I'm a bit torn. I don't think you're wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if some people end up sort of "branded for life" because their personal info never goes away. It'd be nice to think we could all "grow up", but... well, have you met people? Like, in real life, have you talked to real people about stuff? Do you really think they're going to "grow up"?
On the other hand, you're right that this level of information probably shouldn't matter, and perhaps our culture will evolve to deal with having this level of information available. Also, I somewhat like the idea of having so much historical information available; perhaps one day our computers will be able to do interesting things with this glut of information.
Either way, I'm going to stick to the good old strategy of using aliases, and hope that nobody ever realizes that "nine-times" is really "Bill Gates".
How could Internet service not be a telecommunications service? Maybe we're just talking about some really specific legal definition here, but the Internet is a telecommunications network.
Yeah, this is a terrible argument. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't make sense. Essentially you're implying that the government should do nothing because *some* government programs have had problems. It's not really any smarter than suggesting that we should outlaw all profit-generating companies because some of them have caused economic damage.
Now everyone is left with either a local monopoly or at best a duopoly of broadband providers
One of the proposals that always sounded good to me: Forbid the company that provides the physical infrastructure from offering any service. So for example, if Verizon builds the FIOS network, then they can sell access to ISPs (and voice/television providers) but they cannot act as provider themselves. Further, make it so that they cannot negotiate special/exclusive deals with anyone, but have to offer the same terms/prices to all comers.
Well it depends on what you mean by a "free market". Is a "free market" simply one that has not government control or regulation? Or is it one where the people buying/selling/trading on that market have free and open choice between many alternatives? I think a lot of people intend the former when they say "free market", but the theoretical economic benefits that people talk about (e.g. the "invisible hand") come from the latter.
In the latter sense, the idea of having a "free market" is incompatible with slavery, assuming that the slaves are also considered players in the market. Slaves are not allowed to exercise choice in the labor market, for example, or else they wouldn't be slaves.
It's also noteworthy that government regulation isn't necessarily opposed to a "free market" in this particular sense. For example, monopolies limit choice, so if anti-trust regulations succeed in limiting monopolies and thereby expanding choice, then that governmental restriction actually makes for a freer market.
Now free markets still aren't the be-all and end-all anyway, but they're often pretty good at allocating resources in an efficient way. That is, as long as you mean an actual "free market" in latter sense. If you simply mean "a market with absolutely no governmental intervention," then it's a recipe for abuse and disaster.
Sure, I'd agree that there are more important things. It's just that if you ask me whether employers should have free access to anything present on or transmitted through employee phones, I'd say it's not a simple issue.
I have a company phone, and it's my only phone. If the company insisted on having access to all my sms messages, I'd get myself a new phone, pay the bill, and refuse to carry a company phone. Having a free phone is, in my mind, part of the compensation for being expected to answer work calls outside of business hours. It's not even adequate compensation.
Yeah, that is the simple solution, but I think it fails to take into account what's really going on.
So here's the problem: Traditionally, businesses (or government agencies) have given their employees the equipment for doing their jobs, and it has been expected that the employee will not use that equipment for personal use. This has expanded to employees being issued smart phones.
However, people today think of phones are very personal objects. They keep their phones on their person close to 24 hours a day, and under most circumstances phones are absolutely filled with personal information. What's more, these "work phones" are often handed out specifically so that the business can interrupt your personal time, meaning you're supposed to take them with you when your outside the work environment. So the existence of "work phones" has become an issue of work intruding into the employee's private life, and because of that, people tend to think of their "work phones" as private.
Beyond that, there are practical considerations. Primarily, it's annoying to be carrying around 2 phones all the time when there's no real reason to do so. It takes up excessive pocket space; you have to keep track of them, keep them charged, make sure you're making your calls on the correct phone. Also, I have a personal calendar, and a work calendar. Am I supposed to keep them entirely on separate devices? If so, it's going to be very easy to get confused and double-book my time. I have personal contact and work contacts, but they overlap to some degree. Keeping them separate is possible, but impractical.
So I think there's a cultural tension there. Many people think that work equipment shouldn't be used for personal use, but for a lot of people that doesn't make sense with cell phones. It's like someone putting a 50-inch "work TV" in your living room and saying, "Only use this for work. If you want to watch the Superbowl, buy your own big screen TV."
Now, you pay your money and take your choice. Quality vs cost; the same old question.
Sorry, but I don't think that's the choice you just described. You assume that "IT as a benefit" will cost more, but you admit that you don't know how to quantify the costs. If it's true that it can deliver huge productivity improvements (which I agree that it can in some situations) then it might not cost more at all. Overall, it might *save* money.
Treating it the same as a Xbox is disingenuous at best.
No, I think in principle it's the same exact thing. You have bought a special-purpose computer, but the manufacturer doesn't allow you to use that computer however you like. One of those computers can be carried in your pocket while the other connects to your TV, but otherwise it's the same thing.
I think what you're saying is, "I have no principled objection to hardware manufacturers restricting my use of products which I have purchased. I just happen to be personally annoyed that Apple did it with the iPhone because I'm not used to phone manufacturers doing it." And I guess that's fair.
Incidentally, though, phone manufacturers have locked their phones down in various ways at the request of carriers (at least in the US). They've blocked using unapproved sound files for ringtones and prevented USB and Bluetooth connectivity, among other dirty tricks. Most carriers require you to pay for some kind of special plan for tethering, and have tried to block built-in tethering functionality in phones. It's not like these are actually open platforms. You still need to hack an Android phone if you want to install a different kernel.
When shit works right despite being underfunded: "Why are we paying so much for the IT department? They're just an enormous expense, but there's no benefit because everything is working anyway!"
When shit breaks because of being underfunded, "Why are we paying so much for the IT department? They're just an enormous expense, but there's no benefit because they can't keep anything working!"
the same people that keep the lightbulbs changed, the warehouse shipping and the driveway plowed.
That makes sense, assuming "setting an employee up with a computer" to be comparable to "setting employee up with a desk". I've seen some companies where IT operates under the Finance department. I've never really understood why, except maybe because early computer use in many companies was limited to accounting, and it stuck in Finance for legacy reasons. I've seen other companies where there's a dedicated IT department that traces up to the CIO, and it kind of runs independently.
I think it depends on the company, but a lot of companies miss out by failing to integrate IT very well. They treat the IT support guy like a handy-man who is completely divorced from the company's strategy, and meanwhile the entire business is running on computers. Not that I object to the comparison between support personnel and a handy-man, but if the productivity of your company depends of effective and efficient use of computers, then you might want to involve some people in your strategic decision-making who understand computers really really well. I've seen companies ask employees to spend hours going through a process that a computer could automatically complete in minutes, just because they never bothered to ask the IT guy if there was a better way to go about things.
Yeah, I guess that was tongue-in-cheek, bringing up "fair use". The point is, for a user/viewer to have all of his rights, the DRM must be easy to circumvent, which defeats the entire purpose of having DRM.
If the company goes out of business, I must still be able to use the stuff I paid for. Likewise, it must automatically unlock/decrypt the content when the copyright term is over and the stuff enters the public domain.
And how about you must be able to circumvent the DRM if you're using it in a "fair use" situation?
I guess it depends on the trolls. Is that guy who makes up songs on his piano a "troll"?
I don't use ChatRoulette, but the reputation is that there's too much penis. Get rid of that, and then see what it has a bad reputation for, and try to get rid of that.
Pointing out that taste in coffee and the places that sell coffee is subjective is not remotely the same thing as claiming all tastes are good or equivalent
Either all tastes are subjective or they're not. If it's possible for one thing to taste better than another, then it's possible for one thing to taste better than another, and therefore it's possible for one cup of coffee to taste better than another cup of coffee.
I feel like you're getting defensive or something, but like I said, I have no problem with Starbucks. I'm just saying that they're not very competitive in my area.
Yeah, sure, you can argue all taste is completely subjective, that nothing is better or worse, that it's all subjective. Poop tastes as good as ice cream, maybe? Whatever.
Anyway, I have no problem with Starbucks. I just think they provide an inferior product to what I can get elsewhere. When I lived in a different place that had fewer choices, that wasn't the case.
Where I live, there's only one Starbucks that I know of within several miles, and it's often almost empty. Meanwhile, there are loads of coffee shops and bakeries-- probably at least 8 that have better coffee than Starbucks within 2 miles, all of which offer free WiFi.
I recognize that's not common, and I'm sure part of the reason it works out is that I live in an area that values good coffee and will give an independent coffee shop a chance. Still, it's better coffee, often cheaper coffee, better service, free wifi, often free (or cheap) refills, and these places are profitable. I think it's evidence that the little guy can complete, so long as people are willing to give them a chance.
Exactly. Every independent coffee shop I've gone into in the past 5 years has had free WiFi. It's often better coffee, cheaper, nicer atmosphere, and free WiFi. I don't know how Starbucks expects to compete.
But then, I live in an area that has a lot of independent coffee shops and not a lot of Starbucks locations, so I guess they're not competing.
Well yes, it's not scientists, but science reporting who over-sensationalize and science-fans who eat up the over-sensationalized reporting and repeat it, often without even understanding what any of it really means.
I mean, I'm interested. I wouldn't come in here just to poop on everyone's parade and say, "boring!" I'm responding to someone else who essentially said "not surprising, all kinds of crazy things happen on the quantum level" and I offered an agreement with modifications. But I'm reading all this to see what people have to say.
Still, while I'm interested, lots of people are going to take this one speculative piece of research and run with it, trying to use their high-school-level physics knowledge to overturn all of physics as we know it. And again, don't get me wrong: that stuff is fun too. But... you know... sometimes I get over-sensationalized-science-fatigue.
And pardon me, but it sounds like you're saying they're right.:/
I'd be more likely to be more interested in more things if they didn't go "ZOMG Star Trek!" Everyone always going "ZOMG Star Trek!" makes people like me (who generally do have some interest in science) go "Yeah, yeah, whatever. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a bit torn. I don't think you're wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if some people end up sort of "branded for life" because their personal info never goes away. It'd be nice to think we could all "grow up", but... well, have you met people? Like, in real life, have you talked to real people about stuff? Do you really think they're going to "grow up"?
On the other hand, you're right that this level of information probably shouldn't matter, and perhaps our culture will evolve to deal with having this level of information available. Also, I somewhat like the idea of having so much historical information available; perhaps one day our computers will be able to do interesting things with this glut of information.
Either way, I'm going to stick to the good old strategy of using aliases, and hope that nobody ever realizes that "nine-times" is really "Bill Gates".
How could Internet service not be a telecommunications service? Maybe we're just talking about some really specific legal definition here, but the Internet is a telecommunications network.
Yeah, this is a terrible argument. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't make sense. Essentially you're implying that the government should do nothing because *some* government programs have had problems. It's not really any smarter than suggesting that we should outlaw all profit-generating companies because some of them have caused economic damage.
Now everyone is left with either a local monopoly or at best a duopoly of broadband providers
One of the proposals that always sounded good to me: Forbid the company that provides the physical infrastructure from offering any service. So for example, if Verizon builds the FIOS network, then they can sell access to ISPs (and voice/television providers) but they cannot act as provider themselves. Further, make it so that they cannot negotiate special/exclusive deals with anyone, but have to offer the same terms/prices to all comers.
Well it depends on what you mean by a "free market". Is a "free market" simply one that has not government control or regulation? Or is it one where the people buying/selling/trading on that market have free and open choice between many alternatives? I think a lot of people intend the former when they say "free market", but the theoretical economic benefits that people talk about (e.g. the "invisible hand") come from the latter.
In the latter sense, the idea of having a "free market" is incompatible with slavery, assuming that the slaves are also considered players in the market. Slaves are not allowed to exercise choice in the labor market, for example, or else they wouldn't be slaves.
It's also noteworthy that government regulation isn't necessarily opposed to a "free market" in this particular sense. For example, monopolies limit choice, so if anti-trust regulations succeed in limiting monopolies and thereby expanding choice, then that governmental restriction actually makes for a freer market.
Now free markets still aren't the be-all and end-all anyway, but they're often pretty good at allocating resources in an efficient way. That is, as long as you mean an actual "free market" in latter sense. If you simply mean "a market with absolutely no governmental intervention," then it's a recipe for abuse and disaster.
Sure, I'd agree that there are more important things. It's just that if you ask me whether employers should have free access to anything present on or transmitted through employee phones, I'd say it's not a simple issue.
I have a company phone, and it's my only phone. If the company insisted on having access to all my sms messages, I'd get myself a new phone, pay the bill, and refuse to carry a company phone. Having a free phone is, in my mind, part of the compensation for being expected to answer work calls outside of business hours. It's not even adequate compensation.
Yeah, that is the simple solution, but I think it fails to take into account what's really going on.
So here's the problem: Traditionally, businesses (or government agencies) have given their employees the equipment for doing their jobs, and it has been expected that the employee will not use that equipment for personal use. This has expanded to employees being issued smart phones.
However, people today think of phones are very personal objects. They keep their phones on their person close to 24 hours a day, and under most circumstances phones are absolutely filled with personal information. What's more, these "work phones" are often handed out specifically so that the business can interrupt your personal time, meaning you're supposed to take them with you when your outside the work environment. So the existence of "work phones" has become an issue of work intruding into the employee's private life, and because of that, people tend to think of their "work phones" as private.
Beyond that, there are practical considerations. Primarily, it's annoying to be carrying around 2 phones all the time when there's no real reason to do so. It takes up excessive pocket space; you have to keep track of them, keep them charged, make sure you're making your calls on the correct phone. Also, I have a personal calendar, and a work calendar. Am I supposed to keep them entirely on separate devices? If so, it's going to be very easy to get confused and double-book my time. I have personal contact and work contacts, but they overlap to some degree. Keeping them separate is possible, but impractical.
So I think there's a cultural tension there. Many people think that work equipment shouldn't be used for personal use, but for a lot of people that doesn't make sense with cell phones. It's like someone putting a 50-inch "work TV" in your living room and saying, "Only use this for work. If you want to watch the Superbowl, buy your own big screen TV."
Seems like there are two options:
1) Use a form of power generation that's decentralized and require everyone to come up with their own power.
2) Have all the decisions made by someone central who has the authority to push things through.
Now, you pay your money and take your choice. Quality vs cost; the same old question.
Sorry, but I don't think that's the choice you just described. You assume that "IT as a benefit" will cost more, but you admit that you don't know how to quantify the costs. If it's true that it can deliver huge productivity improvements (which I agree that it can in some situations) then it might not cost more at all. Overall, it might *save* money.
Not that I object to the comparison between support personnel and a handy-man
Why not? Not to diminish what a handyman does
And then after a whole lot of ranting...
So, nothing wrong comparing support personnel and handymen
So you don't object to the comparison either.
Treating it the same as a Xbox is disingenuous at best.
No, I think in principle it's the same exact thing. You have bought a special-purpose computer, but the manufacturer doesn't allow you to use that computer however you like. One of those computers can be carried in your pocket while the other connects to your TV, but otherwise it's the same thing.
I think what you're saying is, "I have no principled objection to hardware manufacturers restricting my use of products which I have purchased. I just happen to be personally annoyed that Apple did it with the iPhone because I'm not used to phone manufacturers doing it." And I guess that's fair.
Incidentally, though, phone manufacturers have locked their phones down in various ways at the request of carriers (at least in the US). They've blocked using unapproved sound files for ringtones and prevented USB and Bluetooth connectivity, among other dirty tricks. Most carriers require you to pay for some kind of special plan for tethering, and have tried to block built-in tethering functionality in phones. It's not like these are actually open platforms. You still need to hack an Android phone if you want to install a different kernel.
-or-
When shit works right despite being underfunded: "Why are we paying so much for the IT department? They're just an enormous expense, but there's no benefit because everything is working anyway!"
When shit breaks because of being underfunded, "Why are we paying so much for the IT department? They're just an enormous expense, but there's no benefit because they can't keep anything working!"
the same people that keep the lightbulbs changed, the warehouse shipping and the driveway plowed.
That makes sense, assuming "setting an employee up with a computer" to be comparable to "setting employee up with a desk". I've seen some companies where IT operates under the Finance department. I've never really understood why, except maybe because early computer use in many companies was limited to accounting, and it stuck in Finance for legacy reasons. I've seen other companies where there's a dedicated IT department that traces up to the CIO, and it kind of runs independently.
I think it depends on the company, but a lot of companies miss out by failing to integrate IT very well. They treat the IT support guy like a handy-man who is completely divorced from the company's strategy, and meanwhile the entire business is running on computers. Not that I object to the comparison between support personnel and a handy-man, but if the productivity of your company depends of effective and efficient use of computers, then you might want to involve some people in your strategic decision-making who understand computers really really well. I've seen companies ask employees to spend hours going through a process that a computer could automatically complete in minutes, just because they never bothered to ask the IT guy if there was a better way to go about things.
I think some of these games are more like Pixar films: designed to be kid friendly, but entertaining for all ages.
Yeah, I guess that was tongue-in-cheek, bringing up "fair use". The point is, for a user/viewer to have all of his rights, the DRM must be easy to circumvent, which defeats the entire purpose of having DRM.
If the company goes out of business, I must still be able to use the stuff I paid for. Likewise, it must automatically unlock/decrypt the content when the copyright term is over and the stuff enters the public domain.
And how about you must be able to circumvent the DRM if you're using it in a "fair use" situation?
I guess it depends on the trolls. Is that guy who makes up songs on his piano a "troll"?
I don't use ChatRoulette, but the reputation is that there's too much penis. Get rid of that, and then see what it has a bad reputation for, and try to get rid of that.
Pointing out that taste in coffee and the places that sell coffee is subjective is not remotely the same thing as claiming all tastes are good or equivalent
Either all tastes are subjective or they're not. If it's possible for one thing to taste better than another, then it's possible for one thing to taste better than another, and therefore it's possible for one cup of coffee to taste better than another cup of coffee.
It's not philosophy. It's tautology.
I feel like you're getting defensive or something, but like I said, I have no problem with Starbucks. I'm just saying that they're not very competitive in my area.
I live in an urban space, and for the time being, Starbucks is getting trounced.
Yeah, sure, you can argue all taste is completely subjective, that nothing is better or worse, that it's all subjective. Poop tastes as good as ice cream, maybe? Whatever.
Anyway, I have no problem with Starbucks. I just think they provide an inferior product to what I can get elsewhere. When I lived in a different place that had fewer choices, that wasn't the case.
Where I live, there's only one Starbucks that I know of within several miles, and it's often almost empty. Meanwhile, there are loads of coffee shops and bakeries-- probably at least 8 that have better coffee than Starbucks within 2 miles, all of which offer free WiFi.
I recognize that's not common, and I'm sure part of the reason it works out is that I live in an area that values good coffee and will give an independent coffee shop a chance. Still, it's better coffee, often cheaper coffee, better service, free wifi, often free (or cheap) refills, and these places are profitable. I think it's evidence that the little guy can complete, so long as people are willing to give them a chance.
Exactly. Every independent coffee shop I've gone into in the past 5 years has had free WiFi. It's often better coffee, cheaper, nicer atmosphere, and free WiFi. I don't know how Starbucks expects to compete.
But then, I live in an area that has a lot of independent coffee shops and not a lot of Starbucks locations, so I guess they're not competing.
Well yes, it's not scientists, but science reporting who over-sensationalize and science-fans who eat up the over-sensationalized reporting and repeat it, often without even understanding what any of it really means.
I mean, I'm interested. I wouldn't come in here just to poop on everyone's parade and say, "boring!" I'm responding to someone else who essentially said "not surprising, all kinds of crazy things happen on the quantum level" and I offered an agreement with modifications. But I'm reading all this to see what people have to say.
Still, while I'm interested, lots of people are going to take this one speculative piece of research and run with it, trying to use their high-school-level physics knowledge to overturn all of physics as we know it. And again, don't get me wrong: that stuff is fun too. But... you know... sometimes I get over-sensationalized-science-fatigue.
And pardon me, but it sounds like you're saying they're right. :/
I'd be more likely to be more interested in more things if they didn't go "ZOMG Star Trek!" Everyone always going "ZOMG Star Trek!" makes people like me (who generally do have some interest in science) go "Yeah, yeah, whatever. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."