Thank you. This is a point I did not make, but really wish I had. A heretic will wash, rinse, and repeat over and over and never actually change anything.

I would argue that you haven't tried to fix the system. You just bitched and complained. "Offering ideas" really means nothing most of the time - EVEN if you are offering them to the person who has the absolute go-ahead to get things done (which, even a president or CEO doesn't have that kind of power).

The fact of the matter is, if you REALLY wanted to change something, you would have to do the work yourself. You may have to do it in your own time at times. Anything else is...well...just complaining.

False. Very false. It's human nature to think, "Everybody else is a moron and I could do better." The fact of the matter is that EVERYBODY thinks that and you are everybody else to everybody else.

The "Heretics" who complain about a company being run by morons are rarely (read: never) coming from the standpoint of actually understanding what is involved with runny a company. Any company of any reasonable size (read: bigger than 10 people) is going to have imperfect aspects to it. It's the nature of working with people (who are also imperfect). As a result, there will always be flaws in the system. Any reasonable person understands that. A good employee will even do what he or she can to improve that aspect of the system. However, a "Heretic" (of which I work with two) will spend his or her time complaining that he or she could do a better job without ever doing anything. The lack of action, first of all, is extremely unhelpful and actually damages a team or company because everybody else begins to buy into the mindset. (In my experience, Heretics tend to be extremely vocal.)

I'm of the opinion that the REAL issue with a Heretic is a combination of a smart person (who knows a lot), combined with a know-it-all attitude (but they don't know everything...even though they think they do)...who wants COMPLETE CONTROL of the system. This last part is the critical component. Any company of any size...even one of five or more people...cannot be run by a single person. There is not enough time in the day. However, the Heretic only THINKS they can do a better job on their own. The sad fact of the matter is that this (generally) smart person sounds like a whiner and a complainer and, in the end, may actually be a detriment to the company.

In one sense, I think the question "Have we entered an era in which electronics serve as mother, cop and coach because we can't manage our own desires?" is flamebait, but, on the other hand, it does pose an interesting question.

First of all, using technology to help humanity - whether it is something major, like producing more/better food, or something minor like making sure we can wake up at the correct time in the morning - is what it is. It's the growth of technology. So, in that respect, nobody is doing anything different than any other person who has had technology...it's just different technology.

However, I find it interesting that the summary posts a question about managing desires. While I know everybody likes to think they are more special than anybody else, and that THEY have no problem managing their desires and wants and needs, all you have to do is pick out any person out of a crowd and there were be SOMETHING that they struggle with. Eating too much. Spending too much. Pornography. Too much time in front of the TV. Overexercising (yes, I know someone who does that). Smoking. Drinking. Whatever. Everybody has something that brings them a great deal of pleasure - so much that they go overboard with it.

So, the question is, is it a bad thing to use this technology that we have at our disposal to get in control of some of our foibles? I would say no. For example, I have a friend who looked at a great deal of pornography. While he enjoyed it, it was greatly affecting his marriage because his wife couldn't live up to the standards he was setting in his mind. In addition, he also neglected his marriage due to his addiction. So, my friend began to use an application on his computer which monitored his web browsing habits. It blocked him where it could, and would email out a weekly email to his wife, myself, and his mother (!!!) regarding websites he visited. When he would screw up, we would be able to call him out on it.

Now, you could say, "Weakling. He should have managed his own impulses." And, I know he wanted to. He knew he was destroying his marriage and didn't want to do that, but, the ease of pornography access was too great for him to resist. He had to control it. Using that application helped a great deal and, after some counseling, he and his wife are happily married. (And, yes, I still receive weekly emails.)

In any case, I think making a statement like, "Have we entered an era in which electronics serve as mother, cop and coach because we can't manage our own desires?" is not only flamebait, it's also seriously judgmental and unrealistic. I do think none of these things should be FORCED on anybody...but there is absolutely no shame in using technology to help control or manage a part of your life that you need help with.

Ah...but you seem to be forgetting that the South Seas is where the investments are at! Never mind that we don't have a business plan...it's the south. And it's the seas. It must be worth something!

I tried to do that too, but he's pretty good-natured and rarely gets angry.

I highly doubt that realityimpaired is blocking Zynga to "stick it to the man." More likely, he wants to block Zynga because he hates seeing all the messages and advertisements coming up on his News Feed all the time. It's easier to block an entire publisher than block said publisher's 50 games.

Actually, I think rules about opening a spouse's mail would be called "Laws of the Letter."

Try the veal...etc, etc.

I don't know if I would call it "puppy-dog." I actually get a little freaked out every time I see his face on Wikipedia. I have kind of stopped visiting anymore because the eyes just follow me...

Your search - star wars prequal story line - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

        - Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
        - Try different keywords.
        - Try more general keywords.
        - Try fewer keywords.

Except, that's not entirely true. Yes, while people typically use very weak passwords, Gawker's mistake was that they used DES (WTF?) to encrypt their passwords. DES has been shown to be not strong enough for quite some time now. On top of that, Gawker did not handle passwords correctly in the first place. No salt. No hash. It was just one big screw up.

So, yes, people choose bad passwords, but that can only result in a small compromise (one account). In Gawker's case, they had the whole entire system compromised, and it was very easy to crack those passwords.

Just to respond to your arguments about the drawbacks of cloud computing:

A. From my own experience, this is rarely a problem - at least within countries that have a good Internet infrastructure. Most places you can get WiFi somewhere, and even in a country like the U.S., which is spread out, most areas have internet access. The ones that are far in few between (say, the mid-northwest of the U.S.) is the exact reason Google, Apple, and others are building their devices with 3G. Typically cell phone coverage is good enough for basic needs, and you can wait until you get back to a true connection (read: WiFi) for others (watching Netflix or something).

B. Oh, I wouldn't say that. I use most of Google's services, and it's absolutely free to me. Yeah, if I'm paying for a cell phone data plan, that costs me $30 a month, but I'm not paying for that plan JUST to use the cloud. I'm paying it for all the internet access I get (back to part A). So, it's not really comparing apples to apples. And, of course, "backing up things locally" is not good if you truly want to protect your data. Sure, it's great for doing quick transfers or something like that, but if something happens to your home (say, hurricane, flash flood, fire, etc), my guess is that both your PC and your external hard drive are going. Cloud back-up is redundant and off-site. That's definitely a plus.

C. This is a point I semi-agree with. For those of us here who are smarter than the average bear, or have a greater insight into computers, we probably have more secure systems (since we are probably only managing a few) and present a much smaller target than, say, Google. But too many people out there download SuperTrojan or CoolScreeSaver.exe and suddenly find themselves infected. In their case, Google can do a much better job than they can at protecting their syste.m

D. This is really the same argument as A, so...

I disagree. I can think of a number of people who this would work really well for. And, while it is still new and it's a huge disruptive approach to The Way Things Are(tm), I think there is some real potential. Is it going to be perfect? No. Like they demonstrated with Android, Google likes to learn as they go. It sometimes is to their detriment - as it was with Google Wave. It was an amazing idea, but the implementation was poor at best and they did very little to market it and/or sell it correctly (which, coincidentally, I believe is also a problem of theirs with their efforts at a social networking platform). However, if they do this right, Google has the capability of really causing some major waves in how people think and use computers. I, for one, am interested in seeing what happens.

This is actually part of the problem. Because the United States already has a built up infrastructure, it can be very difficult to work around or with the individuals/government who own that infrastructure so that the fiber can be updated. As a small example, I can't get Fios at my home, even though it's available one block away, because the township I am in (right at the border) refuses to allow Verizon to dig up part of the street (even though it would be repaired, of course). My friend has a problem like this as well, but, in his case, it's his HOA who refuses to let Verizon dig up the lawns.