Random Thread - Anything Goes
-
@Dashrender said:
@dafyre said:
@Dashrender Yes. Pets don't like to be left alone for extended periods of time.... (Read: My house is like an episode of Tom & Jerry while we are gone).
And what did we do for 1000's of years before this invention?
Tortured pets like prisoners who didn't know what their crime was.
-
@Dashrender said:
@dafyre said:
@Dashrender Yes. Pets don't like to be left alone for extended periods of time.... (Read: My house is like an episode of Tom & Jerry while we are gone).
And what did we do for 1000's of years before this invention?
1000's of years ago many pets were used for labor and hunting... so that really doesn't apply. We have to keep our small dog in a cage during the day because her separation anxiety is at epic levels.
-
You can say that about any new invention. What did we do before figuring out clothes, toilet paper or fire. Humans survived. But it doesn't change the fact that life improved afterwards. Just because something is new and wasn't required for survival before doesn't imply that it isn't good or improves life.
-
@Dashrender said:
And what did we do for 1000's of years before this invention?
For 1000's of years we did not leave the animals locked up alone in a small house for hours at a time.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@Dashrender said:
And what did we do for 1000's of years before this invention?
For 1000's of years we did not leave the animals locked up alone in a small house for hours at a time.
Only recently (last hundred and fifty years or so) did kids start going to school all day. And only in the last generation did the concept of dual income families become popular. It is a very new thing that pets face being left alone.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
You can say that about any new invention. What did we do before figuring out clothes, toilet paper or fire. Humans survived. But it doesn't change the fact that life improved afterwards. Just because something is new and wasn't required for survival before doesn't imply that it isn't good or improves life.
I understand what you are saying.. but like Facebook and all of the other social media things of today, it seems like just one more way to spend your time doing anything but work, when you're at work.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
@Dashrender said:
And what did we do for 1000's of years before this invention?
For 1000's of years we did not leave the animals locked up alone in a small house for hours at a time.
Only recently (last hundred and fifty years or so) did kids start going to school all day. And only in the last generation did the concept of dual income families become popular. It is a very new thing that pets face being left alone.
If by new you mean 30 years, OK it's new, but your point is taken.
-
Even here in Spain, pets are not kept at home. Cats and dogs roam the streets. A dog came to our ROOF this morning! They can follow their owners to work, hang out with other animals or visit other people. But there is basically no traffic here.
Where in the US could you do that today without endangering the animal? In cities animals now have to be locked up and people don't stay home during the day.
-
@Dashrender said:
I understand what you are saying.. but like Facebook and all of the other social media things of today, it seems like just one more way to spend your time doing anything but work, when you're at work.
Or, like many things today, it allows you to work instead of needing to go home to deal with things that need to be dealt with. Life is not about work, work is just one aspect of what we need to do.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
@Dashrender said:
And what did we do for 1000's of years before this invention?
For 1000's of years we did not leave the animals locked up alone in a small house for hours at a time.
Only recently (last hundred and fifty years or so) did kids start going to school all day. And only in the last generation did the concept of dual income families become popular. It is a very new thing that pets face being left alone.
If by new you mean 30 years, OK it's new, but your point is taken.
That's the length of a generation, yes.
-
Before Facebook people talked sports, went to the bar or read a newspaper. We work more today than ever. The idea that "new technology" is a distraction from work ignores how work was traditionally done. Change doesn't mean the world is falling apart or that younger generations are lazy. It's just not the same work world that we grew up with.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
You can say that about any new invention. What did we do before figuring out clothes, toilet paper or fire. Humans survived. But it doesn't change the fact that life improved afterwards. Just because something is new and wasn't required for survival before doesn't imply that it isn't good or improves life.
I understand what you are saying.. but like Facebook and all of the other social media things of today, it seems like just one more way to spend your time doing anything but work, when you're at work.
From the research I have seen (and there isn't a lot since it is a relatively new ) social media doesn't have a great impact on productivity. To the point where it actually helps productivity in certain areas.
-
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
You can say that about any new invention. What did we do before figuring out clothes, toilet paper or fire. Humans survived. But it doesn't change the fact that life improved afterwards. Just because something is new and wasn't required for survival before doesn't imply that it isn't good or improves life.
I understand what you are saying.. but like Facebook and all of the other social media things of today, it seems like just one more way to spend your time doing anything but work, when you're at work.
From the research I have seen (and there isn't a lot since it is a relatively new ) social media doesn't have a great impact on productivity. To the point where it actually helps productivity in certain areas.
Definitely. We used to run home for lunch, make long phones calls or have to come up with needed distractions to keep us from burning out. Social media lets us stay connected, know that people are safe, keep in contact with friends, work later, make plans easier, etc.
I'm sure people said all the same things when telephones, telegraphs or even the mail were invented. But the reality is that all of them made communications better, faster and helped us do hard things more easily.
-
When I was a kid, keeping in contact with my dad meant calling him in the office and interrupting whatever he was working on, and possibly other people with whom he was working. Little things, like arranging dinner were a bit deal. And instead of working till the last minute he would leave work at a set time so that things were predictable so that we could make plans around food, events, school, etc. Now with social media, we don't need to cripple work and stop in the middle of things because it is so easy to keep everyone in the loop. Work is much more integrated into our lives and it is so much easier to be productive. Sure, it is also easier to be unproductive. But people who didn't want to work never were going to work. People who want to work will use the available tools to do so better.
-
No one needs a tool to avoid work. You just..... don't work.
-
@coliver said:
From the research I have seen (and there isn't a lot since it is a relatively new ) social media doesn't have a great impact on productivity. To the point where it actually helps productivity in certain areas.
Is it because employees have always been, to use Scott's word, lazy? or the expected output was so low that adding social media time was simply replaced water cooler talk? or because companies are blocking social media sites.
-
@Dashrender said:
Is it because employees have always been, to use Scott's word, lazy? or the expected output was so low that adding social media time was simply replaced water cooler talk? or because companies are blocking social media sites.
Or because people still get work done. You are basing your questions on an assumption that I don't believe is true or based on anything. Why do you feel that any of those things are necessary? Why can't Facebook simply be a potentially good thing?
-
I think that you feel humans are machines and the goal is maximum factory output. Unless you are literally running a factory, making people work without breaks or distraction makes them less productive. There is a reason that many countries outproduce the US while working fewer hours. Is this because Americans are lazy or incompetent? Or maybe it is because hours don't equal output?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
No one needs a tool to avoid work. You just..... don't work.
Sadly, around here, we've had a problem of hiring these people I guess.. because the use of FB and other social media sites has definitely effected mostly our newer, younger highers and they're productivity is noticeably less than our senior and old staff who aren't so engaged by social media.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
No one needs a tool to avoid work. You just..... don't work.
Sadly, around here, we've had a problem of hiring these people I guess.. because the use of FB and other social media sites has definitely effected mostly our newer, younger highers and they're productivity is noticeably less than our senior and old staff who aren't so engaged by social media.
Younger people are always less productive than seniors people (as large groups) for many reasons. This has always been the case. I think a dislike of social media is causing you or someone to apply unrelated behaviour together that has no association.
Take away Facebook and does the younger group suddenly become productive? I doubt it. You need to have large control groups to determine this kind of stuff.
