Google's CEO Warns Kids Will Have to Change Names to Escape "Cyber Past" 706
Google's Eric Schmidt says that people's private lives are so well documented now that the young will have to change their names when reaching adulthood to avoid their youthful indiscretions. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal Schmidt says: "I don't believe society understands what happens when everything is available, knowable and recorded by everyone all the time." A fresh start from the stupid things you did as a kid seems like a good thing. Now we just need a way to get rid of the dreaded family photo album.
Either that (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Either that (Score:5, Insightful)
Sex offenders... not so much.
=Smidge=
Re:Either that (Score:5, Insightful)
but, but, but.... that guy applying for a job said something mean 20 years ago! We can't hire him, what if he is the same as he was when he was seven years old? Our company can't take that chance!
I say we bring back requested name changes (Score:1, Insightful)
Fuck, we use the SSN like it's a throwaway identification nowadays. If it's compromised you might as well become a new person, it's easier than getting a new SSN reissued with your original name.
Re:Either that (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting old (Score:2, Insightful)
I am getting really tired of Google's lack of respect for privacy; not to mention their hypocrisy...telling everyone else how to do things while they walk out with the safe through the back door. What a joke!
Re:Either that (Score:3, Insightful)
Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
Scary (Score:5, Insightful)
"We're trying to figure out what the future of search is," Mr Schmidt said. “One idea is that more and more searches are done on your behalf without you needing to type. "I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions. They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next."
Surely he jests. I know Google hasn't always been the most steadfast guardian of personal privacy, but coming right out and stating that you want your company to become so intertwined with peoples' lives that it will plan their future for them? That's just creepy...
Remember when you used aliases to post online? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Big Brother Is In The Building (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not an article about Schmidt releasing some new antiprivacy system, it's just a point he's making that the internet makes your past easily accessible to everyone forever. Hell, it's more Facebook than Google who's responsible. But no. Feel free to shoot the messenger.
Just give your kids a famous name (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Either that (Score:2, Insightful)
When I did a summer job (age 20) my older colleagues occasionally asked me "had a good night out last night did you? ;-) ;-)". Generally when I was clearly struggling to stay awake, or the time I turned up to work still drunk.
Four years later, and some of the placement students at work have added me to Facebook. Sometimes I can see they've had a good night out even before they've got home from it, let alone got in to work, but it's no different really.
I'm sure we'll just learn to ignore it, and consider it normal. I'd rather work with someone who has a Facebook page full of comments, a selection of interests and some drunk pictures than the antisocial guy with no life.
Criminal records (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, there is that little box on a job application asking "have you ever been convicted of a crime?" I never paid it any mind because it's easy to say "no" when that's the truth, but some people have to make a calculation. Is it better to check the box and hope they still get a chance to explain in the interview, or leave it blank and hope it never comes up that they lied on the application?
So having a criminal record can, indeed have long-lasting effects. Remember, the question is usually "have you ever."
(As aside, a friend of mine had to answer "have you ever been arrested, which led to the amusing story of him and four other high school kids breaking into the gym because they got locked out during a late track practice... charges were dropped but technically that was an arrest.)
Re:Either that (Score:5, Insightful)
I am going to have to interject here.
Back in the day, you do something stupid and brag to your friends about it in person. Now kids are bragging about doing stupid things on facebook, myspace and twitter. Not only do hundreds or thousands more people know about it, but a record of it exists for all time.
Another problem is facebook and other people tagging you in their pictures. You don't even need to have a facebook account and you can be unknowingly leaking information to facebook that could make you unemployable in the future.
Re:Either that (Score:3, Insightful)
I second that, I never understand why normal behaviour is considered taboo. Going out drinking and having fun with friends is something most all of us do from time to time. Why would you not hire someone because they get drunk in their off times? Wouldn't their performance and history of performance be a lot more important? This is the same reason I don't like drug testing. If it tested whether the person had done it that day it wouldn't be so bad, but it's anytime in the last two weeks to 21 years depending on the test. That's completely pointless and says nothing about the reliability of the person.
I'm not sure when it became okay for businesses to inspect every aspect of your life, if only politicians were held to such scrutiny.
Re:Either that (Score:4, Insightful)
what happens (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't believe society understands what happens when everything is available, knowable and recorded by everyone all the time
Why, it becomes SOCIETY again. Way back before towns had 29 million people in them and mobility wasn't hyperamplified by oil and 99% of us interacted with the same few hundred folks every day of your life, people knew of the stupid shit you did when you were a kid and repeated it at your funeral.
But they also recognized that kids are ignorant, impulsive, incompetent beings, and they treated the adult differently and got on with the world.
I don't believe Mr. Schmidt understands what society is.
I know he doesn't understand what neutrality is.
I'm pretty sure he's lost the plot on evil, as well.
Re:Getting old (Score:5, Insightful)
All these stories that you hear about Google, and especially Schmidt, aren't anti-privacy stories. In fact, I would argue that they're more along the lines of honest warnings. Most of what he says echos what is common sense the the nerd community:
"If you don't want people to know about something, don't post it online." How many times have we said nearly this exact same thing to our friends and family? I know I have, especially to my younger, less experienced relatives.
"I don't believe society understands what happens when everything is available, knowable and recorded by everyone all the time." He's right, society doesn't understand and until people learn to look past minor indiscretions society never will. Until that time, the only way to have a fresh start is to give people a name that doesn't have all the past associated with it. He's not saying, "We're going to post all your data and theirs nothing you can do about it!", he's saying "the data is out there and we need to find ways to deal with it on a personal and on a societal level".
Not a new discussion (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a new discussion... there have been people thinking about this for some time. In March of 2006 I wrote an article on my blog about it (reproduced below) which eventually led to me consulting with Public Radio on a show they were doing at the time about online public information (you can listen to an archived copy of that at October 12, 2007: Your Exposed Life on MPR [publicradio.org]
My Original Article 3/24/2006:
I've often wondered who will be able to run for political office in forty or fifty years. People, especially youg people, seem to be so naive about posting things online. For years online forums and message boards have been a place where people vented. Now sites like Myspace, Facebook and others are creating such a low barrier to entry that almost every middle and high school child in the United States has some kind of web presence. What many fail to understand is that once something is posted or "said" on the internet it never goes away...ever. The internet is also quite easy to search if you know what you're doing. This dangerous combination means that everything you write to a message board can be found at some point in the future and "can and will be used against you". Any kind of off-color comment or joke you ever made online, even if your intention wasn't to hurt anyone, is public knowledge.
Employers already know about this. BusinessWeek recently ran an article called "You are what you post" that talked about some of the implications for job seeking but I think the arena where this will really get the consultants salivating is politics. There are so few people who are able to hold their tongue and never offend anyone. In the past politicians have relied primarily on obscuring and making it difficult to find embarrassing things about their past. When today's teens start running for political office these things will only be an internet search away. Remember that posting to that email discussion list about STDs you made when you were 15? How about that time someone on a message board got you mad and you called them a racial slur? You may have forgotten these incidents but the internet has not and neither will your enemies.
I wonder if the politicians of the future will need to be groomed from birth to have no defects and think very, very carefully before ever speaking. On the other hand our society may end up becoming more accepting of faults which would not be an all bad outcome. This remains to be seen but in the meantime those of us who have always tried to think about how what we say today could come back (for better or worse) in the future are going to be much better off than the indiscriminate masses.
Re:Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny how that's coming from the guy who's indexing it all so we can find it easier.
While Google may be the dominant information indexer, what they're doing doesn't require any special magic. Anybody can be indexing some or all of the information is out there (it's publicly-available, after all). Google being both dominant and public gives us a good idea of what can be done, but if Google didn't exist or limited itself, others would surely step in to fill that gap. It doesn't make what Mr. Schmidt said any less true.
To some degree we should count ourselves lucky that Google is both dominant and public. Imagine all of that information (still) being used against you, but you not having any idea of the vast quantity and depth of correlation that could be done.
Re:Either that (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to remember that in an insane society ruled by religious wackos whose mental disease revolves around fighting "sin" killing is a far, far, far, lesser crime than all things sex-related.
You see killing is a forgivable sin (after all you can't have religious wars without killing and the "holy book" of the month is full of mass murder in the name of spreading the lunacy) but controlling sex resides deeply at the very core of the warped, hateful, controlling, jealous egos of the zealots.
It is no coincidence that the ravings on the subject of "morality" coming from the Taliban officials and US "born again" politicos are so similar.
What is new? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Either that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Getting old (Score:5, Insightful)
Arthur C. Clarke was here (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like Clarke and Baxter's "Light of Other Days". Societal impacts in the book were huge.
Alice's Restaurant (Score:5, Insightful)
The reminded me:
"Kids, this-piece-of-paper's-got-47-words-37-sentences-58-words-we-wanna-
know-details-of-the-crime-time-of-the-crime-and-any-other-kind-of-thing-
you-gotta-say-pertaining-to-and-about-the-crime-I-want-to-know-arresting-
officer's-name-and-any-other-kind-of-thing-you-gotta-say", and talked for
forty-five minutes and nobody understood a word that he said, but we had
fun filling out the forms and playing with the pencils on the bench there,
and I filled out the massacre with the four part harmony, and wrote it
down there, just like it was, and everything was fine and I put down the
pencil, and I turned over the piece of paper, and there, there on the
other side, in the middle of the other side, away from everything else on
the other side, in parentheses, capital letters, quotated, read the
following words:
("KID, HAVE YOU REHABILITATED YOURSELF?")
I went over to the sargent, said, "Sargeant, you got a lot a damn gall to
ask me if I've rehabilitated myself, I mean, I mean, I mean that just, I'm
sittin' here on the bench, I mean I'm sittin here on the Group W bench
'cause you want to know if I'm moral enough join the army, burn women,
kids, houses and villages after bein' a litterbug." He looked at me and
said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send you fingerprints
off to Washington."
If you really care (Score:3, Insightful)
Register a fake name with Facebook etc... as that is what we are really talking about here.
I already have friends on Facebook that are registered under an assumed name. It can be a bit confusing at first, but its just like having an online handle in the old days.
It's not like Facebook can actually check or anything. The only problem is that if everyone does this, then no one can find one another, which totally negates any reason for using Facebook. If a few do it, no one can find you, but you just add everyone else that you know.
Anyway I guess if you really think this stuff through, then it is in Facebooks very best interest to straighten up and start enforcing some strict privacy protocals, because as soon as everyone starts using aliases, Facebooks entire business plan falls to pieces.
Or you could show some common sense and not post anything you remotely care about on sites like Facebook, and if your friends do, then unfriend them.
No history is worse than bad history (Score:3, Insightful)
When I interview these recent grads and see nothing out there, I wonder, did they have NO life or did they manage to erase their past?
If I see that the kid went to some parties and got sh*t-faced, so what, many of us did that. But, if I find nothing, my imagination is left to fill in the blanks.
First reaction so far that puts the shoe on the ot (Score:3, Insightful)
Gosh, first reaction so far that puts the shoe on the other foot. Uptil this post everyone complains basically that their criminal record can come back to haunt them. Oh noes! Being held accountable for your actions! What will the world turn into.
Don't think that your dream will happen AC. Notice you yourself don't even dare to post it under your own account and face the karma burn.
People learning to accept the consequences of their actions and therefor restrain themselves from actions that might hurt them? Nah.
Re:Either that (Score:3, Insightful)
I notice that your reply is somewhat short on alternative explanations of why "sex crimes" are treated in all the supposedly science-based and "rational" Western democracies as far more serious offenses than killing or armed robbery, and why the same is true for Islamic theocracies....
Re:Either that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Getting old (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe you should A) Have a talk with your friends about not posting and tagging pictures of you, they're the ones making the data publicly available, not Google. B) Periodically go into facebook and remove tags from pictures you don't want tagged (so it at least doesn't get indexed under your name). If it's something really bad send a message to your friend and have them remove it or make it private.
You can't blame Google for looking at publicly available information. What do you really propose Google does? Offer to let you censor your name? What about other people who share your name and don't want it censored (for example there is a doctor in NC that would be pretty pissed if I asked Google to block my name since it would be costing him patients). Or should Google just not index certain sites? It would take all of about a day for 5 competitors to jump all over that and provide the service that Google is denying. Even if you got all the major search engines to cooperate that doesn't change the fact that you can do the same searches on the individual sites. Nor does it change the fact that a couple of college students could start up a search engine that provides the service.
No kidding (Score:3, Insightful)
My maxim is that you shouldn't post anything online if you don't want it seen by your mom, your boss (current and future), and a sex offender. Why? Because all three of those people have access. No I don't care if you set it to "private" that's no security. You post something online, the world can see it, just assume that is the case.
Now that doesn't mean don't post ANYTHING online, just make sure that you only post stuff you are ok with the world knowing. This is particularly true when done under your own name, like on facebook.
Re:Either that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Either that (Score:5, Insightful)
usually demanded by sexually depraved individuals. The most anti-sex people are at their core highly perverted.
Honestly EVERYTHING commanded by any religion about sex is only there to control the population.
"God HATES you for masturbating..." What a fucking horrible thing to say to a child, yet it is said daily in almost every single house of worship across this planet. (I know there are some relatively less twisted religions out there, but they are not common). Humans by NATURE are sexual beings. It's by the warping of the human mind and abuse we make people afraid of sex or even hate sex. Sexual abuse, Emotional Abuse, plain old teaching kids lies, manipulation, etc....
If ANY religion teaches hate, then it is not real, It's nothing but made up by man, designed only for the control others through shame and coercion.
I'm certain I'll be modded into oblivion as I'm speaking out against religion. Disclaimer: I am a Christian, and I utterly despise the fear, uncertainty and doubt that other Christians preach.
Re:Either that (Score:4, Insightful)
It's OK when it's everyone (Score:3, Insightful)
People are freaked out about this but they have not factored in that future world is one where the same is true of EVERYONE. When everyone has stuff going way back into childhood online, people will also be a lot more accepting of weird past stuff coming up on people.
Don't forget that it also serves as a record of all the GOOD you have done as well, when kids reach college age they may tend to perhaps volunteer more or do other helpful things recorded online to help them later. There is no system you cannot game for your benefit.
Re:Either that (Score:4, Insightful)
Enough of us do it that if you decide to make it a threshold for which you won't employ someone, you're going to have a hard time finding employees.
Re:Getting old (Score:4, Insightful)
Google just tells the geeks what they've been telling to everyone else for ages: "information wants to be free". Guess what, it still does even if it's information that you don't want to be free. It's not a threat on Google's behalf, just a plain statement of fact. Today's erosion of privacy is not ultimately enabled by Google and Facebook, but by Internet as such.
Re:Either that (Score:5, Insightful)
He knows that. He's being figurative. You, however, aren't getting the message. Because while it is not literally true, the sentiment is entirely true.
Re:Either that (Score:2, Insightful)
It depends on the sex crime.
I'd rather someone bust into my house with a shotgun and rob me than rape my children, yeah. I might even rather be murdered.
As you say it depends on the sex crime.
You fail to address why you prefer the person that pee'ed in the bushes at night cuz he had to go deserves having his life destroyed, and if you would prefer that person put away while the same murderer comes to visit your house...
Re:Or maybe (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm all for personal responsibility, but you have to make some choices when you're growing up, these choices all happen to you when your decision making faculties are still developing.
I don't mean the particles of experience (mistakes) that lead to better judgement later, I mean the scaffolding of the mechanism is still being developed. Teenagers and Twenty Somethings make bad descisions because the decision making part of the brain is still being finished.
I can't count the number of things that happened before I was 20 that should have killed me, I do know my insurance company dropped me before I was 18 because 1 person can only wreck so many cars.
I was wondering a while back if we couldn't have facebook for teens, then twenty somethings, then grown ups. When you graduate from one to the other, you old comments are sealed like court records. It hit me when I was riding with a cowowrker who was tellimg me the awful stuff her daughter posted on FB.
Kids are going to do stupid crap, there's got to be a statute of limitations for your childhood. Even background investigations and bankruptcies only go back 10 years.
Re:Either that (Score:5, Insightful)
I just have to point out, the response that you'd rather have bad thing X happen to you then bad thing Y happen to your children says nothing about the relative badness of X and Y. It just says you'd rather have bad things happen to you then to your children.
Re:Either that (Score:5, Insightful)
different scales,
"be murdered"
vs
"rape my children"
It's normal for people to add weight to harm to their offspring vs harm to themselves.
but if you want to compare crimes to make the scales make sense then use the same victims.
So it should be
"kill my children"
vs
"rape my children"
Re:No history is worse than bad history (Score:5, Insightful)
When I interview these recent grads and see nothing out there, I wonder, did they have NO life or did they manage to erase their past?
I am too busy living my life to spend any time whoring it out on social sites to thousands of people I don't even know. But I suppose having a sense of privacy makes me some kind of sociopath with skeletons in the closet. I don't understand the need some people have to tell everybody every thing they do. Do you also have sex with every person who happens to come within 10 feet of you? Why the hell are people so promiscuous with their "friendship?"
Re:Either that (Score:3, Insightful)
You fail to address why you prefer the person that pee'ed in the bushes at night cuz he had to go deserves having his life destroyed, and if you would prefer that person put away while the same murderer comes to visit your house...
I fail to address that because I don't prefer that.
Our "sex crime" category is much too broad, but that doesn't mean the ideas around it aren't valid in some cases.
Re:Either that (Score:3, Insightful)
Fair point. Consider me amended to "I'd rather be robbed than raped."
Re:what happens (Score:2, Insightful)
The key difference is that we interacted every day. Other's knowledge of the exceptionally outrageous things we may of did was tempered by the fact that they saw us not doing that 99.99% of the time. Doing a web search just gives very little knowledge of what we are like day to day, just the most exceptional (in a good or bad way) things we do.
Hopefully when everyone has a picture of young drunken idiocy (or whatever) of their own out there such things will be taken in stride.
Re:Either that (Score:2, Insightful)
It's there because it's an effective way to fill the pews. It goes something like this:
1. Make people ashamed of something that we all do.
2. Tell them that Magic Man is going to punish them if they don't repent.
3. Pass the collection plate.
4. Profit!
No "????" required.
Re:No history is worse than bad history (Score:2, Insightful)
Or maybe they are not so fascinated by the internet as many others are? They care not to share every little detail of their lives? Maybe they really do not care about what others think of them, and just live?
For example do you have a facebook account? If not you are missing out on every detail of one of your families or friends life. There is always 1 that is CONSTANTLY on there. Chatting about every bean they just burped up.
The advice I give to people is do not put on the internet what you wouldnt be embarrassed if your mom found out about.
If you searched for my name you would find very little. Just a bit of video game advice from 20 years ago and the occasional snarky remark to someone. Who knew you would be able to search the entirety of usenet in seconds...
The first rule of keeping a secret is DO NOT SHARE IT WITH ANYONE. If you share something it is no longer a secret. Some people want to undo the sharing. You cant. The only way is not to do it in the first place. I always go and dig up posts from me in the early 90s and show it to people. I demonstrate to them how the internet has a LONG memory. The day I saw you could search all of usenet was the day I realized what someone told me is true 'the internet is forever'. I can with very little digging find out what my neighbors paid on their taxes for their car. That sort of info is cataloged and public record. How will it be used in the future? I decided to leave a 'light' footprint for a reason. I think it is creepy as hell. It goes against my moto of 'dont be the creepy guy'.
The problem is elsewhere (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, it is undeniable that we will have to deal with privacy - our own and others privacy - differently in the coming future. But are we ready to access that level of privacy, "Google like"? I'm not sure. Not now.
Re:No history is worse than bad history (Score:3, Insightful)
Erase, or just took care to not record themselves with identifiable info in the first place?
I'd take it as a sign they developed their senses at an early age (assuming they had Internet at their early age).
Re:Either that (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't believe how many people are misinterpreting the GP's post.
If the penalty for a sex crime is death, or even "just" some kind of obscene torture, you create a perverse incentive to not leave a witness--in short, you are better off killing your victim since the penalty is going to be the same, and at least with a dead victim you have a better chance of getting away with it.
Re:Either that (Score:1, Insightful)
Ah HAHAHAHA!!! You think that is soooo clever? Try going the the other way.
Re:Either that (Score:3, Insightful)
When we're all unemployable we'll all be unemployeed.
Except for the scammers.
Higher requirements are always better, right? Lets have HR request 10 years of windows 2008 experience, 25 years of linux kernel development experience, and willing to work 160 hour weeks for $8/hr w/ no benefits. How could we strike out when we're only getting the absolute cream of the crop?
The dumb con artists get weeded out, at great expense to the company, the smart con artists end up as execs, also at great expense to the company.
Re:Either that (Score:2, Insightful)
By the way, in some places "sex offender" also includes those convicted of solicitation, prostitution, and/or lewd and lascivious behavior, which could include sex in one's vehicle.
Re:Either that (Score:3, Insightful)
You know why this happens? Because the prosecuting attorney isn't paid to be lenient, and the defending attorney isn't paid to get an acquittal. They both benefit most when the defendant just pleads guilty; the prosecution can then campaign next year about how he's "tough on crime" and has sentenced "hundreds of criminals", and the defense can go home early (or spend more time with his other, more winnable cases).
Our current court system is set up so that all the glory and all the benefit comes from successfully prosecuting someone; we don't care any more about defending the innocent, we just want to punish those believed to be guilty.
employers don't really care (Score:3, Insightful)
Hardly any employers are really taking minor youthful indiscretions seriously. The ones that are are losing out competitively to the ones that don't, because they aren't hiring the best people. Unless you've done something quite surprising, you are going to be fine:
Talented, but drunk in college? Hired.
Talented, but dressed up stupidly in college? Hired.
Talented, but had sex in college? Hired.
Talented, but made a fool of yourself in college? Hired.
Talented, but murdered someone in college? Maybe not.
Name change won't work (Score:4, Insightful)
There will be enough links that you'll still be traceable back to your old identity... facial recognition, social security number, address history, and so on.
Re:Or (Score:3, Insightful)
People do stop acting like trash. Teenagers who do stupid and sometimes malicious things (and perhaps experience consequences for their actions) can grow up to be responsible adults. I could name names, but won't. That's not the problem here.
The problem is that, given the information now available, it doesn't make any difference if they stop acting like trash. They'll still face all the consequences of acting like trash without having any of the fun. The only solution is to never have acted like trash, and that's something no change of heart or development of responsibility will do.
It denies the possibility of redemption, that people can reform and become better. It takes away any social or professional reward for turning over a new leaf. It will leave a large number of people without the chance to live the same lives, all because of something mean and stupid they did when young. It will create an underclass of those who had a wild childhood.
More specifically, it will create a large group of people who may as well act like trash, because there's no further penalty for doing so. That will make the world a considerably worse place to live in.
Re:No history is worse than bad history (Score:4, Insightful)
if I find nothing, my imagination is left to fill in the blanks
If only your imagination was good enough to conceive that many names are so common that thousands of others share it, and many people have more of a life than "creating an internet presence". I don't know how long you've been out of school, but the inability to find someone on the internet doesn't mean jack shit. You really sound like an idiot, to be frank.
If you google my name, you don't find me. If you add in the last two places I worked, you STILL don't find me, even though I was listed on both places websites for a long time. If you add in my undergraduate college, you find a current bio on me at the place I work now. But that's it. That's the bulk of my online presence you can find using google, browsing Facebook, etc.
Why you'd assume that lack of internet presence is any indication of anything is beyond me. I've got a pretty damn active social life, am very active online, and I've got a pretty long career behind me. All of this I'll tell you when you interview me, and give you contacts to check into these things.
But a random search? Doesn't find much of anything. If you base hiring decisions on that lack of information, you're an idiot.
Re:Either that (Score:5, Insightful)
In the US, not really. At the federal level nearly 100% of our representatives are either Christian or Jewish; the same is true to a somewhat lesser extent at the state and even local levels.
Re:Either that (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to remember that in an insane society...
Agreed...
...ruled by religious wackos...
There are whackos of every stripe, religious and otherwise, in positions of power around the world. Unfortunately, religion is a tool that is often abused by those who seek power. Also unfortunately, there are plenty of people who are willing to surrender their good judgment to someone who wears a certain label, but that applies equally to religion, politics, patriotism, etc. Pointing out just the religious whackos, while ignoring the others, is simply prejudice.
...whose mental disease revolves around fighting "sin"...
First, I'm assuming that this is where to break the sentence, since your grammar is so atrocious that you broke my English language parser...and I'm a native speaker of the language. I think, however, there was supposed to be a comma between "sin" and "killing", so on that assumption, I'll continue.
If you really look at the big picture, most things that are frowned upon in religion tend to be bad for individuals or for society, anyway. Since I am most familiar with Judeo-Christianity, I'll give you an example from there: the ten commandments: "do not steal" -- yep, pretty tough to argue that that's a good thing regardless of your religion; likewise for "do not commit murder", "do not give false testimony against your neighbor" and"do not covet that which belongs to your neighbor". In our society, we tend to think of the commandment against adultery as being one of those antiquated, old-fashioned things, but talk to a kid who's parent's are getting divorced because of infidelity and tell me again how good adultery is. Again, it provides for a stable society.
...killing is a far, far, far, lesser crime than all things sex-related.
The problem here, is that you are looking at the way we humans have screwed religion up. Again, speaking from a non-Catholic, Judeo-Christian background, that's a human invention. IIRC, Catholics *do* have a hierarchy of sins, but I've never seen that anywhere in the Bible, and not being raised in a Catholic environment, I don't know where that tradition comes from. IME, there's no infraction that get's you "damned to Hell" when another only gets you "darned to Heck" so to say that "killing is a far, far, far lesser crime than all things sex-related" is simply false. At least, as I understand it :) YMMV.
You see killing is a forgivable sin...
Have you ever read the texts of any of the religions you are bashing? In Christianity, at least, repentance leads to forgiveness regardless of what you've done.
...(after all you can't have religious wars without killing and the "holy book" of the month is full of mass murder in the name of spreading the lunacy)...
Just because people who have rallied under a banner of religion have engaged in religious wars doesn't mean it's OK. 'Nuff said.
...but controlling sex resides deeply at the very core of the warped, hateful, controlling, jealous egos of the zealots.
There's enough warped, hateful, controlling, jealous, ego-maniac zealots around, that's true, and it's a black eye for anyone who holds to any given faith. But again, that's hardly limited to the religious set. Are you going to renounce atheism because some other atheist happened to be a warped, hateful, controlling, jealous, ego-maniac, too? No? Didn't think so. Neither, then, will I renounce my faith because some of the people who have claimed to share my religion have been...flawed (I'd say they were actually manifesting the nature of the devil rather than the
Hope? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Or maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
So when you were younger you never:
Made fun of or teased anyone in a way which now as an adult you would regret?
Held views that you now would be embarrassed by?
Were an ardent fan of music or specific bands that might have promoted views of lifestyles you no longer want to be associated with?
Enjoyed songs or lyrics that may have others think you are depressed, angry, or prone to violent behavior?
Drank alcohol before you were of legal age, or attended parties that might give the appearance that you were drinking before legal age?
Experimented with drugs, or you associated with people or groups that may give the appearance that you experimented with drugs?
Said anything that could be misunderstood for you saying that you partook in illegal activities including drug use.
Spoke in a style (IE LOL, or 1337 speak) that you would be embarrassed by as an adult, or maybe you are not personally embarrassed by on a personal level, but on a professional level you don't want others to see?
It's not about being responsible. Schmidt is just pointing out that now everyone has to essentially conduct their lives as if they are politicians and be very aware of who could be recording their actions and how they could be perceived. This is somewhat acceptable as an adult, but it is an unfair burden to put on kids, especially when a 14 year old is really incapable of understanding how putting lyrics to their favorite rap song on their Facebook page may look down the road to someone doing research on them when they are interviewing at an investment bank.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Either that (Score:3, Insightful)
The guy could have made his point without the "colorful language". That makes the profanity superfluous and ... juvenile.
Possibly, but not necessarily with the impact intended. Profanity is superfluous and juvenile only because you are offended by it. Maybe I find the euphemism "colorful language" a juvenile way to avoid saying a particular word. Fuck is just another word.
There are plenty of examples of childish use of profanity online, but it is the use and not the profanity that is childish. And in my opinion the AC's use doesn't fall into that category.
Re:Either that (Score:4, Insightful)
No wonder why Gandhi said that he liked Christ but did not like Christians.
The ones most loudly proclaiming their Christianship and how strict they are in adhering to the bible are the ones who ignore the fact that what they are strictly adhering is mostly Old Covenant and what they are mostly ignoring is the New Covenant, ie, that which makes Christians, Christians.
Do you eat shellfish? Wear clothes of mixed fibers? All that other stuff in Leviticus? Or do you just pick and choose that which makes you feel morally superior to others without causing too much inconvenience for yourself?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Irony (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Either that (Score:3, Insightful)
With no one to compare to, your significant other is the best for you for now and for always!
Um, are you sure?
When I was a young lad programming in BASIC, I had no other languages to compare it to, but I figured out that it sucked.
Similarly, even a virgin can be capable of figuring out that their partner is a lousy lay.
I mean if we're using the "best because of only" logic, then isn't your SO also the worst for you now and for always? :)
Making up history is flat out evil (Score:4, Insightful)
But, if I find nothing, my imagination is left to fill in the blanks.
Er... maybe you shouldn't be the one interviewing people, because those blanks are going to be filled in by every prejudice you don't even know you had.
It's like the example Carl Sagan gave on Cosmos.
Observation of Venus: We can't see a thing.
Conclusion about surface: Dinosaurs!
Escape with a Name Change? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Either that (Score:3, Insightful)
Figuratively speaking *sigh*
Slashdot and empathy... God...
Politics (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Either that (Score:4, Insightful)
Whereas I would much rather being raped over murdered...
There is something else that scares me more (Score:3, Insightful)
"I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions. They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next."
The moment Google steps on this direction far enough for me to detect it, I'm off google.
Re:Either that (Score:1, Insightful)
Good call! I say we start with you.
Re:Either that (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you imagine giving a piece of your heart and mind to another and then expecting to be able to give 100% of yourself to the next person and the next person and the one after that? I can, because dating is just that. Sex, on the other hand, brings a whole new level of connection. It's hard enough having the baggage of previous 'loves' coming into a marriage, but previous sexual partners?
By giving myself to my wife only, I can completely give myself to her, and because I only gave myself to my wife alone, she has nothing to fear because she knows my personal stance on marital fidelity, one I kept strong from before I got married, and have no intention of breaking (and she knows it!). Because of this, the baggage of previous relationships is minimal, and the building of a solid marriage has less to burden it down.
Yes, perhaps if I had "shopped" around sexually, I could have found a better sexually gratifying experience, but would it be worth it?
If I found the "perfect" sex, but it wasn't with a woman who was the best match for me overall, I would spend the rest of my life with that "perfect" sex as a memory, and it would be very tempting to seek it again, and that would make me less than the faithful husband I desire to be to one woman.
You are right, sex isn't everything, and I believe that anyone willing to make it work can make the sex good... period.
Alias (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why god made them.
Eventually you out grow 'pretty2u' and start using your real name.
Re:Either that (Score:4, Insightful)
In all but one scenario sex is bad/sinful, in that one scenario contraception=murder? That to me says "I want lots of sexually frustrated youths who will produce lots of babies within the faith starting fairly young in a setting where the child is certain to be indoctrinated as well."
To all those who tagged this "dontdostupidstuff" (Score:4, Insightful)
To all those who tagged this article "dontdostupidstuff", for what definition of stupid are you talking about? Do you mean "stupid stuff" like shoot your mouth off online? Or how about the "stupid stuff" of being a member of a political party that is later rounded up and harrassed [wikipedia.org]? How about being a member of *any* group (non-religious [wikipedia.org], sexual [wikipedia.org], intellectual [wikipedia.org], ethnic [wikipedia.org] . . . ) that is later legislated to be "dangerous" or "stupid", or is just plain discriminated against?
The fact of the matter remains that until human society is tolerant enough to accept people for being innocuously different (where "innocuous" means "not harmful to others"), then privacy will still be necessary. In other words, privacy will be necessary for the foreseeable future. "dontdostupidstuff" indeed.
I disagree (Score:4, Insightful)
Schmidt is *wrong*.
There will always be unforgiving, vindictive, dishonest, and just plain cruel people. And some of them will hold hiring authority.
But, if you don't want to work with those kinds of people, you don't have to worry about being honest with your past. Why does anyone want to work for a company that:
I've worked in this kind of environment and I don't miss it at all. You shouldn't give up your freedom because other people are jerks. If an employer won't hire you because you committed a few youthful indiscretions, you can bet they won't treat you like a person, either.
Re:Either that (Score:1, Insightful)