In 10, 20, 30 years, or more, someone will discover that this stuff is really bad for us, too. There will be news specials on families who saw high incidence of cancer, birth defects, or who knows what. They'll vouch that it causes autism and Mad Cow Disease. They'll even suggest that we should not be putting tons of this crap into our landfills.
All new technology looks marvelous today. Hey, once upon a time lead solder was a miracle material for the canning industry! Time brings hindsight, and that's when we start to realize that we still understand far too little about how much we are affected by things in our enviornment.
If you're working with students and fall under FERPA, you darn well better have a policy in place, and a way to verify that users understand and agree to follow the policy. Otherwise, the auditors will hang you from the highest tower and let the crows gnaw on your...
As best I can tell, the number of people trying to contact you is an aggregate of all the users who wanted to view additional information about you--the type of information only paid users can post. I've watched my number of people who want to connect with me climb over the years.
I would completely pull out of the site, but it is, perhaps my best shot at figuring out when my 20-year reunion will be held next year (since I now live far from my old home).
I contacted my account manager via email this morning (I rarely can reach her via phone). Now I wait to see how they respond.
The main thought I tried to convey is that they had a chance to build the network and they passed it up, and that coming back to sue the city after they said "no" just seems plain evil and greedy. It makes them sound like a company I would not want to do business with.
My company has TDS as an Internet service provider, and I've not been impressed with their service of late. This takes the cake. I am the decision-maker at my workplace, so Monday morning will feature a few calls--both to TDS and to our regional cable provider.
I had been investigating a cable Internet on-ramp as a backup connection, but now I think we should just move our account away from TDS. My sales rep will hear from me on Monday morning.
I apologize for offending you with my use of "sic". No, I did not see it as something that could come across that way.
You are not the first to suggest a touch of autism--I had a doctor once who thought I might lean that way except for the fact that my language skills never regressed (it's not something for which they tested when I was a kid). I have one son in the autistic spectrum, however, and I can see much of myself in him. Even if I am a touch autistic, it would not excuse me from poor behavior. In the sense that my comment offended you or lacked sensitivity, then I bear fault and accept it.
It would seem that the commentary provided with the definition provides a literary point of view rather than simply the definition, though I will concede that some may intend it as such. I have always known the definition to be, as stated earlier, that the presented text was an accurate representation of the original. Both the Mirriam-Webster and American Heritage dictionaries make refernce to that meaning, without inclusion of any suggestion of a virtual sneer. From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sic%5B3%5D: " intentionally so written --used after a printed word or passage to indicate that it is intended exactly as printed or to indicate that it exactly reproduces an original ".
I meant no offense. I simply do my best to follow the rules of writing that I was taught. I presented an exact quotation with "[sic]" to designate that I was presenting the quote exactly as it appeared, and that the non-standard usage was the original writer's and not my own. I guess you can take a man out of academics, but you can't take the academics out of the man.
While I understand what you are saying, and it makes sense in human terms, simply returning a stolen object does not "undo" a theft any more than resucitating a body (whether believed possible or not) would undo a murder. The violation occurred. The point I'm trying to make is that true Christianity is not a system whereby deeds, good and bad, are weighed to determine if someone is "good enough" to gain eternal reward (though that is an error to which many de novo Christians adhere). To the Christian, in the presence of a holy God, even the most trivial sin is damning because it is a reflection of a desire to put ourselves first, both before others and before our creator. In my eyes, do I believe that the man who raped my six-year-old neice deserves greater punishment than someone who omits reporting $40 of income on their taxes? Absolutely!, and in this world there are institutions of justice that should work to preserve the social order and punish wrongdoers, but in God's economy, both offenses are enough to keep us from fellowship with him.
If you have no desire to understand the Holy, I cannot fault you for finding fault in my argument. The teaching of the Cross (messiah's sacrificial death for our sins) has long been considered folly to those who do not believe. If you consider me a fool, then I wear that badge with honor--not because it wins me any special favor with God, but because it demonstrates that I am finally starting to care less about my own reputation (as measured by those who live in this world) and more about being faithful to proclaiming the good news that I have received.
May you know peace, and may God himself breath upon you and bless you.
It was not my intention to sneer at you. If that is how you perceived it, then I apologize. I, simply, desired to present my beliefs in the context of the discussion.
In the realm of Christian theology, your final statement is accurate: that "we;re [sic] going to hell regardless." That is the foundation of understanding the Christian teaching of sin and redemption.
The belief may be summarized thus: God is without sin and requires mankind to be without sin to enjoy fellowship with him. Mankind has partaken in sin--of varying degrees, yet all falling short of God's perfection--requiring God's justice (e.g., "the wages of sin is death"). God's justice requires sacrifice (i.e., "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins"), but no mere man could offer a sacrifice great enough to appease God's wrath. Christian teaching is that messiah, Yeshua (Jesus) or Nazareth, was God himself come to earth in human form (i.e., "In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God and God was the Word...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."), to take the punnishment for sin (i.e., "For what the Law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sin nature, God did, by sending his son, in the likeness of sinful man, to be a sin offering."). Having lived as a man without sin, death could not keep him, as it only has authority over those under the power of sin. Thus, crucified, he became accursed (i.e., "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree."), died, was burried, but was raised to life (since he had no sin to keep him under death's authority). The teaching continues that his resurrection is the hope of all who believe on him (i.e., trust God's means of salvation through the cross of Christ), that they, too, will one day be raised from the dead because they trust that Christ's death was sufficient to pay for their sins (i.e., making them positionally "not guilty" or having a debt [to death] "paid in full" by the death of Christ).
Therefore, to the Christian (not merely the de novo Christian), all "sin" is failure to meet God's perfect standard, no matter how gross the offense, and all are equally condemned. The Christian realizes that God is more interested in the attitude of the heart (e.g., Yeshua taught that hatred is the same as murder and that lust is the same as adultery), than in the perceived severity of the sin. That being the fact, I apologize for any times that others, claiming the name of Christ, may have belittled you or given you a hard time in the name of proclaiming their faith or in claiming that they are somehow better than are you. Your comment, "we;re [sic] going to hell regardless", applies as much to them as it does to you or did to me. As for me, I'm all in now. I trust this seemingly strange salvation that God has offered, and I hope you will consider the same. It is the only thing that has brought me peace.
Look, he needed to ask the question. Maybe he was both a Boy Scout and someone reared to respect authority (rare in these days, I know). S/he likely felt morally conflicted regarding two competing standards: obey the boss (respect authority) and do not steal (moral code). Add to it the fact that a majority of people in tech [Warning: shirt-cuff statistic ("majority") made up by the author on the spot based on the author's previous experiences.] have views on data piracy (e.g., copying software, media file sharing) that vary from black and white (right and wrong) to varying shades of grey (it's not okay in most cases, but in your cicumstance it is justified). Given that environment, it is logical and expected that the submitter would ask the question. We must not forget that our own views on many topics were not always concrete. They are formed (and sometimes re-formed) by our experiences and the things that happen that reinforce or contradict our views.
I noticed you left out phone calls. Perhaps that's because you realize there are legal limits to sending unsolicited information. In the case of billboards, mass mailings, and fliers, the seller/marketer bears the cost of the communication. A person does not need to accept a flier that is being handed out. People can opt out of most mass mailings, or dump the unopened envelopes when they arrive. Billboards, while often obnoxious, don't require that I deal with them (I need not look), and most cities and states are regulating the number and size of billboards already. Spam can make a user's email inbox unusable. I know two company execs who have stopped pulling email messages on their BlackBerry devices because the volume of spam they receive makes it impractical to use the devices for email. Unlike those other forms, spam can have a documented negative impact on consumers, and on the carriers (ISPs and mail servers).
You likely don't list phone calls because legal precedent is clear that consumers don't need to accept them. Unlike the other forms of mass communication, telephone calls are considered an imposition on consumer rights and privacy, so consumers may opt out (proactively with the "do not call" list). With cell phones, it goes further, since incoming calls can cost the consumer money, and Federal law already protects cell phone numbers from unwanted cell-call-spam (this does not protect cell users from solicitation calls from vendors with which they already have a customer relationship, or in cases where the consumer has willingly waived the right not to receive those calls). Email still costs some consumers money (those on dial-up and those with limited plans, few though they may be), and the volume involved also creates a quantifiable burden on consumers. [Care to wade through the 300+ spam--not subscription messages or vendor updates--that I receive a day across my various accounts?]. Email spam also creates additional burdens for the carriers and companies that host web servers. Unlike the postal service model, where the bulk mailers pay to have their messages delivered--including all intermediary post offices, spammers send their crap across countless servers that are overburdened due to the flood. These devices require additional hardware resources, often additional support, and additional software expense to try to eliminate that crap that is coming across the wire. Then, remember that the majority of spam is sent from compromised bot machines, which are illegally accessed and used to send the crap... The "ordinary person" principle would apply here. An ordinary person would see a problem with that.
The fact that you don't makes me wonder if you are (have been) a spammer, or if you provide(d) support services for that economic machine. If not, I apologize for what is perhaps the greatest of insults (suggesting that you are a spammer). If so, you just prove yourself to be outside of the mainstream of society.
Who's to say that there are grades of evil? If the standard is perfection, then any failure disqualifies. If the passing score on an exam is 100%, and one student gets a 99% while another gets only 3%, does it really matter?--they both fail.
One being absolved in the eyes of the court does not mean one is truly absolved of wrong-doing. It just means that the court determined that the action(s) did not violate the societal code of law. It does not mean that one did not violate moral law.
And they hosed over the gmail applet. It no longer has the same functionality as it did previously (where it simply opened up a full gmail window).
I thought I hosed it by downloading a different theme (I thought it was functionality added in the theme). I hope Google is reading this--the redesign rots!
In my experience, I've yet to see a company (of more than a handful of users) that is willing to run out and try some new software (or new release) as soon as it is available. The stigma has less to do with the version number, and more to do with expectations that *all* software is buggy when it is first released. They delay adoption becuase they figure someone (the early adopters) will try it, find the problem, and get them addressed. When a certain amount of time has passed, or when the first patch/service pack becomes available, then they might jump on board.
It seems too small to be expanded to general conclusions.
"...included surveys and room inspections of 76 college students and 94 professionals ranging fromrealtors to architects."
It seems to me that you would need larger samples in more life/professional areas to draw reasonable conclusions. Could the tendency to be more or less organized also be attributable to one's profession or current life circumstance?
My room is full of trinkets and mementos, three guitars, a set of congas, clutter, and colorful trinkets from friends in other countries, and colorful gifts from friends who have traveled where I have not had the opportunity to go. You'll find evidence of my hobby of dabbling in foreign languages. You won't find a single American flag, sport poster, or banner, yet the majority of my political views are squarely conservative. While it is an interesting topic of study, the sample will need to be much larger, and the demographic divisors much more granular, before onclusions may be extended to the general population.
Or, if you accept the court's premise, carry it out to its logical end. If a suspect refuses to turn over a physical key, law enforcement must either hire a locksmith or break into the protected space. Should it not be the same in the virtual world? If a suspect will not turn over a key, let law enforcement use the means at their disposal to break in.
Of course, the reason they would not accept this logical extension of their argument is that they realize they likely never would be able to break into most systems (at least within the statutory limits).
Probably the most significant factor with earbuds is that, if used continually, they do not allow the sensing mechanisms of the ear to rest. It appears to be the continued stress of constant sound at a sustained high volume that is most harmful. Even taking the earbuds off after every few songs (for about 10-15 minutes) would go a long way to preventing permanent damage.
Slashdot Mirror
In 10, 20, 30 years, or more, someone will discover that this stuff is really bad for us, too. There will be news specials on families who saw high incidence of cancer, birth defects, or who knows what. They'll vouch that it causes autism and Mad Cow Disease. They'll even suggest that we should not be putting tons of this crap into our landfills.
All new technology looks marvelous today. Hey, once upon a time lead solder was a miracle material for the canning industry! Time brings hindsight, and that's when we start to realize that we still understand far too little about how much we are affected by things in our enviornment.
If you're working with students and fall under FERPA, you darn well better have a policy in place, and a way to verify that users understand and agree to follow the policy. Otherwise, the auditors will hang you from the highest tower and let the crows gnaw on your...
Okay, get the picture?
As best I can tell, the number of people trying to contact you is an aggregate of all the users who wanted to view additional information about you--the type of information only paid users can post. I've watched my number of people who want to connect with me climb over the years.
I would completely pull out of the site, but it is, perhaps my best shot at figuring out when my 20-year reunion will be held next year (since I now live far from my old home).
If automakers operated like phone companies, they would insist on owning all of the roads.
I contacted my account manager via email this morning (I rarely can reach her via phone). Now I wait to see how they respond. The main thought I tried to convey is that they had a chance to build the network and they passed it up, and that coming back to sue the city after they said "no" just seems plain evil and greedy. It makes them sound like a company I would not want to do business with.
My company has TDS as an Internet service provider, and I've not been impressed with their service of late. This takes the cake. I am the decision-maker at my workplace, so Monday morning will feature a few calls--both to TDS and to our regional cable provider.
I had been investigating a cable Internet on-ramp as a backup connection, but now I think we should just move our account away from TDS. My sales rep will hear from me on Monday morning.
The semiconductor industry would love it, since each passenger plane would suddenly need terrabytes or RAM!
I apologize for offending you with my use of "sic". No, I did not see it as something that could come across that way.
You are not the first to suggest a touch of autism--I had a doctor once who thought I might lean that way except for the fact that my language skills never regressed (it's not something for which they tested when I was a kid). I have one son in the autistic spectrum, however, and I can see much of myself in him. Even if I am a touch autistic, it would not excuse me from poor behavior. In the sense that my comment offended you or lacked sensitivity, then I bear fault and accept it.
It would seem that the commentary provided with the definition provides a literary point of view rather than simply the definition, though I will concede that some may intend it as such. I have always known the definition to be, as stated earlier, that the presented text was an accurate representation of the original. Both the Mirriam-Webster and American Heritage dictionaries make refernce to that meaning, without inclusion of any suggestion of a virtual sneer. From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sic%5B3%5D: " intentionally so written --used after a printed word or passage to indicate that it is intended exactly as printed or to indicate that it exactly reproduces an original ".
I meant no offense. I simply do my best to follow the rules of writing that I was taught. I presented an exact quotation with "[sic]" to designate that I was presenting the quote exactly as it appeared, and that the non-standard usage was the original writer's and not my own. I guess you can take a man out of academics, but you can't take the academics out of the man.
Humblest apologies,
Andrew
a.k.a. HikingStick
While I understand what you are saying, and it makes sense in human terms, simply returning a stolen object does not "undo" a theft any more than resucitating a body (whether believed possible or not) would undo a murder. The violation occurred. The point I'm trying to make is that true Christianity is not a system whereby deeds, good and bad, are weighed to determine if someone is "good enough" to gain eternal reward (though that is an error to which many de novo Christians adhere). To the Christian, in the presence of a holy God, even the most trivial sin is damning because it is a reflection of a desire to put ourselves first, both before others and before our creator. In my eyes, do I believe that the man who raped my six-year-old neice deserves greater punishment than someone who omits reporting $40 of income on their taxes? Absolutely!, and in this world there are institutions of justice that should work to preserve the social order and punish wrongdoers, but in God's economy, both offenses are enough to keep us from fellowship with him.
If you have no desire to understand the Holy, I cannot fault you for finding fault in my argument. The teaching of the Cross (messiah's sacrificial death for our sins) has long been considered folly to those who do not believe. If you consider me a fool, then I wear that badge with honor--not because it wins me any special favor with God, but because it demonstrates that I am finally starting to care less about my own reputation (as measured by those who live in this world) and more about being faithful to proclaiming the good news that I have received.
May you know peace, and may God himself breath upon you and bless you.
It was not my intention to sneer at you. If that is how you perceived it, then I apologize. I, simply, desired to present my beliefs in the context of the discussion.
In the realm of Christian theology, your final statement is accurate: that "we;re [sic] going to hell regardless." That is the foundation of understanding the Christian teaching of sin and redemption.
The belief may be summarized thus: God is without sin and requires mankind to be without sin to enjoy fellowship with him. Mankind has partaken in sin--of varying degrees, yet all falling short of God's perfection--requiring God's justice (e.g., "the wages of sin is death"). God's justice requires sacrifice (i.e., "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins"), but no mere man could offer a sacrifice great enough to appease God's wrath. Christian teaching is that messiah, Yeshua (Jesus) or Nazareth, was God himself come to earth in human form (i.e., "In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God and God was the Word...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."), to take the punnishment for sin (i.e., "For what the Law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sin nature, God did, by sending his son, in the likeness of sinful man, to be a sin offering."). Having lived as a man without sin, death could not keep him, as it only has authority over those under the power of sin. Thus, crucified, he became accursed (i.e., "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree."), died, was burried, but was raised to life (since he had no sin to keep him under death's authority). The teaching continues that his resurrection is the hope of all who believe on him (i.e., trust God's means of salvation through the cross of Christ), that they, too, will one day be raised from the dead because they trust that Christ's death was sufficient to pay for their sins (i.e., making them positionally "not guilty" or having a debt [to death] "paid in full" by the death of Christ).
Therefore, to the Christian (not merely the de novo Christian), all "sin" is failure to meet God's perfect standard, no matter how gross the offense, and all are equally condemned. The Christian realizes that God is more interested in the attitude of the heart (e.g., Yeshua taught that hatred is the same as murder and that lust is the same as adultery), than in the perceived severity of the sin. That being the fact, I apologize for any times that others, claiming the name of Christ, may have belittled you or given you a hard time in the name of proclaiming their faith or in claiming that they are somehow better than are you. Your comment, "we;re [sic] going to hell regardless", applies as much to them as it does to you or did to me. As for me, I'm all in now. I trust this seemingly strange salvation that God has offered, and I hope you will consider the same. It is the only thing that has brought me peace.
Look, he needed to ask the question. Maybe he was both a Boy Scout and someone reared to respect authority (rare in these days, I know). S/he likely felt morally conflicted regarding two competing standards: obey the boss (respect authority) and do not steal (moral code). Add to it the fact that a majority of people in tech [Warning: shirt-cuff statistic ("majority") made up by the author on the spot based on the author's previous experiences.] have views on data piracy (e.g., copying software, media file sharing) that vary from black and white (right and wrong) to varying shades of grey (it's not okay in most cases, but in your cicumstance it is justified). Given that environment, it is logical and expected that the submitter would ask the question. We must not forget that our own views on many topics were not always concrete. They are formed (and sometimes re-formed) by our experiences and the things that happen that reinforce or contradict our views.
I noticed you left out phone calls. Perhaps that's because you realize there are legal limits to sending unsolicited information. In the case of billboards, mass mailings, and fliers, the seller/marketer bears the cost of the communication. A person does not need to accept a flier that is being handed out. People can opt out of most mass mailings, or dump the unopened envelopes when they arrive. Billboards, while often obnoxious, don't require that I deal with them (I need not look), and most cities and states are regulating the number and size of billboards already. Spam can make a user's email inbox unusable. I know two company execs who have stopped pulling email messages on their BlackBerry devices because the volume of spam they receive makes it impractical to use the devices for email. Unlike those other forms, spam can have a documented negative impact on consumers, and on the carriers (ISPs and mail servers).
You likely don't list phone calls because legal precedent is clear that consumers don't need to accept them. Unlike the other forms of mass communication, telephone calls are considered an imposition on consumer rights and privacy, so consumers may opt out (proactively with the "do not call" list). With cell phones, it goes further, since incoming calls can cost the consumer money, and Federal law already protects cell phone numbers from unwanted cell-call-spam (this does not protect cell users from solicitation calls from vendors with which they already have a customer relationship, or in cases where the consumer has willingly waived the right not to receive those calls). Email still costs some consumers money (those on dial-up and those with limited plans, few though they may be), and the volume involved also creates a quantifiable burden on consumers. [Care to wade through the 300+ spam--not subscription messages or vendor updates--that I receive a day across my various accounts?]. Email spam also creates additional burdens for the carriers and companies that host web servers. Unlike the postal service model, where the bulk mailers pay to have their messages delivered--including all intermediary post offices, spammers send their crap across countless servers that are overburdened due to the flood. These devices require additional hardware resources, often additional support, and additional software expense to try to eliminate that crap that is coming across the wire. Then, remember that the majority of spam is sent from compromised bot machines, which are illegally accessed and used to send the crap... The "ordinary person" principle would apply here. An ordinary person would see a problem with that.
The fact that you don't makes me wonder if you are (have been) a spammer, or if you provide(d) support services for that economic machine. If not, I apologize for what is perhaps the greatest of insults (suggesting that you are a spammer). If so, you just prove yourself to be outside of the mainstream of society.
Who's to say that there are grades of evil? If the standard is perfection, then any failure disqualifies. If the passing score on an exam is 100%, and one student gets a 99% while another gets only 3%, does it really matter?--they both fail.
One being absolved in the eyes of the court does not mean one is truly absolved of wrong-doing. It just means that the court determined that the action(s) did not violate the societal code of law. It does not mean that one did not violate moral law.
And they hosed over the gmail applet. It no longer has the same functionality as it did previously (where it simply opened up a full gmail window).
I thought I hosed it by downloading a different theme (I thought it was functionality added in the theme). I hope Google is reading this--the redesign rots!
In my experience, I've yet to see a company (of more than a handful of users) that is willing to run out and try some new software (or new release) as soon as it is available. The stigma has less to do with the version number, and more to do with expectations that *all* software is buggy when it is first released. They delay adoption becuase they figure someone (the early adopters) will try it, find the problem, and get them addressed. When a certain amount of time has passed, or when the first patch/service pack becomes available, then they might jump on board.
It seems to me that you would need larger samples in more life/professional areas to draw reasonable conclusions. Could the tendency to be more or less organized also be attributable to one's profession or current life circumstance?
My room is full of trinkets and mementos, three guitars, a set of congas, clutter, and colorful trinkets from friends in other countries, and colorful gifts from friends who have traveled where I have not had the opportunity to go. You'll find evidence of my hobby of dabbling in foreign languages. You won't find a single American flag, sport poster, or banner, yet the majority of my political views are squarely conservative. While it is an interesting topic of study, the sample will need to be much larger, and the demographic divisors much more granular, before onclusions may be extended to the general population.
Or, if you accept the court's premise, carry it out to its logical end. If a suspect refuses to turn over a physical key, law enforcement must either hire a locksmith or break into the protected space. Should it not be the same in the virtual world? If a suspect will not turn over a key, let law enforcement use the means at their disposal to break in.
Of course, the reason they would not accept this logical extension of their argument is that they realize they likely never would be able to break into most systems (at least within the statutory limits).
Great! Now we're waiting on the sun to break wind!
Probably the most significant factor with earbuds is that, if used continually, they do not allow the sensing mechanisms of the ear to rest. It appears to be the continued stress of constant sound at a sustained high volume that is most harmful. Even taking the earbuds off after every few songs (for about 10-15 minutes) would go a long way to preventing permanent damage.
IANAL, but this is illegal in many (if not all) states in the US.
Pay me a nickel every time I read a comment attached to disagree mail?