Category: it could be called work

the price of ownership

A rose is a rose, and a real name at the end of a blog post is an indication that the person who authored the statement is taking responsibility, indeed ownership of the words — it is a simple act of honesty. For too long bloggers have been given license that is not tolerated in letters-to-the-editor columns of newspapers and magazines (except in extraordinary circumstances).

I agree with this, in principle.

Steven Heller on anonymous commenters:

A rose is a rose, and a real name at the end of a blog post is an indication that the person who authored the statement is taking responsibility, indeed ownership of the words — it is a simple act of honesty. For too long bloggers have been given license that is not tolerated in letters-to-the-editor columns of newspapers and magazines (except in extraordinary circumstances). If one is willing to expound, exclaim, or critique it should be done under a real name and with links to a valid email or website address.

★ [From What’s in a Name?]

But there are times when you may want to leave a comment without leaving any personally identifying information. The Flying Monkeys of the Interwebs are often hot on accountability but not so much on responsibility.

links for 2007-12-22

quote of the day

On the fact that “New York City is on track to have fewer than 500 homicides this year”, Josh Marshall notes:

…But this does suggest that in New York City at least the sort of anonymous death by violence that bulks largest in our fears of crime has fallen to almost microscopic proportions.

On the fact that “New York City is on track to have fewer than 500 homicides this year”, Josh Marshall notes:

Death at the hands of people we know has always been an understated factor in the mental picture of crime. But this does suggest that in New York City at least the sort of anonymous death by violence that bulks largest in our fears of crime has fallen to almost microscopic proportions. [From Stick’em Up]

do you FreeCycle? This is a good reason why you should

Obsolete electronic stuff is a huge component of the non-compostable waste stream. Here’s a way to make it smaller.

As one of the largest Freecycle groups in the country, we can
sometimes arrange a special benefit that’s available only to
FreecycleSeattle members. This is again one of those times.

From now through the end of August, FreecycleSeattle members are
eligible for free recycling of their older computers (_any_ age or
type) and CRT monitors (must have been built during or after 2000 and
still working) for FREE at Interconnection.org, just north of Gasworks
Park in Wallingford.

Interconnection is one of the best examples of e-waste re-use/recycle
that we know of. Volunteers disassemble the donated systems; usable
components are reused or resold; all other parts are crushed, sorted,
and properly recycled. Good folks.

Normally, Interconnection charges a handling fee of $5 for each
computer and $10 for monitors; these fees will be WAIVED if you show
them a copy of this FreecycleSeattle posting. This is a great chance
to get rid of that electronic flotsam and jetsam in your basement and
garage in a way that’s both responsible _and_ free. (Be sure to tell
your employer’s IT department about this offer as well…they can
recycle their electronics under this offer as long as they bring in a
copy of this posting.)

Along with your computer, you can also recycle scanners and
miscellaneous electronics (cell phones, stereos, radios, etc) for
free, too. Printers (inkjet and laser) will be accepted for a fee.

(THE FINE PRINT: non-working or 1999 and older monitors [look at the
sticker on the back!] will still be charged the normal $10 handling
fee; all laser or inkjet printers are accepted for $5-10 depending on
weight. Offer only good through August 31st and only during
Interconnection’s normal business hours – no dropoffs.)

how’s your memory?

GUESS THE SENATOR WHO SAID…

“Mr. President, our mission in ________ is over. It is time to come home. Our mission in ________ was to feed a million starving _______ who needed to be fed. It was not an open-ended commitment. It was not a commission of nation building, not warlord hunting, or any of the other extraneous activities which we seem to have been engaged in.”

“If the President of the United States cannot say, “Here is what we are fighting for in ________, that more Americans may perish in service to the goals, and here is why it is worth that price,” then, Mr. President, we have no right — no right — to ask Americans to risk their lives in any further misadventures in ________.”

Continue reading “how’s your memory?”

links for 2007-03-01