extremely disproportionate number of users are only grades 7-10, so I'd say the problem is perhaps less dire than you might think.
That said, until the day comes when we can stop greedy anarchists from gutting education on the rationale that it somehow harms society to raise the standards of literacy and knowledge through public institutions, there is very little anyone can do to cure the disease rather than accommodate the symptoms. Don't hold your breath.
The only feasible remedy I can see in the immediate future would be for parents to start a widespread homeschooling movement. Perhaps they could create communities centered around the concept so that the socialization and athletic events associated with public schooling could also be available. This would be so much better than treating the care of their own children as the government's responsibility.
So let me get this straight- people there considered each other friends. They company was sponsoring socializing events on company time, and requesting you go. And I'm assuming that they adjusted the schedule to account for this, not expected you to do overtime to make up for loss of work time, otherwise you would be complaining about that. You aren't complaining about the type of team activity, so I'm going to assume they weren't excessively stupid. And you have a problem with this?
Sorry to tell you this, but the problem is you. Finding friendship, or even just acquaintances among coworkers is both natural and healthy. Same with enjoying socializing with them. And the company was allowing you to do this, giving up money to enable it (although most likely the increased morale improved productivity by more than the loss of time). You weren't being forced to give up personal time for after hours activities, you were losing nothing by participating. If you really have a problem with this you have some personal issues you need to work out.
I think you have a hard time understanding that the environment you just described would have been the case except for a very vocal and very small minority who ruined much of it because they were very good at playing office politics. It is they whom I was describing. They cared only about getting their way and knew how to put a nice smiling face on this because if they were honest about it, no one would go along with it. Forced, mandatory friendship is not friendship. For the most part, we really did have a close-kint work unit and it was in spite of these attempts to artificially produce it. The mutual respect and trust was based on things like competence and willingness to help others, and it happened quite naturally. It was not because you can make someone sit through a movie they don't like, though the few people who did that were more than willing to take credit for it. Those few actually had a rather well-deserved reputation for taking advantage of others, something they could do because they knew people who knew people, which is called cronyism. They would be slapped on the wrist for things that would probably have gotten me fired. The people driving the problems I mentioned were not considered friends by anyone, not unless "someone you can't really trust at all" is your idea of a friend. We have no common ground at all if any of this is hard for you to understand.
I will admit I made a mistake. I made the mistake of forgetting that people like you feel very free to think that you know what the situation was like and will assume pathology on my part before assuming that you don't have all of the facts. I could play your game and describe what that says about you, but I don't care to have this activity in common with you. Now I get to take responsibility for my mistake and play this silly game of correcting your presumptions. So be it, my fault because I have seen this before and should have known better than to allow room for the possibility. The very same people who put on nice happy faces during the mandatory socializations were also the first to stab someone in the back. It was quite obvious they didn't care for the others very much and were just getting off on feeling important because they were allowed to organize something. Bosses won't say no to "team-building exercise" any more than politicians will say no to "stopping terrorism" and they knew that very well and took full advantage. I don't support being two-faced like this and no, I won't apologize to you for that. You actually want to pontificate to me and declare that I should be enthusiastic about this and I don't know if that's amusing or merely pathetic. I salute your nerve if nothing else; it certainly exceeds mine.
I'm fine with having a good time, parties, and being able to take a break. It's the way that these things were done that bothered me. You can grok that right, that an objection to doing a thing the shittiest way
Reminds me of where I used to work. There, we had meetings and also had what they called "team-building exercises" which mostly meant forced socialization with your co-workers. As a relatively rank-and-file employee (i.e. I actually produced), the company's financial goals and long-term strategy discussed in the meetings was irrelevant to me, in the sense that I try to do the best job that I can and knowing how the CEO wants to spend the profits on things that I will never see does not change this. The majority of coworkers were women, and I don't know if that's the reason why or not, but they jumped on every possible excuse to have "food days" where you are obligated to buy or cook something (meaning this also wasted my personal time) and bring it in. They enjoyed wasting time in other, similar ways.
I had the strong impression that none of them had any sort of social life outside of the workplace. That's a bit sad considering that what they might regard as a "close friend" would be more like a "superficial acquaintance" to me. In other words they didn't know each other as well as they pretended to.
The fact that not wanting to participate was some kind of stigma is what bothered me. If it was limited to people who wanted to do this on their own I'd have no problem with it, especially if it was after-hours (it wasn't). The mark of weak, insecure people is that they feel threatened by someone who does not believe as they do. They probably also derive some kind of reassurance from being able to needlessly impose on other people, because quite frankly they lack the courage to address their own personal shortcomings.
Personally, I come to the workplace to get work done. I don't go there to have a mockery of a social life. I have my own social life, in which I participate voluntarily, with my own real friends whom I can actually trust. Other than a very few unusually-trustworthy exceptions, I have no desire to get too personal with co-workers, nor do I want to get caught up in the petty office politics that goes along with doing that. I was very good at what I did and was happy doing it and then going home, without all the extra baggage. I was kind to my co-workers and went out of my way to assist them anytime they needed it, but I refused to pretend like they were my best friends. Most of them are not people I would have wanted to hang out with for various reasons, either because they were married women, old enough to be my grandmother, or otherwise inappropriate or incompatible.
Thankfully I had a very good rapport with my boss. She was a wise person whom I truly respected; if she asked me to do something, I did it because she asked and not because she had authority. Unfortunately, while she understood my objections it was not within her power to single-handedly change the corporate culture, although she did make things easier for me to understand and accept.
A well-defined problem is half-solved.
Why not solve that problem instead of constantly working around it?