Regarding budgets - we DO have our own budget and all this stuff I get comes out of it. It comes out of our budget, hooks up to our own network that IT take no responsibility for, and basically shouldn't ever have anything to do with them. That's kind of why it annoys me that they get involved to block things like the purchase of mouses and keyboards. Wireless LAN being a pain - okay, I get the reasons for that - but keyboards and mouses was really just a nightmare of pointlessness and time wasting.
How is a keyboard and mouse any different than me putting in a purchase order for a new chair, or fan, or whatever else I need?
Mainly because IT isn't going to get called when the fan breaks. IT isn't going to get called to install install the new keyboard driver. That other stuff isn't going to get sent back to IT when you don't need it any more, and have them sorting out the inventory that doesn't add-up. And there's no chance your fancy new chair can potentially cause problems with the "floor" it's hooked up to.
As mentioned multiple times, and carefully not quoted by you or anyone else, these were specifically to be hooked up to equipment that IT has disavowed any responsibility for. They never need to see the damn thing, record anything about it, or otherwise deal with it. I certainly won't ever send it to IT when it breaks or I no longer want it.
Interestingly, when I finally did get the mouse (mine is a Razer Taipan because I'm left handed (but also sometimes use my mouse right handed when necessary) and my colleagues all got their preferred choices - mostly right-handed specific), the next time a guy from IT was in my office to re-patch a port on the wall, the guy commented how much he'd like to have that mouse at his desk...
For doing my job (writing software), I require a Windows system with Administrator rights.
No, you require a Windows system with Debugger-User rights. If you want to see how your installer works, you can have a non-networked VM with admin rights.
Oh come on... and then ask IT every time I want to install something new that I need for a particular project? For the first time recently, I needed to reverse engineer a USB device; so installed an appropriate tool to do so. This sort of thing happens damn near every week and I might go through 3 or 4 different tools before I find one that fits the bill - IT would get pretty sick of visiting my desk that often I'd imagine.
Both me and my team and the IT department are quite happy for me to have my own separated off network that they don't touch or have anything to do with. That's not my complaint and I'm quite happy with that particular state of affairs. It's all the other crap that's annoying.
Well, we're talking €80 mouses and €120 keyboards... but generally, I still agree completely that IT should not be involved. Bearing in mind that it was already approved by the management responsible for budget.
Exactly! There's nothing worse than a dept (or school, in our case) going out and spending $15,000+ on iPads, AppleTVs, computers, etc and then calling up IT after it's arrived with rush/emergency workorders to get it to work on our network.:( And then complaining to the highest-ups that IT screwed everything up.
If you would have involved IT from the get-go, it would go a lot smoother, and we could make recommendations for equipment that will work with the existing setup, allocate tech time to prep everything, and have it running smoothly right away. But, no, they try to do an end-run around IT, get a bunch of crap that breaks everything, and then wonder why it takes so long to fix everything.
Yeah, that does sound pretty crap - but honestly, it's a totally different situation than what I described. I don't want to buy computer equipment and connect it to the network that our department manage. I want to buy peripheral equipment that will be connected to computers that IT have already said are none of their business and they don't want to have anything to do with (which by the way were also purchased the same way, WITHOUT being blocked by IT...).
It amazes me when people do this. You don't see individual departments hiring electricians to install more outlets or lighting when Bill in Accounting decides they need it. You don't see individual departments that are running out of space putting in purchase requests to hire contractors to build an extension onto the office, or renting out another office building across the street. WTF does everyone think it's perfectly okay to just up and order a bunch of iPads for everyone in their department, without bringing IT into the mix?
I see no reason why IT needs to be involved in the purchase of equipment that won't be connected to their network. How is a keyboard and mouse any different than me putting in a purchase order for a new chair, or fan, or whatever else I need? Just because it connects to a computer, doesn't magically make it any different.
I'd actually be in agreement with you if we were talking about actual network hardware AND if were to be connected to their network; but neither of these is true of this case.
The problem is that it is not your or IT's fault that the policies are stupid. Yet your management expects you and IT to somehow accomplish your jobs within the bounds of stupid policies.
If you are blocked due to a policy problem, you send it up your management chain. If they refuse to rectify the situation, you ask them how you are supposed to do your job. If your manager is spineless (as many of mine have been) and refuses to confront the policymaker in the IT hierarchy and asks you to circumvent them; ask for the order in writing. You will find that instead of exposing himself to the unlimited liability of ordering an employee to circumvent company policy, they will contact the necessary people to fix it.
That's all good advice - the problem is more that it happens on a case-by-case basis. I do eventually get everything I need and can do my job; it's just all the pointless delays, roadblocks and so on mean that I end up wasting far too much time on that rather than getting down to the actual business of writing code (or testing, or documenting, or helping my group members, or whatever else I need to be doing other than arguing with IT).
This answer is basically the kind of environment I want to have. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just needs people that understand we've all got jobs to do and not deliberately get in each other's way.
Is there any network connection between the two boxes you use?
Nope - totally separated networks (including physically; not just virtually). There's ONE box that lives on both networks which we can use for file transfer (e.g. I get an email sent to me with an attachment I want to use on my development system), but I don't have access to that box beyond the file-share.
Hey, is that you Ken (or more likely happens many, many places. sigh)
Maybe it just happens to people who have "en" in their names... I'm "Ben" rather than "Ken"... but yes, I do suspect I'm far from alone in this kind of situation.
...so how long have you had this sense of entitlement?
Since it's my job to 'do my job' I feel I should be entitled to the tools and environment that allows me to do so. If I don't get the tools and environment to do my job, then I refuse to accept responsibility for not getting it done.
Since I actually have pride in my company (and feel that in return, the company treats me with respect in general) and am not just some mercenary out for the money only, I CARE about doing a good job. If I didn't, I'd just sit back and every time someone asks me why the project isn't done yet just say "because IT won't let us". It'd be easier, but significantly less fulfilling.
You are IT just at another section... try working WITH the rest of the team.
Nope - officially Software Development in my organisation belongs to "Service and Support", which is the division responsible for providing service to our customers for our products. The "IT Department" is strictly an internal department - they don't deal with our customers; but rather are responsible for taking care of IT systems within the organisation.
You do realize that IT policy managers are the police of the corporation along with the safety manager, HR, legal, etc. They exist to keep employees from breaking the law and doing serious harm to the company. They work for the corporation, not you.
I understand that and accept that. I accept when there are things that for policy reasons are not possible, even if they'd make my life easier. Things like the policy against putting corporate documents on USB keys - we're not allowed to do it, so I don't. My complaint isn't that the policies exist, but that's there's no way to get to the appropriate people to talk to in order to have a say in defining such policies in order to let me do my job. I'd happily explain the reasons for my needs to them, along with HR, legal and the bloody gardener if he cares. But they don't want to listen - the extra work involved for them is potentially significant and we're only a tiny department in a huge organisation that is otherwise quite happy with the job they're doing. The fact that we're business critical, despite being small, only ever factors in to it when senior management get involved to (yet again) explain to the IT department that we should get what we need to do our jobs.
Honestly, if I didn't have senior management on my side, I would've just given up on this gig a long time ago.
My problem is not just SysAdmins, but the entire IT department.
I'm a software developer (actually, supervisor of a software development team) at a large multinational that isn't explicitly a software development company. Most people on our network require access to deal with Microsoft Office, our SAP system and a few random databases of stuff with web front ends. Because this is what 'most' employees need, our IT can be strongly against requests that go outside of this.
For doing my job (writing software), I require a Windows system with Administrator rights. This would not be allowed on our corporate network due to policy rules (okay, I get this) so I am a part of a separate network for doing this. However, in order to read my email, I ALSO have to have a computer on our corporate network. One extra box sitting on my desk purely for reading and replying to email. I could use our webmail, but it's pretty cumbersome. When I asked if they could set up IMAP access so I could get rid of the pointless extra box on my desk, the answer was that IMAP is a security hole and for policy reasons, they won't do so.
A part of my job is writing software for mobile devices. In order to test on real devices, I need wireless access. Policy states that no wireless device can be set up other than by IT. IT refuses to touch anything on my separate network; but STILL enforced the policy that if I set up wireless, I'd be getting a very stern talking to by the HR department. Eventually it got sorted, but not before management stepped in due to project delays caused by me and my team only being able to do real device testing AT HOME...
When I decided that my team needed better mouses and keyboards since I myself was noticing some hand strain, I put an order in to our system. Management approved the purchase and it was all fine. IT then blocked it saying that they supply our standard equipment from Dell and we shouldn't be ordering IT equipment separately. It was only after several days of arguing back and forth that they let the purchase order go through on grounds that since it's for my 'separate network' it's not counted as "IT equipment". That also means though that my development PC has a nice mouse and keyboard; but the one I use for email still has a really crappy thing supplied by our IT department and can never change.
I don't have so much to truly complain about, since I do get what I want/need eventually, but from my point of view, they do get in the way of us doing our jobs far more than they help. And I do understand their reasoning - we're a special case and they do a fine job for the other 99% of the company who don't have our requirements. I just wish they'd be a bit more open to working with us instead of actively fighting against us at every turn.
I would argue that hunger, like suffering, is an emotional response that is inherent in a living, intelligent being.
I have a rare and unusual condition whereby the part of my brain receiving hunger signals from my stomach doesn't pass them on. I have never in my life experienced hunger, despite everything else working more-or-less okay. Are you arguing that I'm not a living, intelligent being purely because of my lack of hunger?!
It's different from a programmed response to a low battery condition that sends the robot to a recharging facility.
If I forget to eat for a few days (happened a lot as a kid if my parents weren't around - much less so now that I've trained myself to pay attention to it), I start feeling over-tired and losing the ability to concentrate properly. If I then realise the cause is 'oops, I forgot to eat', I'll go grab something to recharge.
I'm aware that your argument is really based on 'conscious decision' vs 'programmed response'. So I, as a thinking human being, am doing it differently than a robot might. However:
This goes back to the essentially philosophical question in systems science, as to whether a 'system' that we discuss is the actual thing, or merely a model of the thing that we discuss.
I'm in the philosophical camp that there's no difference of any kind between a 'perfect model' and the 'real thing'. If we create a device starts displaying what appears to be free-will, self-awareness and consciousness by any reasonable test that we can come up with then from my point of view it HAS those things (to the same extent as anyone else anyway). If there's no test that can show it's not 'thinking' like a human, then we should treat it as if it is.
It's off-topic, but this thread is now off the main page, so we can probably be a bit more free with it...
If you're interested, I'm currently writing a book on the subject of psychedelics. It's nearly finished (70000 words written; just a but more clean-up, editing and fact-checking to do). When it's done, I'll change my sig to be a link to it, but if you'd like, send me a private email at my username shortened to 9 characters at Google's well known email service and I'll add you to my notification list so you're reminded about it.
The title of the book is "Dropping Acid: A Beginner's Guide to the use of LSD for Self-Discovery". It's primarily intended for people interested in self-discovery as a concept that have heard that psychedelics can be used as such but aren't sure about the substance or details in general. It helps assuage some fears; but also presents other things to be careful of that the person might not have thought about. It would also of course likely be interesting to others that have used the substance and would just like another person's perspective on it.
The chapters cover a range of topics such as general effects, the psychopharmacology, history, law, three "very different" experience stories, and of course the "core" topic of self-discovery including LSD and ponderings on philosophy ("meaning of life" kind of stuff).
I'm an older person these days, I've been doing it for years, and I tend to think that in all but a very small percentage of the populace the use of psychedelic drugs would be beneficial.
I'm not a spring-chicken myself anymore either - married, daughter, house in the suburbs, nice car, responsible job and all that.
My opinion in general is that many people aren't mentally mature enough to handle it, but those who are can get a very large benefit. Of those who aren't, most will not find it a pleasant experience but it also won't be significantly harmful; so on the balance of things, I think most people should try it at least once (preferably after reading my book - 70000 words on the subject is more than I can generally just tell someone in casual conversation).
I've also taken a lot of different substances in my life. The psychedelics and the entactogens are by far those that interest me the most, but in the right circumstances, general stimulants can also be useful. I don't use anything 'regularly' unless you count between 3 and 6 trips per year to be 'regular' LSD use. For entactogens (or more specifically MDMA) it's around once a year, and other substances maybe once every two to three years.
Firstly: Thank you very much for the long, detailed reply. It's not appreciated by a lot of people since they seem to have the attention spans of gnats with ADHD, but I can honestly say I really enjoy getting a reply like this. Lots to think about.
I apologise if my reply isn't quite as coherent - I'm writing it while drinking my morning coffee and have to go to work in about 20 minutes.
Erf... This may well be taken the wrong way but I guess the risk is worth it. Take, and be honest with both of us, your initial response to me. Your assumption appears (to me) to have been that I was being negative even though you had to reach to interpret what I said as being negative. Your response wasn't nearly as bad as some of the others but here I am, being completely (and the first) to be completely and totally supportive and truly concerned with this and yet people have invented, extrapolated, confused, lied, and otherwise misinterpreted my posts to have something to argue against.
Since your initial reply you appear to have realized that I am not, at all, being biased against the transgendered folk. Your initial view is that I was arguing for something when, if you recall, I was pretty clear in that I wasn't arguing anything. I even made it a point to clearly state that I wasn't arguing for anything - that I was pretty sure that because I was not subject to this that my own personal ethics may not carry any weight at all. You also brought the biases of "mental health" with you when I made every effort to ensure that my post didn't imply any negative connotations regarding mental health status as being anything more than a health problem.
I definitely did misinterpret your position, but I had no assumption that you were being negative regarding mental health. My interpretation was that you understood the situation, but believed it better solved through the mental route rather than the physical. It was only after your clarification that I then understood your preference is of course for 'neither of the above', solving it socially rather than changing any aspect of the individual.
I do apologise if it sounded like I was one of the people that totally misunderstood you - I found the many other replies to you terribly shortsighted and emotion driven implying that you're 'bad' for considering it a mental health issue.
Basically, I agree completely that the social route would be best, but as I said, I don't believe it's possible and so out of the two viable options of "physical change" or "mental change", the physical seems less harmful to me for all the reasons I explained.
What's funny is that I'm a Libertarian at heart, registered Independent though. It's amazing the ignorance and biases people have. But that is SERIOUSLY a conversation for another day.
It definitely is getting off-topic, but just to answer briefly - I'm somewhere between "socialist" and "libertarian" which many people don't seem to believe should be able to exist. In short, I see the value of social benefits and taxation to provide for it (I used to live in Sydney Australia, where you pay tolls to drive anywhere useful, see homeless people all the time, and basically have privatised everything; now I live in Germany which is much more socialist by comparison and the standard of living difference is amazing - I'm more than happy to pay the high taxes I pay here because I see the benefits they provide); however I also believe the government has no right to interfere in personal matters which do not extend to the society as a whole. For example, debates regarding marriage, abortion, drugs, IP and ownership rights, etc. I'll almost always side with libertarians over socialists.
As I said, I need to go to work soon and I want to quickly reply to your other post first - if there's anything you think I've missed that you'd like me to answer, please reply again and I'll be happy to elaborate more later.
I can see, though, where it may be healthier to reassign the body instead of attempting to cure it with some sort of psychotherapy drug. Those drugs have some nasty side effects and can do some long term damage. We really don't understand the brain well at all. What's scary is, if you read some of those drugs - in the doctor's information, they clearly state that they don't know how they work! That, by itself, is scary so I can certainly see where you're coming from.
Yep - that's definitely an additional very strong danger. I can't agree more that messing with neurochemistry like that is pretty risky business (and as you might guess from my sig; some aspects of psychopharmacology are kind of a hobby of mine (plug: sometime later this year, I'll update my sig with a link to a book I'll be publishing which includes a rather good chapter on neurochemistry)).
But that aside, it addresses only a part of half of my concerns about fixing the problem 'in the mind' rather than 'in the body'. That is to say, my concern that "we suck at changing personality in others". Whether it be by these drugs that we don't really understand or by psychotherapy techniques that are scarily akin to brain-washing, we tend to cause more damage than we solve in a lot of people.
The other half of my concern however I don't think you addressed - and that's my point on 'invasiveness'. Changing 'who someone is' (even if we could do it perfectly) seems far harsher than changing physical aspects. There's a lot more blood and physical pain involved in the physical changes, but ethically speaking, I'd have stronger concerns about changing people at a fundamental level to match societies preferences.
Unfortunately, I think the "cure" is at the societal level where we'll need to convince people to stop being ignorant and allow them to fill whatever roll they feel they're most suited for. Ideally one would not need to feel obligated to change their gender if they could just live life representing themselves as who they are without regards to the contents of their genital region.
Does that make more sense?
Ah, right - I see where you're coming from with this. Yes, that does make more sense to me.
I think that if we had such a society (which I doubt we could sadly), very many of the cases where people currently undergo gender reassignment surgery would not be requested. However, I also think that some people would still want it. There'd still be those who would look at their body and say to themselves, "This isn't who I'm supposed to be" regardless of how accepted and normal it is. The question is whether in such a society the surgery would remain as the best option or not. Given that the feelings of 'not being right' would likely be much more muted due to a lack of external pressures, perhaps simply skilful counselling may be sufficient to help. Or, maybe not.
But regardless, we don't have such a society, and I really don't have enough faith in humanity in general to think we could achieve such. So, given the society that we have right now, it seems to be either a case of changing the person's 'core being', or changing their body. And from these two options, changing the body seems significantly less abhorrent to me.
I don't know about "better" but it is less invasive and less risky to their overall health.
I'm not really sure about that. Let me first clarify that I'm not jumping up and down about your use of the phrase 'mental heath issue' because I actually halfway agree with you. From my point of view, any mismatch between body and brain is an issue between the body and the brain. It could be corrected in either place to solve the problem.
Transgender issues are a perfect example, whereby the person mentally does not match the person physically. This could be corrected in two ways - either change the person mentally so that they are feel they fit in to the body they are in; or change the body so that it matches their mental state.
From my understanding, you're arguing for the former, whereas the majority of people argue for the latter.
While both would be solutions that solve the problem, the latter has some distinct advantages:
1) We suck at changing personality in others. Attempts usually end up with sub-standard results that have additional side-issues. Sure, we could improve, as we do with any field of science, but RIGHT NOW we'd do a pretty bad job of it on average. On this, I consider your statement that 'it's less risky to their overall health' to be possibly wrong. Their mental health would suffer far more under this attempt than their physical health under a gender reassignment operation.
2) In modern western society, we define ourselves as being the mind that occupies the body. The body isn't 'you', just the thing that's carrying you around. If it weren't, we wouldn't intuitively understand the concepts of 'out of body experiences', 'body swapping movies' or 'downloading yourself in to a computer'. Modifying 'you' is much harsher than modifying 'the thing that carries you around'. On this, I consider your statement that 'it's less invasive' to be possibly wrong. It is far more invasive to change the 'core being' of a person than to change any physical aspect of them.
I'd definitely find it interesting to hear your arguments against this though. You seem to be a rational enough person from looking at your posts, so I'm sure you've got interesting arguments to support your thoughts on the matter.
I'm now one of those in the "don't have a TV" crowd, and I believe that theories of economics have affected the masses by way of the television.
Out of interest, do you watch TV/Movies anyway? I didn't have a TV for most of my adult life - it was only when I moved in with my girlfriend (who is now my wife), that there ended up being one in the house. I do however have a fairly large collection of DVDs and TV/Movie/Documentary files on my computer.
From my point of view at least, I get the 'good' from your post, with less (but admittedly not "no") exposure to the 'bad' and the 'ugly'.
I've always wondered what the data would look like asking "Are you a safer driver than the average person?", "How many accidents have you been involved in?", "How many of those accidents do you feel were your fault?", "How many of those accidents were you found legally at fault for?". I get the feeling it'll be like self performance appraisals from engineers, where the good ones tend to rate themselves lower than others.
Most likely, but it depends on "how good" you're talking. I think "very good drivers" will rate themselves a little lower, but "slightly above average" are probably aware of it.
My answers:
Are you a safer driver than the average person?
Yes, I believe I am. Probably not "a lot safer", but generally speaking, I believe my situational awareness is better than most, and I drive a sports car which - when driven properly - is safer due to greater manoeuvrability than many other vehicles driving it recklessly as many sports car drivers do is much less safe; but there's been a few situations where some idiot has pulled out of a side street right in front of me when I had right of way and only the fact that my car CAN swerve around without losing control is what saved me from an accident. Driving my wife's car, I feel quite unsafe in comparison.
How many accidents have you been involved in?
Two: One where I drove in to a hidden ditch in front of my parents house as I came out of the driveway. I was following an ambulance containing my mother to the hospital and was very distraught. The accident occurred at a speed of around 5km/h. And the other, I reversed in to a moped behind me that wasn't visible in my rear view mirror. My speed was probably around 3km/h. I was at an intersection coming from a side street where I couldn't see traffic from the main road due to roadworks without driving out a little, looking, and then reversing back if there was traffic coming. I did this three times and on the third time the moped had come up behind me without my knowledge.
"How many of those accidents do you feel were your fault?", "How many of those accidents were you found legally at fault for?"
For both questions, I feel that both were my fault and I accepted legal fault for them (for the first, I was simply in a very bad state of mind and should not have been driving, but felt I had no option; and for the second, I SHOULD have looked over my shoulder when reversing, but didn't.)
Mac Pro’s flash internal storage will offer an astoundingly fast 1.25GBps reads and 1.0GBps writes. That's great, but is this a sign of things to come? Like a Macbook Pro with PCIe flash? Oh, the possibilities...
I'm due for an upgrade of my work laptop next April... REALLY hoping there's a new line of Macbook Pros out by then, since otherwise I'll be getting the current generation, which may be a little outdated by then. (I have to have a Mac for work - not that I'm complaining, but it's worth mentioning in case anyone says I should get a <insert_favourite_other_brand_here> instead).
I would truly love to see a MBP with PCIe flash come out - it'd suit my work needs pretty much perfectly.
on a different but related note what is with the general public conflating mac use with tech savvy? most mac users i know use it because they are to confused by windows so need a easier system. I know that not all are that way but that has just been my personal experience.
My experience has pretty much been:
Most non-tech people: Windows that came with the box they bought; rarely MacOS that came with the box they bought because someone told them it was 'better'.
Hipsters: Macs, because they're 'cool'.
Tech people that enjoy tinkering: Linux, because it LETS you tinker to your heart's content.
Tech people that are sick of tinkering: Macs, because they give you a Unixy enough environment out of the box; but 'just works' for dealing with standard everyday tasks; at the expense of customisability (i.e. get used to the Apple way, because you can't change it)
I pretty much fall in to that last category. My servers are Linux; my desktops and laptops are Macs (with VMWare Fusion for work stuff where I code on Windows). I can't make it as comfortable as I can make a Linux box, but it also lets me 'plug it in, turn it on and start doing stuff' without having to think about it when I get a new system or do a major upgrade.
There's a lot of things that I find really useful in the overall system, such as having my Apple account linked to the Mac App Store, so when I set up a new Mac, I just give it those details and it sucks down and installs the various apps I like to have. Sure, I COULD do these kinds of things manually (or spend the time to set up my own automated system), but I'm old and lazy and just can't be bothered spending half my time "making my system perfect" like I did when I was younger.
Let this be a lesson: Don't dis the metric people, they are petty with no sense of humor.
If it helps - which it probably doesn't - I would've modded you "Funny". I agree whoever modded you flamebait clearly had no sense of humour. Let's hope it gets them back in metamoderation.
My last compact car weighed 3985 lbs curb weight and it was German.
Hmmm... that's about 1.8 metric tons; definitely not what I'd calla a "compact car". My little sports car is just under 1 metric ton. Looking at various German cars on wikipedia that I'd call "compact cars" the weight seems to be around 1.3 metric tons in general.
That weight looks more like a family car to me - e.g. VW Passat.
But, as far as I know, the definition of "compact car" is somewhat different in different countries, so it's probably a definition thing more than anything else.
Where can one get one of these "ton and a half" SUV's?
The Ford Escape is about that (well, 1.5 metric tons; so a bit over in imperial)... I think that's classed as an SUV...
Why do you want to keep email on a server that you do not control?
For me, because I don't want to deal with the headache of managing my own email server (including backups, ensuring uptime, etc). Google's servers are far LESS likely to just "up and die" on me than any server I run myself. Sure, if I ran my own, I could do things that I can't do with Gmail... but the simple fact is that I really don't want to - there's nothing I need from email that isn't provided by Gmail already; nor is there anything they're doing that I have a serious problem with (yes, I'm totally fine that their systems are reading my mail... it doesn't bother me at all).
Quite simply: most functionality for the least work.
Gmail IMAP is crap it doesn't support one of the most important commands.
Out of interest, what command is that? I use Gmail primarily through IMAP on three different devices (two different email clients) and haven't noticed any problems. Not saying you're wrong, but just that I genuinely haven't seen a problem, so from my perspective if it is missing a command, it can't really be THAT important can it?
From my point of view, the web interface is the "fallback" that I use if I want to check my email without having access to any of these three devices for whatever reason (i.e. very seldom). As long as it's basically functional, I don't really care what it looks like.
Slashdot Mirror
Cookies may just work...
Regarding budgets - we DO have our own budget and all this stuff I get comes out of it. It comes out of our budget, hooks up to our own network that IT take no responsibility for, and basically shouldn't ever have anything to do with them. That's kind of why it annoys me that they get involved to block things like the purchase of mouses and keyboards. Wireless LAN being a pain - okay, I get the reasons for that - but keyboards and mouses was really just a nightmare of pointlessness and time wasting.
Mainly because IT isn't going to get called when the fan breaks. IT isn't going to get called to install install the new keyboard driver. That other stuff isn't going to get sent back to IT when you don't need it any more, and have them sorting out the inventory that doesn't add-up. And there's no chance your fancy new chair can potentially cause problems with the "floor" it's hooked up to.
As mentioned multiple times, and carefully not quoted by you or anyone else, these were specifically to be hooked up to equipment that IT has disavowed any responsibility for. They never need to see the damn thing, record anything about it, or otherwise deal with it. I certainly won't ever send it to IT when it breaks or I no longer want it.
Interestingly, when I finally did get the mouse (mine is a Razer Taipan because I'm left handed (but also sometimes use my mouse right handed when necessary) and my colleagues all got their preferred choices - mostly right-handed specific), the next time a guy from IT was in my office to re-patch a port on the wall, the guy commented how much he'd like to have that mouse at his desk...
For doing my job (writing software), I require a Windows system with Administrator rights.
No, you require a Windows system with Debugger-User rights. If you want to see how your installer works, you can have a non-networked VM with admin rights.
Oh come on... and then ask IT every time I want to install something new that I need for a particular project? For the first time recently, I needed to reverse engineer a USB device; so installed an appropriate tool to do so. This sort of thing happens damn near every week and I might go through 3 or 4 different tools before I find one that fits the bill - IT would get pretty sick of visiting my desk that often I'd imagine.
Both me and my team and the IT department are quite happy for me to have my own separated off network that they don't touch or have anything to do with. That's not my complaint and I'm quite happy with that particular state of affairs. It's all the other crap that's annoying.
Well, we're talking €80 mouses and €120 keyboards... but generally, I still agree completely that IT should not be involved. Bearing in mind that it was already approved by the management responsible for budget.
Exactly! There's nothing worse than a dept (or school, in our case) going out and spending $15,000+ on iPads, AppleTVs, computers, etc and then calling up IT after it's arrived with rush/emergency workorders to get it to work on our network. :( And then complaining to the highest-ups that IT screwed everything up.
If you would have involved IT from the get-go, it would go a lot smoother, and we could make recommendations for equipment that will work with the existing setup, allocate tech time to prep everything, and have it running smoothly right away. But, no, they try to do an end-run around IT, get a bunch of crap that breaks everything, and then wonder why it takes so long to fix everything.
Yeah, that does sound pretty crap - but honestly, it's a totally different situation than what I described. I don't want to buy computer equipment and connect it to the network that our department manage. I want to buy peripheral equipment that will be connected to computers that IT have already said are none of their business and they don't want to have anything to do with (which by the way were also purchased the same way, WITHOUT being blocked by IT...).
It amazes me when people do this. You don't see individual departments hiring electricians to install more outlets or lighting when Bill in Accounting decides they need it. You don't see individual departments that are running out of space putting in purchase requests to hire contractors to build an extension onto the office, or renting out another office building across the street. WTF does everyone think it's perfectly okay to just up and order a bunch of iPads for everyone in their department, without bringing IT into the mix?
I see no reason why IT needs to be involved in the purchase of equipment that won't be connected to their network. How is a keyboard and mouse any different than me putting in a purchase order for a new chair, or fan, or whatever else I need? Just because it connects to a computer, doesn't magically make it any different.
I'd actually be in agreement with you if we were talking about actual network hardware AND if were to be connected to their network; but neither of these is true of this case.
The problem is that it is not your or IT's fault that the policies are stupid. Yet your management expects you and IT to somehow accomplish your jobs within the bounds of stupid policies.
If you are blocked due to a policy problem, you send it up your management chain. If they refuse to rectify the situation, you ask them how you are supposed to do your job. If your manager is spineless (as many of mine have been) and refuses to confront the policymaker in the IT hierarchy and asks you to circumvent them; ask for the order in writing. You will find that instead of exposing himself to the unlimited liability of ordering an employee to circumvent company policy, they will contact the necessary people to fix it.
That's all good advice - the problem is more that it happens on a case-by-case basis. I do eventually get everything I need and can do my job; it's just all the pointless delays, roadblocks and so on mean that I end up wasting far too much time on that rather than getting down to the actual business of writing code (or testing, or documenting, or helping my group members, or whatever else I need to be doing other than arguing with IT).
This answer is basically the kind of environment I want to have. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just needs people that understand we've all got jobs to do and not deliberately get in each other's way.
Is there any network connection between the two boxes you use?
Nope - totally separated networks (including physically; not just virtually). There's ONE box that lives on both networks which we can use for file transfer (e.g. I get an email sent to me with an attachment I want to use on my development system), but I don't have access to that box beyond the file-share.
Hey, is that you Ken (or more likely happens many, many places. sigh)
Maybe it just happens to people who have "en" in their names... I'm "Ben" rather than "Ken"... but yes, I do suspect I'm far from alone in this kind of situation.
...so how long have you had this sense of entitlement?
Since it's my job to 'do my job' I feel I should be entitled to the tools and environment that allows me to do so. If I don't get the tools and environment to do my job, then I refuse to accept responsibility for not getting it done.
Since I actually have pride in my company (and feel that in return, the company treats me with respect in general) and am not just some mercenary out for the money only, I CARE about doing a good job. If I didn't, I'd just sit back and every time someone asks me why the project isn't done yet just say "because IT won't let us". It'd be easier, but significantly less fulfilling.
You are IT just at another section... try working WITH the rest of the team.
Nope - officially Software Development in my organisation belongs to "Service and Support", which is the division responsible for providing service to our customers for our products. The "IT Department" is strictly an internal department - they don't deal with our customers; but rather are responsible for taking care of IT systems within the organisation.
You do realize that IT policy managers are the police of the corporation along with the safety manager, HR, legal, etc. They exist to keep employees from breaking the law and doing serious harm to the company. They work for the corporation, not you.
I understand that and accept that. I accept when there are things that for policy reasons are not possible, even if they'd make my life easier. Things like the policy against putting corporate documents on USB keys - we're not allowed to do it, so I don't. My complaint isn't that the policies exist, but that's there's no way to get to the appropriate people to talk to in order to have a say in defining such policies in order to let me do my job. I'd happily explain the reasons for my needs to them, along with HR, legal and the bloody gardener if he cares. But they don't want to listen - the extra work involved for them is potentially significant and we're only a tiny department in a huge organisation that is otherwise quite happy with the job they're doing. The fact that we're business critical, despite being small, only ever factors in to it when senior management get involved to (yet again) explain to the IT department that we should get what we need to do our jobs.
Honestly, if I didn't have senior management on my side, I would've just given up on this gig a long time ago.
My problem is not just SysAdmins, but the entire IT department.
I'm a software developer (actually, supervisor of a software development team) at a large multinational that isn't explicitly a software development company. Most people on our network require access to deal with Microsoft Office, our SAP system and a few random databases of stuff with web front ends. Because this is what 'most' employees need, our IT can be strongly against requests that go outside of this.
For doing my job (writing software), I require a Windows system with Administrator rights. This would not be allowed on our corporate network due to policy rules (okay, I get this) so I am a part of a separate network for doing this. However, in order to read my email, I ALSO have to have a computer on our corporate network. One extra box sitting on my desk purely for reading and replying to email. I could use our webmail, but it's pretty cumbersome. When I asked if they could set up IMAP access so I could get rid of the pointless extra box on my desk, the answer was that IMAP is a security hole and for policy reasons, they won't do so.
A part of my job is writing software for mobile devices. In order to test on real devices, I need wireless access. Policy states that no wireless device can be set up other than by IT. IT refuses to touch anything on my separate network; but STILL enforced the policy that if I set up wireless, I'd be getting a very stern talking to by the HR department. Eventually it got sorted, but not before management stepped in due to project delays caused by me and my team only being able to do real device testing AT HOME...
When I decided that my team needed better mouses and keyboards since I myself was noticing some hand strain, I put an order in to our system. Management approved the purchase and it was all fine. IT then blocked it saying that they supply our standard equipment from Dell and we shouldn't be ordering IT equipment separately. It was only after several days of arguing back and forth that they let the purchase order go through on grounds that since it's for my 'separate network' it's not counted as "IT equipment". That also means though that my development PC has a nice mouse and keyboard; but the one I use for email still has a really crappy thing supplied by our IT department and can never change.
I don't have so much to truly complain about, since I do get what I want/need eventually, but from my point of view, they do get in the way of us doing our jobs far more than they help. And I do understand their reasoning - we're a special case and they do a fine job for the other 99% of the company who don't have our requirements. I just wish they'd be a bit more open to working with us instead of actively fighting against us at every turn.
I would argue that hunger, like suffering, is an emotional response that is inherent in a living, intelligent being.
I have a rare and unusual condition whereby the part of my brain receiving hunger signals from my stomach doesn't pass them on. I have never in my life experienced hunger, despite everything else working more-or-less okay. Are you arguing that I'm not a living, intelligent being purely because of my lack of hunger?!
It's different from a programmed response to a low battery condition that sends the robot to a recharging facility.
If I forget to eat for a few days (happened a lot as a kid if my parents weren't around - much less so now that I've trained myself to pay attention to it), I start feeling over-tired and losing the ability to concentrate properly. If I then realise the cause is 'oops, I forgot to eat', I'll go grab something to recharge.
I'm aware that your argument is really based on 'conscious decision' vs 'programmed response'. So I, as a thinking human being, am doing it differently than a robot might. However:
This goes back to the essentially philosophical question in systems science, as to whether a 'system' that we discuss is the actual thing, or merely a model of the thing that we discuss.
I'm in the philosophical camp that there's no difference of any kind between a 'perfect model' and the 'real thing'. If we create a device starts displaying what appears to be free-will, self-awareness and consciousness by any reasonable test that we can come up with then from my point of view it HAS those things (to the same extent as anyone else anyway). If there's no test that can show it's not 'thinking' like a human, then we should treat it as if it is.
It's off-topic, but this thread is now off the main page, so we can probably be a bit more free with it...
If you're interested, I'm currently writing a book on the subject of psychedelics. It's nearly finished (70000 words written; just a but more clean-up, editing and fact-checking to do). When it's done, I'll change my sig to be a link to it, but if you'd like, send me a private email at my username shortened to 9 characters at Google's well known email service and I'll add you to my notification list so you're reminded about it.
The title of the book is "Dropping Acid: A Beginner's Guide to the use of LSD for Self-Discovery". It's primarily intended for people interested in self-discovery as a concept that have heard that psychedelics can be used as such but aren't sure about the substance or details in general. It helps assuage some fears; but also presents other things to be careful of that the person might not have thought about. It would also of course likely be interesting to others that have used the substance and would just like another person's perspective on it.
The chapters cover a range of topics such as general effects, the psychopharmacology, history, law, three "very different" experience stories, and of course the "core" topic of self-discovery including LSD and ponderings on philosophy ("meaning of life" kind of stuff).
I'm an older person these days, I've been doing it for years, and I tend to think that in all but a very small percentage of the populace the use of psychedelic drugs would be beneficial.
I'm not a spring-chicken myself anymore either - married, daughter, house in the suburbs, nice car, responsible job and all that.
My opinion in general is that many people aren't mentally mature enough to handle it, but those who are can get a very large benefit. Of those who aren't, most will not find it a pleasant experience but it also won't be significantly harmful; so on the balance of things, I think most people should try it at least once (preferably after reading my book - 70000 words on the subject is more than I can generally just tell someone in casual conversation).
I've also taken a lot of different substances in my life. The psychedelics and the entactogens are by far those that interest me the most, but in the right circumstances, general stimulants can also be useful. I don't use anything 'regularly' unless you count between 3 and 6 trips per year to be 'regular' LSD use. For entactogens (or more specifically MDMA) it's around once a year, and other substances maybe once every two to three years.
Firstly: Thank you very much for the long, detailed reply. It's not appreciated by a lot of people since they seem to have the attention spans of gnats with ADHD, but I can honestly say I really enjoy getting a reply like this. Lots to think about.
I apologise if my reply isn't quite as coherent - I'm writing it while drinking my morning coffee and have to go to work in about 20 minutes.
Erf... This may well be taken the wrong way but I guess the risk is worth it. Take, and be honest with both of us, your initial response to me. Your assumption appears (to me) to have been that I was being negative even though you had to reach to interpret what I said as being negative. Your response wasn't nearly as bad as some of the others but here I am, being completely (and the first) to be completely and totally supportive and truly concerned with this and yet people have invented, extrapolated, confused, lied, and otherwise misinterpreted my posts to have something to argue against.
Since your initial reply you appear to have realized that I am not, at all, being biased against the transgendered folk. Your initial view is that I was arguing for something when, if you recall, I was pretty clear in that I wasn't arguing anything. I even made it a point to clearly state that I wasn't arguing for anything - that I was pretty sure that because I was not subject to this that my own personal ethics may not carry any weight at all. You also brought the biases of "mental health" with you when I made every effort to ensure that my post didn't imply any negative connotations regarding mental health status as being anything more than a health problem.
I definitely did misinterpret your position, but I had no assumption that you were being negative regarding mental health. My interpretation was that you understood the situation, but believed it better solved through the mental route rather than the physical. It was only after your clarification that I then understood your preference is of course for 'neither of the above', solving it socially rather than changing any aspect of the individual.
I do apologise if it sounded like I was one of the people that totally misunderstood you - I found the many other replies to you terribly shortsighted and emotion driven implying that you're 'bad' for considering it a mental health issue.
Basically, I agree completely that the social route would be best, but as I said, I don't believe it's possible and so out of the two viable options of "physical change" or "mental change", the physical seems less harmful to me for all the reasons I explained.
What's funny is that I'm a Libertarian at heart, registered Independent though. It's amazing the ignorance and biases people have. But that is SERIOUSLY a conversation for another day.
It definitely is getting off-topic, but just to answer briefly - I'm somewhere between "socialist" and "libertarian" which many people don't seem to believe should be able to exist. In short, I see the value of social benefits and taxation to provide for it (I used to live in Sydney Australia, where you pay tolls to drive anywhere useful, see homeless people all the time, and basically have privatised everything; now I live in Germany which is much more socialist by comparison and the standard of living difference is amazing - I'm more than happy to pay the high taxes I pay here because I see the benefits they provide); however I also believe the government has no right to interfere in personal matters which do not extend to the society as a whole. For example, debates regarding marriage, abortion, drugs, IP and ownership rights, etc. I'll almost always side with libertarians over socialists.
As I said, I need to go to work soon and I want to quickly reply to your other post first - if there's anything you think I've missed that you'd like me to answer, please reply again and I'll be happy to elaborate more later.
I can see, though, where it may be healthier to reassign the body instead of attempting to cure it with some sort of psychotherapy drug. Those drugs have some nasty side effects and can do some long term damage. We really don't understand the brain well at all. What's scary is, if you read some of those drugs - in the doctor's information, they clearly state that they don't know how they work! That, by itself, is scary so I can certainly see where you're coming from.
Yep - that's definitely an additional very strong danger. I can't agree more that messing with neurochemistry like that is pretty risky business (and as you might guess from my sig; some aspects of psychopharmacology are kind of a hobby of mine (plug: sometime later this year, I'll update my sig with a link to a book I'll be publishing which includes a rather good chapter on neurochemistry)).
But that aside, it addresses only a part of half of my concerns about fixing the problem 'in the mind' rather than 'in the body'. That is to say, my concern that "we suck at changing personality in others". Whether it be by these drugs that we don't really understand or by psychotherapy techniques that are scarily akin to brain-washing, we tend to cause more damage than we solve in a lot of people.
The other half of my concern however I don't think you addressed - and that's my point on 'invasiveness'. Changing 'who someone is' (even if we could do it perfectly) seems far harsher than changing physical aspects. There's a lot more blood and physical pain involved in the physical changes, but ethically speaking, I'd have stronger concerns about changing people at a fundamental level to match societies preferences.
Unfortunately, I think the "cure" is at the societal level where we'll need to convince people to stop being ignorant and allow them to fill whatever roll they feel they're most suited for. Ideally one would not need to feel obligated to change their gender if they could just live life representing themselves as who they are without regards to the contents of their genital region.
Does that make more sense?
Ah, right - I see where you're coming from with this. Yes, that does make more sense to me.
I think that if we had such a society (which I doubt we could sadly), very many of the cases where people currently undergo gender reassignment surgery would not be requested. However, I also think that some people would still want it. There'd still be those who would look at their body and say to themselves, "This isn't who I'm supposed to be" regardless of how accepted and normal it is. The question is whether in such a society the surgery would remain as the best option or not. Given that the feelings of 'not being right' would likely be much more muted due to a lack of external pressures, perhaps simply skilful counselling may be sufficient to help. Or, maybe not.
But regardless, we don't have such a society, and I really don't have enough faith in humanity in general to think we could achieve such. So, given the society that we have right now, it seems to be either a case of changing the person's 'core being', or changing their body. And from these two options, changing the body seems significantly less abhorrent to me.
I don't know about "better" but it is less invasive and less risky to their overall health.
I'm not really sure about that. Let me first clarify that I'm not jumping up and down about your use of the phrase 'mental heath issue' because I actually halfway agree with you. From my point of view, any mismatch between body and brain is an issue between the body and the brain. It could be corrected in either place to solve the problem.
Transgender issues are a perfect example, whereby the person mentally does not match the person physically. This could be corrected in two ways - either change the person mentally so that they are feel they fit in to the body they are in; or change the body so that it matches their mental state.
From my understanding, you're arguing for the former, whereas the majority of people argue for the latter.
While both would be solutions that solve the problem, the latter has some distinct advantages:
1) We suck at changing personality in others. Attempts usually end up with sub-standard results that have additional side-issues. Sure, we could improve, as we do with any field of science, but RIGHT NOW we'd do a pretty bad job of it on average. On this, I consider your statement that 'it's less risky to their overall health' to be possibly wrong. Their mental health would suffer far more under this attempt than their physical health under a gender reassignment operation.
2) In modern western society, we define ourselves as being the mind that occupies the body. The body isn't 'you', just the thing that's carrying you around. If it weren't, we wouldn't intuitively understand the concepts of 'out of body experiences', 'body swapping movies' or 'downloading yourself in to a computer'. Modifying 'you' is much harsher than modifying 'the thing that carries you around'. On this, I consider your statement that 'it's less invasive' to be possibly wrong. It is far more invasive to change the 'core being' of a person than to change any physical aspect of them.
I'd definitely find it interesting to hear your arguments against this though. You seem to be a rational enough person from looking at your posts, so I'm sure you've got interesting arguments to support your thoughts on the matter.
I'm now one of those in the "don't have a TV" crowd, and I believe that theories of economics have affected the masses by way of the television.
Out of interest, do you watch TV/Movies anyway? I didn't have a TV for most of my adult life - it was only when I moved in with my girlfriend (who is now my wife), that there ended up being one in the house. I do however have a fairly large collection of DVDs and TV/Movie/Documentary files on my computer.
From my point of view at least, I get the 'good' from your post, with less (but admittedly not "no") exposure to the 'bad' and the 'ugly'.
I've always wondered what the data would look like asking "Are you a safer driver than the average person?", "How many accidents have you been involved in?", "How many of those accidents do you feel were your fault?", "How many of those accidents were you found legally at fault for?". I get the feeling it'll be like self performance appraisals from engineers, where the good ones tend to rate themselves lower than others.
Most likely, but it depends on "how good" you're talking. I think "very good drivers" will rate themselves a little lower, but "slightly above average" are probably aware of it.
My answers:
Are you a safer driver than the average person?
Yes, I believe I am. Probably not "a lot safer", but generally speaking, I believe my situational awareness is better than most, and I drive a sports car which - when driven properly - is safer due to greater manoeuvrability than many other vehicles driving it recklessly as many sports car drivers do is much less safe; but there's been a few situations where some idiot has pulled out of a side street right in front of me when I had right of way and only the fact that my car CAN swerve around without losing control is what saved me from an accident. Driving my wife's car, I feel quite unsafe in comparison.
How many accidents have you been involved in?
Two:
One where I drove in to a hidden ditch in front of my parents house as I came out of the driveway. I was following an ambulance containing my mother to the hospital and was very distraught. The accident occurred at a speed of around 5km/h.
And the other, I reversed in to a moped behind me that wasn't visible in my rear view mirror. My speed was probably around 3km/h. I was at an intersection coming from a side street where I couldn't see traffic from the main road due to roadworks without driving out a little, looking, and then reversing back if there was traffic coming. I did this three times and on the third time the moped had come up behind me without my knowledge.
"How many of those accidents do you feel were your fault?", "How many of those accidents were you found legally at fault for?"
For both questions, I feel that both were my fault and I accepted legal fault for them (for the first, I was simply in a very bad state of mind and should not have been driving, but felt I had no option; and for the second, I SHOULD have looked over my shoulder when reversing, but didn't.)
Mac Pro’s flash internal storage will offer an astoundingly fast 1.25GBps reads and 1.0GBps writes. That's great, but is this a sign of things to come? Like a Macbook Pro with PCIe flash? Oh, the possibilities...
I'm due for an upgrade of my work laptop next April... REALLY hoping there's a new line of Macbook Pros out by then, since otherwise I'll be getting the current generation, which may be a little outdated by then. (I have to have a Mac for work - not that I'm complaining, but it's worth mentioning in case anyone says I should get a <insert_favourite_other_brand_here> instead).
I would truly love to see a MBP with PCIe flash come out - it'd suit my work needs pretty much perfectly.
on a different but related note what is with the general public conflating mac use with tech savvy? most mac users i know use it because they are to confused by windows so need a easier system. I know that not all are that way but that has just been my personal experience.
My experience has pretty much been:
Most non-tech people: Windows that came with the box they bought; rarely MacOS that came with the box they bought because someone told them it was 'better'.
Hipsters: Macs, because they're 'cool'.
Tech people that enjoy tinkering: Linux, because it LETS you tinker to your heart's content.
Tech people that are sick of tinkering: Macs, because they give you a Unixy enough environment out of the box; but 'just works' for dealing with standard everyday tasks; at the expense of customisability (i.e. get used to the Apple way, because you can't change it)
I pretty much fall in to that last category. My servers are Linux; my desktops and laptops are Macs (with VMWare Fusion for work stuff where I code on Windows). I can't make it as comfortable as I can make a Linux box, but it also lets me 'plug it in, turn it on and start doing stuff' without having to think about it when I get a new system or do a major upgrade.
There's a lot of things that I find really useful in the overall system, such as having my Apple account linked to the Mac App Store, so when I set up a new Mac, I just give it those details and it sucks down and installs the various apps I like to have. Sure, I COULD do these kinds of things manually (or spend the time to set up my own automated system), but I'm old and lazy and just can't be bothered spending half my time "making my system perfect" like I did when I was younger.
Let this be a lesson: Don't dis the metric people, they are petty with no sense of humor.
If it helps - which it probably doesn't - I would've modded you "Funny". I agree whoever modded you flamebait clearly had no sense of humour. Let's hope it gets them back in metamoderation.
My last compact car weighed 3985 lbs curb weight and it was German.
Hmmm... that's about 1.8 metric tons; definitely not what I'd calla a "compact car". My little sports car is just under 1 metric ton. Looking at various German cars on wikipedia that I'd call "compact cars" the weight seems to be around 1.3 metric tons in general.
Examples: Mercedes A Class, VW Golf.
That weight looks more like a family car to me - e.g. VW Passat.
But, as far as I know, the definition of "compact car" is somewhat different in different countries, so it's probably a definition thing more than anything else.
Where can one get one of these "ton and a half" SUV's?
The Ford Escape is about that (well, 1.5 metric tons; so a bit over in imperial)... I think that's classed as an SUV...
Why do you want to keep email on a server that you do not control?
For me, because I don't want to deal with the headache of managing my own email server (including backups, ensuring uptime, etc). Google's servers are far LESS likely to just "up and die" on me than any server I run myself. Sure, if I ran my own, I could do things that I can't do with Gmail... but the simple fact is that I really don't want to - there's nothing I need from email that isn't provided by Gmail already; nor is there anything they're doing that I have a serious problem with (yes, I'm totally fine that their systems are reading my mail... it doesn't bother me at all).
Quite simply: most functionality for the least work.
Gmail IMAP is crap it doesn't support one of the most important commands.
Out of interest, what command is that? I use Gmail primarily through IMAP on three different devices (two different email clients) and haven't noticed any problems. Not saying you're wrong, but just that I genuinely haven't seen a problem, so from my perspective if it is missing a command, it can't really be THAT important can it?
From my point of view, the web interface is the "fallback" that I use if I want to check my email without having access to any of these three devices for whatever reason (i.e. very seldom). As long as it's basically functional, I don't really care what it looks like.