Welcome to utilities with defacto monopolies. I've had the same beef for a long time.... In one of the densest area in the US, I struggle to get 1Mbit download without aggreeing to a ridiculous TOS. I'd love to get those speeds, but I don't think I'll be allowed to do anything other than receive IPTV on it. Bleah.
The other part I'd like to point out is that very plants actually get switched off. The only time a power plant is off is when it needs maintenance - and then the plant is offline for a few months. I think the prices reflect simple supply and demand - demand goes up and supply stays constant. Therefore, prices go up.
I agree with your points, but I would like to point out that passenger cars account for 40% of our oil use in 2004. The link is from a tree hugger site, but it references the Annual Energy Information Administration Annual Assessment from 2004. This was on the first page of a quick google search. Considering that the EIA estimates that 2/3 of all oil use in the US is for transportation, and 2/3 of that oil is gasoline, I'd say that the 40% number quoted by the site is pretty accurate.
So yes, lowering gas consumption of passenger cars by even 5% would have a noticeable impact on the US oil consumption. Doubling the gas mileage would reduce our oil useage by 20%.... something to think about.
The law was designed by the utility guys? Why am I not surprised that the math doesn't work out? To some extent, I'm willing to go off-grid just to spite those fuckers. The electric utilities in California have been some of the most despicable monopolies I've seen... they've done everything they could to milk everyone for more money, including buying absurdly beneficial legislation (like the deregulation that was only in name), shutting down power plants during the highest load times to be able to justify rate hikes and just generally not giving a flying fuck about the people subjected to their monopoly.
If I can afford the increased cost of going off-grid, I will. Make magazine has a how-to for making a wind-powered generator, solar panels are available, and the only thing that's missing is a home fuel cell to provide a steady supply of power when all else fails. It's not cheap, but I'll be ecstatic when I'll be able to cut that stupid line to PGE. This is not a question of if, but of when. I hope that that won't be illegal when I'll be able to do it.
Just like with what we're seeing with cars right now (energy-efficient cars becoming hot sellers due to a quadrupling of gas prices here in CA), home energy will become interesting for the masses only when energy prices rise from their current levels.
I currently spend $20 a month on electricity (no AC, no washer and drier, no washing machine though), so for me, anything outside of a small windturbine would be completely inefficient. I'm actually hoping that we a) ditch our efforts to secure large imports of cheap oil and b) ditch our efforts to subsidize home fossil fuel extraction (which includes biofuels from ethanol, btw). If we're serious about energy independence, we first have to have an incentive to be that - and free markets are, unfortunately, the most efficient way to get there.
Alright, I'm genuinely curious where you picked up the ya'll (correct spelling, even).
As for Wikipedia links... don't know where I demanded them. I thought I'd point you to some helpful resources in order to not come across like a complete lunatic, but that's ok. I didn't want to strain you with requesting actual references. I guess I'll also forget about your promise to deconstruct my post. It's a shame, really, I was looking for some entertainment.
Ah.... Lots of hot air, no substance. Shame, really.
Reading comprehension, my friend. It comes in handy. When one of the founding members leaves an organization, it has serious issues. When people reference a time frame, they do it for a purpose. When I said "in the fifties", I meant "in the fifties". Not any other time frame. If NATO was so critical to the stability of the member states, why didn't Europe implode when France left it? Because NATO was NOT a critical aspect.
Besides, we are talking about stability in the EU, of which Russia isn't a part. No one was talking about whether NATO was necessary to counter an external threat, but whether NATO was necessary to keep France, Germany, Britain and Spain from going at each other.
Arguments that are true, no matter how much your distaste (or that hilariously selective memory you seem afflicted with) for them clouds your POV.
I wasn't debating their truth - I was stating that use of this argument (especially its one-sentence form) is restricted to Americans. If you're interested in debating their truth... you can read. Go read. I have no interest in spoon-feeding you the conclusions of people who have invested far more time into this question than me.
Sooooo.... you're American, after all? I'm shocked - shocked, I say! I would have never guessed it. I also see that you decided not to display what certainly is your vast knowledge of history. Would you perhaps like to link to some Wikipedia articles to support your argument? You might want to read them beforehand though, lest you link to something that just directly contradicts you. Just a friendly heads-up, you know.
In the meantime, I'm still waiting for your deconstruction. Somehow, I feel I might be waiting in vain.
Educated guess. You've got the "Without the US, the world would descend into anarchy" attitude down pat. You regurgitate arguments about Europe posting in German or Russian or not at all - arguments that I've only seen from Americans. Few people outside of the US use ya'll, and the Americans who do use it do it when they want to drive home their cultural identity. There is a chance you're not, but it is slim.
I'm waiting for your dissection of the rest of my post. Though I don't expect much. Don't hurt your brain in the process.
A little sensitive, are we? I didn't talk about the US contributions during WW2 (which are also far smaller than Americans like to think). I didn't say that the US contributed nothing - I said that the US' rise to superpower status had nothing to do with Europe's stability. And I also never mentioned preferring Stalin, Hitler or Mussolini to Truman.
Then again, I'm not surprised. It's right in line with the poster who pointed me to Wiki articles that contradicted his own position. A lot of American historical knowledge seems to be based on wishful thinking.
Wow - did you read the links you provided? NATO was designed to counter the Soviet threat. It was basically falling apart in the fifties. OECD was initially designed to administrate the Marshall Plan, and still exists today. There is one major contribution from the US that actually did help with establishing peace in Europe: the Marshall plan. Kudos for that. It's one of the reasons that people in Europe still like the US.
As for everything else... snicker. It's hard to take you seriously when even your sources contradict you.
Wow... what's with the moderation today? Maybe the American moderators should stick to moderating topics they have a clue about?
The EU has its roots in the Franco-German Steel and Coal agreements of the 50s, whose primary goal was peace in Europe. Everything else is just added bureaucracy. The rise of the US as a superpower had no impact on peace in Europe, unless you count conflict with Russia as part of a European conflict.
What cracls me up the most when I read posts like these is that every last American posting here comes from Europe, Asia or Africa. I.e., the places that have perfected the art of killing for the past thousand years or so. The ignorance of many Americans wouldn't be so frightening if it wouldn't have such a large military.... but that'll all fade in 30 years or so. Go back to your trailer, and enjoy the sunset of the American Empire.
"If you've been to Europe recently and noticed how citizens see themselves as European first and nationals second, you will see they've done very well on their goals"
What the hell are you smoking??? Go to France, and be astounded at the Frenchness of the French. Go to Germany, and be astounded at their Germanness. Go to Sweden.... you get the point. Not only are all the countries resolutely individual, they are proud to be something specific. Finally, a couple of countries voted against the EU constitution, some never really joined (they are only part of the EU market), and you'll realize that Europe is a long way from become a nation.
Whoever modded this informative hasn't been to Europe.
If I'd be an organized crime ring, I'd be barely able to contain my enthusiasm for this solution: for a paltry $50K, I can set up a site that users will almost automatically assume to be safe and part of a real bank.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but bank phishing works by convincing people that they're logging onto their own bank - the bank at which they are a customer and have an account number and password. Let's say you opened a personalcity.bank account with your $50K. How would you convince a person that they were a customer of your bank? What would you do with the account # they gave you? Unless you just wanted to get their Social Security Numbers, I don't see much point in registering your own bank domain. What do you mean, "just" their personal info? For 50K, I get to set up a whole sham bank! Send out a few billion spam emails, run a little ponzi scheme for a while, sell personal information, steal identities; the opportunities to make money are endless. It's basically a 50k license to run a bank the way that some audio/video online shops are run in New Jersey and New York.
Even if we discount the problems we currently have with various DNS poisoning attacks, social engineering and just URL spam, it's basic premise is completely flawed. Why? Because the two assumptions it rests on are laughably easy to circumvent: spammers don't want to spend $50k on one domain, and registering as a financial institution anywhere is difficult.
If I'd be an organized crime ring, I'd be barely able to contain my enthusiasm for this solution: for a paltry $50K, I can set up a site that users will almost automatically assume to be safe and part of a real bank. Time to register for mypersonalcity.bank, bankofus.bank, continentwide.bank, and make a killing!
As far as i can tell, no one will require anybody to show ID upon request except where they are already being asked to show ID: at the airport, during a traffic stop, in court, at the DMV, to open a bank account, etc. So it doesn't look to me like this will impact when we have to show ID and when we need to carry it.
Furthermore, there already exists one national ID number that is, according to nearly all expert opinions, completely broken: our SSN. Open a bank accout? Get a credit card? Get hooked up to electricity and the internet? Interview for a job? Regardless of where you are, your SSN is your national ID number, even if it was never designed to be used as such.
I realize that the REAL ID won't reach any of its purported goals (deter terrorism, etc), but it will be a semi-component replacement for a very, very badly implemented national id number.
What's wrong with that? As I said, I'm not trying to troll, I'd just really like to understand what all the opposition is about.
Good points - and I'd like to expand on one of them. If you make a game like WoW, you're guaranteed that you won't be as successful as WoW, because every last WoW player who has at least one character that is level 60+ won't be interested to starting from scratch in a game that is similar to the one he/she is currently playing.
You want to beat WoW in terms of player base? Make a better game that fixes its most glaring problems (PvP being one of them, easy mode another, no player content another). That's the only way you're going to succeed. I've got to admit, Blizzard stumbled on a gold mine here: they managed to not only craft a successful game, but also to lock out any competitors from stealing their player base with a similar game.
You're confusing the reason for the existence of property laws with the reason for the existence of copyright laws. Property laws exist because objects are an exclusive resource - if I use foo, you don't get to use it. Not only that, but use generally transforms or destroys the object. This means that sharing is difficult, and takings via force preclude my enjoyment of my property. Compare that with why copyright exists: it's so that people are guaranteed an incentive to create ideas and abstract concepts. If someone copies an idea, I can still enjoy it. If someone copies my music, I can still enjoy it. Ideas are a non-exclusive resource - their availability actually increases the more people use them. The problem with sharing ideas is not that someone else can't use them, it is that it becomes difficult to make money from ideas.
As a result, property laws and copyright laws are dramatically different in their goals: one tries to prevent anarchy and the law of the strongest to rule the land, the other tries to give an incentive to people to create art, new concepts and advance science. I wouldn't call copyright government instituted theft, but it certainly restricts the dissemination of ideas. And at some point you have to ask yourself, do the restrictions hurt the general society more than it benefits specific individuals?
At this point, I think the answer is a resounding yes - especially since very often, the individuals who benefit from IP laws had no hand in creating the IP.
If it would truly be a product of the people, we'd have free music, free videos and free TV. Isn't that what you're claiming? That there are all these freeloaders out there? Either that's not the case, or Congress isn't a product of the people anymore.
And btw, that last sentence made absolutely no sense. Proofreading is your friend.
"Very patronising - seems unwarranted to me." I've seen this argument come up regularly over the years. Generally from newer members of the community. Or people less able to take criticism. The arguments all boil down to the same thing - a misunderstanding of what the 1st amendment applies to and what censorship actually is. Feel free to prove me wrong.:)
"I'm not saying that. I have previously (check my history) called attention to posts (with which I disagree) being inappropriately negatively modded." You missed the point. You are arguing that because you think something is not a troll, it is a legitimate post. Not only that, but your argument does not include a debate on why that specific post is legitimate. You are simply asking me to take you at your word that what someone else has labeled 'troll' is actually an interesting post. From my personal experience, I've seen very, very, very few posts of that nature. Too few to miss them. It doesn't mean that I'm right and you're wrong, but that you need to do more than simply state 'it is so'.
"As I said, a couple of interesting, but "-1 Troll" posts hidden in a sea of cruft may as well not be there." Or, put in a different fashion, a diamond is best hidden on a heap of glass. I agree with that sentiment, but it is not really the issue here. Your argument centers around censorship, which is defined as the removal of information. None of these posts are removed, unless you personally set your settings to do so. Look at it another way: you can set your preferences so that there is no moderation whatsoever. If you feel censorship is an issue, you can do something about it, so that you find the posts that were unfairly modded down and use them as a starting point for a spirited debate. Yes, others might not find it - but they've made a conscious decision to rely on the decisions of others to filter the debate.
If you are unhappy that some people will not see every last interesting post, that's a different problem all together. If you want to fight that, you'll find another proverb to be fitting: you can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink. People constantly self-censor, and you cannot control how they self-censor themselves. The only thing you can control is to make sure that truly important topics bubble to the top; either by moderating it up yourself or starting your own discussion thread. Sort of like the Digg revolt.
But again - this is no one's responsibility but your own. I will mod things troll that I believe to be trolls, and I will not take your criteria into account - unless you can convince me that the posts aren't trolls after all. But that is a beast entirely different from the one you are chasing.
Two things: one, what is a legitimate post for you is a troll for others. The devil's in the definition here. You are merely asserting on the face of it that your description of a post is more accurate than others. Two, the posts do not disappear due to moderation. Think the moderation system is unfair? Browse at -1. It'll make your eyes bleed, but you'll make sure you won't miss anything.
In short, what you call censorship is missing the main aspect of censorship: removal of communications (or parts thereof). The only censoring that happens is when *YOU* decide not to see posts of a certain nature (remember those preferences?). The moderation system has nothing to do with that part.
This means that not only are you arguing that your opinion is better than anyone else's, you're also complaining about the censoring that you're doing yourself. I'm guessing this is your first foray into online debate. Congratulations - you're upholding the tradition of newbies arguing things that have already been settled during the dark ages of the Internet.;)
Eep - SLA discussions are the hardest part.... which is why I really didn't mention them. I don't have any reference material for that either. The best I can do is point you to standard negotiating techniques: things like understanding first that this is a common effort, that there are personal issues at work as well as professional issues which all need to be resolved, and that there needs to be a give and take. Basically, what I would recommend is to first find common ground, and then work from there. In your case, it sounds like there needs to be a distinction between dealing with user errors, and dealing with applications errors... but that's just a guess.
We went through some soft-skill workshop here which helped tremendously in that area, but I'm kinda loathe to do actual product/business recommendations where I might have a stake.... as a result I'll just point you to Barnes and Nobles and their Business section.:)
Err - good catch.:) I guess I should have been more specific... the boss's request for comparisons with other IT departments is stupid. The boss's request to get some metrics on how the IT department is doing commendable. I'm chalking it up to ignorance that the boss managed to be both reasonable and stupid in the same request.:)
Agreed on long-term analysis being critical. Nothing screams awesome IT guy if you can show that long-term problems have been removed.
Slashdot Mirror
Welcome to utilities with defacto monopolies. I've had the same beef for a long time.... In one of the densest area in the US, I struggle to get 1Mbit download without aggreeing to a ridiculous TOS. I'd love to get those speeds, but I don't think I'll be allowed to do anything other than receive IPTV on it. Bleah.
The other part I'd like to point out is that very plants actually get switched off. The only time a power plant is off is when it needs maintenance - and then the plant is offline for a few months. I think the prices reflect simple supply and demand - demand goes up and supply stays constant. Therefore, prices go up.
I agree with your points, but I would like to point out that passenger cars account for 40% of our oil use in 2004. The link is from a tree hugger site, but it references the Annual Energy Information Administration Annual Assessment from 2004. This was on the first page of a quick google search. Considering that the EIA estimates that 2/3 of all oil use in the US is for transportation, and 2/3 of that oil is gasoline, I'd say that the 40% number quoted by the site is pretty accurate.
So yes, lowering gas consumption of passenger cars by even 5% would have a noticeable impact on the US oil consumption. Doubling the gas mileage would reduce our oil useage by 20%.... something to think about.
The law was designed by the utility guys? Why am I not surprised that the math doesn't work out? To some extent, I'm willing to go off-grid just to spite those fuckers. The electric utilities in California have been some of the most despicable monopolies I've seen... they've done everything they could to milk everyone for more money, including buying absurdly beneficial legislation (like the deregulation that was only in name), shutting down power plants during the highest load times to be able to justify rate hikes and just generally not giving a flying fuck about the people subjected to their monopoly.
If I can afford the increased cost of going off-grid, I will. Make magazine has a how-to for making a wind-powered generator, solar panels are available, and the only thing that's missing is a home fuel cell to provide a steady supply of power when all else fails. It's not cheap, but I'll be ecstatic when I'll be able to cut that stupid line to PGE. This is not a question of if, but of when. I hope that that won't be illegal when I'll be able to do it.
Just like with what we're seeing with cars right now (energy-efficient cars becoming hot sellers due to a quadrupling of gas prices here in CA), home energy will become interesting for the masses only when energy prices rise from their current levels.
I currently spend $20 a month on electricity (no AC, no washer and drier, no washing machine though), so for me, anything outside of a small windturbine would be completely inefficient. I'm actually hoping that we a) ditch our efforts to secure large imports of cheap oil and b) ditch our efforts to subsidize home fossil fuel extraction (which includes biofuels from ethanol, btw). If we're serious about energy independence, we first have to have an incentive to be that - and free markets are, unfortunately, the most efficient way to get there.
Alright, I'm genuinely curious where you picked up the ya'll (correct spelling, even). As for Wikipedia links... don't know where I demanded them. I thought I'd point you to some helpful resources in order to not come across like a complete lunatic, but that's ok. I didn't want to strain you with requesting actual references. I guess I'll also forget about your promise to deconstruct my post. It's a shame, really, I was looking for some entertainment. Ah.... Lots of hot air, no substance. Shame, really.
Reading comprehension, my friend. It comes in handy. When one of the founding members leaves an organization, it has serious issues. When people reference a time frame, they do it for a purpose. When I said "in the fifties", I meant "in the fifties". Not any other time frame. If NATO was so critical to the stability of the member states, why didn't Europe implode when France left it? Because NATO was NOT a critical aspect.
Besides, we are talking about stability in the EU, of which Russia isn't a part. No one was talking about whether NATO was necessary to counter an external threat, but whether NATO was necessary to keep France, Germany, Britain and Spain from going at each other.
Good grief, stop digging already.
I wasn't debating their truth - I was stating that use of this argument (especially its one-sentence form) is restricted to Americans. If you're interested in debating their truth... you can read. Go read. I have no interest in spoon-feeding you the conclusions of people who have invested far more time into this question than me.
Sooooo.... you're American, after all? I'm shocked - shocked, I say! I would have never guessed it. I also see that you decided not to display what certainly is your vast knowledge of history. Would you perhaps like to link to some Wikipedia articles to support your argument? You might want to read them beforehand though, lest you link to something that just directly contradicts you. Just a friendly heads-up, you know.
In the meantime, I'm still waiting for your deconstruction. Somehow, I feel I might be waiting in vain.
Educated guess. You've got the "Without the US, the world would descend into anarchy" attitude down pat. You regurgitate arguments about Europe posting in German or Russian or not at all - arguments that I've only seen from Americans. Few people outside of the US use ya'll, and the Americans who do use it do it when they want to drive home their cultural identity. There is a chance you're not, but it is slim.
I'm waiting for your dissection of the rest of my post. Though I don't expect much. Don't hurt your brain in the process.
A little sensitive, are we? I didn't talk about the US contributions during WW2 (which are also far smaller than Americans like to think). I didn't say that the US contributed nothing - I said that the US' rise to superpower status had nothing to do with Europe's stability. And I also never mentioned preferring Stalin, Hitler or Mussolini to Truman.
Then again, I'm not surprised. It's right in line with the poster who pointed me to Wiki articles that contradicted his own position. A lot of American historical knowledge seems to be based on wishful thinking.
Wow - did you read the links you provided? NATO was designed to counter the Soviet threat. It was basically falling apart in the fifties. OECD was initially designed to administrate the Marshall Plan, and still exists today. There is one major contribution from the US that actually did help with establishing peace in Europe: the Marshall plan. Kudos for that. It's one of the reasons that people in Europe still like the US.
As for everything else... snicker. It's hard to take you seriously when even your sources contradict you.
Wow... what's with the moderation today? Maybe the American moderators should stick to moderating topics they have a clue about?
The EU has its roots in the Franco-German Steel and Coal agreements of the 50s, whose primary goal was peace in Europe. Everything else is just added bureaucracy. The rise of the US as a superpower had no impact on peace in Europe, unless you count conflict with Russia as part of a European conflict.
What cracls me up the most when I read posts like these is that every last American posting here comes from Europe, Asia or Africa. I.e., the places that have perfected the art of killing for the past thousand years or so. The ignorance of many Americans wouldn't be so frightening if it wouldn't have such a large military.... but that'll all fade in 30 years or so. Go back to your trailer, and enjoy the sunset of the American Empire.
"If you've been to Europe recently and noticed how citizens see themselves as European first and nationals second, you will see they've done very well on their goals"
What the hell are you smoking??? Go to France, and be astounded at the Frenchness of the French. Go to Germany, and be astounded at their Germanness. Go to Sweden.... you get the point. Not only are all the countries resolutely individual, they are proud to be something specific. Finally, a couple of countries voted against the EU constitution, some never really joined (they are only part of the EU market), and you'll realize that Europe is a long way from become a nation.
Whoever modded this informative hasn't been to Europe.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but bank phishing works by convincing people that they're logging onto their own bank - the bank at which they are a customer and have an account number and password. Let's say you opened a personalcity.bank account with your $50K. How would you convince a person that they were a customer of your bank? What would you do with the account # they gave you? Unless you just wanted to get their Social Security Numbers, I don't see much point in registering your own bank domain. What do you mean, "just" their personal info? For 50K, I get to set up a whole sham bank! Send out a few billion spam emails, run a little ponzi scheme for a while, sell personal information, steal identities; the opportunities to make money are endless. It's basically a 50k license to run a bank the way that some audio/video online shops are run in New Jersey and New York.
Even if we discount the problems we currently have with various DNS poisoning attacks, social engineering and just URL spam, it's basic premise is completely flawed. Why? Because the two assumptions it rests on are laughably easy to circumvent: spammers don't want to spend $50k on one domain, and registering as a financial institution anywhere is difficult.
If I'd be an organized crime ring, I'd be barely able to contain my enthusiasm for this solution: for a paltry $50K, I can set up a site that users will almost automatically assume to be safe and part of a real bank. Time to register for mypersonalcity.bank, bankofus.bank, continentwide.bank, and make a killing!
As far as i can tell, no one will require anybody to show ID upon request except where they are already being asked to show ID: at the airport, during a traffic stop, in court, at the DMV, to open a bank account, etc. So it doesn't look to me like this will impact when we have to show ID and when we need to carry it.
Furthermore, there already exists one national ID number that is, according to nearly all expert opinions, completely broken: our SSN. Open a bank accout? Get a credit card? Get hooked up to electricity and the internet? Interview for a job? Regardless of where you are, your SSN is your national ID number, even if it was never designed to be used as such.
I realize that the REAL ID won't reach any of its purported goals (deter terrorism, etc), but it will be a semi-component replacement for a very, very badly implemented national id number.
What's wrong with that? As I said, I'm not trying to troll, I'd just really like to understand what all the opposition is about.
Good points - and I'd like to expand on one of them. If you make a game like WoW, you're guaranteed that you won't be as successful as WoW, because every last WoW player who has at least one character that is level 60+ won't be interested to starting from scratch in a game that is similar to the one he/she is currently playing.
You want to beat WoW in terms of player base? Make a better game that fixes its most glaring problems (PvP being one of them, easy mode another, no player content another). That's the only way you're going to succeed. I've got to admit, Blizzard stumbled on a gold mine here: they managed to not only craft a successful game, but also to lock out any competitors from stealing their player base with a similar game.
You're confusing the reason for the existence of property laws with the reason for the existence of copyright laws. Property laws exist because objects are an exclusive resource - if I use foo, you don't get to use it. Not only that, but use generally transforms or destroys the object. This means that sharing is difficult, and takings via force preclude my enjoyment of my property. Compare that with why copyright exists: it's so that people are guaranteed an incentive to create ideas and abstract concepts. If someone copies an idea, I can still enjoy it. If someone copies my music, I can still enjoy it. Ideas are a non-exclusive resource - their availability actually increases the more people use them. The problem with sharing ideas is not that someone else can't use them, it is that it becomes difficult to make money from ideas.
As a result, property laws and copyright laws are dramatically different in their goals: one tries to prevent anarchy and the law of the strongest to rule the land, the other tries to give an incentive to people to create art, new concepts and advance science. I wouldn't call copyright government instituted theft, but it certainly restricts the dissemination of ideas. And at some point you have to ask yourself, do the restrictions hurt the general society more than it benefits specific individuals?
At this point, I think the answer is a resounding yes - especially since very often, the individuals who benefit from IP laws had no hand in creating the IP.
If it would truly be a product of the people, we'd have free music, free videos and free TV. Isn't that what you're claiming? That there are all these freeloaders out there? Either that's not the case, or Congress isn't a product of the people anymore.
And btw, that last sentence made absolutely no sense. Proofreading is your friend.
"Very patronising - seems unwarranted to me." :)
I've seen this argument come up regularly over the years. Generally from newer members of the community. Or people less able to take criticism. The arguments all boil down to the same thing - a misunderstanding of what the 1st amendment applies to and what censorship actually is. Feel free to prove me wrong.
"I'm not saying that. I have previously (check my history) called attention to posts (with which I disagree) being inappropriately negatively modded."
You missed the point. You are arguing that because you think something is not a troll, it is a legitimate post. Not only that, but your argument does not include a debate on why that specific post is legitimate. You are simply asking me to take you at your word that what someone else has labeled 'troll' is actually an interesting post. From my personal experience, I've seen very, very, very few posts of that nature. Too few to miss them. It doesn't mean that I'm right and you're wrong, but that you need to do more than simply state 'it is so'.
"As I said, a couple of interesting, but "-1 Troll" posts hidden in a sea of cruft may as well not be there."
Or, put in a different fashion, a diamond is best hidden on a heap of glass. I agree with that sentiment, but it is not really the issue here. Your argument centers around censorship, which is defined as the removal of information. None of these posts are removed, unless you personally set your settings to do so. Look at it another way: you can set your preferences so that there is no moderation whatsoever. If you feel censorship is an issue, you can do something about it, so that you find the posts that were unfairly modded down and use them as a starting point for a spirited debate. Yes, others might not find it - but they've made a conscious decision to rely on the decisions of others to filter the debate.
If you are unhappy that some people will not see every last interesting post, that's a different problem all together. If you want to fight that, you'll find another proverb to be fitting: you can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink. People constantly self-censor, and you cannot control how they self-censor themselves. The only thing you can control is to make sure that truly important topics bubble to the top; either by moderating it up yourself or starting your own discussion thread. Sort of like the Digg revolt.
But again - this is no one's responsibility but your own. I will mod things troll that I believe to be trolls, and I will not take your criteria into account - unless you can convince me that the posts aren't trolls after all. But that is a beast entirely different from the one you are chasing.
Two things: one, what is a legitimate post for you is a troll for others. The devil's in the definition here. You are merely asserting on the face of it that your description of a post is more accurate than others. Two, the posts do not disappear due to moderation. Think the moderation system is unfair? Browse at -1. It'll make your eyes bleed, but you'll make sure you won't miss anything.
;)
In short, what you call censorship is missing the main aspect of censorship: removal of communications (or parts thereof). The only censoring that happens is when *YOU* decide not to see posts of a certain nature (remember those preferences?). The moderation system has nothing to do with that part.
This means that not only are you arguing that your opinion is better than anyone else's, you're also complaining about the censoring that you're doing yourself. I'm guessing this is your first foray into online debate. Congratulations - you're upholding the tradition of newbies arguing things that have already been settled during the dark ages of the Internet.
Eep - SLA discussions are the hardest part.... which is why I really didn't mention them. I don't have any reference material for that either. The best I can do is point you to standard negotiating techniques: things like understanding first that this is a common effort, that there are personal issues at work as well as professional issues which all need to be resolved, and that there needs to be a give and take. Basically, what I would recommend is to first find common ground, and then work from there. In your case, it sounds like there needs to be a distinction between dealing with user errors, and dealing with applications errors... but that's just a guess.
:)
We went through some soft-skill workshop here which helped tremendously in that area, but I'm kinda loathe to do actual product/business recommendations where I might have a stake.... as a result I'll just point you to Barnes and Nobles and their Business section.
Err - good catch. :) I guess I should have been more specific... the boss's request for comparisons with other IT departments is stupid. The boss's request to get some metrics on how the IT department is doing commendable. I'm chalking it up to ignorance that the boss managed to be both reasonable and stupid in the same request. :)
Agreed on long-term analysis being critical. Nothing screams awesome IT guy if you can show that long-term problems have been removed.
You're confusing your ability to write what you want with my ability to call you an idiot when I read your opinion.