Play-acting on video as a child? No employer's going to care.
Sued your classmates for emotional harassment for over 300k$ without real financial damages incurred? He just screwed himself out of a lot of jobs. How many employers do you know that will take the possible frivolous lawsuit risk over the other qualified applicants?
And, in his defense, he's allowed to tell you to STFUn00b... and then you're allowed to be all 'hey, i can post what I want', and then I'm allowed to be all "yeah, but he can tell you to STFUn00b", and then you...
However, humiliation is one of those things that's scaled with personality: you're only humiliated if you lose your personal balance completely. Disciplined people don't become humiliated because they control themselves and know that anything other than a feeling of mild embarassment is counterproductive. Driven people aren't humiliated because they think of things in terms of obstacles and setbacks: they don't think about their reputation being injured, they think about their plans being delayed, and are annoyed rather than humiliated. Socially gracful people just find their own failures amusing so long as no one gets hurt. And slackers just don't care.
So, in all honesty, if the kid was really 'humiliated' by the simple amusement of others, that does tell us something about his personality: that he falls into the 'thin-skinned'/'can't take a joke' category of people.
Of course, abusing the weak is generally considered pretty dishonorable, so if the harassment went very far beyond posting the video and a few wisecracks, then seeking legal protection was probably an appropriate course. The kid should really toughen up, but continually taking advantage of his weakness isn't the way to accomplish that.
Was this a video of the kid commiting a severely criminal act, or a sex tape? Because short of that, I assure you no one will give a damn in the post high-school world. At most, they'll find it amusing and it will lead to a conversation about the stupid stuff they did as a kid. The fact that he got in a lawsuit over a bit of name-calling is more likely to impact his future employment and social life than an embarassing video ever could.
(Seriously. Do you worry about permanent social and career damage from your mother showing baby pictures of you to the neighbors, too? That maybe a stalker will steal one and follow you around, bothering you about what a pretty baby you were? Talk about paranoid.)
Except for the whole "no one caring about random shit on the internet" thing. If this kid walked up to 90% (-randomly selected percentage to indicate overwhelming majority) of arbitrarily selected people and started a conversation, they'd have absolutely no clue who he was, or whether he'd been on the internet in the past. I know I wouldn't. And as for college, no one cares about what you did in middle school or high school, that's what makes it college.
Science isn't about viewing the past, it's about predicting the future. The only reason we look at the past is to make sure the math checks out. Anything beyond that is history, which is half science and half general curiosity. Not to bash general curiosity, of course, as it keeps life interesting.
Cell phone wasn't ever for calling anyone but my parents anyhow: they got to look at the bill. I assume it's the same way nowadays, though perhaps kids have been struck by a strange stupidity-causing disease and can no longer remember seven-digit numbers or write them on a card in their wallet.
My mom used to keep me on a leash (harness, not collar, obviously) when I was like 2-4 years old in department stores (especially clothing, where there are about 1000000 places someone 2-3 feet tall can be completely concealed by the terrain). I learned to operate the latch when she wasn't looking and would wander off anyhow.
It's very similar to this device. It's really nice to keep track of your kids in case they get in an accident of kidnapped or something beyond their control where they need your help, but if they actually want to escape (in my case, to play hide-and-seek in the winter clothing racks) then it's going to do approximately jack.
On a side note, the fact that I could operate a 'child-proof' locked metal latch before I knew how to construct a proper sentence was great foreshadowing for my future profession. I think it's also the reason that my mother's hair was grey by the time I was 17 (my siblings were never half the pain I was without even trying).
I have absolutely no hard feelings about the leash, by the way. I think that anything that a dog can put up with and benefit from a kid can take just as well... in fact, I'm often hard-pressed to find the differences between a 5-year-old and a laborador at all, short of the dog being somewhat smarter.
Your wording is a little hard to dechiper, but what I think you're saying is:
"Yeah, the kids will be able to dodge the monitoring: who cares? Behavior control isn't what tracking is for: if something bad and outside their control happens to them (kidnapping, traffic accident, lost and need you to help them figure out where they are) this makes the parents' aid much faster and more effective. That's the point." If this is what you're saying, I agree, on the grounds that it's what I recall my parents doing with the cell phone stuff when i was a kid(not a parent myself yet, praise Jesus).
Amen to the hot plate thing, by the way. Those things still give me mild scars occasionally, and I'm two advanced degrees and a hundred fifty pounds past being a two years old. And don't get me started on restaurants overdoing the heated silverware...
I'm assuming it's a mix of metaphor and hyperbole. Corporal punishment is actually a perfectly workable system, done right, though it varies from person to person in its effect as any form of punishment might.
The answer to your question is "Yes". And you won't actually catch him at it until he's gone about 4 months into the 'dodging surveillance' cycle and progressed into actual criminal activity (petty crime, generally). Though you won't find out about it like that, of course: you'll hear about how you caught them the first time they dodged and they were just slipping away to buy porn and were embarassed. They DEFINITELY haven't been off drinking and having sex with adults they meet in clubs using fake IDs for the last month, no, sir/wink/wink.
Seriously, man. I was a kid once, I'm assuming you were too. You know damn well that the "my parents are being dicks, but i can easily outthink their system" situation does to an adolescent mind. Hopping off the bridge looks like a stupid idea until someone cages you in to prevent you getting to the bridge at all.
"They need to dump about 8 hours worth of sedatives into the bloodstream"
Wow, so child molesters don't even have to slip something in your drink anymore before they rape you, they can now knock you out with a tiny radio jamming device from 50 feet away!
I have yet to work for any corporation that thinks there is "business value" in instant messaging.
So, what you're saying here is, you haven't been fortunate enough to get a manager who's an idiot yet?:-P
If you are a IT guy who gets a thrill out of locking down the computers so that the equipment is used for "work" only, then I want you to start monitoring all of my phone calls for personal use too.
It's generally done, and in most cases probably should be, as the employees involved generally agreed to commit a number of hours a day to, you know, working.
Or, you could, you know, think three hours in advance and leave a note for the delivery man.
The reason you go to work is to do work. The outside world impinging upon your work time is acceptable and often necessary, but if you are by your own choice going off and engaging in things that aren't part of your job during the time that you have agreed to work, then you need to inform your employer so that they can stop paying you. It's a simple matter of keeping your word: a contract is no less a promise than any other commitment you might make.
"has very little exposure to the technology he oversees."
It's technology he's not overseeing... that's the entire reason why it's getting restricted in the first place. Seems plenty logical to me. I'm impressed by both your hypothetical boss's fashion sense and the fact that he's more sensible, apparently, than his employees.
Uh, no. It's partial specific heat times mass integrated with respect to temperature. Anyone with half a week of thermodynamics under his belt could tell you that. (Bonus question: what are partial specific heats the result of? That's right, overall composition. So separating the equations doesn't really help you at all.)
Expensive clothes? Jeans = 20-40$ new, slacks = 10-20$ new. T-shirt ~ 10$, collared shirt ~10$. Tie ~ 5$, and you only need one. The only thing more expensive about business attire it the jacket for the really formal stuff. And shoes... I've heard tennis shoes are selling for 50$ these days? I wouldn't know, I haven't bought anything (aparrt from hiking boots) but business-suitable walkers since about eighth grade, and never for over 30$.
It's never been about expense. It's been about cultivating an air of casual reserve and dignity: employers probably hope that if employees pretend to be stable and dependable long enough, some of it will rub off and become the reality. Then, I naturally dress in what's currently styled 'business casual', so I'm probably a bit biased.
"Let's say you want to buy a book. So you go to the bookstore. Now what are you more likely to consider as a good book? A book with a nice cover, or a book with an old ripped cover?"
Well, if it's the same book (which it would have to be, to be a analogue of the situation in the GP post, where you get a car salesman either way) then you obviously go for the well-maintained book, because that's the best value for your money, unless you're planning to use your purchase for firewood or something. Way to come up with an analogy with an obvious result totally counter to your intended point.
So taking screenshots, AKA Graphics directly from the artistic piece produced by blizzard, copying them, and then selling them is not exceeding fair use? Sweet! I'm going to go cut up a David Lynch movie, put it together in a different order (no one would notice) and sell copies of my "fair use" on EBay!
They want people that care about the job. Being willing to wear a suit and tie (which, lets face it, no one really _likes_ wearing, or you'd see a lot of people in their underwear and a collared shirt and tie coming out to get the paper in the morning) indicates a willingness to sacrifice personal comfort to see the job done right. Which, let's face it, is a much more desirable quality in an employee than any amount of smarts will ever be.
Slashdot Mirror
Play-acting on video as a child? No employer's going to care.
Sued your classmates for emotional harassment for over 300k$ without real financial damages incurred? He just screwed himself out of a lot of jobs. How many employers do you know that will take the possible frivolous lawsuit risk over the other qualified applicants?
And, in his defense, he's allowed to tell you to STFUn00b... and then you're allowed to be all 'hey, i can post what I want', and then I'm allowed to be all "yeah, but he can tell you to STFUn00b", and then you...
However, humiliation is one of those things that's scaled with personality: you're only humiliated if you lose your personal balance completely. Disciplined people don't become humiliated because they control themselves and know that anything other than a feeling of mild embarassment is counterproductive. Driven people aren't humiliated because they think of things in terms of obstacles and setbacks: they don't think about their reputation being injured, they think about their plans being delayed, and are annoyed rather than humiliated. Socially gracful people just find their own failures amusing so long as no one gets hurt. And slackers just don't care.
So, in all honesty, if the kid was really 'humiliated' by the simple amusement of others, that does tell us something about his personality: that he falls into the 'thin-skinned'/'can't take a joke' category of people.
Of course, abusing the weak is generally considered pretty dishonorable, so if the harassment went very far beyond posting the video and a few wisecracks, then seeking legal protection was probably an appropriate course. The kid should really toughen up, but continually taking advantage of his weakness isn't the way to accomplish that.
Was this a video of the kid commiting a severely criminal act, or a sex tape? Because short of that, I assure you no one will give a damn in the post high-school world. At most, they'll find it amusing and it will lead to a conversation about the stupid stuff they did as a kid. The fact that he got in a lawsuit over a bit of name-calling is more likely to impact his future employment and social life than an embarassing video ever could.
(Seriously. Do you worry about permanent social and career damage from your mother showing baby pictures of you to the neighbors, too? That maybe a stalker will steal one and follow you around, bothering you about what a pretty baby you were? Talk about paranoid.)
Except for the whole "no one caring about random shit on the internet" thing. If this kid walked up to 90% (-randomly selected percentage to indicate overwhelming majority) of arbitrarily selected people and started a conversation, they'd have absolutely no clue who he was, or whether he'd been on the internet in the past. I know I wouldn't. And as for college, no one cares about what you did in middle school or high school, that's what makes it college.
"...puns and knock-knock jokes..."
No, he said humor.
Science isn't about viewing the past, it's about predicting the future. The only reason we look at the past is to make sure the math checks out. Anything beyond that is history, which is half science and half general curiosity. Not to bash general curiosity, of course, as it keeps life interesting.
Um, ID started in the Great Britain because of backlash against the atheist misinterpretation of Darwin's theory, which was published there first.
:-P
There, fixed it for you.
Basic knowledge of the history of the subject you're discussing is your friend.
Pay. Phone.
Cell phone wasn't ever for calling anyone but my parents anyhow: they got to look at the bill. I assume it's the same way nowadays, though perhaps kids have been struck by a strange stupidity-causing disease and can no longer remember seven-digit numbers or write them on a card in their wallet.
My mom used to keep me on a leash (harness, not collar, obviously) when I was like 2-4 years old in department stores (especially clothing, where there are about 1000000 places someone 2-3 feet tall can be completely concealed by the terrain). I learned to operate the latch when she wasn't looking and would wander off anyhow.
It's very similar to this device. It's really nice to keep track of your kids in case they get in an accident of kidnapped or something beyond their control where they need your help, but if they actually want to escape (in my case, to play hide-and-seek in the winter clothing racks) then it's going to do approximately jack.
On a side note, the fact that I could operate a 'child-proof' locked metal latch before I knew how to construct a proper sentence was great foreshadowing for my future profession. I think it's also the reason that my mother's hair was grey by the time I was 17 (my siblings were never half the pain I was without even trying).
I have absolutely no hard feelings about the leash, by the way. I think that anything that a dog can put up with and benefit from a kid can take just as well... in fact, I'm often hard-pressed to find the differences between a 5-year-old and a laborador at all, short of the dog being somewhat smarter.
Eh, most kids know basic electronics these days. They don't turn it off, they disconnect the battery ;).
Your wording is a little hard to dechiper, but what I think you're saying is:
"Yeah, the kids will be able to dodge the monitoring: who cares? Behavior control isn't what tracking is for: if something bad and outside their control happens to them (kidnapping, traffic accident, lost and need you to help them figure out where they are) this makes the parents' aid much faster and more effective. That's the point." If this is what you're saying, I agree, on the grounds that it's what I recall my parents doing with the cell phone stuff when i was a kid(not a parent myself yet, praise Jesus).
Amen to the hot plate thing, by the way. Those things still give me mild scars occasionally, and I'm two advanced degrees and a hundred fifty pounds past being a two years old. And don't get me started on restaurants overdoing the heated silverware...
I'm assuming it's a mix of metaphor and hyperbole. Corporal punishment is actually a perfectly workable system, done right, though it varies from person to person in its effect as any form of punishment might.
The answer to your question is "Yes". And you won't actually catch him at it until he's gone about 4 months into the 'dodging surveillance' cycle and progressed into actual criminal activity (petty crime, generally). Though you won't find out about it like that, of course: you'll hear about how you caught them the first time they dodged and they were just slipping away to buy porn and were embarassed. They DEFINITELY haven't been off drinking and having sex with adults they meet in clubs using fake IDs for the last month, no, sir /wink /wink.
Seriously, man. I was a kid once, I'm assuming you were too. You know damn well that the "my parents are being dicks, but i can easily outthink their system" situation does to an adolescent mind. Hopping off the bridge looks like a stupid idea until someone cages you in to prevent you getting to the bridge at all.
"They need to dump about 8 hours worth of sedatives into the bloodstream"
Wow, so child molesters don't even have to slip something in your drink anymore before they rape you, they can now knock you out with a tiny radio jamming device from 50 feet away!
The 21st really is the century of convenience.
"...it doesn't exist in a rural society or small town."
As someone who grew up in one, boy, would you ever be surprised.
I have yet to work for any corporation that thinks there is "business value" in instant messaging.
:-P
So, what you're saying here is, you haven't been fortunate enough to get a manager who's an idiot yet?
If you are a IT guy who gets a thrill out of locking down the computers so that the equipment is used for "work" only, then I want you to start monitoring all of my phone calls for personal use too.
It's generally done, and in most cases probably should be, as the employees involved generally agreed to commit a number of hours a day to, you know, working.
Or, you could, you know, think three hours in advance and leave a note for the delivery man.
The reason you go to work is to do work. The outside world impinging upon your work time is acceptable and often necessary, but if you are by your own choice going off and engaging in things that aren't part of your job during the time that you have agreed to work, then you need to inform your employer so that they can stop paying you. It's a simple matter of keeping your word: a contract is no less a promise than any other commitment you might make.
"has very little exposure to the technology he oversees."
It's technology he's not overseeing... that's the entire reason why it's getting restricted in the first place. Seems plenty logical to me. I'm impressed by both your hypothetical boss's fashion sense and the fact that he's more sensible, apparently, than his employees.
Uh, no. It's partial specific heat times mass integrated with respect to temperature. Anyone with half a week of thermodynamics under his belt could tell you that. (Bonus question: what are partial specific heats the result of? That's right, overall composition. So separating the equations doesn't really help you at all.)
Expensive clothes? Jeans = 20-40$ new, slacks = 10-20$ new. T-shirt ~ 10$, collared shirt ~10$. Tie ~ 5$, and you only need one. The only thing more expensive about business attire it the jacket for the really formal stuff. And shoes... I've heard tennis shoes are selling for 50$ these days? I wouldn't know, I haven't bought anything (aparrt from hiking boots) but business-suitable walkers since about eighth grade, and never for over 30$.
It's never been about expense. It's been about cultivating an air of casual reserve and dignity: employers probably hope that if employees pretend to be stable and dependable long enough, some of it will rub off and become the reality. Then, I naturally dress in what's currently styled 'business casual', so I'm probably a bit biased.
"Let's say you want to buy a book. So you go to the bookstore. Now what are you more likely to consider as a good book? A book with a nice cover, or a book with an old ripped cover?"
Well, if it's the same book (which it would have to be, to be a analogue of the situation in the GP post, where you get a car salesman either way) then you obviously go for the well-maintained book, because that's the best value for your money, unless you're planning to use your purchase for firewood or something. Way to come up with an analogy with an obvious result totally counter to your intended point.
So taking screenshots, AKA Graphics directly from the artistic piece produced by blizzard, copying them, and then selling them is not exceeding fair use? Sweet! I'm going to go cut up a David Lynch movie, put it together in a different order (no one would notice) and sell copies of my "fair use" on EBay!
"...than being a shortsighted, uninformed asshole in a fancy monkey suit..."
+5 ironic!
They want people that care about the job. Being willing to wear a suit and tie (which, lets face it, no one really _likes_ wearing, or you'd see a lot of people in their underwear and a collared shirt and tie coming out to get the paper in the morning) indicates a willingness to sacrifice personal comfort to see the job done right. Which, let's face it, is a much more desirable quality in an employee than any amount of smarts will ever be.