Insidious Facebook
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: New to COBOL
Next: Correction
From: HeyBub on 3 Aug 2010 15:47 James Gavan wrote: > > ****** > > Here's another interesting one in the technology category. Any > comments from 'Yew Awl' in the biggest State ? Recall how 'difficult' > it is to trace who is responsible for spamming and the goddamned > hackers and their viruses. About the time the Winter Olympics started > in Vancouver, there was a BC resident playing on-line games where you > could chat to the person you were playing with. Progressively he > found he was talking to a male about 17 years of age. The kid > eventually let drop that he was collecting firearms to do a > 'Columbine' at his local school, realised he had said too much and > then cut the game and connection short. > The BC man was disturbed enough to contact the RCMP, who in turn, took > it seriously and contacted the FBI (I think). Then it turns out - and > I have no idea of the name/software - Microsoft has a package > "Security Checking System"; they zeroed in on this kid and the FBI > traced him to Texas. The newspaper article finished there and there > was no follow-up. I wonder if it even made the news in Texas ? I didn't see anything about it. First, everybody in Texas has a gun, so that's no big deal. Even kids with lollipops.* Second, everybody hates government schools, so that's no big deal either. Third, at least one school district in Texas authorizes its teacher to carry pistols. Ho hum. ------- * Actual conversation on a visit to D.C.: Cab driver: "Youz got a gun?" Me: "Me, personally?" Cab driver: "Yeah, youz personally." Me: "I've got friends who have a lot of guns. I, myself, have just your basic household set." Cab driver: "Household set? Whaz dat?" Me: "You know, short-barreled shotgun, carbine, pistol, and a throw-down. Just your basic starter set." Cab driver: "Where youz want off?"
From: HeyBub on 4 Aug 2010 12:29 Pete Dashwood wrote: > > Facebook, MySpace, and, indeed, most of the "social networks" are > perfect examples of a good idea being subverted by a small minority. > By far the majority of people on Facebook are there for social > reasons and they enjoy the service. But they simply don't understand > the risks involved. (You won't find me on Facebook,although I get > around a dozen invitations a week from people who want to be my > "friend"... Fortunately, I know who my friends are and don't need > reinforcement from a computer network :-)) > There is a cynical abuse of these networks for marketing (relatively > harmless, but annoying) and other, more sinister activities. Best > avoided. > (I should add that I DO subscribe to ONE social network: LinkedIn. This is > a professional one and I only joined it because various > people who had worked with me wanted me to recommend them. I keep a > very low profile on it, have been on it for over 6 years now and have > not experienced any unwanted side effects from it. It is extremely > unlikely you will ever see me in MySpace or Facebook, however...) > > I suspect that, in your case, Jimmy, because you are generally chatty > in your mails, the man has wanted to get to know you better and > thought Facebook would be the way to do that. > > Probably completely innocent with no other motive than being social. > Most people who are on Facebook would react that way. > > It shows the subtle shift that has occurred in our attitudes and that > has been catalyzed by the age of instant communication. > > How many people 40 years ago would think it perfectly usual and > normal to show their holiday snaps to a total stranger? (Or imagine > for one moment that a stranger would be interested?) > > Whether this is "good" or "bad" is a subjective opinion and, for me at > least, the jury is still out...:-) However, if it was possible to > return to the days before the first communications satellite, I'd > definitely vote against it. > > I commend for your consideration a book: "What do you care what other people thingk?" by Richard P. Feynman. And another "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer. Together, they illuminate the point that often a person's sense of self-worth is either determined by the approbation of others or by submersing it in the maw of the group. There are actually people on facebook who strive for THOUSANDS of "friends." If they see they are falling down in the race for most friends, their despair incites them to new frenzies of recruitment. We've seen people actually commit suicide over comments made about them on their social networking pages. Now Feynman was a "The Emperor Has No Clothes" sort of guy. Here's a (paraphrased) vignette from his book: [RING-RING] "Hello" "Is this Dr. Feynman?" "Yes" "Doctor Richard P. Feynman?" "(wearily) Yes" "Dr Feynmann, my name is Joe Smith. I am the United States Ambassador to the Court of King Gustav V of Norway. It is my distinct pleasure to inform you that you have been awarded the 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics!" "Do you know what the hell time it is in California?" "(??) er, no..." "It is three o'clock in the goddamn morning. Call back after nine!" [Click] "????"
From: Pete Dashwood on 4 Aug 2010 20:38 HeyBub wrote: > Pete Dashwood wrote: >> >> Facebook, MySpace, and, indeed, most of the "social networks" are >> perfect examples of a good idea being subverted by a small minority. >> By far the majority of people on Facebook are there for social >> reasons and they enjoy the service. But they simply don't understand >> the risks involved. (You won't find me on Facebook,although I get >> around a dozen invitations a week from people who want to be my >> "friend"... Fortunately, I know who my friends are and don't need >> reinforcement from a computer network :-)) >> There is a cynical abuse of these networks for marketing (relatively >> harmless, but annoying) and other, more sinister activities. Best >> avoided. >> (I should add that I DO subscribe to ONE social network: LinkedIn. >> This is a professional one and I only joined it because various >> people who had worked with me wanted me to recommend them. I keep a >> very low profile on it, have been on it for over 6 years now and have >> not experienced any unwanted side effects from it. It is extremely >> unlikely you will ever see me in MySpace or Facebook, however...) >> >> I suspect that, in your case, Jimmy, because you are generally chatty >> in your mails, the man has wanted to get to know you better and >> thought Facebook would be the way to do that. >> >> Probably completely innocent with no other motive than being social. >> Most people who are on Facebook would react that way. >> >> It shows the subtle shift that has occurred in our attitudes and that >> has been catalyzed by the age of instant communication. >> >> How many people 40 years ago would think it perfectly usual and >> normal to show their holiday snaps to a total stranger? (Or imagine >> for one moment that a stranger would be interested?) >> >> Whether this is "good" or "bad" is a subjective opinion and, for me >> at least, the jury is still out...:-) However, if it was possible to >> return to the days before the first communications satellite, I'd >> definitely vote against it. >> >> > > I commend for your consideration a book: "What do you care what other > people thingk?" by Richard P. Feynman. I have a couple of books by Feynman on my bookshelves (somewhere... I just went to check and couldn't find them... it gets a bit chaotic round here at times...) and have read several of his papers. (It was his comment about Young's experiment that made me persevere over several months until I really "got it"). I didn't know he wrote a book like the one you mention. For myself, I learned many many years ago that it is quite impossible to be all things to all people. At the same time I came to the realization that needing approval is a path to disaster. There's no need to go through life being an arsehole, but there's no need to need approval either. All of us appreciate acknowledgement and approbation, but the trick is not to need it...Most of us know when we could have done better and similarly know when we did the best we could. I guess I could write a book with the same title as the one you mentioned... :-) > And another "The True > Believer" by Eric Hoffer. Not come across that. > > Together, they illuminate the point that often a person's sense of > self-worth is either determined by the approbation of others or by > submersing it in the maw of the group. > > There are actually people on facebook who strive for THOUSANDS of > "friends." If they see they are falling down in the race for most > friends, their despair incites them to new frenzies of recruitment. > We've seen people actually commit suicide over comments made about > them on their social networking pages. I didn't know that. I have as little as possible to do with Facebook. There are bound ot be vulnerable people subscribed to it. It is sad. > > Now Feynman was a "The Emperor Has No Clothes" sort of guy. Here's a > (paraphrased) vignette from his book: > > [RING-RING] > > "Hello" > > "Is this Dr. Feynman?" > > "Yes" > > "Doctor Richard P. Feynman?" > > "(wearily) Yes" > > "Dr Feynmann, my name is Joe Smith. I am the United States Ambassador > to the Court of King Gustav V of Norway. It is my distinct pleasure > to inform you that you have been awarded the 1965 Nobel Prize in > Physics!" > "Do you know what the hell time it is in California?" > > "(??) er, no..." > > "It is three o'clock in the goddamn morning. Call back after nine!" > > [Click] > > "????" LOL! Excellent! Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: HeyBub on 4 Aug 2010 22:12 Pete Dashwood wrote: > >> And another "The True >> Believer" by Eric Hoffer. > > Not come across that. Hoffer postulated that "groups" - whether Nazis, Communists, fundamentalist religions, or whatnot - nevertheless have traits in common that can be studied. This is a small book, but it cannot be read quickly. With almost every sentence, you'll find yourself putting the book down, stroking your chin, and saying: "Hmm. Damn!" Here are a few of the zingers I remember: * A mass movement can exist without a god, but it will always fail without a devil. All mass movements must have something to hate. * Memberships in mass movements are interchangeable. It is the movement, not the goal of the movement, that is important. Fanatics readily move from movement to movement. * People mind their own business when it is worth minding. When it's not, they take their mind off their own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business. * Mass movements appeal to people who are dissatisfied with the present by promising a glorious future. * Joining a mass movement is like clutching a life-raft. * Membership in mass movements is validated by proselytizing. The more people one can get to join the movement, the greater the sense of self-validation. This is one of a half-dozen books that fundamentally altered my outlook on life Others include "Atlas Shrugged," "Sexual Choices - Why Women Pick the Men They Do," "Systems of Survival" and a few others. Tell you what, Pete, buy Hoffer's book. Give it a go. If you don't have a sense of profound enlightenment, I'LL give you your money back! Of course you have to buy the ten-cent variety here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0446618152/ref=sr_1_1_olp?ie=UTF8&qid=1280974103&sr=8-1&condition=used
From: Anonymous on 5 Aug 2010 09:05
In article <6OqdnWcUmZnjCMTRnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: [snip] >I commend for your consideration a book: "What do you care what other people >thingk?" by Richard P. Feynman. [snip] >"It is three o'clock in the goddamn morning. Call back after nine!" A pity Dr Feynman is dead as it might have been amusing to see his response to 'For what reason should the caller have cared what the recipient - one of those 'other people' - thought about appropriate times to call?' DD |