Exactly. I do development, and I get that. My job is to make sure the users can do their jobs. Sometimes, it is even to make sure the user is just happy, even if there is no direct provable improvement. Some developers get this, some don't. It seems few admins understand that this is also their role.
Then you would wake up from the dream you are having. What world do you live in where you have 50 users getting a virus that bypasses their anti-virus software every day? That is pure fantasy. You make it sound like 100 users is a lot for a single person to support. It's not. You are not personal assistants, out picking up laundry. You are are in the computer industry. That means that much of your job can be automated, and with few exceptions, all of your users problems should be able to be solved without even getting up from your desk. When you scale that up, it gets easier.
Your claim of 1000 different configurations, while technically may be true, claiming that creates big problems is a little like claiming that 1000 configuration of human make it impossible to support the company toilet with only 100 people. Different configurations do not necessarily create more work.
Yeah, I should separate my work life and personal life. That way, instead of sitting here and working from the comfort of my home, hearing my son singing in the other room, and enjoying the time we just spent having lunch together, I can commute to an office, leave my child to be raised by someone else. I could have missed out on seeing his first steps, and hearing his first words. I could have some day care provider tell me about it instead of witnessing it first hand. I could have lunch in my cube instead of in my kitchen with my son. Instead of taking the 6 week road trip that I took with my wife and son last summer, I could have spent that time in a little cubicle and seen my son for a couple of hours a day between the time I got home from the office, and the time that he needed to go to bed.
I would get all the benefits of missing out on my family AND could proudly say I wasn't a slave. Your suggestion doesn't solve the problem that you think it does. The problem is when work takes part of your personal life without offering a reasonable exchange. The fact is that work life by it's very nature is taking away from your personal life. If you have an employer that doesn't respect your personal life, they are not going to respect it when you separate work from personal. All you will end up with is less personal life, because you are still going to have to do the work. So, the only way to keep them separate is to not include any personal.
The total separation of work and personal life is dandy for those that don't really want to interact with their spouse or children. Me, I like mine.
When it switches you between apps, it is following your trail back the way it came. On the iPhone, the button isn't even consistently there. As far as consistency goes, Androids back button sweeps the floor with iPhone's.
If you count the PS3 being the first console I have not owned since the NES, and one of the few that I have not owned since games systems have been sold to the public.
Only if you subscribe to the philosophy that all acts are selfish acts. I have known many selfish people that I would not have called "evil". On the other hand, I have know a couple of people that actually try to cause harm other around them strictly to make sure that other people are hurt and unhappy. They will do this even when they recognize that they not only have nothing to gain, but when it will cost them a good deal of time and money. They had consciously made the decision that happiness must be destroyed, and they took action to destroy it. THAT is evil.
Nope. The Square credit card reader has been out for almost a year, and it uses this method. One of the benefits is that the same hardware works on android. Heck, it would be trivial to make it also work on a PC.
I get that you may prefer the iPhone, but how could you possibly think that a back button that is always there because it is a physical button that is always in your field, is "hiding" is beyond me. It also amazes me that using an arrow that is a curvy line with a point at the end would be so much harder for you to use than an arrow that is a pentagon. They are both arrows, and they both take you back the way you came....
My favorite is a client that won't let me connect my laptop with a wire to their network because it would be a security violation to allow any non-company computer to connect physically to the network. They do allow me to VPN in though, so when I am at their site, I have to use my cell phone as a modem to get out to the internet so that I can VPN back into the building that I am sitting in. Apparently, they see it as being more secure to send the data out first to the internet.
They are both medical procedures that carry risk. Seems like they have a LOT to do with each other. If you can't see the connection between two medical procedures where it is suggested that they be mandatory for the benefit of OTHER people, your just not looking hard enough.
No, I am not. If you look at this entire discussion, the argument is whether "vaccines" are good or bad. Look at all of the people pointing out how 'stupid' other people are for not understanding that Wakefield's 'study' only concerned specific vaccines, yet many people avoided all vaccines because they didn't know the difference. Getting vaccinated is generally rounded up into one big ball in most peoples minds. Try asking the next ten parents what vaccines were given to their kids. Specifically. Some might be able to tell you mumps, polio, or chicken pox, but beyond that they are will likely tell you that they don't know. I would be that not one of the those ten parents could tell you all of the vaccines their kids were given. Why? Because most people don't know one vaccine from the next. This leads both the avoidance of good vaccines, and the unquestioned acceptance of bad ones.
The parent poster said:
The simple question: should I vaccinate my kids? is now complicated.
You said gave answer of:
No, it isn't.
Your answer is wrong. When I called you on it, you used the excuse that the subject is too complicated to give a yes or no answer, which is what the parent poster said, and you argued.
You claim that the conversation is about the "controversial" vaccines. If that was the case, there would be no "controversy". There are alternative vaccines for all of the disease that were covered by Wakefield's 'study'. If people were not confused and lumping all vaccines in together, they would just use the alternatives, and that would be the end of the story.
Even you are confused as you claim the polio vaccine should not be given to children. The primary recipient of the polio vaccine is children. Only high risk adults get the polio vaccine. Obviously the subject is too complicated for you to fully grasp, and thus, if a highly intelligent person like you finds it complicated, you can't expect normal people to find it simple.
What has happened here is that you made a general statement about vaccines that was simply wrong. When called on it, you tried to change your meaning by claiming that you only meant the vaccines made "contraversal" by Wakefield. The problem is that people either fall in the group that thinks that all vaccines are harmful, in which case you are wrong; or the fall into the group that understands what vaccines were covered by Wakefield, and even if they believed the 'study', would have just used one of the other vaccines for the same disease with no controversy. Thus you would still be wrong.
It is not that I am being pedantic. It is that there is no combination of meanings in what you said that can leave you correct.
No, Slashdot has gotten more of the mindset that technology is sent for the hoary nether world to corrupt us bring about the end of mankind. You notice a lack of curiosity concerning tech, I have noticed a distinct distrust and aversion to it.
Well, keep in mind that 20/20 is not 'perfect' eyesight. it means that you should be able to see thing that are 20' like they are 20' away. 30/20 might be better. 200/20 would put you in the realm of super hero. (I might have the numbers reversed. It has been a while since I looked this up.) So, perticularly when talking about looking at a monitor, 20/20 doesn't even come into play.
That being said, there are a lot of people that think they have better eyesight than they do. Sometimes this is because of denial, sometimes it is because they got a crappy eye exam that told them wrong, and sometimes they remember being told that they had 20/20 vision 25 years ago, and it hasn't struck them that their vision might have gotten worse.
I know that I was told I had 20/20 vision when there was no doubt in my mind that my vision was horrible. For a long time, I didn't even realize that my vision was bad. When things change gradually enough, you often don't notice anything changed at all. When I did finally get glasses, it was amazing.
I did end up getting laser surgery, and I am glad I did. Not only were glasses expensive, but they tended to scratch, fog up, and get dirty. All of these things lead to worse vision for me. Having glasses is a pain in the butt. Yes, one can get used to them, but it is still a fair amount of trouble.
My wife's vision on the other hand, was saved by laser surgery. By 28, she was 'legally blind'. She could see reasonable well with glasses, but without them, just getting around an unfamiliar room was a chore. The worst part was that like clockwork, every year when her eyes were tested, they would be another half point worse. I doubt she would still be able to see today, even with glasses, if she had not had surgery. She got surgery almost 10 years ago, and she is just now starting to notice slightly worse eyesight. I don't know why having glasses was making her eyesight worse, but it seems they were.
You only just noticed how anti-tech slashdot has become? Look at most threads about technology, and you will find it full of comments about how it will never catch on, it is unnecessary, or the old version is better.
I would agree with you, but the prevalence of people using wifi routers instead of just running a 15-foot long cat-5 cable would indicate that there is a market for using wireless where a wire would work better.
Except that isn't true. You speak of "vaccines" as if they are all the exact same thing. They are not, and pretending like they are is dangerous. I will agree that we can see the results of the polio vaccine, but there is no way that we can be sure of the side effects of the chicken pox vaccine. The particular side effect I am concerned with is making the virus WAY more deadly. You see, chicken pox is a major inconvenience for a child. To put it in perspective, it is less risky than playing high school football. Chicken pox is dramatically more dangerous for an adult. At the time that I had to choose whether to give it to my child, it had not been tested long enough to find out if it provided life long immunity like actually catching the disease does, or if it just delayed the disease long enough to become more dangerous.
Given the low risk from catching chicken pox as a child, I chose not to have it administered to my child. 3 years later, large outbreak of chicken pox started showing up in schools with almost 100% immunization. As it turns out, the vaccine doesn't provide life long protection. The recommendations to pediatricians was to start giving boosters at (I believe) 5 years of age.
Now, this might protect them for life, or it might just protect them long enough that the people involved in the decision have made (or saved) their money, and the child (now an adult) can deal with an unnecessarily life threatening disease on their own dime.
Point being is that the risk reward, and known issues are vastly different when comparing the the polio vaccine vs. the chicken pox vaccine. Lumping all vaccines into a single category as if they all have the same risk/reward SHOULD fuel suspicion.
Do we get to persecute you if your child falls off a bicycle, is injured playing high school football, or is hit by a car crossing the street? All of these have proven to harm and even kill children. In fact in the case of the chicken pox vaccine, a child that is allowed to play high school football is MORE likely to be killed by it than a child that has not been immunized for chicken pox.
I have seen many an abusive parent. From psychological abuse, to neglect, to drugging them up for medical conditions that don't exist, to literally pimping them out in the sex trade. Not one of those people refused vaccinations. The only people that I have ever seen refuse vaccinations were people who have looked at the information, and made a consiouse decision to not get the vaccines based off that information. One can argue whether the information they got was good or bad, and one can argue whether the parents interpreted the information they got well, or poorly. Claiming that they were neglectful is intellectually dishonest, and it is encouraging parent NOT to look at the available information, but to just do what everyone else is doing. Mobs have many heads but no brains.
Of course, we see the same kind of stupidity with people supporting vaccines that we see with the ones condemning them. How many people (other than you) in this discussion are talking about particular vaccines. Many of the pro-vaccine folks here are calling anyone that doesn't get vaccines 'killers', and suggesting that they should go to jail. They don't say that people who don't get the measles vaccine are bad, or the polio vaccine. They just say vaccine.
I can tell you that for my child, there was no question about getting the polio vaccine. The risk of not taking the vaccine was far greater than the risk of taking it. Heck, I even told my 1 year old son that we were going to the doctor to get a shot, and what it was for. The chicken pox vaccine on the other hand is just down right scary. It is a major childhood inconvenience, that is being delayed long enough to become a deadly adult disease by a vaccine that doesn't provide life long immunity. Since everyone in the chain makes money off of delaying the disease into adulthood, except for the child, the push is to keep giving them the vaccine. Heck, even the CDC has listed "Expense of parent missing work" as a reason to give your child the chicken pox vaccine.
Lumping 'Vaccines" as a single entity is simply dumb. It is dumb whether you lump them all as bad, or lump them all as good. You may come to the conclusion that they are all good or bad, but one being good does not make another bad and vice versa.
Every single day, parents make choices that effect their child. Many of them will be considered damaging for life by others. So, who, if not the parent, gets to decide what is good and what is bad for a child?
Well, when your definition of a 'whack-job' is someone who homeschools their child, then yes, ALL of them will be 'whack-jobs' in your view. When I was first looking into how to legally home school my child, I went to a talk being given by a small school supply store. After she went over the legalities, she started talking to me about the 'real reason' for public school. The red flags started going up in my head. The woman sounded like a loon. What made her sound crazy was that she was claiming that the point of public school wasn't about education (It's been shown that home schooling produces a better education), but instead that the public school was a large scale socialization project. People like you keep validating her crazy. And, there are a lot of you.
Your use of "normal" to define public school kids can only be defined as "common". It is generally considered 'wierd' by people to have a well educated child who can interact with both his own age group, as well as those that are older and younger than themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. I do development, and I get that. My job is to make sure the users can do their jobs. Sometimes, it is even to make sure the user is just happy, even if there is no direct provable improvement. Some developers get this, some don't. It seems few admins understand that this is also their role.
Then you would wake up from the dream you are having. What world do you live in where you have 50 users getting a virus that bypasses their anti-virus software every day? That is pure fantasy. You make it sound like 100 users is a lot for a single person to support. It's not. You are not personal assistants, out picking up laundry. You are are in the computer industry. That means that much of your job can be automated, and with few exceptions, all of your users problems should be able to be solved without even getting up from your desk. When you scale that up, it gets easier.
Your claim of 1000 different configurations, while technically may be true, claiming that creates big problems is a little like claiming that 1000 configuration of human make it impossible to support the company toilet with only 100 people. Different configurations do not necessarily create more work.
So, you think we should all have stuck with mainframes then, and your job should never have existed in the first place?
Yeah, I should separate my work life and personal life. That way, instead of sitting here and working from the comfort of my home, hearing my son singing in the other room, and enjoying the time we just spent having lunch together, I can commute to an office, leave my child to be raised by someone else. I could have missed out on seeing his first steps, and hearing his first words. I could have some day care provider tell me about it instead of witnessing it first hand. I could have lunch in my cube instead of in my kitchen with my son. Instead of taking the 6 week road trip that I took with my wife and son last summer, I could have spent that time in a little cubicle and seen my son for a couple of hours a day between the time I got home from the office, and the time that he needed to go to bed.
I would get all the benefits of missing out on my family AND could proudly say I wasn't a slave. Your suggestion doesn't solve the problem that you think it does. The problem is when work takes part of your personal life without offering a reasonable exchange. The fact is that work life by it's very nature is taking away from your personal life. If you have an employer that doesn't respect your personal life, they are not going to respect it when you separate work from personal. All you will end up with is less personal life, because you are still going to have to do the work. So, the only way to keep them separate is to not include any personal.
The total separation of work and personal life is dandy for those that don't really want to interact with their spouse or children. Me, I like mine.
When it switches you between apps, it is following your trail back the way it came. On the iPhone, the button isn't even consistently there. As far as consistency goes, Androids back button sweeps the floor with iPhone's.
If you count the PS3 being the first console I have not owned since the NES, and one of the few that I have not owned since games systems have been sold to the public.
Only if you subscribe to the philosophy that all acts are selfish acts. I have known many selfish people that I would not have called "evil". On the other hand, I have know a couple of people that actually try to cause harm other around them strictly to make sure that other people are hurt and unhappy. They will do this even when they recognize that they not only have nothing to gain, but when it will cost them a good deal of time and money. They had consciously made the decision that happiness must be destroyed, and they took action to destroy it. THAT is evil.
Nope. It is already in wide use. https://squareup.com/
Nope. The Square credit card reader has been out for almost a year, and it uses this method. One of the benefits is that the same hardware works on android. Heck, it would be trivial to make it also work on a PC.
I get that you may prefer the iPhone, but how could you possibly think that a back button that is always there because it is a physical button that is always in your field, is "hiding" is beyond me. It also amazes me that using an arrow that is a curvy line with a point at the end would be so much harder for you to use than an arrow that is a pentagon. They are both arrows, and they both take you back the way you came....
Yep, the "Researchers" have discovered that it is possible to do something that has been in commercial use since last year.
http://www.smarthome.com/iphone_apps.html
Yes, you can do it with Android too.
My favorite is a client that won't let me connect my laptop with a wire to their network because it would be a security violation to allow any non-company computer to connect physically to the network. They do allow me to VPN in though, so when I am at their site, I have to use my cell phone as a modem to get out to the internet so that I can VPN back into the building that I am sitting in. Apparently, they see it as being more secure to send the data out first to the internet.
There is a big difference between not letting a child do something in a public place, and forcing them to do something in private.
Just like telling your wife that she is not allowed to have sex in public places is totally different that forcing her to do it in a private place.
They are both medical procedures that carry risk. Seems like they have a LOT to do with each other. If you can't see the connection between two medical procedures where it is suggested that they be mandatory for the benefit of OTHER people, your just not looking hard enough.
The parent poster said:
The simple question: should I vaccinate my kids? is now complicated.
You said gave answer of:
No, it isn't.
Your answer is wrong. When I called you on it, you used the excuse that the subject is too complicated to give a yes or no answer, which is what the parent poster said, and you argued.
You claim that the conversation is about the "controversial" vaccines. If that was the case, there would be no "controversy". There are alternative vaccines for all of the disease that were covered by Wakefield's 'study'. If people were not confused and lumping all vaccines in together, they would just use the alternatives, and that would be the end of the story.
Even you are confused as you claim the polio vaccine should not be given to children. The primary recipient of the polio vaccine is children. Only high risk adults get the polio vaccine. Obviously the subject is too complicated for you to fully grasp, and thus, if a highly intelligent person like you finds it complicated, you can't expect normal people to find it simple.
What has happened here is that you made a general statement about vaccines that was simply wrong. When called on it, you tried to change your meaning by claiming that you only meant the vaccines made "contraversal" by Wakefield. The problem is that people either fall in the group that thinks that all vaccines are harmful, in which case you are wrong; or the fall into the group that understands what vaccines were covered by Wakefield, and even if they believed the 'study', would have just used one of the other vaccines for the same disease with no controversy. Thus you would still be wrong.
It is not that I am being pedantic. It is that there is no combination of meanings in what you said that can leave you correct.
No, Slashdot has gotten more of the mindset that technology is sent for the hoary nether world to corrupt us bring about the end of mankind. You notice a lack of curiosity concerning tech, I have noticed a distinct distrust and aversion to it.
Well, keep in mind that 20/20 is not 'perfect' eyesight. it means that you should be able to see thing that are 20' like they are 20' away. 30/20 might be better. 200/20 would put you in the realm of super hero. (I might have the numbers reversed. It has been a while since I looked this up.) So, perticularly when talking about looking at a monitor, 20/20 doesn't even come into play.
That being said, there are a lot of people that think they have better eyesight than they do. Sometimes this is because of denial, sometimes it is because they got a crappy eye exam that told them wrong, and sometimes they remember being told that they had 20/20 vision 25 years ago, and it hasn't struck them that their vision might have gotten worse.
I know that I was told I had 20/20 vision when there was no doubt in my mind that my vision was horrible. For a long time, I didn't even realize that my vision was bad. When things change gradually enough, you often don't notice anything changed at all. When I did finally get glasses, it was amazing.
I did end up getting laser surgery, and I am glad I did. Not only were glasses expensive, but they tended to scratch, fog up, and get dirty. All of these things lead to worse vision for me. Having glasses is a pain in the butt. Yes, one can get used to them, but it is still a fair amount of trouble.
My wife's vision on the other hand, was saved by laser surgery. By 28, she was 'legally blind'. She could see reasonable well with glasses, but without them, just getting around an unfamiliar room was a chore. The worst part was that like clockwork, every year when her eyes were tested, they would be another half point worse. I doubt she would still be able to see today, even with glasses, if she had not had surgery. She got surgery almost 10 years ago, and she is just now starting to notice slightly worse eyesight. I don't know why having glasses was making her eyesight worse, but it seems they were.
You only just noticed how anti-tech slashdot has become? Look at most threads about technology, and you will find it full of comments about how it will never catch on, it is unnecessary, or the old version is better.
I would agree with you, but the prevalence of people using wifi routers instead of just running a 15-foot long cat-5 cable would indicate that there is a market for using wireless where a wire would work better.
Except that isn't true. You speak of "vaccines" as if they are all the exact same thing. They are not, and pretending like they are is dangerous. I will agree that we can see the results of the polio vaccine, but there is no way that we can be sure of the side effects of the chicken pox vaccine. The particular side effect I am concerned with is making the virus WAY more deadly. You see, chicken pox is a major inconvenience for a child. To put it in perspective, it is less risky than playing high school football. Chicken pox is dramatically more dangerous for an adult. At the time that I had to choose whether to give it to my child, it had not been tested long enough to find out if it provided life long immunity like actually catching the disease does, or if it just delayed the disease long enough to become more dangerous.
Given the low risk from catching chicken pox as a child, I chose not to have it administered to my child. 3 years later, large outbreak of chicken pox started showing up in schools with almost 100% immunization. As it turns out, the vaccine doesn't provide life long protection. The recommendations to pediatricians was to start giving boosters at (I believe) 5 years of age.
Now, this might protect them for life, or it might just protect them long enough that the people involved in the decision have made (or saved) their money, and the child (now an adult) can deal with an unnecessarily life threatening disease on their own dime.
Point being is that the risk reward, and known issues are vastly different when comparing the the polio vaccine vs. the chicken pox vaccine. Lumping all vaccines into a single category as if they all have the same risk/reward SHOULD fuel suspicion.
Do we get to persecute you if your child falls off a bicycle, is injured playing high school football, or is hit by a car crossing the street? All of these have proven to harm and even kill children. In fact in the case of the chicken pox vaccine, a child that is allowed to play high school football is MORE likely to be killed by it than a child that has not been immunized for chicken pox.
I have seen many an abusive parent. From psychological abuse, to neglect, to drugging them up for medical conditions that don't exist, to literally pimping them out in the sex trade. Not one of those people refused vaccinations. The only people that I have ever seen refuse vaccinations were people who have looked at the information, and made a consiouse decision to not get the vaccines based off that information. One can argue whether the information they got was good or bad, and one can argue whether the parents interpreted the information they got well, or poorly. Claiming that they were neglectful is intellectually dishonest, and it is encouraging parent NOT to look at the available information, but to just do what everyone else is doing. Mobs have many heads but no brains.
Of course, we see the same kind of stupidity with people supporting vaccines that we see with the ones condemning them. How many people (other than you) in this discussion are talking about particular vaccines. Many of the pro-vaccine folks here are calling anyone that doesn't get vaccines 'killers', and suggesting that they should go to jail. They don't say that people who don't get the measles vaccine are bad, or the polio vaccine. They just say vaccine.
I can tell you that for my child, there was no question about getting the polio vaccine. The risk of not taking the vaccine was far greater than the risk of taking it. Heck, I even told my 1 year old son that we were going to the doctor to get a shot, and what it was for. The chicken pox vaccine on the other hand is just down right scary. It is a major childhood inconvenience, that is being delayed long enough to become a deadly adult disease by a vaccine that doesn't provide life long immunity. Since everyone in the chain makes money off of delaying the disease into adulthood, except for the child, the push is to keep giving them the vaccine. Heck, even the CDC has listed "Expense of parent missing work" as a reason to give your child the chicken pox vaccine.
Lumping 'Vaccines" as a single entity is simply dumb. It is dumb whether you lump them all as bad, or lump them all as good. You may come to the conclusion that they are all good or bad, but one being good does not make another bad and vice versa.
Every single day, parents make choices that effect their child. Many of them will be considered damaging for life by others. So, who, if not the parent, gets to decide what is good and what is bad for a child?
Well, when your definition of a 'whack-job' is someone who homeschools their child, then yes, ALL of them will be 'whack-jobs' in your view. When I was first looking into how to legally home school my child, I went to a talk being given by a small school supply store. After she went over the legalities, she started talking to me about the 'real reason' for public school. The red flags started going up in my head. The woman sounded like a loon. What made her sound crazy was that she was claiming that the point of public school wasn't about education (It's been shown that home schooling produces a better education), but instead that the public school was a large scale socialization project. People like you keep validating her crazy. And, there are a lot of you.
Your use of "normal" to define public school kids can only be defined as "common". It is generally considered 'wierd' by people to have a well educated child who can interact with both his own age group, as well as those that are older and younger than themselves.