Might I suggest that the sample you base this conclusion off of is biased by some shared social or cultural upbringing?
That is quite doubtful. People who I know that have worked on themselves to not be offended, are generally people I have met in the workplace. Usually from the same state though.
I've seen no animal offended by the actions of others -- no animal but man.
Firstly, that considers "man" to be an "animal". Something I disagree with. Secondly, offense takes two things. Intelligence and morals. Animals, generally, have little social intelligence. And they certainly don't have morals. (You can disagree on whether having morals is a good thing to have or not, but that would be a different discussion because many people have morals, and it is something that all societies have dealt with to some extent.)
...is a learned reaction,
Or just a complex reaction. That is, I have a standard. I expect(ed) you to follow the standard. You broke the standard. I recognized you breaking the standard. Other reactions are much more simple. Neither is necessarily "learned".
lending credence to the thought that it could be done without.
Even if offense is a reaction that is "learned" (to which I disagree) that lends credence to being done without? Let's see. Living with other people in a society is learned (those not raised in society cannot deal with society and generally disrupt it). Does that mean that since all the social skills are "learned" we would be better off without them? Surely, you have not thought this through.
it quite clear that you're referring to the general purpose of trust
Ah. I thought you were troubled with a different point. Now I think I understand. Let me try again.
I was referring to trust in general. Think of it this way. (Any names used herein are purely fictional. Any resemblence to the handles of slashdot editors is purely coincidental.) Hemos is in need of some pizza, but he has no money. So, he asks his friend CmdrTaco (who happens to run a wildly successful website and so has some spare change) if he will pay when the food is delivered. CmdrTaco, being a generous soul, agrees enthusiastically. Not only that, CmdrTaco points to his long history of paying for Hemos' pizza. As it so happens, the delivery-boy arrives and CmdrTaco is nowhere to be found. He left for whatever the reason.
Two people lost trust here. One Hemos lost trust of the pizza shop who fears another lost pizza when they suspect that he won't pay. Two, CmdrTaco lost the trust of Hemos because Hemos can no longer order pizza from his favorite shop.
This trust of CmdrTaco extends to his worth. He could be the richest guy in the world, but it won't help. Simply, because he cannot be "trusted" to be there when it counts. As such he is only "worth" as much as he can be "trusted".
Here too as well. Editors are worth in their stroies only insofar as they can be trusted to deliver specfic content.
You may be inclined to disagree on the one difference in these cases. In the example, the person whose trust was lost was because he did *not* provide. In the case of editors it is because they *did* provide.
While I applaud your keen insight, it is irrelevant. The issue would be whether a reader would continue to ask for the news anymore (requesting HTML pages). Or, for that matter, pay for a subscription.
As far as applying to other areas, it may or may not, depending on what reason the person had for his actions (or inactions) when the incident occurred. Although there is some slight overall loss of trust when it is the first time.
Like most forms of prudism, taking offense at actions which others consider perfectly acceptable does nothing but alienate yourself from them (and/or visa versa).
Unless you hold of certain morals. Then not taking offense degrades your belief in those morals. The result being you taking less offense the next time it happens, and thusly not have the same morals as before.
Would you really care if I considered eating with a fork a barbaric act?
As an aside, someone was telling me that he read a(n old) book where the author was complaining about the barbaric act of shoving a pronged stick into meat before eating it. Ergo, I found this comment somewhat amusing.:-)
Anyway, if you considered it a barbaric act, and had good reason for that (such as long held morals) I would probably not use a fork in front of you, out of consideration for you (as a fellow human being). Though, since this is not widely held, had you come to my house (or a common place where I had little choice but to be there) I am not sure that I would take great effort therefore.
Would you even consider changing your ways?
Certainly! Provided you provided a good reason that I agreed with.
let me note that I've seen no more individuals change their lifestyles
That's fine. Though I was not referring to strangers. I was merely displaying an example of where taking offense would be a "good" thing. Not that it was applicable in this case.
the most effective way to spread it is unquestionably by quiet demonstration of its impact on your wellbeing
Actually, removing democracies, threatening peoples lives if they do not accept, and enforcing the laws with special forces is much more effective. Throughout histroy it has worked, and the quiet demonstrators rarely got anywhere. If they were lucky they got a small sect.
If that is the best way, it has yet to be proven on a large scale with many different people or different backgrounds submitting.
How taking offense can be "appropriate" when in almost all cases its only effects are negative is a difficult thing for me to see.
Considering it keeps your own belief in your morals to a certain standard (as aforementioned) and helps others realize that they broke a norm (unless that is what they want to do) I consider it a good thing.
Should someone offer you to enter his house so you can see things and be offended, and then you entered and become offended. Then, yes, it is stupid.
You imply that the natural state of affairs is to be offended by such things -- an implication I dispute
Based on most people I have observed, the ones who are not offended, have to force themselves not to be. Although it comes naturally after a while.
That, however, is beside the point. The point was that you said, "I can't understand why anyone would be offended". In as such I can't understand the opposite. Regardless of how the situtation came to be. I am merely pointing out that at works both ways.
You (intentionally, perhaps?) confuse one very specific and isolated variety of trust with the general case.
No, I did not. You said,"but I still have yet to see why one should seek to be "trusted" to comply with these norms,", to which I replied, "It's just that trust need be broken only once.". Talking specifically about a specific norm, when trust (about that norm) is broken, the trust is gone.
Just because you have a right to be offended, however, doesn't make taking offense always (or even usually!) the right thing to do.
It depends. If taking offense just because one can take offense, it is probably better not to. However, if taking offense so as not to let the offensive thing affect you (as if might if you don't take action againt it) then it is the "right" thing. Further, if taking offense to show to others how offensive it is (when they may not otherwise know, or it make affect *them* as mentioned in the former reason) it is also quite a wothwhile task.
It is just a hunch, but I do believe that in most cases, taking offense is appropriate.
No. My mistake. I equated freedom to do with what is yours with free-speech. You actually explained my mistake with your next statement. Good catch.
As an extension, I can't understand why anyone would be offended
And I can't understand why people force themselves not to be. Same difference.
but I still have yet to see why one should seek to be "trusted" to comply with these norms,
Noone should be forced to be. It's just that trust need be broken only once. Then the people can never be truly trusted again.
If I'm producing content aimed at myself and my peers, I'm not much inclined to comply with norms not accepted within said group.
You are not inclined. But it would be nice to mention that the norm is being broken. And rather understandable at why others believe it to be a bad thing. A person is only worth as much as they can be trusted. Trust being very closely related to reliability.
but that doesn't necessarily mean that those who take offense are right to do so.
Noone is "right" to do anything. But any has the right to do anything (as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else). People have the right to be offended at anything, for anything. And expressing displeasure is reccomended in most cases. In fact saying that people do not have the right to be offended is probably a minor form of oppression.
Why is an isolated instance of this "adult" content inherently more offensive than the drawn-out discussions of the Columbine shootings?
I don't like Katz's articles. So, I removed them from being shown. I couldn't do that with this one.
If there were many of these stories,
Actually, a single incident is bad because people do not expect it. Had it been expected, than without a checkbox, people who don't want it would ignore it.
Let's say someone reads the newspaper. In order not to see nude women, he does not read Playboy. Then, in a single isolated incident (in its one-hundred-year history), the paper decides to shown a full nude on the front page. Would you also play that down as an isolated incident? Would you also claim free-speech?
The real problem is a norm. Norms are set, usually unintentionally. People are them "comfortable" with that very norm. Changes from that _especially_ in isolated incidents are highly disturbing. Yes, and even with a *new* norm it first starts off as isolated.
There are certain things that most of the world finds disgusting. Whether logical or not. As a society, people usually let others know whether they comply with that norm (they do not have to) or not. Breaking with that norm, is rather disturbing. Besides the content itself, it sends a message that the owners (authors) can no longer be trusted with associating with a norm.
Should Slashdot have had a warning before its first article regarding anime?
Not unless the article had a full description of something considered disgusting.
How about the Columbine shootings?
Certainly off-topic, and possibly disturbing. But not disgusting.
Weapon-related research?
Even the people who created the most devastating weapons seemed to work on it for reasons other than its destructive power. If a story was posted regarding which bomb killed more people, then there might be a complaint.
If not any of those, why is this special?
Because the norm in most publications is not to talk about "adult" related topics without giving fair warning.
More particularly, what leaves you "disgusted"?
The point that Slashdot has come this far with real articles, and now, with that base, it changing its content for the worse. Had these stories been posted originally (on a usual basis), I doubt slashdot would have come this far.
I disagree that merely showing an article forces views -- after all, information which is shown can be ignored by will;
Well, it forces the view that you don't need to *choose* the read this, since you don't know what it is until after you have read it. Simply because it is not known until after reading it what it was. And given the norm is not to have these, one may rely on precedent.
establishing a precedent of modifying content so as to offend no-one. No precedent by *not* showing it, because noone knows what wasn't shown. Although showing shows a definite precedent of no boundaries.
but I, personally, would consider it a loss.
So, just post it in its own section. Or maybe, they should just add a checkbox to block such stories.
I am not against the stories being posted. Just it being posted with no warning.
It is interesting, however, that I was modded down for flaimbait. I wonder how much pleasure that immature moderator got when clicking "moderate".:-)
The status quo is to warn of such things when they are not the norm. Slashdot does not (yet) have such things as the norm.
don't read the offending articles;
Umm.. I didn't know what it was about until I read the title. I didn't actually read the article.
don't waste your precious ad-free page views.
I didn't buy a subscription to view them ad-free. I bought a subscription as a tribute to the great work they have done in the past. It is that tribute that I now somewhat regret.
Trying to force your views of what's appropriate viewing on others,
You don't force views by not showing an article. You force your views by showing it! And you don't force your views by commenting. Which is what I did.
This is a perverted article. And I am amazed that slashdot had the indecency to post it.
If they want an adult section that's one thing. But playing to the immature teenagers is another. I hope they stop this downward spiral.
We've already lost polls from being serious to be jokes. (Started with a joke now and then, now its jokes all the time.) Lets hope the stories don't go away.
Sheesh, just after I bought a subascription. I wonder if I can return it.
I didn't ask them to hold or even collect my medical data.
But you took it as fact. Specifically, but medical release without consent Instead of arguing about the outcome of the laws not protecting release, you should have argued that they should not have it in the first place. By skipping that point, I assumed you agreed that they actually should hold your data. And that was the basis of my point.
No, the reason is exactly that information can be fast and flowing.
So when those guys created the Internet; when the government funded the Internet; when all those companies supported the Internet; they all did it for the flow of personal information? They did it to connect networks, and let people not directly connected to your network, to connect to it anyway . This does speed things up, but it does not call for laws or regulations. It just speeds them up.
Originally, you said:Privacy groups are charged with watching who is watching you. If they fail no more donations. I countered with:They also do not (usually) make donations.Donations are usally made by companies, You then pretty much agreed with me. Am I missing something?
You want to be able to see the doctor and tell them that you have a rash without the concern of how many people will find out before you leave.
Then don't let anyone hold your information! Instead you like them being forced to hold your information for free. The current proposal just changes that to a simple *one-time* opt-out. While that isn't the best, it is a step in the correct direction. It forces the opt-out to be centralized. (Maybe we can wait a bit and propose that such information starts off as opt-out, then noone will have a problem.)
You are basing your argument on the presumed intention that the proposal helps companies at the expeense of citizens. I think the current method does that, and the new proposal is a step in the correct direction. There are pros and cons to both. But it is hardly as bad as the writer of the original article (and slashdot poster) made it out to be.
It's that simple... Bush wants to remove the opt-in ability of such research. You likely won't be able to opt-out.
Umm... The crux of the article is a one-time opt-out. Did you miss that?
I love that you end your article with the naive idea that a party or politician may benefit from passing a law is illegal and simply not done. I guess that is the root of the problem.
I never said that it wasn't done. I said that if it could be proven, charges would be raised and action taken. It is certainly not as overt as your message seemed to propose.
Simply: Companies now need the gov't to let them do things to dirty to get support from consumers. Now we look to make loopholes so that people can make more money.
Did you read the article past the second paragraph? The fourth paragraph quite explicitly, allowing patients to decide up front whether to allow their records to be used for marketing purposes.. I think that says it all. Even in that biased article, anyone looking at the facts represented can see that this is another proposal, and if not better, at least of equal standing.
I want total control over my records, is that hard to understand?
No. But you want two things. One, you want the goverment/hospitals to hold onto your records for free and always have them availible. Two, you want to be the only one who can use them. That's asking for a lot and giving nothing. Either pay the goverment/hospitals to hold your information (or let them use it as payment), or keep it yourself.
The "Electronic Age" isn't the reason to release more records but to put up more safeguards.
Actually it isn't the reason for *either*. It is merely the ability to ease what was done before, or to make other things feasible.
Privacy groups are charged with watching who is watching you. If they fail no more donations.
Privacy groups charge *themselves* with whatever the group itself decides to be. They are groups of citzens *just like you* who actually decide to make more noise then just a silly slashdot comment. If they fail, they *try harder*. They also do not (usually) make donations. Donations are usally made by companies, and used as a tax writeoff of some sort. If they were made by privacy groups, there would be a serious conflict of interest, and very surely charges would be raised.
Physicians don't want to loose patients because their disclosure policies and generally are against giving away information - basic ethics of working in a hospital is to keep your mouth shut.
What are you talking about? Physicians don't want to lose patients, because that is their source of income! Also, repeat reccomendations, and families. For a doctor to need new patients, would be forging new relationships, which is not productive to a healthy doctor-patient relationship.
Insurers want that information because they want to drop you.
What?!?! Insurers cannot drop you! That why it is *called* insurance. They insure you to be healthy. When you don't get sick too often, they make money both from you base premiums, and the payoff they get by investing your money. They only lose when someone gets really sick, or gets sick often. But that is part of the game. If anything, they want *previous* information, so they can say "had we known we never would have accepted you". And by law they *can* do that. Otherwise, everyone would wait until they became terribly sick, and only then pay the insurance companies to pay their bills!
The issue here is *selling* information. Whether to other groups for studies or to market medicines.
People who represent those interests in Congress et. al. get cash for passing this through.
Not really. That would be illegal. The lobbyists are paid employees of some company. The members in congress echo their concerns with votes. Should you be able to prove money caused a vote, the representative would be thrown out on ethics violations (according to the Constitution each house governs their own members and can throw any of their own members out).
What do you disagree with? Seriously, I did not understand your comment. On what exact point of my proposal are you arguing? I read your comment twice and did not understand it.
There are two responses. One is Communism, where we force the doctor to take you anyway. The other is Capitalism, where another place opens up and gets more customers because they don't force things upon you.
Currently we have the latter in most cases, but the former is pushed by law onto hospitals. I think we should rid that, and let hospitals be like any other store.
Then you think you wish you:
had experience using database software
and compound it by believing:
that would give a beginner a real in depth look at using database SW.
Then michael (with his double at-sign) comments:
a) learning standard SQL (pick a standard, any standard:) and b) learning all the idiosyncracies of a particular database system. Probably learning basic SQL is the way to start.
You're all wrong!
What do you want? There are *four* separate issues here.
Learning SQL
Learning embedded SQL
Learning DB management (and CASE, etc.)
Learning DB ideosynchracies
I will assume that issue 3 and 4 are not the case. (because anyone who gets these things mixed up probably would be pretty horrible at designing tables anyway.:-)) Rather 1 and 2 are important.
Number 1 is easy. Just find a good book. The most up-to-date standard is probably a waste of time since it adds little, and is most likely not yet fully implemented.
Personally, I found the book, "Understanding SQL" by Martin Gruber to be an excellent book. He skips design until the end of the book. Which is a good thing. Learning design first is silly, since you have no idea as to what you are designing for. But, most likely, you should skip the designing pages yourself, and let the DBA create the tables in the company's well-defined format.
For issue 2, read the documentation of the language you need. They all do it differently.
A reasonable person would expect the telephone company to use your information.
Why?
It is, as has been called by other who studied the topic more than I ever will, a "fair information practice."
Without seeing any reasons or supporting evidence, I will have to disagree with you. There is nothing "fair" about it at all.
is not and never will be a "fair information practice"
Agreed. But when is it ever fair, if you didn't agree first?
example of a government bought and paid for by corporations in action.
I disagree. There is a strong tendency in the US for information sharing (or selling.) (Goverment agencies have to fight for that!) All this government proposal does, is makes it more straight-forward to opt-out.
Currently, (I gathered from the article) there is no opt-out at all! Just every time they want to use your information, they have to ask. Say no, tomorrow we can ask again. And the next day, and the next. Under the new rules, you start off as opt-in, but you can opt-out once. And then noone can ever use your information unless you switch doctors/insurance companies. Yeah, the fact that you start off as "opt-in" is not good. But it is definitely a step in the right direction. In other words, let this one pass, and maybe next year we can have the default switched to "opt-out".
The *real* bad thing is not information sharing. It is that anyone besides you can see it! I think everyone should have a storage of their own records, and you let the doctor see it each time the doctor looks at you. Then take it home. Never let the doctor keep it. If you are afraid that you will lose it, then have someone store it for you. Such as your doctor. But beware of what that information may be used for.
People rely on the "system" to have all the information as needed. I am against the system itself!
As stated by another poster. The story itself is bent on giving a bad light to the proposal. You really need to read the article, but here is one main point.
But in at least one respect, the administration is suggesting a significant strengthening of privacy rights: allowing patients to decide up front whether to allow their records to be used for marketing purposes.
That "But in at least" is total trash. Its not "but" it's the whole point! Instead of having rediculous procedures, the Bush proposal makes it one up front thing. This is no different than the phone company. Go read a phonebook. The local phone company will use your information unless you ask them not to in writing. Should you do it via the phone there is a "processing" fee. In other words, either advertisers pay us or you do.
In short, this is a good proposal. The story writer is obviously biased. And the submitter is too, or just plain stupid.
Re:My own reading speed...
on
Speed Reading?
·
· Score: 2
Is that the book where there are examples of staring at one letter, and seeing letters in the two columns beside it?
I once looked at a book like that, and I wanted to find it again. Even it it didn't increase my reading speed, it was still quite interesting.
These three items have radically different approaches.
The first, item, "The Process" has its own sub-itmes. Is it to get someone acquainted with the program. Is it used to help manage its growth?
The second item too (pun intended) has a couple of sub-items. Is it to keep functions from overlapping? Is it to show what each one does once the user already knows that this is the function to use.
The third item also can be divided into sub-items reflecting on who needs to read it.
The approach for documentation is first to decide what *exactly* you are documenting, and then, who is it being documented for. Between these two details, you can decided on the approach, and the tools.
Deciding where to store the documentation would be where everyone could get to it. Storing it ina database and displaying on an intranet sounds like an excellent idea.
Re:Reminds me of HTML/CSS validators and standards
on
SQL Validator
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
HTML and SQL are very different, and I do not think they can be compared when it comes to standards.
HTML has very few common clients. So, only the smaller clients care about the standards, the big fish, just write their own, and HTML authors are forced to follow.
SQL is different. There are quite a few databases out there. It even got to the point where they created ODBC. No one or two databases dominate the market.
Thus, the push is for an HTML standard is wanted more by people than companies. The push for a(n) SQL standard is more by companies than people. When people want a standard, it's free. Not so with companies.
HTML is a presentation language, and usally comes *after* the need is already there. So, people always want to get the standards up to date, and are easier to write, since it was already implemented.
SQL 88 seems to be the most common. How many even care to go further than that, because the basics are already there? While later standards are nice, they are not nearly in need of updates as much as HTML is.
Thus, HTML standards are public before they're even written. SQL is written from the standards. This also means, that companies want to pay for the SQL standard, whereas companies would rather get eveyone to support their HTML, forcing them to distribute it for free.
I remeber playing Defender on the Atari 2600 for quite a few hours. After a short while I could open my right hand. But it took a bit before anything besides my thumb could move on my left hand.
Slashdot Mirror
Might I suggest that the sample you base this conclusion off of is biased by some shared social or cultural upbringing?
That is quite doubtful. People who I know that have worked on themselves to not be offended, are generally people I have met in the workplace. Usually from the same state though.
I've seen no animal offended by the actions of others -- no animal but man.
Firstly, that considers "man" to be an "animal". Something I disagree with. Secondly, offense takes two things. Intelligence and morals. Animals, generally, have little social intelligence. And they certainly don't have morals. (You can disagree on whether having morals is a good thing to have or not, but that would be a different discussion because many people have morals, and it is something that all societies have dealt with to some extent.)
...is a learned reaction,
Or just a complex reaction. That is, I have a standard. I expect(ed) you to follow the standard. You broke the standard. I recognized you breaking the standard. Other reactions are much more simple. Neither is necessarily "learned".
lending credence to the thought that it could be done without.
Even if offense is a reaction that is "learned" (to which I disagree) that lends credence to being done without? Let's see. Living with other people in a society is learned (those not raised in society cannot deal with society and generally disrupt it). Does that mean that since all the social skills are "learned" we would be better off without them? Surely, you have not thought this through.
it quite clear that you're referring to the general purpose of trust
Ah. I thought you were troubled with a different point. Now I think I understand. Let me try again.
I was referring to trust in general. Think of it this way. (Any names used herein are purely fictional. Any resemblence to the handles of slashdot editors is purely coincidental.) Hemos is in need of some pizza, but he has no money. So, he asks his friend CmdrTaco (who happens to run a wildly successful website and so has some spare change) if he will pay when the food is delivered. CmdrTaco, being a generous soul, agrees enthusiastically. Not only that, CmdrTaco points to his long history of paying for Hemos' pizza. As it so happens, the delivery-boy arrives and CmdrTaco is nowhere to be found. He left for whatever the reason.
Two people lost trust here. One Hemos lost trust of the pizza shop who fears another lost pizza when they suspect that he won't pay. Two, CmdrTaco lost the trust of Hemos because Hemos can no longer order pizza from his favorite shop.
This trust of CmdrTaco extends to his worth. He could be the richest guy in the world, but it won't help. Simply, because he cannot be "trusted" to be there when it counts. As such he is only "worth" as much as he can be "trusted".
Here too as well. Editors are worth in their stroies only insofar as they can be trusted to deliver specfic content.
You may be inclined to disagree on the one difference in these cases. In the example, the person whose trust was lost was because he did *not* provide. In the case of editors it is because they *did* provide.
While I applaud your keen insight, it is irrelevant. The issue would be whether a reader would continue to ask for the news anymore (requesting HTML pages). Or, for that matter, pay for a subscription.
As far as applying to other areas, it may or may not, depending on what reason the person had for his actions (or inactions) when the incident occurred. Although there is some slight overall loss of trust when it is the first time.
Like most forms of prudism, taking offense at actions which others consider perfectly acceptable does nothing but alienate yourself from them (and/or visa versa).
Unless you hold of certain morals. Then not taking offense degrades your belief in those morals. The result being you taking less offense the next time it happens, and thusly not have the same morals as before.
Would you really care if I considered eating with a fork a barbaric act?
As an aside, someone was telling me that he read a(n old) book where the author was complaining about the barbaric act of shoving a pronged stick into meat before eating it. Ergo, I found this comment somewhat amusing. :-)
Anyway, if you considered it a barbaric act, and had good reason for that (such as long held morals) I would probably not use a fork in front of you, out of consideration for you (as a fellow human being). Though, since this is not widely held, had you come to my house (or a common place where I had little choice but to be there) I am not sure that I would take great effort therefore.
Would you even consider changing your ways?
Certainly! Provided you provided a good reason that I agreed with.
let me note that I've seen no more individuals change their lifestyles
That's fine. Though I was not referring to strangers. I was merely displaying an example of where taking offense would be a "good" thing. Not that it was applicable in this case.
the most effective way to spread it is unquestionably by quiet demonstration of its impact on your wellbeing
Actually, removing democracies, threatening peoples lives if they do not accept, and enforcing the laws with special forces is much more effective. Throughout histroy it has worked, and the quiet demonstrators rarely got anywhere. If they were lucky they got a small sect.
If that is the best way, it has yet to be proven on a large scale with many different people or different backgrounds submitting.
How taking offense can be "appropriate" when in almost all cases its only effects are negative is a difficult thing for me to see.
Considering it keeps your own belief in your morals to a certain standard (as aforementioned) and helps others realize that they broke a norm (unless that is what they want to do) I consider it a good thing.
Should someone offer you to enter his house so you can see things and be offended, and then you entered and become offended. Then, yes, it is stupid.
You imply that the natural state of affairs is to be offended by such things -- an implication I dispute
Based on most people I have observed, the ones who are not offended, have to force themselves not to be. Although it comes naturally after a while.
That, however, is beside the point. The point was that you said, "I can't understand why anyone would be offended". In as such I can't understand the opposite. Regardless of how the situtation came to be. I am merely pointing out that at works both ways.
You (intentionally, perhaps?) confuse one very specific and isolated variety of trust with the general case.
No, I did not. You said,"but I still have yet to see why one should seek to be "trusted" to comply with these norms,", to which I replied, "It's just that trust need be broken only once.". Talking specifically about a specific norm, when trust (about that norm) is broken, the trust is gone.
Just because you have a right to be offended, however, doesn't make taking offense always (or even usually!) the right thing to do.
It depends. If taking offense just because one can take offense, it is probably better not to. However, if taking offense so as not to let the offensive thing affect you (as if might if you don't take action againt it) then it is the "right" thing. Further, if taking offense to show to others how offensive it is (when they may not otherwise know, or it make affect *them* as mentioned in the former reason) it is also quite a wothwhile task.
It is just a hunch, but I do believe that in most cases, taking offense is appropriate.
Did I claim "free speech" here?
No. My mistake. I equated freedom to do with what is yours with free-speech. You actually explained my mistake with your next statement. Good catch.
As an extension, I can't understand why anyone would be offended
And I can't understand why people force themselves not to be. Same difference.
but I still have yet to see why one should seek to be "trusted" to comply with these norms,
Noone should be forced to be. It's just that trust need be broken only once. Then the people can never be truly trusted again.
If I'm producing content aimed at myself and my peers, I'm not much inclined to comply with norms not accepted within said group.
You are not inclined. But it would be nice to mention that the norm is being broken. And rather understandable at why others believe it to be a bad thing. A person is only worth as much as they can be trusted. Trust being very closely related to reliability.
but that doesn't necessarily mean that those who take offense are right to do so.
Noone is "right" to do anything. But any has the right to do anything (as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else). People have the right to be offended at anything, for anything. And expressing displeasure is reccomended in most cases. In fact saying that people do not have the right to be offended is probably a minor form of oppression.
I don't like Katz's articles. So, I removed them from being shown. I couldn't do that with this one.
If there were many of these stories,
Actually, a single incident is bad because people do not expect it. Had it been expected, than without a checkbox, people who don't want it would ignore it.
Let's say someone reads the newspaper. In order not to see nude women, he does not read Playboy. Then, in a single isolated incident (in its one-hundred-year history), the paper decides to shown a full nude on the front page. Would you also play that down as an isolated incident? Would you also claim free-speech?
The real problem is a norm. Norms are set, usually unintentionally. People are them "comfortable" with that very norm. Changes from that _especially_ in isolated incidents are highly disturbing. Yes, and even with a *new* norm it first starts off as isolated.
There are certain things that most of the world finds disgusting. Whether logical or not. As a society, people usually let others know whether they comply with that norm (they do not have to) or not. Breaking with that norm, is rather disturbing. Besides the content itself, it sends a message that the owners (authors) can no longer be trusted with associating with a norm.
Should Slashdot have had a warning before its first article regarding anime?
Not unless the article had a full description of something considered disgusting.
How about the Columbine shootings?
Certainly off-topic, and possibly disturbing. But not disgusting.
Weapon-related research?
Even the people who created the most devastating weapons seemed to work on it for reasons other than its destructive power. If a story was posted regarding which bomb killed more people, then there might be a complaint.
If not any of those, why is this special?
Because the norm in most publications is not to talk about "adult" related topics without giving fair warning.
More particularly, what leaves you "disgusted"?
The point that Slashdot has come this far with real articles, and now, with that base, it changing its content for the worse. Had these stories been posted originally (on a usual basis), I doubt slashdot would have come this far.
I disagree that merely showing an article forces views -- after all, information which is shown can be ignored by will;
Well, it forces the view that you don't need to *choose* the read this, since you don't know what it is until after you have read it. Simply because it is not known until after reading it what it was. And given the norm is not to have these, one may rely on precedent.
establishing a precedent of modifying content so as to offend no-one.
No precedent by *not* showing it, because noone knows what wasn't shown. Although showing shows a definite precedent of no boundaries.
but I, personally, would consider it a loss.
So, just post it in its own section. Or maybe, they should just add a checkbox to block such stories.
I am not against the stories being posted. Just it being posted with no warning.
It is interesting, however, that I was modded down for flaimbait. I wonder how much pleasure that immature moderator got when clicking "moderate". :-)
The status quo is to warn of such things when they are not the norm. Slashdot does not (yet) have such things as the norm.
don't read the offending articles;
Umm.. I didn't know what it was about until I read the title. I didn't actually read the article.
don't waste your precious ad-free page views.
I didn't buy a subscription to view them ad-free. I bought a subscription as a tribute to the great work they have done in the past. It is that tribute that I now somewhat regret.
Trying to force your views of what's appropriate viewing on others,
You don't force views by not showing an article. You force your views by showing it! And you don't force your views by commenting. Which is what I did.
This is a perverted article. And I am amazed that slashdot had the indecency to post it.
If they want an adult section that's one thing. But playing to the immature teenagers is another. I hope they stop this downward spiral.
We've already lost polls from being serious to be jokes. (Started with a joke now and then, now its jokes all the time.) Lets hope the stories don't go away.
Sheesh, just after I bought a subascription. I wonder if I can return it.
And the shark was pulling your leg..... Riddler!
What a superbly rediculous movie.
Okay, let me end this.
OK, but I still don't think the proposal is any worse then the current law. Nice chat though. :-)
But you took it as fact. Specifically, but medical release without consent Instead of arguing about the outcome of the laws not protecting release, you should have argued that they should not have it in the first place. By skipping that point, I assumed you agreed that they actually should hold your data. And that was the basis of my point.
No, the reason is exactly that information can be fast and flowing.
So when those guys created the Internet; when the government funded the Internet; when all those companies supported the Internet; they all did it for the flow of personal information? They did it to connect networks, and let people not directly connected to your network, to connect to it anyway . This does speed things up, but it does not call for laws or regulations. It just speeds them up.
Originally, you said:Privacy groups are charged with watching who is watching you. If they fail no more donations.
I countered with:They also do not (usually) make donations.Donations are usally made by companies,
You then pretty much agreed with me. Am I missing something?
You want to be able to see the doctor and tell them that you have a rash without the concern of how many people will find out before you leave.
Then don't let anyone hold your information! Instead you like them being forced to hold your information for free. The current proposal just changes that to a simple *one-time* opt-out. While that isn't the best, it is a step in the correct direction. It forces the opt-out to be centralized. (Maybe we can wait a bit and propose that such information starts off as opt-out, then noone will have a problem.)
You are basing your argument on the presumed intention that the proposal helps companies at the expeense of citizens. I think the current method does that, and the new proposal is a step in the correct direction. There are pros and cons to both. But it is hardly as bad as the writer of the original article (and slashdot poster) made it out to be.
It's that simple... Bush wants to remove the opt-in ability of such research. You likely won't be able to opt-out.
Umm... The crux of the article is a one-time opt-out. Did you miss that?
I love that you end your article with the naive idea that a party or politician may benefit from passing a law is illegal and simply not done. I guess that is the root of the problem.
I never said that it wasn't done. I said that if it could be proven, charges would be raised and action taken. It is certainly not as overt as your message seemed to propose.
Simply: Companies now need the gov't to let them do things to dirty to get support from consumers. Now we look to make loopholes so that people can make more money.
Did you read the article past the second paragraph? The fourth paragraph quite explicitly, allowing patients to decide up front whether to allow their records to be used for marketing purposes.. I think that says it all. Even in that biased article, anyone looking at the facts represented can see that this is another proposal, and if not better, at least of equal standing.
No. But you want two things. One, you want the goverment/hospitals to hold onto your records for free and always have them availible. Two, you want to be the only one who can use them. That's asking for a lot and giving nothing. Either pay the goverment/hospitals to hold your information (or let them use it as payment), or keep it yourself.
The "Electronic Age" isn't the reason to release more records but to put up more safeguards.
Actually it isn't the reason for *either*. It is merely the ability to ease what was done before, or to make other things feasible.
Privacy groups are charged with watching who is watching you. If they fail no more donations.
Privacy groups charge *themselves* with whatever the group itself decides to be. They are groups of citzens *just like you* who actually decide to make more noise then just a silly slashdot comment. If they fail, they *try harder*.
They also do not (usually) make donations. Donations are usally made by companies, and used as a tax writeoff of some sort. If they were made by privacy groups, there would be a serious conflict of interest, and very surely charges would be raised.
Physicians don't want to loose patients because their disclosure policies and generally are against giving away information - basic ethics of working in a hospital is to keep your mouth shut.
What are you talking about? Physicians don't want to lose patients, because that is their source of income! Also, repeat reccomendations, and families. For a doctor to need new patients, would be forging new relationships, which is not productive to a healthy doctor-patient relationship.
Insurers want that information because they want to drop you.
What?!?! Insurers cannot drop you! That why it is *called* insurance. They insure you to be healthy. When you don't get sick too often, they make money both from you base premiums, and the payoff they get by investing your money. They only lose when someone gets really sick, or gets sick often. But that is part of the game. If anything, they want *previous* information, so they can say "had we known we never would have accepted you". And by law they *can* do that. Otherwise, everyone would wait until they became terribly sick, and only then pay the insurance companies to pay their bills!
The issue here is *selling* information. Whether to other groups for studies or to market medicines.
People who represent those interests in Congress et. al. get cash for passing this through.
Not really. That would be illegal. The lobbyists are paid employees of some company. The members in congress echo their concerns with votes. Should you be able to prove money caused a vote, the representative would be thrown out on ethics violations (according to the Constitution each house governs their own members and can throw any of their own members out).
What do you disagree with? Seriously, I did not understand your comment. On what exact point of my proposal are you arguing? I read your comment twice and did not understand it.
There are two responses. One is Communism, where we force the doctor to take you anyway. The other is Capitalism, where another place opens up and gets more customers because they don't force things upon you.
Currently we have the latter in most cases, but the former is pushed by law onto hospitals. I think we should rid that, and let hospitals be like any other store.
Why can't people be clear?!
First you say: job listings for SQL programmers
:) and b) learning all the idiosyncracies of a particular database system. Probably learning basic SQL is the way to start.
Then you think you wish you: had experience using database software
and compound it by believing: that would give a beginner a real in depth look at using database SW.
Then michael (with his double at-sign) comments: a) learning standard SQL (pick a standard, any standard
You're all wrong!
What do you want? There are *four* separate issues here.
- Learning SQL
- Learning embedded SQL
- Learning DB management (and CASE, etc.)
- Learning DB ideosynchracies
I will assume that issue 3 and 4 are not the case. (because anyone who gets these things mixed up probably would be pretty horrible at designing tables anyway.For issue 2, read the documentation of the language you need. They all do it differently.
Why?
It is, as has been called by other who studied the topic more than I ever will, a "fair information practice."
Without seeing any reasons or supporting evidence, I will have to disagree with you. There is nothing "fair" about it at all.
is not and never will be a "fair information practice"
Agreed. But when is it ever fair, if you didn't agree first?
example of a government bought and paid for by corporations in action.
I disagree. There is a strong tendency in the US for information sharing (or selling.) (Goverment agencies have to fight for that!) All this government proposal does, is makes it more straight-forward to opt-out.
Currently, (I gathered from the article) there is no opt-out at all! Just every time they want to use your information, they have to ask. Say no, tomorrow we can ask again. And the next day, and the next. Under the new rules, you start off as opt-in, but you can opt-out once. And then noone can ever use your information unless you switch doctors/insurance companies. Yeah, the fact that you start off as "opt-in" is not good. But it is definitely a step in the right direction. In other words, let this one pass, and maybe next year we can have the default switched to "opt-out".
The *real* bad thing is not information sharing. It is that anyone besides you can see it! I think everyone should have a storage of their own records, and you let the doctor see it each time the doctor looks at you. Then take it home. Never let the doctor keep it. If you are afraid that you will lose it, then have someone store it for you. Such as your doctor. But beware of what that information may be used for.
People rely on the "system" to have all the information as needed. I am against the system itself!
But in at least one respect, the administration is suggesting a significant strengthening of privacy rights: allowing patients to decide up front whether to allow their records to be used for marketing purposes.
That "But in at least" is total trash. Its not "but" it's the whole point! Instead of having rediculous procedures, the Bush proposal makes it one up front thing. This is no different than the phone company. Go read a phonebook. The local phone company will use your information unless you ask them not to in writing. Should you do it via the phone there is a "processing" fee. In other words, either advertisers pay us or you do.
In short, this is a good proposal. The story writer is obviously biased. And the submitter is too, or just plain stupid.
Is that the book where there are examples of staring at one letter, and seeing letters in the two columns beside it?
I once looked at a book like that, and I wanted to find it again. Even it it didn't increase my reading speed, it was still quite interesting.
First you must decide what you are documenting.
Are you documenting:
These three items have radically different approaches.
The first, item, "The Process" has its own sub-itmes. Is it to get someone acquainted with the program. Is it used to help manage its growth?
The second item too (pun intended) has a couple of sub-items. Is it to keep functions from overlapping? Is it to show what each one does once the user already knows that this is the function to use.
The third item also can be divided into sub-items reflecting on who needs to read it.
The approach for documentation is first to decide what *exactly* you are documenting, and then, who is it being documented for. Between these two details, you can decided on the approach, and the tools.
Deciding where to store the documentation would be where everyone could get to it. Storing it ina database and displaying on an intranet sounds like an excellent idea.
HTML and SQL are very different, and I do not think they can be compared when it comes to standards.
HTML has very few common clients. So, only the smaller clients care about the standards, the big fish, just write their own, and HTML authors are forced to follow.
SQL is different. There are quite a few databases out there. It even got to the point where they created ODBC. No one or two databases dominate the market.
Thus, the push is for an HTML standard is wanted more by people than companies. The push for a(n) SQL standard is more by companies than people. When people want a standard, it's free. Not so with companies.
HTML is a presentation language, and usally comes *after* the need is already there. So, people always want to get the standards up to date, and are easier to write, since it was already implemented.
SQL 88 seems to be the most common. How many even care to go further than that, because the basics are already there? While later standards are nice, they are not nearly in need of updates as much as HTML is.
Thus, HTML standards are public before they're even written. SQL is written from the standards. This also means, that companies want to pay for the SQL standard, whereas companies would rather get eveyone to support their HTML, forcing them to distribute it for free.
If you've been together for so long, what is marriage other than a liability anyway? Isn't marriage a religous thing?
I'd rather not watch than have to watch it in Real.
I agree with that. Maybe they will offer a premium service, that allows for other formats.
I remeber playing Defender on the Atari 2600 for quite a few hours. After a short while I could open my right hand. But it took a bit before anything besides my thumb could move on my left hand.
I agree. Home laptops are something many people would like.
I once had an astronomy background on my desktop. But I got bored and changed it.
If its only a temporary solution you seek,
there is no reason for it to be sleek.
Just open the case, put the drive on the floor,
and close it all up when you need it no more.