Following the news that the some bizarre, ghoulish cult has posthumously babtised Anne Frank, again, Matt Bors produced this cartoon.
Via Jerry Coyne
Following the news that the some bizarre, ghoulish cult has posthumously babtised Anne Frank, again, Matt Bors produced this cartoon.
Via Jerry Coyne
After making the point that IT teams need a variety of skills and need to work together and need to be aligned to the business first and technology second, Sean Chandler has this to say:
Nonetheless, an HR focus on individual achievement makes it incredibly difficult to change behavior in IT. As an IT leader, you can talk and talk about team performance—you can fund pizza parties, you can institute team-based recognition awards, and you even develop team-based metrics—but if individual compensation is based on individual performance, you end up pushing a large boulder up a steep hill.
Obviously the focus here is on IT but the principle is generally applicable. If you have a group of people who have to work together, and then set up a compensation and bonus structure that looks solely at individual performance, you are undermining your team before you have even started.
The irony is that all these comments that have been seized on with such glee are actually simple repeats of what was in “The God Delusion” all along. And so we have the delicious comedy of views which until recently were condemned by the religious as arrogant, aggressive and fundamentalist suddenly now being proclaimed by those same religious as signs that Dawkins is unsure of his position and halfway to accepting Jesus as his Lord and Saviour!
- Paula Kirby, responding to the rather over-excited reaction of many Christians to the news that Richard Dawkins is an agnostic about God… to the same extent that he is also an agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Kirby goes on to discuss what their willingness to misrepresent Dawkins words reveals about the faithful. Go read it.
H/T: Jerry Coyne
People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.
You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.
- Banksy, via Jack of Kent.
And while we’re on the subject, here’s Bill Hicks on Marketing:
Programmers who use deprecated APIs deserve to be deprecated.
Today, the following email turned up in my inbox:
Dear Manager,
(If you are not the person who is in charge of this, please forward this to your CEO,Thanks)
This email is from China domain name registration center, which mainly deal with the domain name registration and dispute internationally in China and Asia.
On February 24th 2012, We received Tianhua Ltd’s application that they are registering the name ” pulpmovies ” as their Internet Keyword and ” pulpmovies .cn “、” pulpmovies .com.cn ” 、” pulpmovies .asia “domain names etc.., they are China and ASIA domain names. But after auditing we found the brand name been used by your company. As the domain name registrar in China, it is our duty to notice you, so we are sending you this email to check. According to the principle in China, your company is the owner of the trademark, In our auditing time we can keep the domain names safe for you firstly, but our audit period is limited, if you object the third party application these domain names and need to protect the brand in china and Asia by yourself, please let the responsible officer contact us as soon as possible. Thank you!Best Regards,
John
General Manager
Shanghai Office (Head Office)
3002, Nanhai Building, No. 854 Nandan Road,
Xuhui District, Shanghai 200070, China
Tel: +86 216191 8696
Mobile: +86 1870199 4951
Fax: +86 216191 8697
Web: www.ygnetwork-ltd.com
I’ve seen mails like this mentioned elsewhere and I am well aware that this is a scam. The way it works is that they expect me to email them back to “protect my brand” at which point they inform me that the only course of action open to me is to open my wallet and register all the possible Chinese and Asian domains myself.
This isn’t going to happen and I won’t be responding to General Manager John at all. But I would love to see what happened if Robin Cooper, author of The Timewaster Letters, laid his hands on an email like this one.
Secularism is not the same as atheism, and it is not the enemy of faith – it is the enemy of religious privilege, and the guarantor of religious freedom. In the face of calls for a return to a monocultural Christian Britain that no longer exists (and indeed never really existed), those who support diversity and a neutral state, whether they are religious or not, should surely join together in defence of secularism.
Failing to give somebody special privileges that they try to demand over everybody else because they’re religious, is not the same thing as being intolerant of their religion.
- Custador on Unreasonable Faith, responding to the news that a Christian woman lost at an employment tribunal. When Celestina Mba applied for the care worker job, which requires employees to be available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days of the year, she misled her employer about whether she would be willing to work on Sundays.
Her employer was not being intolerant of Ms Mba’s religion. If her employer was being intolerant of anything, it was Ms Mba’s selfish and self-centred attitude and her casual disregard of the fact that her dishonesty would unreasonably increase the workload faced by her colleagues.
Observant watcher(s) of this blog may have noticed a slight category change recently. Under the Ranting category there used to be a category of rants filed under Copyright, Patents and Trademarks. This has now been split out into three separate categories: Copyright, Patents and Trademarks.
The reason for this split is that clarity matters. Copyright, patents and trademarks are different constructs with different histories and different reasons for existing. Consequently, the issues that stem from each are different. When these issues are clumped together, the result is invariably an unholy mess of confusion and, ultimately, bad legislation. Like ACTA.
There are a variety of issues that need to be worked through with regards to these things, and a whole range of questions that need to be resolved. We will never be able to build a consensus, however, if we can’t even agree what we are talking about.
Safer Internet Day is yet another global event dedicated predominately to keeping children safe online. I have to admit that this particular event had completely passed me by until I read Daniel Donahoo’s Our internet safety obsession is bad for children.
The crux of his article is not new:
Our obsession with online safety for children is excessive. It is driven by group-think and fear, generated by media and interested parties who often ignore any rigorous evidence-based approach to the issues, or even bother to explore a simple risk analysis. Back in 2007 I wrote a book called Idolising Children, wherein I argued that we have an unhealthy obsession with children and youth culture. An obsession that sees adults trying to preserve an idea of childhood and youth that doesn’t actually exist while simultaneous trying to act out their own youthful fantasies and cling to idealised concepts of youth. It is all about lotions, potions and younger looking skin. It is about what we as adults want childhood to be — innocent and stress free. Rather than recognising it for what it is — the process of learning, of taking risks and making mistakes on the way to becoming a capable and confident adult.
The article goes on to highlight the work of Danah Boyd, a researcher and youth advocate with over a decade’s worth of research and data-driven evidence behind her. Dana is challenging the myths and assumptions we are making about children and young people online by pointing out that the internet is simply a mirror of our society that due to its hyperconnectivity is amplified.
This means our concerns about online bullying, online sexual predators and our children stumbling across inappropriate content on the world wide web are simply heightened concerns that have always existed in the world — real and virtual.
There is a disconnect between the fact that, as parents, we want the best for our children but often (and I have to include myself here) limit them because of an over-developed sense of danger. The consequence, as has been well documented, is that children spend less time outside, less time exploring their environment, less time learning and less time developing as people. And when we take these fears online, we exacerbate the problem.
We don’t need a Safer Internet Day. We need investment in other days. We need to change the language to address the fact we are introducing children to online environments through a lens of fear. We need:
– A Digital Media Literacy Day that celebrates and educates the need for parents and teachers to facilitate children’s ability to deconstruct advertising, to create their own media and stories, to understand the digital environments and how to best navigate them.
– A Parent-Child Internet Day that encourages and supports parents and children to find spaces online and activities that allow them to collaborate and work together using digital media that is useful and beneficial and meaningful to building better relationships and a healthier view of what the online world is about.
– A Danah Boyd Day where governments and companies have to listen and consider the research and work of this researcher, rather than ignore it because public opinion would prefer that they turned the internet into a walled garden for children and young people with limited equipment and places to play.
As parents we should be trying to help our children learn the skills and develop the values that they will need if they are to become rounded and engaged human beings. It’s not an easy task and not a task that any of us can ever claim to get exactly right.
But I do know that to run away screaming, or to try and bury our kids in cotton wool is exactly the wrong response.
Talkback