Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Socially Responsible Are Computer Companies?

Posted by Cliff on from the stuff-to-think-about-for-the-discriminating-buyer dept.

mlc asks: "I'm involved in some projects for social justice, et al., and I'm also a geek. But I've never really given much thought to reconciling the two. How ethical are computer companies, especially hardware companies? Do semiconductor factories in Taiwan treat their workers better than any other factories in Taiwan? Does Dell donate any of its profits to charity? Are there any other tips for the socially responsible computer buyer?"

377 comments

  1. Social Justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Good luck sorting out the just from the unjust. Seems kind of facile to think you can walk into a store, buy a product as complex as a PC and be sure that someone somewhere didn't get screwed over in the design/manufacturing/distribution process.

    1. Re:Social Justice by mlc · · Score: 1

      Of course one can ever be perfect. But that is, IMO, no opinion for not even trying.

  2. Re:Permatemps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wow. You certainly live a spoiled, easy, sheltered life.

  3. The Council on Economic Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    The Council on Economic Priorities evaluates public companys of different social and environmental issues and produces a number of reports ie 'Shopping for a Better World'. The don't currenly have anything directed towards high tech, that I know of but it might be a good idea to write to them and encourage them to focus on the high tech industry as it becomes a driving force behind today's economy.

    http://www.cepnyc.org/

  4. Buy products based on quality! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I couldn't care less if they have an entire country of slaves making a product. If it is the BEST product in the category and they offer it at a competetive price, then it wins my dollars. Sorry, but AFAIK there's nobody that is FORCED to work for Nike or a clothing manufacturer in a sweat shop anymore than I am forced to work at my job. Necessity says I need to earn money to pay my bills and feed my family and the same applies to them. Slavery is when someone is getting nothing in return for forced labor done for you. If Nike has armed guards outside their factories keeping their "slaves" from leaving the factory then yes, that is horrible. So far though I've never heard of anything like that. Just because someone gets paid $.50 an hour in one country doesn't mean it is like earning $.50 an hour in the USA. Standard of living is different, cost of goods is different, etc. By that logic, if we only pay a restaurant worker $3/hr plus tips then they are "slaves" in your mind even though some of them can easily earn $15/hr just on tips.

    1. Re:Buy products based on quality! by Luis+Casillas · · Score: 1
      Necessity says I need to earn money to pay my bills and feed my family and the same applies to them.

      What sense of "necessity" do you mean?

      It is the current social and economic relations which say that you need to earn money by wage or salaried work (in which process someone else who owns the means of production benefits more than you) to pay your bills (which again, exist because of particular social and economic relations) and feed your family (which, of course, you ought to do, whatever the social and economic relations may be).

      It is also because of the standing social and economic relations that, while you possibly can get a well paid job with many conveniences, for most people in the world their only way of feeding their families is through sweatshop labor.

      And there is nothing necessary about those relations. They are the result of the interaction of past people and relations.

    2. Re:Buy products based on quality! by Rombuu · · Score: 1

      If it morally offends you so much, you are free to send your money directly to those people, you know.

      --

      DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
    3. Re:Buy products based on quality! by jejones · · Score: 1

      If everybody else pays comparable wages in that area, on what basis do you claim it is "unfair"?

    4. Re:Buy products based on quality! by mlc · · Score: 2
      Yes, there are often armed guards outside the free trade zones in "third-world" countries. Further, during peak production periods, workers are frequently locked in their factories for shifts of up to 18 hours. (The managers go home, of course).

      If the only jobs availible (because a US-friendly government has taken over farmland) are in sweatshops, people are going to work in sweatshops, whether they like it or not. I don't advocate for an end to manufacturing in the "Global South;" this'd leave the workers utterly jobless and worse off than before. Similarly, I don't even call for a boycott. I merely argue that those working in the factories should be treated like human beings. Workers in a the Carribean Apparel factory in Santa Ana, El Salvador are paid 15 cents for every pair of $16.96 Kathie Lee pants that they sew. If their wages were doubled, and the increased cost were passed directly on to consumers, the pants would cost $17.11. The transnational megacorps are making insane profits, and it's only reasonable for me, given a choice, to pay the extra 15 cents so that someone else can feed her family.

    5. Re:Buy products based on quality! by MintSlice · · Score: 2

      "If Nike has armed guards outside their factories keeping their "slaves" from leaving the factory then yes, that is horrible. So far though I've never heard of anything like that."

      I don't know about the armed guards outside the factories, but it's interesting you should pick Nike as an example

      Currently, Nike pays very few of it's 'third world' workers enough to keep them above the poverty line. To do so would result in the uncomfortable rise in price for US residents of a whole $2.00 a pair of shoes. (Outrageous!!!). I don't need to know whether or not Nike employs armed guards or not to know that this is unacceptable behaviour. Oh and if you're interested in why Nike doesn't pay a fair wage - well nobody else pays a fair wage either so why should they.

      But of much more importance is you ability to decern quality. Nike does not make quality product. Nike makes consumer goods that you sadly equate with quality because they spend so much money telling you about how you'll have a good lifestyle if you buy their shoes. I can't even remember the last time Nike ran an add that talked about how good their equipment was. Nike's products are certainly no better than their consumers, the only difference is that their advertising budget is bigger and you've allowed yourself to think that because their adverts are good, so must their products be.

      To follow this logic to is conclusion, Microsoft must produce the best operating system, because they spend a lot of money convincing you that your life will be simpler if you use their products, and that they aren't evil.

      It's just a thought!

      Mintslice

    6. Re:Buy products based on quality! by Eil · · Score: 2

      Since we're talking about shoes and quality, I'd like to iterate what I discovered the last time I bought a pair of shoes.

      The only kind of shoes I will wear are ones of the Airwalk or Vans style. (Lowtops, suede-like material) When I went looking for some, even at supposed bargain stores, the cheapest I could find them for was $50, and those were styles I didn't even like. Somewhere within the last few years, Airwalk and Vans must have gotten popular or something because their prices were nearly double what they used to be. So disgruntled, I was about to walk out of the mall, but figured I'd try Payless (no, this isn't an endorsement. :P). Well guess what? I found an awesome looking pair of Airwalk clones that were only $20! They have no name on them except for a tag on the inside, but look pretty damn cool. I've had them since chirstmas and so far they show no signs of wear, except for being a little dirty.

      So the moral here is that something that doesn't have to cost a lot of money to be high quality. And many times the stuff that is high priced isn't worth half of what you pay for it. Case in point, my Tekram SCSI card. :P

      Just occured to me, that this is probably a LOT off-topic. :P

    7. Re:Buy products based on quality! by ahaning · · Score: 2

      or even to learn how to program computers so they can join the benefits of the technology enconomy.

      Sounds like a good idea except that it reminds me of something we learned about in religion class; for some people, poor, starving people especially, God (or whatever you want to call...err...it) can be a slice of bread. For others, God can be the love of a friend. But you cannot enjoy the love of a friend before your other basic needs are met. Relating more to your post, yes, teaching them to use computers and to participate in the "technological revolution" (yea! I'm trendy!) would be wonderful but I think we'd have to be sure that their other, more, err, Darwinian?, needs were met. After all, if you were on the verge of starvation, would you like gobs of computing power or a peanutbutter and jelly sandwich? Hmm, perhaps that was the wrong question to ask on this forum. I think my point is somewhat obvious....just in case, no, we couldn't just throw computers at them when they are starving, we'd have to wait for them to be well-nourished. Or better yet, we in the first world could get our heads out of our asses and realize that there are other freaking people on our rock!

      --
      Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."
    8. Re:Buy products based on quality! by AjR · · Score: 2

      IIRC what you are saying is called Maslow's Triangle.

      He postulated that human needs were pyrmaid shaped, with the baser ones at the bottom and the higher ones at the top. In order to fulfill the higher needs (self esteem, confidence etc) you have to fulfill the lower ones first (food, shelter, safe living conditions).

      So yes, as you said - what us is Java programming if your farmland is sterile.

      --
      ...Upgrade now to Schrodingers Dog...
  5. Re:Social responsibilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Apple is GOOD. Look at this FAQ taken from one of YOUR links. Under what conditions does bisphenol A migrate from polycarbonate plastics? To achieve detectable levels of migration (2 ppb limit of detection) of bisphenol A from polycarbonate plastics, polycarbonate has to be cut into strips and boiled in an alcohol solution for 30 minutes. These exaggerated use conditions do not represent normal consumer use of polycarbonate products.

  6. Re:support your local mom&pop shop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Small businesses are not automatically morally superior to large ones. People somehow think they are due to the human weakness of rooting for the underdog, regardless of merits.

    "Keeping your money in the area" makes no economic sense. Lower prices are a greater benefit to the majority of people in a given area than paying more to stay "local", and better for the local economy in general. In fact, outside business tend to bring money /into/ an area, not take it away.

    If a particular large business violates your morality by daring to provide jobs to people overseas- then, boycott that particular business.

    By the way, doesn't it stike you as hypocritical that most Americans would apparantly rather the citizens of 3rd world countries be unemployed, or survive through subsistence farming, than accept "sweatshop" jobs that they themselves wouldn't (but their great grandparents would)? A typical example of western intellectuals trying to keep the 3rd world weak in the name of helping it, by denying them the first necessary steps of industrialization.

  7. the issue is overseas labor, not domestic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think the issue that was raised was not whethor or not domestic software developers or hardware designers are treated okay, i think we all pretty much know that we are - usually treated far better than employees in other sectors. Overseas labor however... I'd be suprised if we could expect any accountablity from the corporations on that mark: not enough people have made it in issue, but thats pure speculation. But even if the overseas employees are treated poorly by our standards, it is likely to their satisfaction, or they probably wouldnt be working at these factories.

  8. Re:Nice flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    It's not MY fault they I live in the greatest country on the planet...

    Ahh, the joy of hubris. There have been many all throughout history who learn't the error of that assumption the hard way.

    nobody told them to go making babies if they can't afford to raise them.

    They don't have a social welfare system. If they don't have large families, there isn't anyone to look after them when they are old and they starve to death.

    But then, if you had bothered to think about the subject before shooting from the hip, you would already know that.

    Likewise, if you had bothered to make a study of this subject ( which you are determined to make such broard sweeping statements about ), you would also know that more than a few of the problems in these parts of the world are a direct result of European colonialism during the 19th century ( which broke down many of their traditional hygine practices and sent the infant mortality rate soaring so that they had to start having huge families.....).

    therefore I CHOOSE to use protection when having sex!

    Well it's nice to know that you have at least one redeaming feature. But then, Adolf Hitler liked dogs as well. ;)

  9. What about the environment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The amount of Cadmium and other toxic metals in the effluent of high tech industries is staggering. The toxic environmental effects of the industry is something to consider. Sometimes I think the Luddites are right.

    1. Re:What about the environment? by Mai+Longdong · · Score: 1

      Just for the record, more than 30% percent of the farmland in Taiwan is polluted with cadmium and other heavy metals. What's sad is that it WASN'T the electronics companies that dumped it.....t'was the farmers themselves! Due to Taiwan's land-use laws, farmers can use their land ONLY for farming. As farming is a unprofitable occupation (and most of the farmers are poor, elderly and uneducated) the only way they can sell the land is to have it reclassified unusable for agriculture. They arrange for pollutants to be brought in and purposely poison their own land. Once it's been reclassified, it can be sold for industrial or residential purposes and the farmer can retire considerably richer (land in Taiwan is VERY expensive).

  10. Re:No more american workers for me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is satire, you dumb fucks !!! I hate censorship.

    If your post was censored, how did I read it?

  11. Re:They're cheaper! by J4 · · Score: 1

    You got that right, I wish everybody bought from local clone builders, then they'd have bigger selection in the inventory. They'd also be a little more attentive when they are trying to blow out the 30 box order that the parts came in for today

  12. Re:Business ethics and capitalism by Stu+Charlton · · Score: 1

    That's a very libertarian view of business ethics.. I was just taking a course on this recently, and there definitely is also a prevalent view of business ethics that is markedly socialist - meaning that social responsibility comes above and beyond profits.

    The answer, of course, is probably in the middle: capitalism works, but we need to keep an eye on it. Socialism doesn't work on its own, but sometimes has a good idea to help capitalism on its way (the welfare state, for instance, even though it doesn't quite work as well as we'd hope). Oh, and businesses DO have a social responsibility, it just so happens that their first responsibility is to be profitable: a bankrupt corporation does no one any good.

    --
    -Stu
  13. Re:Who Really Cares?? by Joe+Patry · · Score: 1

    If and only if you believe that your action will influence manufacturer B -- otherwise you sacrificed something for nothing.

    Why would you have made the choice if you didn't believe it would influence B. So beliving in you're ability to change B is the necessary and sufficent condition for B to change. Probably not what you meant.

    And I don't believe the shit about "If only everybody did this, then....". History provides ample arguments that when everybody has to do something, the malcontents invariably end up either on the stake or in concentration camps.

    Thats a little over the top. How about a more down to earth line of reasioning. If enough people did this then it would cause change. Say if enough people band together and buy products from A and give the reason that they specifically bought A because of A's policies, A's competitors would be irrational not to follow in A's footsteps, if for no reason than to recapture market share.

    It boils down to personal responsibility. Make the right choices with the thought in mind that you are not the only person on this planet, and paying 5 dollars more for something that has less of a damaging effect is actually a good deal.

  14. Re:Ayn Rand novels by Ryano · · Score: 1
    But the message that she preached was a good one: that we're responsible for ourselves and shouldn't depend on "society" to take care of things for us. Now what the hell is wrong with that?

    The problem is that we must depend on society. This is what modern life is all about. We have progressed from the days when each family/tribal unit had to fulfil all of its own basic needs. We have learned that by grouping together in a larger society, individuals and subgroups can specialise in things they're good at, and not have to worry about feeding and sheltering themselves. This is to the general benefit of everybody - it has allowed for all the great achievements of humankind.

    As an example, society allows a computer programmer to immerse his/herself in arcane matters of technology while neglecting to learn about agriculture, animal domestication, cookery, distribution etc. etc. Nonetheless, this person can still order a pizza when he/she gets hungry.

    Society allows for everything we take for granted: business, language, money, art, technology. You are right to say that we are responsible for ourselves, as we are the basic unit of society, but we are responsible to society. Society allows us to live the way we do, it is in our interests to uphold it, to allow us to continue to communicate in this productive way with our fellow humans.

    This is not to say that the society we live in is perfect: far from it. However, I believe this means that we have to be more socially conscious, to change society to an even more productive system. In my opinion, this includes caring for those whom society has failed, those less fortunate than us.

    I don't want to get too far in to the special loathing I reserve for Ayn Rand's political philosophy, but as I see it the basic problem with it is that it assumes that capitalists support the rest of society and not vice versa. Capitalism is just one of those things that society makes possible.

  15. Re:Surprised this even needs to be asked by Evangelion · · Score: 1

    Is "fast, but mediocre" really a good alternative to "not quite as fast, but wonderful"?

    yes.

  16. Re:[Clue] by quadra · · Score: 1

    I'd certainly rather be underpaid than starving. The availability of jobs is critically important to the development of industry and society in developing countries. Child labor used to exist here in the United States. It didn't really go away because of legislation, it went away because parents began to make enough money to support their kids. If foreign countries are allowed to operate their labor markets freely, work conditions will certainly improve. But if you had it your way, children would just be thrown out in the street to starve. Is that socially responsible?

  17. Re:[Clue] by quadra · · Score: 1

    You always vote with your dollars. Every penny you spend is a voluntary vote. I never advocated any use of force, quite the contrary.

    Companies can only be held responsible for injuries to property or breaking laws. Polluting falls in that category. But even more compelling is my desire to live near where I work.. so I'd make sure it was a nice environment. I don't know anyone who feels different.

    As for Bill Gates, that's his personal money. He is free to do with it whatever he wishes. It was earned by people voluntarily buying his sub-par software. But his $50billion cannot have the same positive impact to society than the software which earned it will.

  18. Re:Bill Gates by PiMan · · Score: 1

    You're not wrong. I go to to one of these school. We got some 486s running Windows 3.1 a few years ago. Now we're stuck a Windows school. Several hundred computers, all running NT4 with Office 98, and an upgrade to 2000 coming. Now, we don't get any discounts on the software, or on the new computers (P2-266s, and some Celerons), we just got a large donation a few years ago. But I'd say MS has more than repaid this investment. Oh yeah, the network barely works, whole labs go down constantly, and no one has a clue how to fix them. (As a side note - afaik, the medical expenses are not given with many strings attached, and are a truly philanthropic gesture [although it can be noted that they have stepped up in frequency and amount greatly since the antitrust lawsuits began], but they're not doing MS much good. My father, who heads a Catholic mutual fund firm, lost some customers when some substantial medical donations ended up going to abortion research.)

    --
    Windows 2000: Designed for the Internet. The Internet: Designed for UNIX.
  19. How about ... by MouseR · · Score: 1

    A company that is both environementally concious AND participates in getting you free ice cream?

  20. Re:[Clue] - Ayn Rand has entered the building by ragnar · · Score: 1
    I used to think like this, back when I believed everything that Ayn Rand said. Although I still believe in capitalism and its benefits, it shows something in the character of a business to be generous.

    You said yourself that no one wants to live in a polluted world. By this logic, a business who invests in processes that polute less, even though it cuts into the margin, is a wise business. The real problem is when a business determines that they (or least the upper echelon) of the business don't have to live in polution, but someone else can. This is the scary part in my opinion.

    I happen to believe that no one has the right to cause harm to another person, and poluting another's environment is precisely this - harm. A sensibly selfish business wouldn't poison anyone's back yard, let alone their's, but it is a lot easier to dump on someone else. Until we are entirely self regulating, I am thankful that many people pressure businesses to be socially responsible.

    --
    -- Solaris Central - http://w
  21. Sacrifice him! by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 1

    Umm. So you think the world would be better if Gates dies?

    Ms Reno, have you thought of this? }:)
    __

    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu
  22. WordPerfect by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 1

    If you are into Mormon pogroms, WordPerfect was based in Utah (Provo?) at least by the time of WP 5.1. So probably money from them went to the Mormon church (at least from the wages tenth). I don't know after they were bought by Corel.
    __

    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu
  23. Unions by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 1

    I have seen nobody mentioning the presence or not of trade unions in companies.
    Maybe in the US, it's different, but in Europe, it would be suspectful if a company has no unions. But I know that IT is different in that aspect. Unions are stronger in industry than services.
    __

    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu
  24. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

    Well sure. They're considered to be evil because of their illegal and immoral business practices. Their shoddy products are just the result of a lot of that.

    --
    -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  25. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by Ricdude · · Score: 1
    Do you have any idea how many Microsoft secretaries are millionaires?

    Do you? Would you care to enlighten those of us who don't?

    --
    How's my programming? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL
  26. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by Ricdude · · Score: 1
    The point is, certainly from a physical comfort standpoint it's quite a nice place to be an employee


    I'm sure take excellent physical care of their employees. I've heard wonderful stories about the work environment itself. However, they still partake in activities (such as the legisative attempts to cut the contract employees' earnings), that are abhorrent to this innocent bystander. Remember when the permatemps tried to sue for stock options? Those hard-slaving people who got hired for several months on a contract position, but stayed for several years? No health plan, no dental plan, no stock options. This is a company that can't even trust it's own employees to not go into a building they don't actually work in.


    When you take a tour of a Istanbul, do they show you what goes on in a Turkish prison? I'm sure it's a fine place to visit if they want something from you.

    --
    How's my programming? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL
  27. An ethical CEO by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

    Take a look here at a wired news article all about a silicon valley CEO with a very strong ethical approach - if not the one you might be expecting.

  28. Re:Whoever heard of a major company... by unitron · · Score: 1

    I thought the other one was Intel.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  29. Re:Volunteer work by bror · · Score: 1



    Just a couple of links to check out . . .

    Geekcorps
    http://www.geekcorps.org
    A Geek "Peace Corp" is you will.

    WashTeach
    http://www.washtech.org
    A budding Union for High Tech Contactors, born in the cauldron known as MicroSoft.

    Cheers

  30. Re:Bill Gates by seichert · · Score: 1
    1. Never look a gift horse in the mouth.
    2. Rich people are humans too.
    3. Did you donate 588+4.50+75 = 667.50 to charitable causes last year?

    Stuart Eichert
    --

    Stuart Eichert

  31. Re:buzzword bingo by Dictator+For+Life · · Score: 1
    These elites do not rest with merely believing that they know what's good for the rest of us.

    They compound their arrogance, their hubris with the nonsensical and tyrannical notion that they SHOULD tell the rest of us how we ought to live. It is not that their views have any substantial moral force to which we ought to listen; it is simply that they believe that they are better than everyone else.

    Poppycock. Their arrogance betrays their commonness.

    --

    DFL

    Never send a human to do a machine's job.

  32. Re:Seagate and Toxic chemicals by Sven182 · · Score: 1

    Another good reason not to use Seagate drives is that they are the most unreliable drives you can possibly find. You're lucky to get a year out of some of them. For cheap drives I've found Fujitsu to last longer, surprising as that sounds.

    Remember, Seagates can't be trusted.

    --
    harshbutfair: you know it makes sense
    www.harshbutfair.org
  33. Re:Permatemps by einstein · · Score: 1

    what?!? how much of a crack habit do you have that 40k isn't enough to live comfortably on???!??!? I'm in school right now and living on my own, paying for everything myself on less than half that sum (signifgantly less than half that sum) and, while I don't have money for all the gadgets I like (P100, pity me.) true I am not living in a large city, which would make my current wages completely unsatisfying, but geez man... 40k a year is more than most teachers get to start... like...15k more...

    --

    I post links to stuff here

  34. Wake Up! You're doing his homework for him! by falser · · Score: 1
    This is so similar to a university Ethics 101 course assignment that it's not funny. You're all doing his homework for him. A smart way to do homework I must admit.

    "I can only show you Linux... you're the one who has to read the man pages."

    1. Re:Wake Up! You're doing his homework for him! by mlc · · Score: 2

      OK, you're probably a troll, but I'll bite. I submitted this in response to a question that was asked of me: someone was running a big feminist conference and wanted to provide 'net access to participants. She wanted to do this without exploiting women in El Salvador. So, she posted a question to the email list of an anti-sweatshop group I'm a member of. Shocked at my own ignorance, I decided to see if anyone on /. had any info. I've never taken an Ethics class, and, even if I were, I posted the question long enough ago that the assignment would already be due if that were indeed my purpose.

  35. Re:support your local mom&pop shop by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you on this. *grin*

    When I go to my local mom & pop computer store, I immediately see someone who knows what they're talking about, can help me with my problem, and can provide good, solid recommendations for components based on real-world experience. I've had very good luck, in general, buying and building computers from such places. At my favorite one, many of the employees run Linux at home. That kind of personal service is something you won't find from any of the big companies, especially if you don't also represent a big company.

    The only one of the three you mention who's R&D department I have any respect for is IBM. It's actually hard for me to believe that DELL or GATEWAY have R&D departments. Of course, I have a lot of respect for IBMs R&D, but I think they're better served by buying other things from IBM than computers. Unless you're buying mainframes that is. :-)

    --
    Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
  36. Re:Define and quantify by flanker · · Score: 1
    Dude, you do a lot of typing for a person with carpal tunnel. We're sick of hearing about the Mattel thing -- its time for you to move on to a new project.

    --
    Left shift 1 for e-mail...
  37. Re:Independantly? by Samrobb · · Score: 1

    *shrug* I think s/he did - though not as clearly as he could have. If it had been a laywer posting, we no doubt would have gotten a dissertation on precisely what was meant by "best price" :-) As it stands, I think there's enough latitude in the wording that both interpretations are possible - and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and take the least damning.

    --
    "Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
  38. Yeah, she's a nutcase. by Samrobb · · Score: 1

    Oh, man, you got that right . How in the world could anyone fall for that line of baloney? She's tremendously charismatic, true, but she's also a demagogue, willing to twist the truth to suit her needs, and and to lie or simply ignore reality whenever it inconveniences her. Under even the most modest scrutiny, even her most simplistic ideas are revealed for the hollow, shallow, self-serving scams that they are.

    But enough about Hillary Clinton. Let's get back to Ayn Rand.

    --
    "Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
    1. Re:Yeah, she's a nutcase. by dennisp · · Score: 1

      heh heh, they come in all shapes and forms. Although, what substance does Hillary Clinton have to go on? That senate race seems to be not much more than a popularity contest based on hyper-inflated reputations.

  39. Business ethics and capitalism by funkman · · Score: 1
    If you look at some of the philosphies of business ethics, it is not a companies responsibility to act ethically. A companies purpose is to make as much money as possible while following the rules of the game. The game being the law. Since a companies main goal is to make money, they should take any means needed. This does not mean that companies must be evil and do wrong to be profitable. People still have the choice to buy or not buy from a company for their own reasons. One of the reasons could be charity. For example, If I want to buy a computer from company A or company B. Company B's computer is 5% more expensive, but also donates a portion of every PC sale to charity. Some may be more inclined to buy from company B than A. If you loosely extrapolate, if all buyers were socially conscious, then company B would sell many more computers than company A and company A would have to revise their business model to be more socially friendly. Other companies may see this trend as a way to attract more business and the worl would be a better place.

    Of course the following assumptions were built into this example:

    Pure capitalism works

    Buyers are socially aware and will choose accordingly

    Government has no involvement.

    Just some food for thought.

  40. Re:Herro eberybody by Gramie · · Score: 1

    My wife does, and she's Japanese (well, not "talk," but other words). Because the Japanese don't have a separate sound for "r" and "l," it is not only difficult for them to pronounce the two differently, but to remember which is which.

    In "talk," a Japanese might remember that one of them is there, but confuse which one because they sound similar. Kind of like the way I mix up the kanji in "to use" and "convenient," which differ by a single stroke.

    I didn't see the original message, but think that I should correct this mistaken impression.

  41. Re:Bill Gates by mjackso1 · · Score: 1

    don't look at the percentages. Look at the real benefit to society.
    i don't know anything about pharmaceuticals (except that $133 million MIGHT be enough to cover the valium prescription I need after some of the IIS headaches Gates has given me in the past), but as for the others:

    7.7 million is enough for computers and t1 lines for around 200 libraries for one year, assuming that they're paying the same rate that an individual would (which they're not). most of that cost is bandwidth, so if they used dsl it would be much cheaper.

    1 billion dollars is about enough for 10000 bachelor's degrees including fees, room, and board at many well-respected private 4 year colleges.

    When was the last time you saw a one billion dollar charitable contribution from an individual?

    I'm sure that there's a large PR incentive for him to do this kind of thing, especially given his total lack of personal charm (did anyone elsee see the Tom Toles cartoon last week?), but the fact is that this money will help many, many people.

  42. There's more to it than charities by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    In terms of charities, your attitude happens to perfectly compatable with social responsibilities. A company that doesn't give to charities should be able to sell their product to you at a little lower price, thereby leaving you with more money to spend as you best judge.

    But there are other issues. Suppose ... (this is just hypothetical) that a hardware company tested their hardware's durability by occasionally selecting a piece at random, and using it to bash in the skull of a cute big-eyed live puppy dog. If the item breaks before the puppy's skull, it's bad. If the skull breaks first, it's good.

    It's possible that this practice may indeed result in good quality assurance. I have extra confidence in the quality of an ethernet card if I know that it's stronger than a puppy skull. Furthermore, the company can probably get puppies quite cheaply from the dog pound, or by collecting strays off the street. This method of QA may result in lower costs than other forms, thereby making their products a particularly good deal.

    So, if I just look at the price and quality, this may be a good product.

    But what about the puppies?! My god, man! Look at those cute big eyes, and the playful way he rolls on his back when you rub his belly! The cute little "woop" he says when he sees a kitten! The way he licks your face! There is no fucking way I'll buy ethernet cards or SCSI adapters or chainsaws from a company that quality tests their products on live puppy skulls! No way at all! Boycott! Boycott!


    ---
    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  43. Re:Social responsibilty by HiThere · · Score: 1

    I am hardly one to defend Scientology, but most of the critical web pages seem to be by fundamentalist christian organizations and individuals, who would defame anyone not of their creed. Including nearly everyone who reads this. Most of the rest seem to be posted by Scientology organizations (to Scientologists, "criminal" is a theological term).

    It would be a bit more appropriate if you had pointed to at least one particular site that you found worthy of consideration. As it is, after checking your reference (Alta Vista) briefly, I am left with the opinion that many individual people in the world dislike Scientology intensely. And others feel the opposite way. Personally, I looked at one of the comments that an abusive judge made about Scientology, and thought to myself "if they blanked out the name of the religion, no one could guess which one it was" or wasn't.

    (I don't really think you should "gain karma for baiting Xians", but I do appreciate the ?thought? ?humor?, well, something relating to your sig.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  44. Re:It's not their *job*! by HiThere · · Score: 1

    This is a gross oversimplification. Some of the effects of pure capitalism tend to run in the direction of distributing the wealth, but only where labor unions are practical, company/corporate size is properly proportionate to the size of the labor union, and the labor union isn't too large for members to exercise decent control over the "labor leaders". When you think about it, that's a pretty restrictive set of conditions.

    The problem is, nobody has a decent idea of how to fairly organize really large groups of people. The people to tend to drift to being in charge are those most motivated by the desire to be in charge. This doesn't necessarily lead to a desireable outcome for most of the rest. Some folk through a combination of fortune, smarts, and psychosis manuver themselves into a "chokepoint" position of the economy, and charge a tarrif on anything that goes through, far beyond any rational need (I did mention psychosis... that's what causes them to strive so strongly for the chokepoint position). This tends to sap the economy of the ability to support the remainder of the population.

    Then there's the natural tendency of the populatio to want to increase until it has passed the carrying capacity of the environment. This also makes it difficult to manage things.
    And it's natural for middle-aged alpha males to attempt to get the gamma males driven to the fringes, where a leopard will try to eat them. I see this as the major cause of war, which is justified on various moral/economic grounds, partially because the leaders don't want to admit to themselves that they are feeling weak compared to the upcoming challengers, and partially because the activity is instinctive, so it doesn't usually even get verbalized.

    And ...

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  45. Re:Bill Gates by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Have I ever...
    No. OTOH, I have, for the last decade, donated an average of $30 every two weeks to my selected charities. Which once included the United Way, but after some new articles a few years ago I started being a bit more particular. And I don't think that I'm unusually generous. My wife has had half of her students (private studio) on full or partial scholarship during much of the same time period, and still felt she wasn't doing enough. So I don't see Mr. Gates as being particularly generous. And I didn't hear that he was giving the big donations until he started needing political favors. Well, maybe he was just modest?

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  46. Re:The truth is ... by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 1

    The point is the cash value of the software donations is vastly inflated and that it isn't exactly as if Microsoft is being altruistic here.

  47. Re:The truth is ... by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 1

    Think about that software for a second. It's Microsoft software, of course. And what is the cost of giving away software? Once it's developed, it's very little to dupe more discs. Plus that number is based on the sticker price for Microsoft products - say $500 for Office, $200 for Windows 98, etc. Lastly, think about who it goes to. A lot of MS software goes to schools and the like. This gains MS market share and helps influence sales when the kids want a home computer to run the programs they use at school, or after school when they're going to college.

  48. Re:Volunteer work by mlc · · Score: 1

    Of course I wouldn't expect the CEO of a company to interview all his factory managers. But, at some point, a human being at Intel or whatever has to negotiate and sign a contract with a human being in Taiwan or wherever. As part of the contractor bidding process, it'd be entirely reasonably for whoever's reviewing the bids to ask, "So, how much do you pay your workers? What do you do with waste chemicals?" or whatever.

  49. Validity And Reliability of Sources by mlc · · Score: 1

    Of course Apple says they're environmentally concious. Any company with a semi-competent PR department says that. Hell, McDonalds came up with a flyer explaining why styrofoam packaging is good for the environment. (No credible environmental group would agree.) The question (and I honestly don't know the answer) is whether or not independent watchdogs think Apple is environmentally concious.

  50. Re:Permatemps by mlc · · Score: 1

    Welcome to the real world. Minimum wage here in the US is $5.25/hr, and, yes, real, full-time employees do make that much; even with experience and seniority, $9/hr is a fairly high wage for many positions. Do you really think the grocery clerk you deal with makes $20/hr? Really! And let's not even talk about El Salvador, where legal minimum (read: maiximum) wage in the factories is about $0.30/hr.

  51. Re:Permatemps by TWR · · Score: 1
    When I was in grad school (Madison, WI), my wife and I were living on a combined annual income of around $16,000. Believe it or not, we were able to break even. We had no car, no cable TV, rarely ate out (food bill for two people each week around $40), rarely ate meat, and didn't partake of very many movies or concerts. Looking back, I can't say that I ever thought we were suffering from poverty (suffering from grad school is another story).

    Now that we're both gainfully employed in high tech, it's hard to believe that we lived on so little (esp. considering the cost of living in Northern California). But there are certainly people in my current home town scraping by on $16K.

    -jon

    --

    Remember Amalek.

  52. Re:HP at least tries to help the environment. by kvajk · · Score: 1

    When I was looking for a job in Silicon Valley, the social responsibility of my employer was a big factor. I didn't want to be part of something I disagreed with.

    I chose Hewlett-Packard, because overall I believe they're a company with good ethics. There are specific policies I've had problems with (like when they used to drug-test new hires), but by and large they do pretty well.

    I remember reading an article in the San Jose Metro, called "Silicon Valley Scrooges", where they were complaining how all these wealthy high-tech companies do very little to help out the community. HP was mentioned several times as being the exception. Seeing this made me pretty happy with my choice.

    Disclaimer: As a current employee of HP (about to take a six-month leave of absence to travel), you can't possibly expect this post to be even remotely impartial.

  53. Re:support your local mom&pop shop by mudshark · · Score: 1
    And where does the local M&P shop source its parts? Motherboards, CPUs, RAM, cases, power supplies, you get it....

    I'm all for localizing one's economic impact, but face it, most of these bits are made in pretty depressing conditions. All you're doing is giving the last little markup to the dude on the corner, who may not be in business next week because Gateway just opened up a sparkly store two blocks away.

    --
    In other news, astrophysicists have announced that they now know what all that dark matter is: it's stupidity.
  54. Re:Seagate and Toxic chemicals by NoseyNick · · Score: 1
    Hey! The chemical used in your ultrasonic beam experiments was DiHydrogen Monoxide!

    --
    Nick Waterman, Sr Tech Director, #include <stddisclaimer>
  55. Re:buzzword bingo by aphrael · · Score: 1

    The question was about "socially responsible" computer companies. It was not about the rather more generic issue, "how do I find out about a company's ethics?"

    This might be a linguistic problem. For me "socially responsible" = "ethical", so the question is akin to asking "how ethical are computer companies?"

  56. Re:[Clue] by aphrael · · Score: 1

    Social Responsibility is complete bullshit

    Depends. I don't expect the company which makes products I buy to donate to charity, true. But I do expect them to behave in a socially responsible fashion --- not employ slave labor, for example, or allow environmental concerns to influence their decision about where to build their plants, or not opposing decisions by local government to make improvements in infrastructure, etc. I *absolutely* expect that the company will not lie to me.

    The fact is that in general, we all live in the general vicinity of our workplace

    Maybe where *you* live, but where I live, it's not unusual for people to travel 100 miles/day to get to work ... in perspective: before 100 years ago, that distance would have taken the average person *several days*.

    The most moral and ethical thing a person can do is work hard and get the most from your money.

    Given a choice between buying a backpack for $20 that was made with the labor of people imprisoned for their political views in China, or buying a $60 backpack made with the labor of voluntary employees in Mexico who are paid a reasonable wage there which it would be impossible to live on here, or $200 for a backpack made by a local artisan, then, the 'moral' decision is to buy the $20 (according to your logic). Assuming I *knew* the details of the manufacture, I would buy the $60 one.

  57. Re:buzzword bingo by aphrael · · Score: 1

    So-called "social responsibility" is nothing but a loaded buzzphrase meaning "I denounce the cause of liberty; the government and other elites know better than the plebes of this country how plebe lives ought to be run."

    Eh? How does "I would prefer to do business with companies which behave in a way I think is ethical?" equate to "I denounce the cause of liberty?"

  58. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by schporto · · Score: 1

    This is a company that can't even trust it's own employees to not go into a building they don't actually work in.
    Find me a company this is not nessecarily true in. Where I work there are locks on all doors. There are rooms I'm not allowed in. Of course I work at a pharaceutical plant. In the case of M$ why would you allow people in buildings they don't work in? Ok the cafeteria I can understand, but from many standpoints I can understand not allowing strangers in your building. Yeah its a nuisance to need an escort in other buildings but oh well. I have heard of worse cases too that really don't seem onerous. One place you needed a pass number to get into the bathrooms, which they changed if someone was let go/fired/quit.
    -cpd

  59. Though it's not hardware... by angelo · · Score: 1

    I work for a software company in a Pittsburgh sattelite office, and I can say for the most part I have had no real problems with ethics or corporate responsibility. We take pride in our products and stand behind them 100%. When there is a problem with our EDI solutions such as a failure, be certain we will be on top of it. Our call response time is very short, with some 100 people effectively assisting over 6000 medical practices. When we make mistakes, we admit them and move on honestly instead of attempting a coverup. The employees are well treated, have a relaxed dress code and very good stock compensation/profit sharing plans. There is plenty of incentive to work in areas outside of your norms, and people often pick up side-projects as an internal hobby. It is, so far the best 3 years of my career. I have learned much during this time that my education could never afford me.

    --
    Lowmag.net
  60. Re:Who Really Cares?? by Kaa · · Score: 1

    I like powerful CPUs. I also like being able to breathe the atmosphere. So if manufacturer A is doing a better job of keeping his toxins to himself than manufacturer B, it's in my selfish best interest to purchase from A.

    If and only if you believe that your action will influence manufacturer B -- otherwise you sacrificed something for nothing.

    And I don't believe the shit about "If only everybody did this, then....". History provides ample arguments that when everybody has to do something, the malcontents invariably end up either on the stake or in concentration camps.

    Kaa

    --

    Kaa
    Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
  61. Re:Who Really Cares?? by Kaa · · Score: 1

    Well, as a rational being - at least for purposes of this discussion B-) - I can only do as I wish others to do. (See Kant's categorical imperative.) Certainly if I want everyone to buy from A instead of B, I have to buy from A.

    Big fallacy here: implicit assumption that what's good for one person is good for another person. Needs and values differ a lot.

    Besides, there are obvious limitations to this maxim: apply "I can only do as I wish others to do" to sleeping with your girlfriend (or wife, or SO, or whatever), or to backpacking in a remote wilderness.

    Kaa

    --

    Kaa
    Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
  62. Re:The truth is ... by Rombuu · · Score: 1

    Good, sounds like a win-win situation all around then. Schools get software for cheap, and MS gets mindshare.

    What's wrong with that?

    --

    DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
  63. Re:They owned Dubya a LONG time ago.. by Rombuu · · Score: 1

    I am really, really, considering moving to Europe

    You should go, no one here will miss you.

    Oh that's right, whiny little shits like you never acutally leave, they just stick around and bitch and moan.

    --

    DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
  64. Re:charity by Rombuu · · Score: 1

    Screw you people, he should keep his damn money and invest it... this allows capital to be loaned out, generating jobs and raising everyone's standard of living, not just those few that some charity gives the money to.

    --

    DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
  65. moot by hugg · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter. If you live in a society industrialized enough to allow you the leisure time to type that post, you are already polluting the environment 10,000% more than you should be.
    You capitalist pig.

    My advice: Strip naked and tie yourself to a tree, thus preventing yourself from wearing leather, stepping on fragile grass stems, buying Windows 2K, and other horrible activities. (Remember the old Bloom County cartoon -- "Hold it! We're breathing and massacring countless germs!" ;-)

  66. Re:High Tech = high toxic by justincase · · Score: 1
    I was just reading the data on Scorecard. when you stated that In Santa Clara county alone, there are 23 EPA superfund cleanup sites you neglected to mention that 17 of those sites are in the final stage (Construction Completion)of cleanup. The other 6 are in the second to last stage (Construction Underway.) Granted this doen not mean it is cleaned up but it is well underway.

    I would say that you are just as guilty of "glossing over" information to make your point. If you use statistics at least be complete. To your credit you did give a link so others could check the data. t his link takes you to the superfund data on Santa Clara county (decide for yourself if they are still polluting.)

  67. Re:Who ever is sells the best product... by delmoi · · Score: 1

    my viewpoint may be a touch skewed since I'm re-reading Atlas Shrugged right now

    a touch skewed?

    --

    ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
  68. Re:Who ever is sells the best product... by delmoi · · Score: 1

    Any programs that don't further the company in some way are certainly questionable when considering efficiency. That doesn't mean that I'm a heartless bastard. It just means I think that if people in the company want to start such a foundation, then they can in their own free time. As

    True, but you have to consider the good will that it fosters. When bill gates gives 3 billion dolars to vacinate children in africa, it creates 'good will' amoung people who think thats a good thing. (and certanly, it is). This is a cynical viewpoint, but its impornant to remember that 'good deeds' by companys get rewared by good will from the people. And that can be converted into hard, cold cash.

    --

    ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
  69. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by Atomic+Frog · · Score: 1

    Hey there, maybe you'd like to keep up with the times? Taiwan is no backwater sweatshop country that you seem to make it out to be.

    No.# 1 and 3 semiconductor manufacturers in the world are located there. TSMC is No.#1, we deal with them all the time, and they have _happy_ employees. One year, they handed out at average of $60,000US in bonuses (yeah, you read that right, $60k in US greenbacks on top of salary).

    _You_ may not heard of AOpen, also from Taiwan, but it is an arm of Acer, quite possibly the 3rd biggest PC & components manufacturer in the world, who supplies many of the OEM parts and "white box" stuff for guys like IBM et al.
    They most certainly treat their employees well, else they wouldn't hang around.

    Hey, what happened to that lawsuit from Microsoft temps about unfair treatment, eh?

    "Overseas" companies, as you put it, do not disregard their workers any more than "here", especially in the hi-tech business. They cannot afford to, as talented people move wherever they wish. There's no such thing as "here" and "there", it's all global.

  70. Re:Bill Gates by coaxial · · Score: 1

    Exactly. And to think people are supporting flat taxes as being more "fair". (Funny that was the exact reason we went to the graduated income tax.)

  71. Re:It's not their *job*! by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

    For a lot of companies being "socially responsible" is just another form of lobbying or advertising. I read somewhere that one of the big tobacco companies spent more in advertising to tell everyone about its wonderful charity work than it actually spent on the charities themselves.

  72. Re:It's not their *job*! by Wah · · Score: 1

    make it their job. It's as simple as giving business to companies that you feel are socially responsible. It they aren't, don't. Vote with your wallet. Being consistent is the hard part, and a big reason why most companies make no effort, outside the PR department, to be socially conscious. It's also quite expensine. I think it was Marge who said while the Simpsons were looking for a new TV, "I don't think we have the money to buy from a company that has an ideology." (or words to that effect)


    --

    --
    +&x
  73. Re:It's not their *job*! by brainsik · · Score: 1

    It's not a company's *job* to be social responsible. It's a company's *job* to be ecomomically responsible

    ANY member of society has the "job" of being socially responsible. Because a company has economic interests does not curtail its responsibilities to the society it is functioning in.
  74. Re:It's not their *job*! by brainsik · · Score: 1

    You do owe me and everyone in our society something: you owe us being responsible to not reduce our quality of life.

    Running your company within "legal limits" is a complete cop-out to being responsible to your society. It is impossible for a legal policy to be drafted by which a company acting within its limits would ensure the "social responsibility" I'm speaking of. It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the company to not impinge on the quality of life and rights of the people it is sharing society with. It is not the responsibility of the policy makers, particularly since that task is impossible.

  75. Re:Bill Gates by MrCreosote · · Score: 1

    And Bill & Melinda could quite easily give 10 times as much, and it still would not affect their lifestyle. I mean, how many billions do you really need to live well?

    --
    MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
  76. Re:buzzword bingo by proboy256 · · Score: 1

    "Deciding for oneself how to run one's life is one thing. Deciding how others should run their lives is elitism." This definition of elitism ignores the social context in which you run your life. No one decides how to run their life independently, despite what your notions of free will might suggest. Even an offhand comment like "Nice shirt" is an elitist judgement as it carries notions of acceptability and other forms of social force. More importantly, how does the notion of free will work when the choice is starve or work. Or, historically, be abused by a spouse or move into the streets with four children. Your ideal that one can decide for oneself becomes muddier in these situations. How does it work for a mentally ill person?

    --
    +-------+ between the wish and the thing lies the world - All the Pretty Horses
  77. Re:buzzword bingo by proboy256 · · Score: 1



    hrrmph. I'm sorry that you don't understand the importance of humanity in capitalism. However, i would like to see what these companies would say if the government decided to stop regulating the economy. I guess socialism might have it's points, including a stable economy promoting basic human rights (free speech, guaruntees against starvation, safety from 'white-collar' violence). I'd suggest that ou head off to Kentucky where the land has been mined so much, the minig companies are now tearing off the tops of mountains and hills, but I'm sure you'd say that a flat Appalachia is a Good Thing. Maybe instead you'd like to live below one of the clearcuts in Oregon that is in danger of turning into a deadly mudslide in the spring. We've been down that old road before, it didn't work out very well.

    Joey

    p.s. I don't know why you give a shit about coporate rights, especially when they consistently work against individual's rights.

    --
    +-------+ between the wish and the thing lies the world - All the Pretty Horses
  78. Re:Slashdot Employs Illegal Migrant Workers by rarose · · Score: 1

    This is funny. Given how frequently we're served hot grits or forced to stare at Natalie Portman, this is hardly offtopic.

    --
    --Rob
  79. Re:charity by thrig · · Score: 1

    Now, is it charity from the heart, or charity to get good press because of the damn Justice Department, or just chairty to get into a lower tax bracket?

    Frankly, while giving a free PC running Windows to a school is not charity in my book, I don't think the folks in Africa care about the monopolistic source of the aid being provided...

    Oh, well. Another Rockefeller to write documentaries about in a few decades.

  80. Re:Permatemps by Tower · · Score: 1

    Here in MN (at IBM), a starting engineering salary let me buy a nice starter house (4 BR, 2 bath, just over $100k, little/no crime in the neighborhood) after only a few months working. Where you live is your choice. I'll probably build a new place a few years down the road on 3/4 acres. Might cost me over $200k 8^D

    My friends in SanFran and Boston won't be buying anytime soon, but I've got a spare room for 'em if they drop by 8^)

    --
    "It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
  81. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by jsfetzik · · Score: 1

    Microsoft doesn't even come close to being the "largest company on earth" unless you are only talking about stock market valuation. In last years SEC Form 10-K they claim to have 31,396 employees.

    There are dozens if not hundreds of companies that have more employees and/or physical assests, i.e. 3M(~70,000 employees), McDonalds (~314,000 employees), Walmart(~1,140,000 employees), etc.

    As for revenues companies like Walmart are way ahead with 1999 revenue of $165 billion, vs Microsoft's $37 billion.

    Even if you are talking about market capitalization, doesn't Cisco currently beat them out.

  82. Check the corporate reports by jsfetzik · · Score: 1

    If you want information about donations to charities on a specific company check out their Annual Report and SEC 10-K filing. Donations will be listed in one of both of these. They can usually be found at a companies web site. If not there check the SEC site at http://www.sec.gov/.

  83. Re:support your local mom&pop shop by TheDeal · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately I have to disagree with you on this. A mom and pop comp store can't compete with the quality service and support a company like IBM, DELL, or GATEWAY can provide me. And unlike the mom and pop stores there companies actually have R&D labs that they use to inovate their products and create the machines of tomorrow. The mom and pop comp store is just looking for the short term buck.

  84. Re:actually not that silly of an example, by ncc74656 · · Score: 1
    The V-2 choke shutter was a novel idea though, although I don't know if that was Von Braun or not.

    I don't recall if that was one of von Braun's projects, but I do know that the V-2 didn't use the choke shutter. You're thinking of the V-1 "buzz bomb," an early (probably the first) cruise missile design that was rail-launched and powered by a variation of the ramjet design...it wasn't a rocket. A ramjet is little more than a pipe with some burners in it; it works well at high speeds, but not so well at the slower speeds attainable with 40s technology. The shutters made sure the flames shot out the back instead of the front. Their rapid opening and closing is how the V-1 became known as the "buzz bomb."

    --
    20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  85. Re:Who Really Cares?? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
    Big fallacy here: implicit assumption that what's good for one person is good for another person. Needs and values differ a lot.
    While that's true enough, I have to make decisions for myself based on my values, not other people's. The question I'm seeking to answer is "What am I going to do?", not "What should we do?" (Of course, the answer might be "Try to influence others to do such-and-such, by pointing out that it is the rational choice under the categorical imperative.")
    Besides, there are obvious limitations to this maxim...
    Sure. I've simplified Kant's formulation a bit; his rule is actually "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." We can really only apply it meaningfully to certain categories of decisions - i.e., ethical decisions. I could will that it be a universal law that everyone choose chocolate over vanilla, or vanilla over chocolate - doesn't matter, it's not an ethical decision. And a homocidal maniac could will that everyone behave like a homocidal maniac, just to make life more interesting. But when asking "What ethical choice should I make?", the categorical imperative is very useful.
    ...to sleeping with your girlfriend...
    Well, I can will it to be universal law that everyone try to sleep with my girlfriend (would you go to bed with someone that no one else wanted to?) - that doesn't mean that it be universal law that she say yes!

    It's more useful, though, to abstract things out a bit and ask not "Should I try to sleep with Jane Doe?" but rather (for example) "Can I will that it be universal that a person X who has no interest in Y apart from sexual pleasure should try to sleep with Y, for all X and Y?" If I find that substituing "the jerk down the street" for X and "my little sister" for Y makes the proposition false, then I can't do it without behaving irrationally - it would be "do as I say, not as I do," which we all recognize as bogus.

    Of course, abstracting the salient points of an ethical dillema can be non-trivial!

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  86. Re:Who Really Cares?? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
    For the rest of us, sometimes we'll do as if we followed it, because it actually does make sense in a lot of cases, but it'll be because we coincide at that point, not because of accepting it as a principle.
    It doesn't matter if you accept it as a principle or not: it's still a criterion of rationality. If in some given situation you act in a way that you would find abhorant for someone else to act, you're not behaving rationally. This is especially true when you're trying to influence the behavior of others. For example, a politician who preaches again recreatioal drug use while voluntarily using recreational drugs, or who stresses "family values" while screwing over his ex-wife, is not rational. "Do as I say, not as I do" are not the words of a rational being.

    Now, how much value you place on rationality in ethics is another question! I think there's a lot of merit in the Taoist/Zen idea of transcending ethical theories and simply acting compassionately.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  87. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by greenrd · · Score: 1
    ! Do you really think Uncle Bill was a whip bearing slave driver until the DOJ came along? Metaphorically speaking, yes, he was, and is.

    --
    Female Prison Rape in NY
  88. WARNING: Scientologist Stooge Alert by greenrd · · Score: 1
    I suspect (but cannot prove) that you are a scientologist stooge. Anyone can see from this directory (with 204 links) that criticisms of scientology are not limited to emnating from fundamentalist Christians - far from it. And those criticisms can hardly be dismissed as "I don't like Scientology" or being applicable to any "religion" (Scientology is not a religion, it is a money-making cult)

    Or maybe Altavista's just a crappy search engine. Actually...

    --
    Female Prison Rape in NY
  89. Re:It's not their *job*! by greenrd · · Score: 1
    Then there's the natural tendency of the populatio to want to increase until it has passed the carrying capacity of the environment.

    Counterexample: Japan. How do you explain that? Are they "unnatural"? The word "natural" is possibly the most slippery, contested and ambiguous word in the English language. If in doubt, try expressing your sentence without it - if you can't, that should set alarm bells ringing.

    --
    Female Prison Rape in NY
  90. Re:Read Cypress CEO's Position by greenrd · · Score: 1
    That's a good argument against affirmative action. I agree with the CEO in that case. However, that doesn't really speak against any other forms of social responsibility. It merely shows that affirmative action can be irresponsible and immoral. (Perhaps in some cases it can be responsible and moral, too, but not in this one.)

    --
    Female Prison Rape in NY
  91. Turkish Human Rights by greenrd · · Score: 1
    From an Amnesty report: These are direct quotations, they are Amnesty's words, not my own.

    The human rights picture in Turkey is bleak. Torture and ill-treatment have long been routine. The 1990s have seen the emergence of "disappearances" and extrajudicial executions. Turkey's citizens do not enjoy true freedom of expression. The security forces are the most powerful group in the country and they have treated human rights with contempt. Political violence has been a serious problem for almost three decades. Recent Turkish history has seen three military coups and, since the 1980s, armed conflict between the security forces and opposition groups based in the mountains of the southeast and the cities of west Turkey. Armed opposition groups have also abused human rights. The largest armed opposition group is the Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK).

    Successive governments have either denied that human rights violations occur, or justified them as the inevitable consequence of defending national security. The result is that no one in Turkey enjoys true personal security. Despite repeated promises of reform, Turkish citizens can still be arbitrarily detained. In custody, they will be unprotected against torture, still a standard method of interrogation. Since 1980 more than 400 people have reportedly been tortured to death in custody. "Disappearances" and political killings have claimed thousands of victims since 1991.

    Even people fighting alongside the security forces are put at risk by the state's lawless methods. In January 1996 the government announced that the PKK had massacred 11 men near the remote village of Guclukonak. Seven of the victims were members of the local village guard force. Independent investigations suggested that the massacre was the work of the security forces. The international community has turned a blind eye to Turkey's human rights record. They have echoed the Turkish Government's claim that the threat to national security must be defeated at any cost to human rights. They have accepted official window-dressing as progress towards human rights protection. They have put the interests of trade and political allegiance before the security of Turkish citizens.

    --
    Female Prison Rape in NY
    1. Re:Turkish Human Rights by TurkishGeek · · Score: 1

      I fail to understand the relevance of this to my post, which was a humorous follow-up to humorous analogy. Nevertheless, what Amnesty International is claiming is bullshit, but I don't see the point of continuing this offtopic thread for any longer.
      --

      BluetoothCentral.com
      A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming soon.

      --
      Zigbee Central: A Zigbee weblog
  92. Re:A living wage is needed! by forii · · Score: 1

    In the 1950's, '60's and early 70's, the American auto industry was booming, and a person could drop out of high school and in a few years of working for Ford, GM, Studebaker, etc. he could be making a wage that would support a stay at home wife, children, mortgage, and a car of his own.

    Exactly, although, to be honest, I don't think that it went far enough. I feel, that with today's booming economy, a person should be able to not just drop out of high school, but instead skip school altogether and still make enough to buy their own house, car, and 5 person hottub. The answer that is always given by the evil Social Darwinists is that education is the key to getting ahead. This does not acknowledge, however, the sad fact that education is only available to very few people in our society. As everyone knows, the only people who go to college are the recipients of Upper Class Privilege, who are there only because of their connections. The average person in our society has no way to attend higher education, and is instead forced to toil for sub-slave wages, just because they never got past 5th grade. This just isn't right. The solution is to remove any benefit that the Rich and Privileged receive from any education at all. This way, those of us who are not in a position to attend kindergarten would be paid enough to live in a way that has previously only been available to the privileged college-educated. In a perfect society, we would begin receiving this Living Wage at birth, because why should we expect someone to be paid less than a living wage just because they cannot read, speak, or even clean themselves? We shouldn't!

    What happens if people do not receive a living wage? Well, they obviously receive a non-living wage, and therefore must die. Usually slowly and painfully. This horrible policy is blatantly obvious in the huge number of fab workers who are dying off in droves every day. In fact, around some plants, workers must spend hours every day digging mass graves for all the unfortunate people who were paid these non-living wages. Moreover, these workers who are digging the graves are usually not paid a living wage either. They usually are the last ones to be placed inside. This horrific situation is the sad result of not having a living wage.

    Save the Children! Stop the Carnage! Support a Living Wage!

  93. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by GnrcMan · · Score: 1

    To be pedantic I think it's 7PM.

    --GnrcMan--

  94. Re:Who ever is sells the best product... by axo · · Score: 1
    Hmmm? The lovely Ms Rand. The most frightening thing about her ideas is how readily they seem to appeal to a certain indentifiable demographic mindset; specifically, a young fairly well educated man or woman without much in the way of a sense of humor who happens to have come from a reasonably well-off background and is troubled by all the inequality in the world.

    If everything revolves around one's apparent integrity, then poor people are really just getting what they deserve, right? Gee, I feel better already just having written that down.

    --
    "Energy fools the Magician."
  95. Surprised this even needs to be asked by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 1
    The answer to this question should be obvious from the get go. What do 90% of people need computers for? To do word processing, web surfing, email. A few people need a bit more, maybe a spreadsheet or database. Note that I'm ignoring speciality fields here, like graphic arts, movie production, and numerical analysis. But look at the things that have been forced into general production for all of these people:

    CPUs so fast and hot that they need massive heat sinks and their own fans.

    CPUs with built-in multimedia instructions that nobody uses. At the expense of higher power consumption

    CPUs with vector math instructions that don't have any benefit except for 3D graphics. At the expense of higher power consumption.

    3D graphics cards with 4 or 8MB as a standard with every machine, cards that often need their own heat sinks and fans.

    AGP, which is even of questionable benefit for 3D games.

    And, quite honestly, most of these things aren't even in general use under Linux, with the exception of faster CPUs. By now, we should have computers the size of calculators that use 1 watt of power and boot-up instantly and are solid as a rock. But the pointless push for the bleeding edge keeps everyone from getting what they want. Is "fast, but mediocre" really a good alternative to "not quite as fast, but wonderful"?

    1. Re:Surprised this even needs to be asked by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 2

      The type of thing I posted about is so far from being considered a social responsibility issue that it was moderated down as being "offtopic." Good grief.

  96. Re:Volunteer work by Epi-man · · Score: 1

    Let's not kid ourselves. I live in a city that GE owned for a /very/ long time. During that tenure, they kept virtually every other buisness out of this city. About fifteen years ago, they pulled out of this town, and it's not (later corrected to now?) a shithole. Very "good neighborish" eh?

    Hang on, if I read this (and your correction) correctly, you are saying since GE has left, the town has become a "shithole?" That seems to support the notion that GE was very good for the town, ie kept it from being a "shithole." Did I miss something?

  97. Re:charity by Hnice · · Score: 1
    i'm no fan of ms, or the way that it doesn business, and part of me prefers charity that i'm certain is coming from 'pure' motive, and not a desire to look good.

    but the fact of the matter is that a $15 billion endowment, even if the kids have to use windows, gets a lot of underprivileged kids online, kids who otherwise wouldn't have the tools to compete. do i like the propogation of windows? no. but if i have to choose between giving a poor kid a windows pc and giving them no pc at all, who the heck am i to say that we shouldn't let them learn something very useful, even if it's maybe not the best possible thing ?

    that is, you're letting linux fever blind you to the fact that charity is about helping others first, and making os distinctions second, or third, or fiftieth or something.

    this money, i'm not sure of why he gave it, but i know that it immunizes a lot of people, it does a lot of other good. does it make gates look good? of course, and it should. he's donated more than you, or me, or my parents, or yours, or, probably your company, or mine. don't talk to me about %, either -- billions of dollars are billions of dollars, and he's supposedly giving most of it away upon his death, anyway, rather than willing it to his kids.

    he's not my favorite, and ms is not my favorite, but we can be thankful that at least his monopolization or the intel os market has a charitable bent to it at the end of the day. it's far far better than nothing, and far far better than he had to do, so stop bashing the guy.

    --

    god is just pretend.

  98. hard one... by romco · · Score: 1

    Corporations are in bussiness to make money, thier
    stock holders demand it. This makes it hard for them to compete if they are paying more for labor than their competitors. (i.e paying a fair wage)

    I think a lot of the companies based around OSS are a little better at "giving back to the community" but as that segment matures they will start cutting costs. (or they will be put out of bussiness by their competitors)

    I as a consumer of computer products would "perfer" to buy my products from companies that "give back" but I am not willing to pay a premium for it.

    I think it is easier to boycott companies that are really bad (ie slave labor) than to support companies that are "giving back".

    (although I am open to new ideas)

    --
    AdFuel
  99. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by TurkishGeek · · Score: 1


    When you take a tour of a Istanbul, do they show you what goes on in a Turkish prison? I'm sure it's a fine place to visit if they want something from you

    Similarly I haven't been able to hear any mention of US prisons during my life here. On the other hand, I've had the chance to see a Turkish prison for a LAN installation, and I can assure you it's a much neater place than the movie depictions of US prisons.
    --

    BluetoothCentral.com
    A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming soon.

    --
    Zigbee Central: A Zigbee weblog
  100. Re:Bill Gates by tcb2e · · Score: 1

    I read somewhere recently that, as a percentage of his total worth, Bill Gates donates less than the average poor person. And he seems to do it onlyh when he's in trouble.

  101. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by SydBarrett · · Score: 1

    "Microsoft has used prison labor to package software. "

    Lots of places do this, including one airline that I can't remember right now. There is a film called "The Big One" produced by Michael Moore that goes into some detail about this. He also did "Roger and me" (about the GM closing in Flint) and the cool TV show "TV Nation". Great stuff.

  102. Are companies capable of ethics? by nygeek · · Score: 1

    The unspoken assumption of everyone posting to this thread, or everyone of the 5% or so that I've read, is that corporations are equivalent to people. That is, capable of volition, decision, and moral responsibility.

    I think, however, that this is probably mistaken. Companies are like computers. They're machines. We confuse them with people because they're made up of people and people are involved in all of their actions. Don't be fooled, companies are machines. They can be dominated by individuals, either in reality or in perception [we don't distinguish Bill Gates from Microsoft, though we probably ought to], but the actions of the company are still those of a person. Even when the company is "managed" and has no visibly dominant individual, there are people behind the decisions. They are responsible for the morality of their actions.

    Is a tape recording moral? We don't consider it to be possible. We discuss the morality of the person who wrote the words on the tape or the morality of the person who read them aloud.

    But what about objects that seem to have no legitimate moral purpose - some would say guns and others would disagree. Let's try nerve gas or land mines. These objects seem to be morally negative. If that's the case, can't corporations be good or bad?

    I insist that we go back to the people involved. Corporations exist in law in the US, at least, to shield their owners who may not have any power over their actions from economic responsibility for the company's actions *beyond the loss of their equity investment*. That shield is an economic and legal one, not a moral or ethical one. This is something that has recently been discovered by folks who insist that their IRA not be invested in the tobacco industry or Apartheid South Africa.

    Don't blame the machines, blame the people who use them.

    1. Re:Are companies capable of ethics? by radja · · Score: 2

      capable of ethics... yes. but in my view, most companies are not ethical. For most companies, the main goal is making money. money, money and more money. Always more money. In a person I do not see this as a good quality, which often leads to excesses. for a company this is even worse because the people involved usually cannot be made to be personally responsible. So what we basically have is an organization with low morals, if any, for which no person is responsible. This is why I distrust companies.. I would distrust a person with these qualities too.

      //rdj

      --

      No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
      --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
  103. Re:Who ever is sells the best product... by dennisp · · Score: 1

    Because simple minds insist on worshipping her philosophy as if it were a religion to live by. But hey, when we live in a world where the news is often taken as an absolute and anything with a grain of truth in it is believed - what can you say?

  104. Re:Who ever is sells the best product... by dennisp · · Score: 1

    ah, but I did !

  105. Where has socialism EVER worked for 2 generations? by rlglende · · Score: 1

    There is quite a long history of socialism.

    In my lifetime, the favorite example of the great benefits of socialism has shifted continuously == Scandanavia, Germany, France, Canada ...

    The continuous shifting is required because no socialist state can maintain itself -- economic productivity always falls below less-socialist states. Country after country has bankrupted itself and its people.

    Socialism doesn't work for the very good reasons that 'fairness' is not a scalable concent and economies and societies are MUCH, MUCH, MUCH too complex to analyze or predict.

    Focused, dedicated companies find it hard to make a profit. Political systems can't begin to manage an economy or society.

    Lew

    --
    "The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
  106. Re:charity by Yo_mama · · Score: 1

    comparitive donations might be valid is some cases, but the Gates's STARTED with 30mil and have donated more since then. M$ also donates software to non-profits (like the one I work and and the school for disabled kids my mother works at) which is good when you are talking about groups that sometimes are using crates as furniture.

    The annoying thing about this is that it makes it hard for me as the IS dude to recommend anything other than MS products for our use. OK, the MS proxy server my predecessor setup is getting yanked out and replaced with a BSD/Linux firewall, but if I'm gone they can't find anyone to administer the box because *nix knowledge is harder to find, particularly in the non-profit field. Because everyone knows M$ it makes more sense for me to set up a MS network... especially since Mr Gates himself has been known to drop in here and look around and meet with our CEO. I'd hate for us to lose the money they've given us because he saw Linux on everyone's desktop.... might be worth it from a software evangelising viewpoint but not from the lost program funding hehe

    OK that got off topic, sorry.
    Two non-profits that get software for free from MS:
    http://www.kindering.org
    http://www.seattlefoundation.org

    --
    Never understimate the power of human stupidity -Lazarus Long
  107. ... and free SlimFast and free Haagen-Daas, too! by rkent · · Score: 1

    Ha! Yeah, ben and jerry's, er, I mean Unilever, Inc is one helluva socially responsible company! And they've got a robust business plan which will be able to resist a hostile takeover until at least April of this year!

    hee hee...

  108. Re:Bill Gates by billscarwasher · · Score: 1
    And at an estimated $85 billion this means:
    Phamaseuticals = 0.15 %
    Libraries = 0.009 %
    Scholarships = 1.17%
    ...
    Hardly "Giving till it hurts".

    In half a year? Would you rather he had blown all his stock for charity 10 years ago at a fraction of the current value? How about now, instead of letting his worth grow and having more to give later? He's already stated that almost all of his money will go to charity over the coming years. A couple of billion every year or so certainly doesn't seem shabby to me.

  109. Bill Gates in the past by ShaggyZet · · Score: 1
    Go back a few years on this one. How old is this foundation? How much did he contribute the charity a few years ago? I don't have hard numbers, but if I'm not mistaken, it was astonishingly little, especially for a man of his wealth.

    The cynic in me would say it's all a publicity thing, now that MS is getting sued and all. Of course, I'm not cynical at all. And I'm certainly not cynical about big business and how nice they are.

  110. Dell does by Beguile · · Score: 1

    I work at Dell Computer Corp at the headquarters in Round Rock TX. We've donated lots of money to lots of charities. We have another one coming up here in the very near future that we're taking a big part in that is sponsored by Vignette (another austin based tech company). Not that I particularly care about this stuff, but we do do a lot for the charities.. just my 2 cents..

  111. links? by netsrek · · Score: 1

    have you got any links showing that iMacs are made with bisphenol-A ?

    --

    i don't read slashdot anymore.
  112. Re:Ok, let me do your research for you. Re:links? by netsrek · · Score: 1

    I went through those links you posted.

    sure, it looks like there are concerns regarding bisphenol-a, but is that what an iMac is made from?

    It's made from a polycarbonate, but isn't that just a general term? Do all polycarbonates cause harm to rats/shrink testicles/etc?

    --

    i don't read slashdot anymore.
  113. Re:MacBastard, please don't spread lies. by MacBastard · · Score: 1

    Zico, please check out Yo_Mama's post (post#92). He works in IS for an organization that receives these donations. Although I realize that these organizations need computers and software donations badly, he feels pressure to keep M$ software around simply because they ARE getting these donations, whether or not it's the best solution for their needs.
    That sounds like an "understanding" to me....

    --
    - Semper Ubi Sub Ubi!
  114. Re:charity by MacBastard · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, when Mr. Bill gives to schools, they are with the *understanding* that these schools will use the funds to purchase computer systems that run M$ operating systems and use M$ software. They are definitely strings attached types of donations that preclude students from learning about other OS's like Linux or MacOS.

    --
    - Semper Ubi Sub Ubi!
  115. Re:One socially conscientious company... by chewbca · · Score: 1

    first of all.. i am not a contractor, nor do i pretend to have any detailed knowledge of HP's/or MS's compensation poilicies towards contractors..

    However... if they ARE contractors... how does HP hire them without a contract.. I'm curious.. as to supervising them with HP management, I see nothing wrong with this. IF the contractors are going to be effective workers in HP, I would think they need to have supervision by managers who are involved with HP's projects.. Also including contractors in a benefits program seems to be contrary to the idea of contractors.. aren't they hired to be solid workers who earn salary but don't receive benefits? It seems a good way to reduce payroll costs, while maintaining productivity...

    I happen to work with a contractor in our group and his equipment has been provided by HP.. (PC, phone, test machines) perhaps your examples are just isolated in some sectors of HP?

    As far as compensation for a CEO.. that is up to the board of directors of HP.. if they deemed it worthwhile to pay her 93 million for 4 months work,then so be it.. the savings they hope to gain from her leadership is probably many times that sum..

    I don't use Exchange or Outlook Express (though some do) I use Netscape as my mail agent.. i coul d use anything i wanted as long as I point it at the right SMTP/POP server..

    i don't think the company's rotten. granted I've been here less than a year.. but I don't think things are as bad as your melodramatic comment may indicate..

    --
    -- "This is my sig... there are many like it but this one is mine"
  116. Re:One socially conscientious company... by chewbca · · Score: 1

    okay.. that was sad.. yes it's a reference to The Matrix.. and i have 2 dots trailing it..

    you can't see the third dot.. because.. "there is not third dot"

    sheesh..

    :P

    --
    -- "This is my sig... there are many like it but this one is mine"
  117. Re:Permatemps by chewbca · · Score: 1

    where do you live..

    here in Silicon Valley.. even earning 70K/yr
    means you'll be renting for 5-7 years until you
    get enough for a down payment on a decent size house..

    ("decent sized" -- 2 bdrm, 2bath, ~2000 sqft in
    a neighborhood you don't have to worry about
    walking thru at night)

    sad but true

    as for living "comfortably".. that's a vague
    term...

    :P

    --
    -- "This is my sig... there are many like it but this one is mine"
  118. Re:One socially conscientious company... by chewbca · · Score: 1

    heh heh.. I couldn't be farther from PR if I wanted to!

    Actually I'm an engineer.. but i am nonetheless impressed with HP's commitment to community involvement..

    Sorry to hear TI are such bastards.. I loved the
    TI-99/4A.. (my first computer)..

    --
    -- "This is my sig... there are many like it but this one is mine"
  119. Re:One socially conscientious company... by chewbca · · Score: 1

    Wow..

    It's ironic, I think, here I am sitting at HP, makers of some of the best calculators in the world.. and what did I use in college? a TI-85..
    lol.. but i see what you mean about everyone wanting one.. and on the Barnes/Starbucks front i'm torn, because I don't mind shopping at Barnes and Noble, but I detest Starbucks.. i don't know why.. but i do...

    --
    -- "This is my sig... there are many like it but this one is mine"
  120. Re:buzzword bingo by flyneye · · Score: 1

    Yes,thank you for at least shining a flashlight
    into the dark little corner of this article.
    I find that "most" people havent stopped
    to think that liberty is "individual-centric",nor
    have they applied the rule

    social+insertwordhere=socialism

    certainly there are those who disagree,I only
    ask that they leave bias and with a neutral
    outlook apply this rule for a week or two whenever
    they hear phrases like "social justice"or "social
    responsibility"
    Try to figure out how this "Social"idea
    supports or enhances our constitutional rights.
    If it doesnt,CLUE!
    Certainly there are those who still disagree,
    to those I can only suggest moving to a place
    where socialism is the gov-du-jour.Just like you
    are free to fdisk Linux in favor of Microsoft,you
    can trade your freedom for "safety"though you would deserve neither.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  121. They owned Dubya a LONG time ago.. by supabeast! · · Score: 1

    "As recently as last week, they managed to buy their way into the George W. Bush campaign. "

    Actually, most of Silicon Valley, with M$ in the lead, bought Bush before he had even confirmed his canidacy. The Republican party has been trying to pull in tech companies like as of late, in hopes that the companies will finance campaign in exchange for things like UCITA, tax breaks, weak labor laws, increased trade relations with China (cheap labor, plenty of room for internet expansion, etc.) and more.

    And Dubya will have to do nothing but cater to the people who paid for his election, because with his lack of experience and intelligence(on top of his serious Oedipus complex), he needs something to fall back on for the 2004 election.

    I am really, really, considering moving to Europe.

  122. Re:Who ever is sells the best product... by LewsKinslayer · · Score: 1

    Amen.

    To do something for your own profit, where it doesn't forcibly trample other's rights is advantageous to all humanity. If every person does the best possible to create new and better things, the quality of all our lives is improved. When you donate money to any cause, it's usefullness is dropped to the level of simply "food." However, when you invest money wisely into a business that is producing worthwhile goods, it is turned into a tangible advantage for America and its people.

    You who have money, use it wisely, increase its value not as a bill, but as part of the American economy.

    "I work for nothing but my own profit-which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. I do not produce it for their benefit at the expese of mine, and they do not buy it for my benefit at the expense of theirs; I do not sacrifice my interests to them nor do they sacrifice theirs to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage-and I am proud of every penny that I have earned in this manner. I am rich and proud of every penny I own." Hank Rearden, from Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand

    -LewsKinslayer

  123. Re:[Clue] by Eruantalon · · Score: 1

    Not a bad thought. Actually, it's probably the best thought on this page so far. It's the only one that made me think.

    Social Responsibility is complete bullshit.

    Well, maybe not complete bullshit, but it shouldn't be the basis of deciding if a company is "moral" or not. It's more the result of individuals and companies making the best product possible. If the product is created to be the most useful and well-built product of its kind and if it produces a benefit to society greater than the cost of creating it, then IMO it's the best product of its kind, and the company producing it is socially responsible in the moral and ethical sense.

    There's no motive to live in a polluted environment.

    Very true. The problem nowadays is that companies seem to forget this fact. They try to get their product out to the public as quick and easily as possible with the least amount of immediate cost to themselves. If this means dumping toxic waste in a river instead of paying to have it cleaned correctly, they'll do it. If this means cutting time & a half overtime out, they'll do it. If it means beating Indonesian children so they work faster, the companies will do it. What companies don't seem to realize is that what they do has an impact on the world as a whole. They seem to forget that the toxic waste they dump can cause an ecological disaster that could wipe us off the face of the earth, they seem to forget that beating the hell out of their employees can cause race, gender, and international problems. They forget that what you give out comes back eventually.

    The most moral and ethical thing a person can do is work hard and get the most from your money.

    Sounds like Ayn Rand to me, but then I always did agree with her basic points concerning business. If a business wants to create the best product out there, if they research ways of making the product better, if they implement those ways and indeed make their product better than anything else on the market, it's a damn good product. Then they need to sell their product in the way which will generate as much profit for the company itself, without screwing consumers out of anything. If the product is too pricey, no one will buy it - that's economincs. If it's too cheap, it'll screw the company out of money, and may not sell as well as it should have because consumers may think that it's an inferior product. Companies shouldn't be so worried about how they're going to sell their product. They should be much, much more worried about how they're going to produce their product and how they're going to inform the public of its existence and benefits. If it's a good product and people know enough about it to make informed decisions, the product should sell itself. The only reason it wouldn't is if there's no use for it in the market.

    Now let me say something about "sweatshops". The "moral and ethical" people always piss me off about this subject. If a company goes into, say India, and starts a manufacturing plant that costs the company less than if they started the plant in the US, people always label that foreign-located plant as a sweatshop. It may be, it may not be. People always bitch because companies are paying their workers in India $5/day (I don't know if this is the actual wage, I just made it up to make my point). Well, think about this for a second. If everyone else in the industry in India is getting paid $5/day, then those workers are just as well off as any other Indian who works in that industry. A company can't go into India and pay their workers $10/day, or all hell will break loose. Indians will flood that plant looking for jobs due to the money, and some will leave the other plants for that extra $5/day. So now this new company has to pay its workers twice what the other companies are paying their workers, so if this new company can't cut costs somewhere, they're not going to do well selling their product - it'll be too expensive and no one will buy it. They'll eventually go out of business, leaving many Indians without jobs and worse off than they were when they were getting paid $5/day. Besides, in a country with widespread poverty, people would be storming that plant trying to get jobs, beating up the workers in that plant for some extra cash, and in general, causing havoc. The company who tried to pay its Indian workers the higher wages ends up doing nothing but destroying itself and hurting many of its former employees. Does this sound like a moral company? And would you buy their product at twice the price just because they pay their workers a little more? Would you even know that they paid their workers more? Then don't bitch about companies not paying employees enough - if they pay them more, problems arise.

    What is needed is for companies to start in India, be based in India, and be working to make India a better place to live. Outside companies can't do that - they'll be resented and won't understand the Indian community well enough in order to make it better. If enough Indian-based companies start up, keep their pay rates similar and slowly raise them, while at the same time working for a better India, then things might begin to pick up. The only problem with that is, there's not enough people in India to sell computers to. The industry needs to make a product that Indians need and can afford, like food, clothing and shelter. Outside companies don't want to go into India and produce houses - it's not profitable for them. If Indian companies did this, however, they'd have a product they could sell and make a profit on, as well as help their country at the same time. Well, there's another problem with that - starting up companies in India can be problematic due to lack of funds. Thus, Indians go to other countries to get knowledge and money, then either return to their country to help out, or stay in the other country and forget their homeland.

    Third-world countries can't be "helped" into becoming first-world countries through charity. They need to be taught to work for themselves, to make things better in their own homeland. They need to work their way up slowly. Throwing money and food at people will help for a while, but what happens when the money & food are gone? Starving people again. Teach them how to grow food, build houses, make clean water, and have them do it themselves, and they'll be on their way to becoming a first-world country with no more problems than other first-world countries.

    Those are my beliefs, anyways.

    Eruantalon

    --
    Eruantalon
    The Annals of Middle-earth
  124. Re:Who ever is sells the best product... by Eruantalon · · Score: 1

    I must say that Atlas Shrugged seems to be the most controversial book ever written. There's always someone arguing one way or another for or against it - saying it's genious, saying it's crap. Ayn Rand may be right or wrong, but she sure as hell knew how to write a book that would get noticed.

    Eruantalon

    --
    Eruantalon
    The Annals of Middle-earth
  125. Re:It's not their *job*! by Eruantalon · · Score: 1

    some decisions can be financially correct but morally wrong

    True, but then the company will get screwed in the end. Dumping in rivers may be cheap, but it causes global environmental problems that could end up killing us all. Even if it doesn't go that far, if it kills a sufficient amount of wildlife that people notice, the company is going to end up getting sued or put in a position where they have to pay for the dumping, whether through cleanup duties, or a governmental/environmental agency breathing down their necks. Exploiting child/third-world labor can't go unnoticed forever. Eventually, someone will complain, and the company will have an international incident on their hands. (Of course, someone needs to determine if they're actually exploting the workers or not - that's where the difficulty comes in here.) The other problem with companies getting bit by their own illegal/immoral choices is the damn government and all its red tape. Not to mention the judicial system.

    Donating the resultant profits to charity is not a reasonable substitute for making consciencious decisions in the first place.

    Agree completely. Giving to charities is fine, but they're not the solution to the world's problems, and donating ill-gotten money is no charity.

    Eruantalon

    --
    Eruantalon
    The Annals of Middle-earth
  126. Re:It's not their *job*! by Eruantalon · · Score: 1

    Umm, I hope you're being sarcastic, but if you're not....
    You've picked the immoral/unethical "job" of each one of these workers. None of these things is what the person gets paid to do, except maybe the teacher. Engineers get paid to make better and more efficient technologies, and though this includes weapons, that's not it. Soldiers get paid to defend their country, and if this includes killing people, so be it. Teachers get paid to teach the curiculum. Whether they get paid to question its value or not depends on who they work for (which school system). Needless to say, they should question its value, but I won't get into that problem.

    Eruantalon

    --
    Eruantalon
    The Annals of Middle-earth
  127. Re:Volunteer work by pogtal · · Score: 1

    Let's not kid ourselves. I live in a city that GE owned for a /very/ long time. During that tenure, they kept virtually every other buisness out of this city. About fifteen years ago, they pulled out of this town, and it's not a shithole. Very "good neighborish" eh?

    As for other tech companies, I would say it is /very/ difficult to judge. On the one hand, we would all like every country to have excellent standards for things like human rights and enviromental regulations like the US does, but unfortunately, countries like Taiwan and China let companies get away with terrible things like virtually slave labor and dumping toxic chemicals into the ground and air. I mean, remember, production of semiconductor devices is /extremely/ toxic.

    Until we get universal workers' rights and enviromental laws (that have some teeth so people actually follow them) companies, all companies, even companies that we like, are going to do bad things. Companies are here to make money. That's what government is for, to protect you and me (royal) from the company, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

    (man this is turning into a socialist rant)

    Remember, just because someone "good" is in charge of a company, and/or the company has a "good neighboor policy" doesn't mean (in any way) that it necessarily does all good things all times. Do you think Steve Jobs knows every worker in every factory that Apple uses? Do you think Mike Dell interviews all of his factory managers in Taiwan to make sure they are paying fare wages and not "accidentally" dumping chemicals...?


    I wish.
  128. Re:charity by pogtal · · Score: 1

    Don't look at the total amount of $$ that Big Gates has given to charitible organizations, look at percentage wealth.

    Me giving 1,000 USD, a helluva lot of my total money.

    Big Gates giving 1,000USD, does he even notice? If Big Gates gave 100,000USD, does he even notice...?

  129. Re:charity by pogtal · · Score: 1

    The point is whether or not he is giving away money so that he can say "look at me, I got kids adicted to a crappy operating system by giving away the money I have in my wallet" versus "look at me, I really care, and gave away real money".

    I think it is admirable for anyone to give away any amount of money or do anything charitable, but when you are talking about someone with 130 billion USD, it really shifts perspectives on his philanthropy, or lack thereof.

  130. Re:Volunteer work by pogtal · · Score: 1

    ...it's now a shithole.

    sorry about that.
  131. Re:Separate the man from his company. by donutello · · Score: 1

    "Now Microsoft giving out donations to Universities, and hospitals. That's a wholly different thing. If they are doing this to gain good PR, well, that is really despicable. No amount of whitewashing will get them out of that anti-trust suit."

    So if they don't donate any money they are despicable money-hungry whores but if they do donate it is only to gain good PR and that is really despicable!

    Sheesh.

    -Donutello - no relation to Donut who also posted a response here

    --
    Mmmm.. Donuts
  132. Ok, let me do your research for you. Re:links? by mr · · Score: 1

    The question I am asking shows another problem with 'product activism', that is, getting consumers to care enuf to research something. Then, having them care enuf to NOT buy based on the issue.

    If you bothered to follow some links
    http://www.bisphenol-a.org/products.html
    "Bisphenol A is a chemical building block of polycarbonate (PC) plastic. PC plastics are highly durable" A nice picture of the clear plastic....

    http://www.apple.com/hotn ews/features/mwsf99keynote2.html
    "You should have been there when Jobs showed off the new design. There was a stunned moment of silence followed by wild applause. "It's built out of polycarbonate, which is the same stuff they use to make bulletproof vests," he explained, prompting laughter. "

    --
    If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
    1. Re:Ok, let me do your research for you. Re:links? by mr · · Score: 1

      Yes, the iMac case is polycarbonate.

      Yes, polycarbonates have Bisphenol-a

      Harm - what level causes harm? Some people have zero tolerance policy, others are willing to trust if the government/companies say it is OK, then I'm OK. The consumers who buy organic produce/no tupperware have less faith in the knowledge of man WRT chemicals in the environment than others.

      Think of 'safe' levels for exposure in the past. Some have went up, some down, some to 0. DDT is an example of zero tolerance. Freon is another 'goto zero' example. But where is BPA? This is where you, as the consumer, has to decide.

      The question becomes for you as a consumer:
      1) How much of a risk am I willing to take having this item in my home/life
      2) What will happen to this plastic thing when I am done with it (landfill? Re-cycled?)
      3) Is making more products with a toxin something I, as the consumer, am willing to life with. Computers can be made with out polycarbonate, so you do have a choice....

      --
      If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
  133. Europe - contribute to thisRe:Social responsibilty by mr · · Score: 1

    And there you go, proving the POINT of the thread:

    How does one define socially responsible?

    If you believe in zero tolerance is being socially responsible, then the steel cases of old are better than the plastic cases, because the risks from BPA aren't worth it.

    If you are a plastics vendor, then it is all safe....nothing to see here, and the use of the product is responsible.

    I provided ALL the links as an example, for the thinking members of /. to make a decision.

    And if Apple is a socially responsible company, then why have they opposed the european mandates WRT obsolecent products? (The EU has wanted to force makers to have a large %age of the machines be re-useable at the end of the products life, and the maker is to take back the machine and re-cycle it. If some EU /.ers want to chime in, PLEASE do! Apple, at one time, was on the list of the companies who opposed this EU proposal.)

    --
    If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
  134. Re:Social responsibilty by mr · · Score: 1

    What about the air...plastics outgas
    What happens to the plastic when it gets thrown out?

    There are more ways of getting you iMac BPAs then licking them/using the keyboard. :-)

    --
    If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
  135. Re:Social responsibilty by mr · · Score: 1

    Micro$oft is no different than any other company who spends money on the "many leaches" (politicians). Remember too, that M$ political contributions were minimal until they announced they wanted a hunk of banking/the communication (phone) industries.

    (What industries know how and have made campaign contributions for years...banking/telcos. Remember when M$ was going to put quicken outta business/buy them/get into banking? At about that same time, it leaked they were going to get into communications. When they got blocked WRT the intuit buyout, you will note how the political contributions shot WAY up.)

    My comment about the quality is based on this: *I* consider it a mark of responsibility when you advertise something as working and is sold as working, it had better work as advertise. M$ fails that test historically for the most part.

    --
    If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
  136. Re:Depends by rasmichael · · Score: 1
    For the most part, that is true. Many entrepreneurs are highly conscious of how their employees are feeling and whether or not they are happy on a day-to-day basis. However, there are several species of entrepreneur that fail to meet employees demands -- for the most part because it would cost them (the boss, that is) money out of his or her pocket. We call this exploitation.

    Now, i'm not a socialist or anything, but since these companies tend to live in the 50-150 employee range, and are for the most part rather unorganized, there is really nothing that the employees can do. once the small-business boss has made his first few bucks, he knows that he has found a system that works. if he chanegs it, he may lose his momentum -- something he cannot afford to do in the computer business.

    Granted, i'm sure this is more prevalent in hardware than in software. Hardware people are easier to keep at lower salaries and lesser working conditions than programmers per se... and especially if the company is based somewhere other than the big tech-centers in the US or germany.

    Taiwan, of course, is a whole different story. If you think you have it bad, think of 18 hour days, seven days a week, plus the oddly accepted social norm that your boss owns your soul and you must do everything he says.

    --
    \\ Where's my giant foam cowboy hat and airhorn?
  137. Re:Separate the man from his company. by B1ood · · Score: 1
    I half expected you to start quoting the Bible as you got going there :)

    I have to disagree with you though on calling 'charity' dispicable. No matter how the legal crap against microsoft goes, people should always be grateful for charity and they certainly don't have to be blinded in regards to MS's true motives. That would be naive, and dispicable on the part of the receiver.


    B1ood

    --
    Note to self: pasty-skinned programmers ought not stand in the Mojave desert for multiple hours. -- John Carmack
  138. Re:It's not their *job*! by gid-foo · · Score: 1

    That's fine, but the moment your desire to live your life impacts mine my desires on how I want to live my life come in to play. So you may want to dump vats of motor oil in to a pit in your back yard. However, as your neighbor this directly affects my living my life, therefore, cut it out. So, as long as your life and company do not impact or affect anyone else in society as a whole, you can do what you want. The moment people start buying your product and you start using labor to produce it and start needing places to put your by-products; Hello, I'm involved in the process. This doesn't necessarily contradict what you are saying but is an extension.

  139. You're missing the point... by god_of_the_machine · · Score: 1

    Hey, that gives me a great idea! If I started working as a pimp for underage crack whores, I would make a lot more money and could finally have enough disposable cash to donate to the Home for Little Wanderers!

    You're missing the point completely! Obviously nobody is suggesting that corporations should do illegal or immoral acts for profit and donate those profits to charity!!!

    Instead, the author was making a different point: that corporations shouldn't necessarily donate to charities, because it would be more efficient for them to make money (it's what they are supposed to do) and pass those savings along to the customers, who can in turn donate.

    Every corporation and it's officers should obviously act "decently", as you put it. But the poster you replied to made a decent point about who in the chain would be most effective at contributing to charitable acts.

    -rt-

    --

    -rt-
    ** Evil Canadians are taking over the world. Learn about the conspiracy
  140. [ot] correction on your sig by gblues · · Score: 1

    the correct quote is:

    "Before you critize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. Then, you'll be a mile away from them, and you'll have their shoes."

    -- Jack Handey, "Deep Thoughts"
  141. Re:[Clue] by WoDDemandred · · Score: 1

    Actually, if those money would be put into the task of getting the BNP of say, the entire african continent, to rise by effectively supporting up and coming companies in these areas and of course schools and the like. Of course, you also have to get rid of some of the really corrupt governments in a lot of these countries(of course, the american government would be against this). Then we're a step closer to a working market economy world(no, it's not working right now, see the 2-3 billion really, REALLY poor people in developing countries).
    I wonder if market economy would be able to take the influx of workers demanding actual money.

  142. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by lunatik17 · · Score: 1
    Man, you people can not stop slamming Microsoft, can you? You've said in the second paragraph why microsoft treats it's employees so well, something you snidely hinted at in the first paragraph as "they have to"

    Well, that's kinda universally true of all companies that employ programmers, though. The demand is so much higher than the supply, that you can't really afford to treat them badly, or else they'll go find a better job quite easily.

    Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?

    --

    Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?

  143. Ecologically conscious oil companies? by santeri · · Score: 1
    Umh, responsible and ecologically conscious oil companies?

    You mean ethically top-notch like Shell in Nigeria?

    ______________

    --
    ______________
    OTTERS RULE.
    1. Re:Ecologically conscious oil companies? by dublin · · Score: 2
      Having never been to Nigeria myself, and not familiar with the real story behind both sides of the struggle there, I'll defer comment on that particular issue.

      I can speak to my personal experience in the environmental area, which is that some of the largest oil companies in the world take their environmental responsibilites *very* seriously, something that both impressed and surprised me when I began working with them.

      Sony:hardware::Microsoft:software
      CompactFlash: IBM Microdrive, Flash, Ether, Modem, etc.

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
  144. Re:Companies... its about profit NOT ethics by brennan73 · · Score: 1
    There will never be any big company spending a big amount of money on charity, without thinking they will get something back (pr, higher stocks, etc...), which again is to raise income.
    Personally, I don't care *why* a corporation is donating to charity, whether it's to be a nice bunch of people, to get bigger profits, to get into heaven, whatever. As long as the right charities/organizations benefit, what difference does it make? And to be honest, I'd rather have a charitable, more profitable company than a miserly, less profitable company.

    I know what you're saying, and no doubt it doesn't exactly warm the heart to envision board meetings where companies coldly calculate a cost-benefit analysis to giving to charity, and even *which* charity. But, pragmatically speaking...(shrug)

    -brennan

  145. Re:[Clue] by brennan73 · · Score: 1
    No offense, but what a load of crap. Capitalism and social responsibility are IN NO WAY mutually exclusive, and IMO a good capitalist society *requires* attention to social issues. I am a capitalist, and to some extent I vote with my dollars: for example, I don't shop at Wal-Mart because I disagree strongly with their politics. If enough people act likewise, Wal-Mart will change these policies or go out of business. In other words, we can effect social change without resorting to force, which results in not only a better society (only companies that are socially responsible can stay in business), but a capitalist society.

    If you mean that social responsibility in general is complete bullshit, you're just being silly and reactionary. Can you *possibly* believe that turning a blind eye to social issues and not holding companies responsible for their actions is the best way to insure social justice? If so, I suggest you do just a small amount of research before spouting off about the evil socially conscious people.

    In regards to the original topic, didn't I hear somewhere that Bill Gates wants to give his fortune away before he dies (leaving some for his kids, of course)? If so, I wonder what, exactly, he'll do with it? $50 billion or so could change a hell of a lot of lives.

    -brennan

  146. Re:Bill Gates by loik · · Score: 1

    It has been said in this discussion, but what most of you just don't seem to understand is that acting socially responsible does not mean charity. It means, in short, accepting your workers (including any suppliers) and customers as fellow human beings who deserve to receive just wages (and in my opinion, shares) respectively good products. charity means a rich and "generous" person giving something to people far "below" them that isn't granted as their right but as a favor. acting socially responsible means Change, not Charity. and the point about Gates being generous - that's a joke, right? if you earn that shitload of money THAT WAY (IP laws...) it would just seem normal to me to give the GREATER PART of it back.

    --
    and now for something completely different
  147. Re:[Horribly Clueless] by loik · · Score: 1

    i can't see how the quality of society should be determined by the quality of the products that are affordable for the privileged (and that will, maybe, have "trickled down" to the lowest classes by the time the privileged take much more sophisticated products for granted). the people who don't have equal opportunities will always feel inferior. for a good society, you need, among other things, JUSTICE and EQUALITY. your "model" just fails horribly in this respect. in every other respect, too.

    for example, your point about pollution just doesn't work. not everyone can choose where to work, not everyone (especially those who have to work for socially irresponsible companies) can influence their employer. so it's up to the privileged comsumers to put pressure on companies.

    i can think of many people from the dark ages with a MUCH healthier mentality.

    --
    and now for something completely different
  148. Re:Define and quantify by loik · · Score: 1

    for factory workers, these rules define "social responsiblity" fairly well:

    1. freedom to form trade unions
    2. right to negotiate collective contracts
    3. minimum employment age
    4. no forced labour
    5. equal wages for equal labour
    6. no racist or sexist discriminations
    7. just wages
    8. limited working time
    9. security and hygiene at the workplace
    --
    and now for something completely different
  149. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by MasterMnd · · Score: 1

    yes they would give almost give away their software, especially to students/teachers/schools. the more people the can firmiliarize with their software early on the more loyal users they will have. if you go to a school that has all MS products b/c they were real cheap, and they require you to use/learn on those programs, then (assuming your just starting to learn computers at school) that's all you'll know, and so that'll be what you'll stick with.. most people hate having to learn different software.. Just because a company is a monopoly doesn't mean they will stay that way forever, they still have to do _something_ to keep customers...

  150. Re:thanks for making me feel bad!!! by aetius2 · · Score: 1

    Awww, I'm sorry -- where in the Constitution (or in any other document) does it guarantee your right to "move up in society"? Paying someone two dollars a week and charging them a dollar fifty for room and board is good money in some parts of the world. Just because that seems small to you doesn't mean it isn't. That means they have food and a roof, something a lot of people in the world don't have. Get a real perspective (i.e., go somewhere besides America and get an appreciation for the amazing benefits you have living here).

  151. Re:One socially conscientious company... by aetius2 · · Score: 1

    SAS Institute here in Cary, NC gets slammed all the time for trying to build things and develop roads and infrastructure to support their campus. People claim they are interfering and trying to control the way Cary is developed to further their own ends. You're damned if you do...

  152. Re:A living wage is needed! by aetius2 · · Score: 1

    Seven dollars an hour, in some places in the world, is enough to buy anything you could have ever dreamed of. Seven dollars is more than a goodly portion of the world makes in a month. Seven dollars an hour is enough to survive on -- I know, I did it for several years, and even had a TV and a computer. Get off whatever you are taking.

  153. What is "socially responsible"? by jdcook · · Score: 1

    Is it being good to the environment? Whose environment? Is that merely poluting less? Or ground vs. air vs. water polution? Is it forcing environmental standards on countries that never had the chance we had to polute in the first place? Is it killing rivers with toxic runoff while producing chips that consume less power?

    Is it being good to workers? Which workers? People horribly underpaid by our standards but possibly well paid by theirs? Is it IT workers who routinely work insane hours yet often refuse to collectively bargain? Is it the anonymous person who empties my trash can?

    Is it the shareholders?

    Paper or plastic?

    Obviously there are no easy answers. Framing the question in terms of "social responsibility" sets up a bogus dichotomy. You have to do DD and figure out what is important to you and what company best meets that standard. No shortcuts, sorry.

    --
    Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
  154. Socially Responsible Companies... by CSG_SurferDude · · Score: 1

    Yes, there are some socially responsible HW companies out there. But the main question is not Who is responsible?, but How are they responsible?.

    Are they good on the Environment? To their workers? Racially diversified? Community Consious? (You get the idea.) No single company can be 100% in all those areas, but some can come close. What you need to do is get a list of what's most important to you. A search over at google (http://www.google.com) for "Socially responsible companies -investment" will point you to several sites about companies that are/are not responsible. Also, take a look at http://www.bsr.org for about a googleplex of "Responsibility Categories".

    CSG_SurferDude

    --

    LongTail SSH Brute Force analysis tool is here!

  155. Companies donating profits == not their job by MattW · · Score: 1

    Should companies donate their profits to any charity? I'd have to say, if there's nothing in it for them, no. People invest in companies to see their money increase in value. It is then THEIR responsibility to be charitable. Having companies donate money under the guise of "social responsibility" is inefficient.

  156. Re:It's not their *job*! by bobv-pillars-net · · Score: 1
    Agreed totally.

    Pure capitalism is the most efficient way to distribute wealth.

    If there were no limits on international trade and travel, there would (very soon) be no "third-world" countries.

    --
    The Web is like Usenet, but
    the elephants are untrained.
  157. Capitalism vs. labor unions by bobv-pillars-net · · Score: 1
    Since when do labor unions have ANYTHING to do with capitalism?

    You're right about one thing:

    nobody has a decent idea of how to fairly organize really large groups of people

    But capitalism isn't a "body" or a "union" or even a "corporation". Capitalism is a natural(1) system that promotes the common good without requiring the compulsion, or compliance, or even the knowledge of any of its participants. Read about Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand", or Leonard Read's "I, Pencil".

    (For the benefit of greenrd:)

    1. Natural (system): In this context, any social structure that arises out of the self-interest of each of the participants. This is in contrast with "managed" systems that are planned and organized by a single person, or by a committee that is small in comparison with the total number of participants.
    --
    The Web is like Usenet, but
    the elephants are untrained.
  158. Re:Bill Gates by xant · · Score: 1

    Let me get this straight... Bill Gates donated ONE MILLION DOLLARS PER STUDENT for tuition, room, and board? Methinks Mr. Fat Cat is a little more out-of-touch with reality than even I thought.

    --
    It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
  159. Re:Bill Gates by Keithel · · Score: 1

    I seem to remember a few years back when he started donating stuff.

    I seem to remember that he donated some fairly substantial number of computers (wintel boxes of course) to some schools (again, can't remember the details)...

    When I first heard of it, and even now I do, I believe that that whole donation was just to benefit himself and microsoft. Think about it: increased beneficial PR saying Bill is nice to his neighbors, and, think a year or two down the road: those schools are going to have to upgrade their software/computers... well... oh boy, microsoft just made a pile of money, that well paid for the "donation".

    Now, I haven't yet investigated these medical donations that he has made, but I wouldn't be suprised to find some sort of conditions to get them.. something along the lines of only being able to use the money at companies that use MS products or something. Let me know if I'm wrong.

    Keith

  160. Whoa... by Winged+Cat · · Score: 1

    the companies assembling PCB's in Latin America and Southeast Asia

    I first read that as "...assembling PHBs..." and thought, "So that's where they come from." Too bad...it would actually have made sense, in a fashion.

  161. Re:Permatemps by EatAtJoes · · Score: 1
    As J. Paul Getty said (I think):

    "You can't even stay clean for less than 50,000 a year."

  162. Re:Permatemps by cps42 · · Score: 1
    &gt&nbspThat doesn't leave much to live on.

    Two years ago, when I was making under $7.50/hour as a barrista (and knowing my friends that still do in Seattle) and had a good time living the lifestyle, I think I would have been offended by that statement--

    On the other hand, now that I'm walking away from a contract position @ Microsoft for a better job at a startup... I wouldn't take less than that, that's for sure...

    Sad. I feel like I've lost something. Is this what they mean by "Rat Race"? =-

  163. A Little Note..... by Bill+Daras · · Score: 1

    Apple was just awarded some prize for being incredibly nice to the enviornment. While Steve Jobs has been hosting campagn dinners for Mrs. Clinton

    On the GOP side Geroge W. Bush (a.k.a shill for Microsoft) got a big chunk of change from Dell.

  164. Re:[Clue] - Yes and No by bockman · · Score: 1

    YES
    ----
    The job of a company is to generate wealth (i.e. products that others find useful ). As a reward, the company make profits .
    Well, ideally at least.
    The job of a company IS NOT solve social problems. Donations may be used to cover guilt ( I've heard that the owner of a chain of Casinos and Brothels in hong-kong has been rewarded for his donation by both USA and Catholic Church institutions ).

    NO
    ----
    A company SHOULD NOT exploit social problems to make profit. Not always is easy to make the difference ( a misery wage in USA may be a lot of money in some country ), but it is possible and should be done.

    A buyer SHOULD be concerned abouth ethical behaviour of the companies. If you believe in the "vote with your dollar" strategy, well, it applies here too.

    --
    Ciao

    ----

    FB

  165. What defines social responsibility? by Keely · · Score: 1

    A lot of people seem to be focusing on a company's charitable giving as the measure of their social responsibility, which if I recall the original question correctly, was not the main point.

    Issues such as not using child labor, paying a living wage, being responsible with toxic waste disposal, etc. seem far closer to the source of what is meant by the phrase "social responsibility". I for one would be willing to pay a little more for the knowledge that I was not "voting" for the above practices with my purchases.

  166. Well, if you *really* wanna know.... by mat+catastrophe · · Score: 1

    I would suggest asking them directly, whether by visiting their websites and looking for info on their practices (this would apply mostly to info on charitable involvement, since most companies would not willingly (or even truthfully) post info on workplace conditions).
    Having done that, you could also e-mail their PR/HR offices and simply ask for info on what they do and how they treat people, etc, etc.... By the way, there is an article on mired.com about "Microsoft's right-wing capitalism versus Apple's pleasant communism," but since it is a mired column, it is a little more opinion and conjecture than actual fact. Still, damn amusing....

    --
    sig not found
  167. Re:[Clue] by mat+catastrophe · · Score: 1
    Please tell me that you just forgot to put your "sarcasm" tags on that post...Please?

    To say that "social responsibility" for a company begins and ends with getting a product out cheap is to completely ignore the overall impact that production has on "society" while overemphasizing the fact that you got something cheap. That's arrogant and disgusting.

    F'rinstance, if a hardware company makes high-end PCs and sells them for less than $500, but only does so because it uses underpaid labor (with no benefits and probably not in the U$) *and* gets away with dumping toxic by-products of the production into streams and lakes near the plant *and* employs predatory sales/business practices, does that mean that they are *IN ANY WAY* a good company just because they got you a PC for $499 (sales tax not included, void where prohibited, etc)??? No! That makes them a capitalist entity, and one that is particularly nasty to a number of people to benefit another number of people. That's exploitation, and it is (to me, and probably most people) wrong no matter how many people are benefitted on the purchasing side....

    The most moral and ethical thing a person can do is work hard and get the most from your money.
    Again, you are kidding, right?
    --
    sig not found
  168. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by mindstorm · · Score: 1

    The reason why they pratically give away their software to non-profits is because they want more market and mental share. With that they have more influence and monopoly.


    If design is not Bauhaus, it is Baroque.

  169. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by mindstorm · · Score: 1

    What I am alluding to is the M$ giveaway in our public schools and colleges.


    If design is not Bauhaus, it is Baroque.

  170. Re:... and free SlimFast and free Haagen-Daas, too by mindstorm · · Score: 1

    At least Ben and Jerry's did not get bought out by Nestle. For those who do not remember, Nestle did a boo boo with baby formula in Africa sometime back and tried to cover over the problem. It took a boycott and a few lawsuits to make them come clean.

    I could not imagine B&J's social progressiveness playing and sharing well with Nestle's way of doing business.


    If design is not Bauhaus, it is Baroque.

  171. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by HarveyNeon · · Score: 1

    smoking is bad.
    whats up with the damn posts that are getting moderated into my view? i would like to complain.
    could someone point me to the end of the line? hopefully i don't have to walk past too many more brainless posts before i find out information related to the ON TOPIC question of whether tech companies are socially responsible.
    OF COURSE IT DEPENDS ON THE COMPANY MOSTLY.
    the question is: the industry as a whole, what is the situation like?
    i'll read on now.



    /-//|/

    --


    /-//|/

    "..Constructive critizism is always welcome however."
  172. Re:One socially conscientious company... by Anony+Mouse · · Score: 1

    I am interested in hearing details regarding the incidents of pollution and bad employer practices at the HP Avondale site. I have not heard anything about it, and a quick web search did not turn up any news stories. Can you provide some references? Why was the site closed down? Did the pollution predate the purchase of F&M Scientific Corporation?

    Disclaimer: I am an HP employee. I do not rabidly or blindly back my company out of some misplaced sense of loyalty, and I am sure that "chewbca" doesn't either. However, I also hold HP in high regard because of its social conscience. It is one of the reasons that I still work there. It concerns me to hear about incidents where HP went against their values, and I want to have well-founded facts (i.e. with references to back them) so that I can make an informed opinion.

    Thank you,
    Anony Mouse

    --
    # echo 'SboPshAeaM@rSicPocAheMt.SnePt' | sed -e 's/[SPAM]//g'
  173. Re:Bill Gates by Anony+Mouse · · Score: 1
    > 2.Rich people are humans too.

    Yes, humans with a social responsibility. Perhaps more so than poor people.

    > 3. Did you donate 588+4.50+75 = 667.50 to charitable causes last year?

    Yes. More, actually (and I still feel guilty -- I was raised in a Catholic family, so what can you expect? ;)

    > I vote Libertarian, find out why.

    I vote green. Find out why

    -- Anony Mouse

    --
    # echo 'SboPshAeaM@rSicPocAheMt.SnePt' | sed -e 's/[SPAM]//g'
  174. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by AlKaMo · · Score: 1

    Oh please... First of all, non-profits are not a particularly large market to start with, if they really were after "mind-share" they'd offer these prices across the board. Second, cost is extremely important to non-profits, since most of them are perpetually stuggling to stay financially stable and if they spend too much in certain areas they lose major sources of revenue (like United Way). The "mental share" arguement makes some sense if you're talking about academic pricing, but I really don't see much applicability in the non-profit arena. By the way, the only other major company that I am aware of that offers significant discounts to nonprofits is Adobe, so I guess they're motivated by the same reasoning.

  175. Companies by siokaos · · Score: 1

    You can compare the corporate onslaught of entire computer systems to that of any other industry.

    Think about it:: 99% of the people driving cars have no idea what's going on inside.

    Companies can develop hardware that's proprietary, totally abusing the actual manufacturer. If a product line fails, then the producer recieves the hit.

    Corporations are allowed to totally modify the entire process of building the entire machine, with no ethic regard to the end user or manufacturer.
    .sig:

    --
    http://siokaos.org/
  176. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by NetMasterOC3 · · Score: 1

    But if i remember correctly, to be a monopoly implies that you have total unrestrained control of the price of your porduct/market niche. In this case that is totaly untrue. If MS had monopolistic power then they wouldn't be almost giving the software to Non-Profit orginizations, and students/teachers/schools. Because the ppl at these orginizations would just find a cheaper product. Then the only response MS would have to would be to prevent there use on a Windows computer, and I know for a fact that they dont, because I use both MS Office 2K and Corel Office 2K on windows computers.

  177. Re:A living wage is needed! by shuffler · · Score: 1

    This same situation exists in the plants that assemble the computers (Gateway, HP, Dell, etc.) A lot of Slashdot readers probably build their own computers from scratch, but most people just buy a pre-built system. The computer you use at work was almost certainly built in a factory. Just think, the person who was handling your hard drive is a disgruntled wage slave making less than $7 an hour in a non-union sweatshop.

  178. Re:Permatemps by portege00 · · Score: 1

    That's really sad that you think people can't live happily on $20/hr. Contrary to what sheltered, spoiled individuals like you think, many, many people live on less than $20/hr. Money can't buy happiness man. I've seen families live on $12/hr. $20/hr for one person is plenty unless you don't know how to use money. Maybe you haven't ever had less than tons of money in your account, but the rest of us in the real world know you can get by on a lot less than $20/hr. Ask any college student about living on $6.50/hr while going to school.

    --
    Trolls make great pets. Adopt one today!
  179. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by pim · · Score: 1

    What secrets? Bill Gates' secret recipe for Java Guacamole?


    Pi
  180. Separate the man from his company. by (void*) · · Score: 1
    If Bill Gates wants to donate, I think it is great. The world could always do with one more philanthropist.

    But, I consider that to be him, giving in his private capacity. In fact, morally, I rate the poor fellow living on minimum wage a greater social consciousness if he gives a mere $20 to his favourite charity. Becuase of the element of sacrifice. None of Bill's charitable donations cost him anything. He has way too much money for one single person to spend anyway.

    Now Microsoft giving out donations to Universities, and hospitals. That's a wholly different thing. If they are doing this to gain good PR, well, that is really despicable. No amount of whitewashing will get them out of that anti-trust suit.

    1. Re:Separate the man from his company. by Donut · · Score: 1

      Hahhah! Did you get this from liberal-think-tank Wizard Application?
      Sacrifice is NOT the measure of someone's philanthropic usefulness. $20 from a poor guys is $20. 2 billion from Bill Gates is $2 billion. Which will do the most good? If I was looking for scholarship, I know what I would consider. If I had malaria, I know which one I would appriciate more.
      Besides, Gates has publically stated that he plans to give it all (except some small sum per offspring) to charity.
      Man, what the schools are turning out today.
      Donut

    2. Re:Separate the man from his company. by Donut · · Score: 1

      The one with the better product. Duh.

      Donut

    3. Re:Separate the man from his company. by bjrubble · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing the point. The question is, if you have to give your $50 to person A, who has $140 billion and donates $1 billion, or to person B, who has $10 million and donates $1 million, to whom would you rather give your money?

  181. Re:Whoever heard of a major company... by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

    How about the companies that recently gave away computers to their employees? I seem to remember at least two different companies doing this (one being Ford if I remember correctly...)

    -- Dr. Eldarion --

  182. Re:charity by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

    Does it really matter what percentage it is? He's still giving money to good causes, and it's a LOT of money. This is a good thing no matter how much of his wealth it represents.

    -- Dr. Eldarion --

  183. Re:charity by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

    Yes, maybe the education donations are a bit conditional, but what about the other ones? He's given $100 million to immunize kids in other countries, he's given over 2.2 billion to the William H. Gates foundation, a foundation which "provides grants in the areas of world health and population, education, and services"...

    look here if you want, http://www.seattleinsider.com/technology/news/1999 /02/05/gates_donation.html

    I'm just saying that he *HAS* done some good things among the long list of nasty ones.

    -- Dr. Eldarion --

  184. Re:charity by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

    Who really cares if the charity is for good press? It's still money going to a good cause, right? Isn't that the only thing that counts?

    -- Dr. Eldarion --

  185. Re:charity by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

    From what I've read, he's given away at least $5 billion... that's hardly anything to laugh at, even if it is only 1/26th of his wealth.

    -- Dr. Eldarion --

  186. Re:charity by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

    aww, but I don't WANT to take it out..

    Seriously, though. I know it may seem as though I'm fiercely defending the guy... that's not really the case. I'm not that fond of him and his corporation, but he *DID* do a good thing, and we should give him credit for it.

    -- Dr. Eldarion --

  187. Re:One socially conscientious company... by BlckKnght · · Score: 1

    I don't think that giving to local charity tells you much about the corperation's social responsability. Sure the employees at the corporate headquarters may help their local communities, but how does the company treat the employees at their plant's in less noticable locations.

    I don't think this applies to HP at all, but I'm sure that other companies who have foreign manufacturing plants do far less giving to the communities in other countries then they do here. They can get away with this because so few of their stock holders have any interest in those plants, other than the fact that they reduce production costs and drive up their stock prices. They are more than happy to let the corperation take advantage of foreign workers, as long as US workers can live in communities that are well provided for.

    When you judge a company on social responsability, do not look only at how it treats it's American workers and the communities that suround them. Check if their generosity is also matched with contributions to help foreign and international communities.

    Steve

  188. Re:It's not their *job*! by rwalkup · · Score: 1

    Ok, by US law a corporation (not a partnership or solely owned business) of whatever size is a legal entity unto itself. That is, it has the most of the same legal rights and responsibilities as any other citizen. Now if a citizen should behave in a responsible manner (not keeping the neighbors up, picking up trash in the yard), why shouldn't a corporation?

  189. Re:Permatemps by -ryan · · Score: 1
    I'd say $20/hr is starving. Where in the US can you live happily on $20/hr except for Houston TX, Oklahoma, etc.. (places with REALLY low cost of living)?

    $20 x 40hrs(minimum) = $800/wk * 52 = $41,600 - ~30%(~12,480 in taxes)

    That doesn't leave much to live on.

    -ryan

    "Any way you look at it, all the information that a person accumulates in a lifetime is just a drop in the bucket."

  190. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by -ryan · · Score: 1
    Microsoft has used prison labor to package software.

    Wonderful! They're contributing to the rehabilitation of those poor fellows by teaching them job skills.

    Its contracters often work without benefits of any kind and have 0 job security.

    What contractor has either? I've never expected benifits from my clients. Nor have I ever expected anything beyond the contract that was signed. Being expendable is part of life as a contractor, if you want stability become an employee and forgo the extra cash. It's that simple.

    It recently opened up its India research division (cool, cheap labor).

    What's wrong with that? Those "cheap" programmers in India make MUCH more than their parents could have ever hoped to make. IT professionals in India are rapidly creating a new "middle class". Besides, it's not like India is as expensive to live in as Seattle.

    It does try to make its work environment as pleasurable as possible, but I would imagine this is more to keep workers there longer than out of any innate 'goodness' it may have.

    In case you haven't noticed, long hours are a characteristic of our jobs (Soft. Eng., Sys. Admins, etc..). I've been at several software companies that were alot worse to work late at than Microsoft (and few better). If you have an aversion to long hours, you might want to reconsider your profession.

    -ryan

    "Any way you look at it, all the information that a person accumulates in a lifetime is just a drop in the bucket."

  191. Environmental Catch-22 by Majorachre · · Score: 1

    Perhaps you raise an interesting Catch-22... On one hand you get: faster, more powerful, less care taken towards the environment On the other hand: slower, socially responsible Now consider how much research and additional number crunching and predictive science can be done by that additional power. Perhaps in the end that research and development would pay off and actually solve more important social ills, or the environmental problems themselves.

  192. Re:Who ever is sells the best product... by jejones · · Score: 1
    Sigh. If something shouldn't be done, then it shouldn't be done by a corporation, but the main obligation a company has is to provide the best product it can for the money. Other people have no moral claim on a company's profits, any more than they do on an individual's income. (That's other random people, of course; one's spouse, children, friends, or parents are a different matter.)

    Do you consider Microsoft "moral" because of Gates's donations to charity (much of which consists of software, costing Microsoft nearly nothing, tax deductible at full inflated retail price, and serving to indoctrinate more future customers)?

  193. Re:Socially responsible? by Bravado · · Score: 1

    I would have to agree. I work at a large chain store that sells computers and home theater equipment. No one ever asks if company A is any more socially responsible the company B. Actually most consumers go on price alone. Find the cheapest Keyboard.... who cares if it was manufactured by Slave labor or by a company that has given nothing to charity. I reall think most consumers dont care. And thats reality..

    --
    "Always remember that reality is merely the fuel for traversing the infinite plains of the imagination."
  194. Re:thanks for making me feel bad!!! by Wateshay · · Score: 1

    So, do you actually have evidence to back up this claim. Charging a company with using slave labor (as opposed to simply paying rediculously low wages) is a pretty serious charge. Slave labor is illegal in almost every country in the world, and against all kinds of international law. Even China won't admit to actually using slave labor, and iirc it is technically illegal even there. I seriously doubt that Lucent Technologies actually had their shareholders vote on whether or not to continue using slave labor (and if they did, I'd be really surprised if it went through). If you do have evidence, please provide a link. I'm sure there are lots of people here on slashdot who'd really like to see that. If you don't have evidence, please stop slandering innocent corporations simply to make a point.

    --

    "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."

  195. Re:Depends by antonsthlm · · Score: 1
    Big companies usually talk a nice line about their social responsibility, but ultimately they are beholden to the stockholders and the bottom-line is paramount. Small companies, especially ones that are privately held, are more tied to an individual's conscience. They're more human.

    This difference, which in no doubt exists, is - in my opinion - a result of ordinary people's beliefs. Much of the value in todays stock markets are pension funds [or whatever the term is in american, I'm a europerv and speak oogle-boogle usually] .. and most people just want the best growth they can get and dont really think all the line out what the results become: higher income demands on the company, pressure on the workers and sometimes a more reckless environmental handling.
    Surely there are some devils in the company world.. but put a little egoistic devil in every stockholder and you get a helluva effect.
    its the same thing with this [already worn-out] environmental issue.. most people dont just give a damn when it comes to their own backyard, if there is some need to take extensive action or lesser return for the self.

    In my point of view, companies are an interaface and no worse nor any better than their owners.. which I hope you realise, is you!

  196. Re:Who ever is sells the best product... by medicthree · · Score: 1
    Okay, take a few deep breaths and calm down. If you would take the time to read what I said and try to understand it (I'm not sure if that's a concept that's familiar to you) you would quite clearly see that I was in no way advocating the importance of social responsibility nor was I in any way making any claims to the importance of it. All I was doing was criticizing a particular definition of it.

    Think about it this way. Let's say there's an activity X. Let's say I really think activity X is a horrible activity, and it's one I would never advocate. This doesn't mean that I'm in any way being inconsistent when I argue with someone about their definition of what it means to be "doing activity X." That's exactly the case here. I was arguing the definition of something rather than its applicability in a particular case or what I think of it in general. For all you know I could think social responsibility is complete BS. Try to read and understand before flaming next time.

  197. Re:Bill Gates by tranman · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately for Bill, >90% of his net worth is tied to stock. As anyone who has stock or watches the stock market knows, stock worth is directly impacted by hype and buzz. And bad news. And basic economic principles like supply and demand. Stock is a funny thing. If you have a whole monster lot of it and you're a really important person, say Chairman of the Board (or Evil Genius in charge), and you sell it all, you 1) decrease it's worth because if Bill's selling a lot he knows something Wall Street doesn't. Bill cashing out with make the stock 1/4 of it's current value. Hell people who own M$FT stock would be jumping out of Windows. And to the ground, not BSD. ;-) 2) decrease it's worth via simple supply and demand -- only so many people want to buy so much M$ stock at a time and 3) if you sell it after holding it a year and a half the government gets 20% of the growth in value since you first got it. Since Bill's a founder of the company, when he got the stock it was worth $00.000000001 or something ridiculously small -- the government would take a very large amount of his money. So his potential power and wealth is HUGE. His actual wealth is much more limited. But he's still a very cautious and very conservative donor.

  198. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by GreenGhost · · Score: 1
    Do you have any idea how many Microsoft secretaries are millionaires?

    Please, the largest company on earth nowadays treats its workers well.

    Not that I'm defending Microsoft in the anti-trust case or anything.

    --
    The Original Celebrated Curiously Strong GHOST (mentha lemures)
  199. Ethical? By what standard? by Capitalist1 · · Score: 1

    I'm quite interested in the answer to this question, actually. By what standard are we to judge whether or not a company is "ethical" or not? We can't just say "ethical" without explanation and hope, hope, hope everyone knows what we mean. Think about it.. PETA (People for the Ethical? Treatment of Animals). They're all about "animal rights", But the only *ethical* way to treat animals is as resources for our own use - by the morality I follow. Obviously, they disagree. Likewise, by the morality I hold as true, the *moral* purpose of a business is to make as high a profit as possible by whatever honest means available. That means not using the government to beat down competitors you can't match (Anti-Trust laws are immoral), disclosing all relevant information about your product (no fraud), and getting the highest value from your workforce by paying what the market will bear. Yes, this is selfish. No, it's not self-sacrificial, or altruistic, or "community spirited", or any of those other catchphrases. This is *morality*, which should be a guide to one's actual day-to-day life in the real world. Clearly, my moral views differ from those of most people. If you're going to talk about morality, you absolutely have to define what standard you're using to judge. Capitalist1

    --
    One man's religion is another man's belly-laugh. - LL
    1. Re:Ethical? By what standard? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Good morals are dictated by society, not the individuals, or corporations. So the standard to judge what is ethical is by is society as a whole.
      Likewise, by the morality I hold as true, the *moral* purpose of a business is to make as high a profit as possible by whatever honest means available
      Thats a business model, not a moral purpose. The means a business uses to make as much money as possible determins whether or not it is ethical.Just because something isn't illegal does not mean it is ethical or moral.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  200. Ben & Jerrys AND Slim-Fast by bmasel · · Score: 1

    A Plastic coupon for a weeks' worth of Slimfast will line the bottom of each carton of B & Js. Unilever will secure a patent on their "onelick marketing device."

    --
    Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
  201. I don't believe there is such a thing.... by MrDalliard · · Score: 1
    The whole concept of ethics is subjective. For example, IBM sell massive machines to the American military research sector - namely for computer simulations of nuclear weapon detonation. You have to ask the question - is it worse for a company to be selling products that promote the development of nuclear weaponary, or is it better that real nuclear testing is not happening ? Perhaps I would vote for the latter. At the same time, I don't like either of them. It's the lesser of the two evils. I don't believe there is a need for nuclear weapons.

    There are also matters to be considered, such as whether the materials used are recyclable, how 'componentised' the computer in question is (i.e how much you can upgrade it before you dump it and get something newer) and how energy efficient it is, along with the ethical policies of the manufacturer (i.e labour practices, pollution, etc....).

    See here for more information. The reality is that there is no such thing as an ethical and environmental computer. All we can do is make informed choices that allow us to minimise the damage we do. That goes for virtually any product that has come about through the use of new technology.

    M.

  202. Re:thanks for making me feel bad!!! by rwade · · Score: 1

    Why of course! May 99 10-Q skip to part II-other information. Down where it says "Submission of matters to a vote of Security Holders." it says "Adopt Anti-Slave Labor Policy." It was voted down 88m to 700m. If this doesn't show that Lucent "employs" slave labor, I don't know what does. :(

  203. Re:One socially conscientious company... by rwade · · Score: 1

    I _love_ my Caramel Frapachino and I love the atmosphere of Barnes and Noble (*coughchickscough*) but I just _hate_ this yuppydom of American suburia.

  204. Re:One socially conscientious company... by rwade · · Score: 1

    I smell a pr person... :) But I am very glad to hear that Bill and Dave's idea's and goodheartedness still live on within one of the best companies in the world. (I hate TI :))

  205. Re:One socially conscientious company... by rwade · · Score: 1

    sorry to tell you that they are...damn monopolists... :) and they're calculators suck to. Of course, I'm just saying this because nearly everyone I know wants one, and I'm the kinda person that hates Starbucks and Barnes and Noble. ;)

  206. re-reading Atlas Shrugged ! by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Why? I have got to know. eewwwww.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  207. Re:Who ever is sells the best product... by geekoid · · Score: 1

    First of all, Nice post on Rand. I couldn't agree with you more.
    What do corporations have to do with seperation of Church and State?
    Any programs that don't further the company in some way are certainly questionable when considering efficiency
    this smells suspiciously troll like, however, because your post is seems well thought-out I will give it the benefit of the doubt.
    Yes, giving money to some one that in know way can benefit you is in-efficient, but Morality is not about efficiency, it's about doing "the right thing". Yes that can be subjective in some examples, but there are things you can do that most, if not all, people would agree is "The right thing" to do.
    Laissez-faire capitalism shouldn't be a means to institute and promote tyranny or totalitarianism, especially in foreign economies
    when a company goes to a country that has lax labor laws, or is a dictatorship, it supports them.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  208. Re:thanks for making me feel bad!!! by geekoid · · Score: 1

    SLave labor doesn't have to mean unpaid labor
    Many slave throughout great britain, europe, and America where paid. Just not enough to allow them to "move up" in society.
    Paying someone 2 dollars a week and then charging them 1.50 for room and board is still slavery.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  209. Re:Who ever is sells the best product... by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Thanks for clearing that up.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  210. Re:thanks for making me feel bad!!! by geekoid · · Score: 1

    First of all, don't even begin to tell me about my perspective. I am well aware of the benefits of living in The United States of America.
    Yes they have food and roof. thats all. If you think thats all anyone needs I suggest you try living in a 12x12 room with 2 other people 1 bed, rags for cloths and working 18 hours a day. and then imagine your kids will have to do that, and there kids, and there kids.....
    Imagine making 2.00 a day, and being charged 1.500 room and board, in TODAYS market in America. But without any of the benefits.
    the right to "move up" in society is implied, strongly, in several parts of the constitution. The supreme court has made rulings in the past based on implied constitutional guarantees.
    YOU need to get a real prespective, I have seen people in africa that work as a bank teller 18 hours a day, then have to go live in a mug hut, and I mean mud hut. the only cloths they own is there bank uniform! These people weill be trapped there FOREVER.They can't start there own business's.They can't leave to another company.
    I understand that economies are different in differant countries. I understand that $100.00(US) is a lot of money in some countries.But that doesn't mean they can't make a "fairwage" relative to there countries economics.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  211. relative risk by tylerh · · Score: 1
    This stuff is hard to keep in perspective. Yes, high-tech manufacturing involves some truly nasty stuff, and it isn't always properly handled. But for the most part, it isn't in large volumes.

    In the early 90's concern of this nature prompted a survery of the San Jose CA area for toxic waste hotspots. And indeed, numerous localized toxic spots were found. Turns out, the old orchard farmers weren't so careful about diesel storage and their groundwater wells, so there was (and I believe still is) broad (but localzied) groundwater contamination in the area from old diesel storage container leaks. High-tech manufacturing was, outside of a few well-identifies "hot spots," a small issue.

    Beating up on small farmers isn't fashionable, so most people remember the high-tech incidents and forget that Uncle Earl's farm including having the chicken coop, water well, the diesel tank behind the house.

    --
    "one treats others with courtesy not because they are gentlemen or gentlewomen, but because you are" --G. Henrichs
  212. Re:Who ever is sells the best product... by FreshView · · Score: 1

    I agree, however my viewpoint may be a touch skewed since I'm re-reading Atlas Shrugged right now.

    --
    -------- "All I want in life's a little bit of love to take the pain away" --Spiritualized
  213. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by FreshView · · Score: 1
    Contrary to popular belief, Microsoft is probably actualy nice to many of its employees. It is under such scrutiny that it can't afford not to. However, some of the less popular hardware companies (AOPen, and the other really small and unheard of ones that you can't find at Best Buy) probably aren't as benevolent.

    As software programmers go, they have to be nice or they'll all leave, due to the fact that the demand for software programmers is higher than the supply.

    Man, you people can not stop slamming Microsoft, can you? You've said in the second paragraph why microsoft treats it's employees so well, something you snidely hinted at in the first paragraph as "they have to" Ah well (-1, Flamebait)

    --
    -------- "All I want in life's a little bit of love to take the pain away" --Spiritualized
  214. Re:Bill Gates by anfloga · · Score: 1

    It's worse than that. Giving only 1.329% of his total wealth away means less to him than someone poorer than him giving 1.329% of their wealth away. If I had only $2000 in assets to my name, then giving $26.58 away might actually affect my lifestyle for a short while. That's food money! Or at least, books and software. I assure you that Gates' donations have not in any way affected his lifestyle. His life is identical (possibly better because of good publicity) than it would have been had he not donated anything. A poor person giving less, however, might actually have to sacrifice something. Erik Hill

  215. Re:support your local mom&pop shop by coolgeek · · Score: 1

    Spare us the generalizations. Some ma & pa shops are fly-by-night, others are not. I have consistently bought systems from the same ma & pa shop in town for over 9 years. They charge about $5-$10 more per component than the "rock bottom" price. Typically, I can drive by their store, and tell them I've got a failure in a new system, I think it is 1 or 3 parts. They hand me 1 of each of those 3 parts and tell me to being the pieces back to them when I "get around to it". All this with no paperwork.

    --

    cat /dev/null >sig
  216. Companies... its about profit NOT ethics by -BeeWarlock- · · Score: 1

    The only ideal companies there is, is the really small ones, which are operating on screwing investors with optimistic ideas. This is the sick thing about humanity and money, money is no longer about the values created by the work the money represent, but only by the amount of money. Money is simply no good, if it's used for shit.

    Well, the free software community is not like that, and that's why I love it with all my heart. I've met a lot of people saying "you wouldn't do it if it were zero money in it", but they don't know about the pleasure of creating values, with nothing else in return but values created by other people. It's like... values represent values, like it should, and not like the corporate way, where values are exchanged for screwing customer most possible without being taken on the bed.

    There will never be any big company spending a big amount of money on charity, without thinking they will get something back (pr, higher stocks, etc...), which again is to raise income.

    The problem is that corporates as we know them today is about making money, not creating stuff...

    But... it may still be the right, or at least best way to do it. A lot of free software advocates (like Richard Stallman; extreme example) does not. I'll leave the question open

    --
    Karsten N. Strand - "...but what a console!"
  217. hmm..what about CA? by nomadic · · Score: 1

    Anyone ever work for Computer Associates? I've heard employee satisfaction isn't particularly high there, or at least it's a really bizarre corporate culture...

  218. Re:Bill Gates by TheTick21 · · Score: 1

    September, 1999 - $1 billion for the Gates Millenium Scholarships to pay for 1,000 college students' tuition, room, and board

    Hmmmmm...$1 billion? for 1,000 students? wow wish someone would give me $1 million for college.


    Apartment6

  219. Corporate Ethics by Cadent · · Score: 1

    In response to the original question, the ethical actions and violations of many companies can be difficult to ascertain through speculation. However, as with most organizations a small amount of research can prove to be a great asset if you are willing to ask the right questions.

    Direct inquires to the company should prove to be most effective. I believe there are different federal regulations requiring companies to make certain information available to you the consumer. Inquires as to what countries the companies have factories located in and as to the wages paid to the common employees should prove effective. These wages differ from country to country but can often be significantly lower than the standard of living. I would also look into their environmental policies. Groups like the Greens and other environmentally active communities tend to have lists of strong cooperate offenders and human rights organizations should prove to have similar lists associated with that form of injustice.

    I think you may find that many of the stronger offenders will prove to be the hardware companies because of issues already pointed out as to the availability of programmers for software conglomerates. Also many companies in the U.S. make use of a practice known as down sizing in which they open a a factory in the U.S. and when the company becomes successful enough (through its profit, from the factor) to support a move, the company then movies it to a country where they can pay a lower wage and thus maximize profit. Through this helps cooperate profits it damages the American Economy and the American people.

    I don't know how useful this statement has been to the slashdot community but my hopes are that it has been of some service. It is my personal opinion that any corporation that practices major human rights or environmental injustices is doomed to fail and thus not worthy of investment in even the lowest level of consumerism. I also find it sad that such corporations would have such harmful practices against their fellow humans for such shallow reasons.

  220. Re:"Fair" Wages? by AjR · · Score: 1

    I'll bite because I am a socialist.

    A fair wage is ensuring you can eat. Your family can eat. You can pay your debts. You can afford a place to live. You can save a little for your old age. You do not have to live in fear of losing your property, or your life.

    Its called having a basic regard for your fellow man. Don't forget a lot of your basic principles in the US are based on a form of socialism. Equality for one.

    Only in the minds of cowards is socialism a dirty word. Come back when you have learnt something. I'm not holding my breath you'll be back shortly.

    --
    ...Upgrade now to Schrodingers Dog...
  221. A different kind of a social responsibility... by Pahan · · Score: 1
    While I agree that working conditions and pay are important factors, I think there is another form of social responsibility that nobody (that I read) mentioned.

    We all know that many hardware manufacturers use proprietary protocols so that they can "dumb down" the hardware and compensate in software. The list ranges from the WinModems to video cards, to printers. And there are people willing to write the Open Source drivers for them, given the chance. However, the manufacturer also refuses to disclose the specifications of the device, forcing them to reverse-engineer, thus making the task more difficult. (And imagine if UCITA were applied there...) Remember the Haloween Papers: Microsoft, the company we love to hate, believes that the best way to crush the Open Source movement is through proprietary protocols and API's. It is quite clear that hardware interfaces are also among the factors. Indeed, by making their interfaces secret, the manufacturers are indirectly aiding Microsoft's monopoly, as the drivers are usually only releasted for Windows (and MacOS, if you are lucky).

    So, when buying hardware, also look at whether it users open interfaces and/or the manufacturer discloses the complete specifications needed to make and optimize a driver. And unless you absolutely have to, don't settle for NVidia-style obfusticated and unoptimized Linux-only drivers. My hope is that one day, next to the "Built for Microsoft Windows" sticker on a component, there will be a "Uses open interfaces" sticker.

    As a personal experience, I found that printers that Linux completely supports are either very old (in computer hardware time) or very expensive (for a college student like me, anyway). And I remember when 8 years ago, we bought a used Citizen 120D dot matrix printer, and the manual had a complete list of commands that printer could understand, from font selection to graphics. It even had examples. I am not saying "I miss the good old days", as they weren't that good, but I think you understand...

  222. Re:No more american workers for me! by lcrawford · · Score: 1

    I thought that moderation was a pretty good idea at first, so that people of the herd mentality wouldn't be bothered by the oddballs. I quitely set my threshold to -1 and happily kept reading. The problem was the trolls who sprung up. Now I have to filter a bunch of crap at -1

  223. Re:It's not their *job*! by koozbane · · Score: 1

    Consumers are idiots!
    Companies do not have the *job* of being socially responsible?
    Actually they do. Ford cannot make a car out of cardboard without seatbelts because that would be illegal. Why is it illegal? Because it's dangerous to the consumer! I think we'd like to think that we live in a cavet empor world but that's not the case. The government protects consumers from companies that solicite dangerous items and services. They even regulate many of the processes and labor used to make these goods. But, the government doesn't go all the way to removing all the social responsiblity from the companies. There is still a lot of nasty behavior going on out there. That's where consumers need to put their money where their mouths are. That goes for investors too. Or, do you believe that citizens are also only responsible for collecting a paycheck and paying taxes?

    --
    "I'm a slave of Karma, Spin the Wheel and I'm a king reborn."
  224. Dell & Charities by ZikZak · · Score: 1

    Does Dell donate any of its profits to charity?

    Yes, somewhat. Dell does provide financial & other support to some organizations. Of course they put their name all over it, so it's more PR than charity.

    Many of the executives of the company (including Michael himself) do donate quite a bit of their own $ to local arts groups, too. Again, though, how much of this is done to generate good press and help the ol' tax return is open to debate.

    But however you look at it, there are quite a few organizations that would either be struggling or simply not exist if it weren't for Dell's profits.

  225. Re:It's not their *job*! by ZikZak · · Score: 1

    The original "It's not their*job*" reply is the sort of thing that makes me uneasy. I was showing (or at leats trying to show) how that line of thinking is a slippery slope. I hate it when people try to blow off moral/ethical responsibilities with, "hey, not my job!" crap.

  226. Re:It's not their *job*! by ZikZak · · Score: 1

    It's not an engineer's *job* to be social responsible. It's an engineer's *job* to discover how to make better and more leathal weapons.

    It's not a soldier's *job* to be social responsible. It's a soldier's *job* to kill whoever s/he is told to kill.

    It's not a teacher's *job* to be social responsible. It's a teacher's *job* to teach the curiculum without questioning it's value.

    I could continue, but I think you get the point.

  227. Re:Don't you read EULAs? None of 'em are responsib by vergil · · Score: 1

    Actually, the Coward has a good point.
    Even though EULA's aren't exactly relevant to a firm's social responsibility, such "contracts of adhesion" are quite pertinent to a software publisher's reponsibility to its consumers.

    With UCITA looming on the horizon (I believe the Maryland General Assembly has just passed UCITA, all that's needed is the Governor's signature), even fundamental responsibilities such as ensuring a program isn't riddled with virii, works as it is supposed to (normally covered by the all-important implied warranty of merchatability) and matches a demonstration (covered by express warranties) can be tossed to the wind.

    UCITA ensures that the software publisher can disclaim virtually all responsibility for its product by making the consumer liable for just about everything.

    So in this sense, the Anon. Coward is right on. Soon "None of 'em" will be "responsible" according to UCITA.

    Vergil

    --
    Insects and Grafitti Photos
  228. Re:High Tech = high toxic by wholesomegrits · · Score: 1

    I don't think superfund qualifies as voluntary.

    --
    No sig is worth reading.
  229. Re:support your local mom&pop shop by jxdxbx · · Score: 1

    > I have no problem with Third World labor, as > long as the workers are given decent wages and > safe conditions. I would agree with /humane/ conditions, but wages should be determined by the market.

    If it weren't for the lower wages, no one would build factories in underdeveloped countries. The real choice for them isn't low wages or high wages, it's low wages or no wages.

    Let the workers decide what they're willing to do. Rich, bored Americans need to learn to mind their own business, and be thankful that someone overseas isn't trying to put them out of a job.

  230. Re:It's not their *job*! by jxdxbx · · Score: 1

    "For instance exploiting child labor in a third world country and paying them dirt"
    I suppose these children who are so poor that they have to take jobs to support their families, would be much better off if they all got fired?

    America survived on child labor for years. We needed to. It was only outlawed when it was no longer economically necessary. Sadly, for these nations, it still is.

    In third world countries, the trend is for the parents to have as many kids as they can, so there are more to work the fields and factories. I suppose the humane thing would be to cut them off until they change their ways, thus shoving them deeper into poverty?

    Or how about we just let them develop naturally as we did, until there's no such thing as a "third world"?

  231. Everyone seems to be missing the point... by natet · · Score: 1
    Ethical treatment of employees is only a small part of the big picture in Business Ethics.

    I personally believe that a company has an ethical obligation to give something back to the global community, whether or not it is advantageous financially to them. So many times companies simply look at the bottom line and say "how can this help us," or "how do we benefit," instead of "how can we make the world a better place." It doesn't have to be something monumental, like solving world hunger, but it does have to be something!

    However, there are inherent difficulties in defining ethical behavior. Who dictates what is ethical? Which ethical theory do we use? And, since the lifeblood of a company is it's revenue, how do we keep the need for cash from overriding the ethical compass of the company?

    As far as the ethical behavior of software and hardware companies, I think many of them stopped thinking ethically a long time ago. This is not to say that they are unethical, but that the revenue issues have blinded them to their ethical responsibilites. They aren't looking for opportunites to give back to the global community, rather they are looking for ways to line their pockets with a little more green.

    --
    IANAL... But I play one on /.
  232. Moderators need to be reprogrammed by MaxGrant · · Score: 1

    Apparently they cannot view anything as sarcastic or funny without little neticons or tags. See the above post and try to read it a little more carefully before you slam that -1 on it.

  233. Re:They're cheaper! by jayhawk88 · · Score: 1

    Cheaper prices at a mom-pop may be true in your area, but I would be suprised if this was the case in most places.

    I used to work as a technician for CompUSA, and the retail guys were constantly telling us how they sold systems just above or at cost. Hell, walk into CompUSA on a Sunday (traditionally a big sale day, and used by managers to measure success of weekly sale ads), and you can probably talk them into selling it below cost. Obviously, they make most of their money on peripherals and software, but you have to sell a lot of that to make up the difference.

  234. Geeks for Good by bagus · · Score: 1

    There are alot of nonprofit organizations needing technical assistance. If anyone ever feels the need (and you should) to help others, there are many groups that can help direct your skills to help nonprofit groups tackle their use of technology to help their work. A great group you should check out is http://www.netcorps.org. They are recruiting students to help with nonprofit technical assistance. These students not only learn more about technology, but they learn how to work with people, develop projects and other real world skills.

  235. Re:charity by Pinball+Wizard · · Score: 1
    Its not even worth Bill's time to pick up a $20 bill lying on the floor.

    However... he has given $17.1 billion to charity so far through the Gates foundation. He's also hell-bent on being the worlds greatest philanthropist, ever. Seems to be doing a pretty good job so far.

    Here are a few links for further reading.

    Bill Gates' foundation named nation's wealthiest
    The Gates of Philanthropy Open Wide

    --

    No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?

  236. Re:Herro eberybody by Darguz · · Score: 1

    No problem. No problem at all -- let me know if there is anything else I can clear up for you.


    --

    --


    --
    What? WHAT?!! Oh.
  237. Re:Herro eberybody by Darguz · · Score: 1

    It got marked flame bait because it is. The r/l substitution is a problem of pronunciation, not spelling, and although I have known Japanese to do it in writing and typing (I did training ops with the JDF when I was in the Navy), they don't do it consistently, and definitely not on silent l's like in "talk".


    --

    --


    --
    What? WHAT?!! Oh.
  238. Re:charity by Darguz · · Score: 1

    Well, yes and no. Obviously, the beneficiaries of it are benefited either way. And I see no reason a company making charitable contributions shouldn't get good press for it. They deserve to be recognized, and people who are interested in supporting such companies, such as the originator of this topic, can know what companies to support.

    So in a sense, yes, that's enough. But when the good PR is the only motivation, and the good will isn't sincere, then you have to consider that if the social pressure shifts away, or in areas where there isn't currently any social pressure, they aren't so benevolent.


    --

    --


    --
    What? WHAT?!! Oh.
  239. It's a matter of Opinion by quelar · · Score: 1

    Double edged sword here. We can all not care about social/environmental aspects like most of the other "established" industries, or...we can give them hell and create a new business standard. One of the reasons why I love computers/tech/internet so much is the fact that so many people aren't stuck in the same archaic paradigms that run the old systems (like cars, petroleum, banking, etc.). The biggest problem here is that I love my tech so much it takes a big issue to get me to pick the 233mhz over the 700mhz. Let's all just sit on the fence and let the government deal with the problems.

    --
    "You end up talking to yourself a lot, which gets terribly boring because half the time you know what you're going to sa
  240. How Socially Responsible Are Computer Companies? by Lucky+Jim · · Score: 1

    Ayn, is that you? It IS you!

    --
    "We're taking this bloody car to Invercargill boy!" - Goodbye Pork Pie
  241. 1 1/2 overtime pay is kinda missing the point by theseum · · Score: 1

    I think that whoever asked this question was concerned more with sweatshop style working conditions and pay than whether your overtime pay is unfair. Compared to the companies assembling PCB's in Latin America and Southeast Asia, Microsoft's US operations are like living in Eden. ACtually, that is not entirely true. I have visited PCB assembly plants in Mexico that have fine working conditions. Of course, the pay is horrible and they use child labor, but it is better in Mexico at least to work for a computer company than some industrial company.

  242. Taiwan semiconductor factories by wsabstract · · Score: 1

    Do semiconductor factories in Taiwan treat their workers better than any other factories in Taiwan?

    Why would they be, or not be, for that matter? You're confusing Taiwan with China. Taiwan is a fully democratic country in which workers of all profession- not just those in the semiconductor sector- are treated professionally and humanely, with corresponding laws to back them up. In this respect, the country is no different than the US or Europe.

    ---------------
    --

    ---------------
    JavaScript tutorials scripts
  243. Re:Here' some info from Taiwan by wsabstract · · Score: 1

    I've lived in Taiwan for 4 years, and you're right about the standard of living over there being pretty similar to that of the US. Overcrowding seems to be a problem though.

    ---------------

    --

    ---------------
    JavaScript tutorials scripts
  244. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by wsabstract · · Score: 1

    EXCELLENT post...and I seldom say that anymore. There is indeed no such thing as "here" and "there" anymore.

    ---------------

    --

    ---------------
    JavaScript tutorials scripts
  245. Singularities & Ownership (was: What about env't?) by Rademir · · Score: 1

    The amount of water wasted per chip is also mindboggling, several digits of gallons last time I heard to be vague. However, the waste and environmental ickiness has gone *way* down for every generation of computers made. E.g., many highly toxic or environmentally damaging chemicals that were used during the manufacture process, have been greatly reduced or replaced by safer ones. If the pace of development was *not* so fast, each new computers today would each represent far more environmental damage than they do.

    Sometimes I think of us as racing toward some critical mass (like Vernor Vinge's singularities, though more and more I see it as a combination of social and technological dynamics). And I wonder whether we'll "make it" before we destroy ourselves. IMHO, making the paradoxical term "socially-responsible business" come true may be a linchpin of our survival, so radical ownership solutions are worth exploring (see Bookpeople).

    Life,
    John

    --
    ourpla.net is your planet
  246. Re:Who ever is sells the best product... by logicnazi · · Score: 1

    And you didn't even mention her wonderful role in blackballing writers and actors in hollywood for communist leanings

    --

    If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:

  247. Ohh im sure the poor countries will thank us by logicnazi · · Score: 1

    So why do these people in 3rd world countries work for american companies in sweatshop conditions? Because it is better than what they would be doing otherwise! No one showed up to force them to work they merely thought they were better off for it.

    While I agree that child labour should be discouraged (the child is often pressed into labour by his family who may be unaware of severe health risks to him because of it) often without these factories the child would be working grueling hours on a farm or other job.

    We come in with our high morals buying from firms which don't use cheap foreign labour (if your are going to pay a reasonable wage you are going to use more skilled productive labour) and take away from these poor people the right to choose whether to work or not. Our moral rectitude takes away their ability to support themselves? right?

    --

    If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:

  248. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by a_cussword · · Score: 1

    1.) My guess is zero.

    2.) My friends in the census bureau say it sux ass. (The US GOVT is still the largest i betcha.)

    --
    And I looked, and behold, the pokemon all spontaneously combusted.
  249. Re:"Fair" Wages? by D+Fens · · Score: 1

    Henry Ford, who was not the nicest of guys (remember River Rouge, 1937) thought his employees should be able to afford their products they manufactured.

    How is that for fair?

    --
    "I am an American. You are a sick asshole!!"
  250. Re: Bills Gates Micro$oft in$piration by Promorpheus · · Score: 1

    Put aside your antiquated notion that Gates donates to Charity: out of the goodness of his heart or by ethical consideration of unequal wealth distribution! Once again his world is viewed from behind impossibly thick maroon glasses.
    Taken one by one his choices aspire to aid only the elite, or to increase market penertation.
    Ultimately getting a huge Tax Bill reduction is the goal of his largess, not to help others.
    Ethics and morality have been replaced by pragmatism in business. And big business has allowed Big Brother out of Pandora's Box.
    Check again Prometheus's legacy, now not even hope remains: strangling in its bosom the next generation.

  251. Re:buzzword bingo by l79327 · · Score: 1

    Every now and then I listen to Pacifica Radio to keep up with the leftist political agenda. Last weeks lawer hour was dedicated to "social responsibility" and a review of how Marx was just misinterpreted. I think your comment is right on.

  252. Obsolete in three months?.... by Dynastar454 · · Score: 1

    Well, you must be doing something that requires a lot of power, but no matter, that's what Ebay is for. Make some money of the old machine AND keep it out of the land fill. Or if you are even MORE generous, give it to a local school, they'll love you for it.

    --


    Laugh at stupidity: mod idiots +1 Funny.
  253. ...never really given much thought to reconciling by Defrocked_Prior · · Score: 1

    mlc's original statement addresses the issue of reconciliation. He/she asks us to accept it as truth that the author is involved in social justice projects, and that the author is also a geek. The issue of computer companies' ethical behavior is mentioned, but is secondary, it seems to me, to the essential issue of reconciliation. One has to unfold many layers of oneself far beyond just what criteria to employ when buying a computer to get at the core of what it means to be a geek and to be socially responsible. The Wall Street side of the corporate universe is, and has an obligation to be amoral. Corporations want their stock's value to appreciate, but there's much more to being a corporate persona than what Wall Street sees and knows about you. And all corporations are more or less moral in their treatment of employees, of consumers, of managers, of geographical neighbors, as well as of their stockholders. But, again, the issue is reconciliation, which must start in the heart of the individual (I claim, at the risk of sounding didactic and opinionated.) The reason why this may not be an easy effort is because of this "new economy" stuff, which admits that some people must be displaced from their jobs as computers make the survivors more efficient, and eliminate other tasks altogether. So, looking at the creation of jobs in exotic places where children or others who have never worked before now have jobs misses the point. Just as some jobs that are being made obsolete by computers were once vital and essential to the survival of the company, so OUR jobs can become obsolete, or can be arbitrarily described as obsolete, if the so called "profession" of management is not required to bring to the workplace the same knowledge which the managed employees possess. This discussion points to a more profound question about what is education and who is it that is being educated? I'd like to think that the engineering classroom has not been violated or corrupted by the monopolistic mentality which Microsoft has infused into our culture, but this is not the case. Unfortunately, many engineering professors aspire today to be better businessmen, and to form their careers after the medical doctor model of an applied scientist. The reason being that that's where godlike power is most intensely concentrated. This is very dangerous as it completely dismisses the notion that the classroom should be an environment where learning occurs by open discussion. It is not true that all the code that's ever going to be written has been written, for instance, and that a computer scientist need only figure out new ways to manipulate what's there. What we ought to be doing now is studying computer languages in much the same way that a linguist studies spoken languages. With an eye to origins, history, and development, and an ear for patterns of universality and diversity. In the realm of hardware, we need to form corporate partnerships which eliminate wasteful duplication of efforts, but which also preserve various technical styles of reaching similar goals. I cannot say enough about this in this small space. The pace of technological development must be slowed. For that reason I think the breakup of Microsoft is both necessary and good. Wall Street has its place, but it has no place in driving technological development. The responsibility for that lies in the hands of engineers and so-called "geeks," who are the creative people whose ideas, and whose knowledge is currency in its purest form. Traders (except for the wisest among them) don't give a damn about engineers. When engineers are given so much work to do that they never have time for speculative or playful thought their judgement becomes perverted, and colossal mistakes are made like the one which defrauded Sun Microsystems and Netscape in the name of giving customers the Internet Explorer which they "really wanted" all along. If you call yourself a geek and fail to see that Wall Street would install a dictator in office of the President of the United States if granted that opportunity, then there's no chance that you will ever reconcile being a geek with being socially responsible. Every company has some employees who are gamblers. And some among those gamblers are compulsive gamblers. And the entrepreneurial spirit requires that stockholders must be willing to take certain calculated risks. But the rewarding of employees with stock options doesn't just create some very wealthy employees, it also instills in all of us the notion that real life is portrayed pretty accurately in the casino atmosphere of Las Vegas. Computer logic is a powerful tool, and an area of study which is worthy of a lifetime of inquiry, but there are many other brands of logic besides computer logic, and we need right away to get back to where the humans are putting the logic into the computers, and not the other way around. We need to make damn sure that we are not knowingly designing computers and computer environments which will be used as weapons against innocent hard working people, because the weapons will most assuredly be turned against us by a very angry younger generation if we do not put our priorities back into focus.

  254. Clean Computer Campaign website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2
    http://www.svtc.org/cleancc/99reportca rd.htm

    A report card for major computer manufacturers on environmental responsibility. Apple and IBM scored the highest.

  255. $1M/student is about right by hawk · · Score: 2

    Academic enowments pay out at about 5% a year. Thus $1M pays $50k/year. This is enough to support something more than one student at the expensive schools, but not enough to support two students.
    However, it supports in perpetuity; a $1M donation lets you have one student in school *forever*

    hawk

  256. What makes corporate giving socially responible? by hawk · · Score: 2

    I'm serious about this. The corporation exists as a means of production, turning the profits over to the shareholders either as dividends or higher share price.

    What gives the directors or executives any moral authority to decide which charities should receive the money? Isn't it better for the shareholders to make this decision?

    Quite frankly, unless the corporation is contributing to charities I want to support, my reaction as a stockholder is that my money is being wasted (and yes, I think the same applies to political spending by both corporations and unions).

    Just hand over the proceeds to the shareholders, and let the shareholders use *their* views on the socially responsible place to spend the money.

  257. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by hawk · · Score: 2


    You don't remember correctly.

    If you can increase your price without losing all of your customers, you have market power. With barriers to entry, you can be a monopolist--microsoft certainly has enough market power to meet any normal economic meaning of monopolist.

    A monopolist *will* charge different prices to different groups if it can keep them separate. It will also lower price and increase quantity if it feels heat that may lead to regulation, consumer boycott, or other activities that reduce its profit.

    hawk, professor of economics

  258. HP at least tries to help the environment. by sleeping+wolf · · Score: 2
    As you may or may not be aware, Hewlett-Packard tries to protect the environment from something rather nasty -- toner. They've teamed to up pay for spent toner cartridges to be sent back to them at no cost to you. They have a section on their website where they talk about their environmental policy.

    I finally used up my first toner cartridge last year and they made it trivial for me to send it back to them for recycling.

    They also talk about other facets of their philanthropic image on their website, but I've never had any personal involvement, so YMMV.

  259. [Clue] by quadra · · Score: 2

    Here's your tip, it doesn't matter. Social Responsibility is complete bullshit. I want to buy from a company which spends their time researching and improving their products. If they can make better products, cheaper; the benefit to socitey is far greater than any possible charity could offer. It is completely backward to expect business to act so altruistically. If that were the predominent mentality, we'd still be in the dark ages. Capitalism and the profit motive has resulted in extraordinary advances in technology, especially in medical science. Acting socially responsible has nothing to do with those advances. The fact is that in general, we all live in the general vicinity of our workplace. There's no motive to live in a polluted environment. The most moral and ethical thing a person can do is work hard and get the most from your money.

  260. Re:Social responsibilty by Ricdude · · Score: 2
    Here on /., Micro$oft is disliked for the quality of the code they sell. (think if the stuff worked.)

    If you think the quality of Microsoft's products is the *only* reason not to use them, you're not listening carefully enough. As recently as last week, they managed to buy their way into the George W. Bush campaign. They will push hard for him to win, because he's not going to push anyone in the judicial branch to do anything about Microsoft. Do you want *any* corporation to have that level of control with any politician? Let alone a corporation that has been judged as illegally acquiring and maintaining a monopoly

    --
    How's my programming? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL
  261. They're cheaper! by Uruk · · Score: 2

    I'm in the Richmond, VA area, and we have two mom&pop type stores - Unitek computers and NTK computers. Both of them sell the same hardware components that CompUSA sells, at generally about 5-10% less. They also specialize in hardware, and know something about it. The big chain retailers don't really know anything about computers outside what they're told they should know by microsoft. The people running and staffing the mom and pop tech shops do it because they love it and they're good at it, not because they're trying to push their stock price up.

    Whenever possible, I buy from mom & pop hardware shops - there was one exception where I needed a certain drive NOW and they had to order it, I couldn't wait so I had to buy from comp usa, but in general, in my area you always get a more knowledgeable sales staff and a better price at the local non-corporate shops.

    --
    -- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
  262. OTHO there must be a reason why by gelfling · · Score: 2

    Most PCs are manufactured in Taiwan, SE Asia, Mexico and E. Europe. Labor is cheaper because they pay less and have fewer benefits and generally have less restrictive labor laws. Moreover the plant itself is probably subject to fewer environmental and safety regulations. The countries they are located in do not have strong labor movements or a culture of litigation. The only exceptions to this scenario would be a government mandated direct intervention, for example an attempt to alleviate high unemployment in Ireland and Scotland and the consequent tax breaks that flow from any large company moving in to hire young well educated people. It's really a synthetic case because the company's addtional cost burden of doing business in an industrialized regulated country; eg. Western, is born by the taxpayers as the cost of keeping people employed. Why else is there such a stink in the US over low-middle tech manufacturing sites just on the other side of the Mexican border being given special status under the old NAFTA? It's the best of both worlds from the company's perspective. Cheap local labor, weak regulation and a close proximity to the advanced technology, distribution and financial infrastructures in the US.

  263. ... by Signal+11 · · Score: 2

    No.

  264. Re:Who Really Cares?? by orabidoo · · Score: 2
    I see Kant's "categorical imperative" bandied about much whenever it comes to ethics and morals, but for all I can see it's just another argument of authority. I respect Kant's system, but I'm not going to base my life and thinking on it, by any stretch of the imagination. So the "categorical imperative", despite its own name, is neither categorical nor imperative to me, and shouldn't be to you either, unless you've specifically gone and studied Kantian philosophy and been utterly convinced that that is "truth" to you. For the rest of us, sometimes we'll do as if we followed it, because it actually does make sense in a lot of cases, but it'll be because we coincide at that point, not because of accepting it as a principle.

    The name of Kant tends to command a lot of respect from people; people who would never refer to christian morals as an authority without at least giving a second of thought that not everyone is a Christian, will happily refer to the "categorical imperative" as if it were, well, truly categorical and imperative and universally applicable to everyone whatever their beliefs.

  265. Re:Ayn Rand novels by orabidoo · · Score: 2
    Anyway, when glazing over the works of philosophers such as Russell, Godel, Nietzsche, Descartes, etc - do you see them concocting rigid belief systems?
    well, in the case of Descartes, yes, I do.

    now Russell, that was a real smart, open-minded guy. Gödel wasn't really in the business of belief peddling, was he? Where I come from, he's known more as a logician than as a philosopher...

  266. Re:Bill Gates by RayChuang · · Score: 2

    What's interesting about the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the fact they recently contributed over $100 million to develop an AIDS vaccine. And it was this foundation that helped bail out the United Way of Santa Clara County after it got into massive financial trouble lately. Now, if we geeks can convince Steven Jobs of Apple to shell out US$1 million to upgrade the facilities of KTEH (the PBS affiliate in San Jose, CA).

    Say what you want about Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie, but their enormous philantrophic efforts has resulted in many libraries, improvements in institutions of higher education, money for the arts, and on and on. In fact, the Public Broadcast System in the USA would never have been possible if it weren't for generous grants from the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations in the late 1960's.

    --
    Raymond in Mountain View, CA
  267. Apple Computer? by RayChuang · · Score: 2

    I'm surprised NOBODY here has mentioned Apple Computer.

    After all, Apple was founded by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, both people firmly rooted in the 1960's counterculture movement and were members of the Homebrew Computer Club in the 1970's. Given that type of background, by nature Apple should be a socially conscious company.

    Now, if we can just get Jobs to donate US$1 million to save and improve KTEH (the PBS affiliate in San Jose, CA).

    --
    Raymond in Mountain View, CA
  268. Counting Secretaries by Samrobb · · Score: 2

    At least two, IIRC - read Cringley' s book on the history of Sillicon Valley, I believe he mentions 'em. AFAIK, at the time he wrote it, one of 'em still worked for MS.

    In any case, looking at MS stock price and valuation over the last five years - couldn't dig any further than that on quicken.com - MS has had three stock splits; if you extrapolate backwards, I think that 5 splits since 1990 isn't too unlikely. Which means that anyone who had 500 shares or options in 1990 - including employees with MS stock in their 401ks and the like - and who still holds those shares, has been a millionaire for the last couple of years.

    Given that, I'd be surprised if there weren't multiple secretaty/administrative assistants/salepeople/HR persons/others at MS who are - or have been - millionaires.

    --
    "Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
  269. Re:It's not their *job*! by BrianH · · Score: 2

    I would disagree. In my opinion I owe you nothing, and there is nothing I'm required to do for you. I am free to live my life however I want and to run my company any way I see fit (within legal limits of course). You, on the other hand, have the right to decide whether or not you wish to associate with me or buy products from my company. You do not have the right to impose your will on either my life or my company based on your notions of "social resposibility".

    --

    There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
  270. Re:Socially responsible? by DHartung · · Score: 2

    Anybody who thinks that "giving to charity" is what a truly socially responsible investor wants to see has to have his head examined. Giving to charity is a sop, a PR stunt. What matters is how the workers are treated, how the company cares about its manufacturing effects on the environment, the overall safety of its products, and other concrete things.

    On the other hand, some companies, like Ben & Jerry's, really believe that they have a responsibility to recycle their profits back into the community or society, hence the 1% to charity standard.
    ----

    --
    lake effect weblog
    {Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
  271. MacBastard, please don't spread lies. by Zico · · Score: 2

    There is no such preclusion like you mention, and you clearly aren't familiar with the way the deals work. Schools which receive those donations are free to choose what they want. The only caveat is that Microsoft will support their own software for free, while the schools have to pay for their own support if they don't choose Microsoft. Considering what they're getting for free, it sounds like more than a fair deal to me. Besides, why would you want Microsoft partners teaching you how to use products other than those in which they're skilled?

    Cheers,
    ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

    1. Re:MacBastard, please don't spread lies. by Zico · · Score: 2

      But you specifically said that the donations preclude people from learning other OSes. It's simply not true. Yo_Mama said that he'd feel chagrined and worried that the grants would dry up if he stopped using Microsoft software, but where's the evidence that this has happened?

      Here's an article on the program from Applelinks.com. Being an Mac publication, you can guess the slant, although it seems a little disturbing for them to refer to Gates as a "villain" for his donations, even as they admit that the libraries can buy Macs instead of PCs. They just won't get technical support if they do. It's hardly Microsoft's fault, except for their popularity, that tech support and training for alternative OSes is harder to come by, and if the library thinks that the burden of having non-Microsoft-OS-running computers is too much of a burden, nobody's forcing them to take the grants.

      And that's the important thing -- the choice. Gates is giving away loads of money to outfit these libraries and schools with free computers if they choose to take them. Even if they decide to go the alternative OS route, it's silly to think that having no computers is better than having some computers but no free support. Hell, I'd practically kill for the offer of free PCs with no OS or tech support or training! It's as if the criticism is for being very generous -- just not generous enough.

      And if Gates really isn't doing it out of an interest in increasing the computer literacy, but instead to pave the way for future profits, then why aren't Larry Ellison, Scott McNealy, or Steve Jobs (I'd especially like to ask Applelinks, "Why not Steve Jobs, then?") doing the same thing? Surely you don't think that those three aren't cynical enough to emulate this tactic if it was all about the benjamins and not philanthropy, do you? Of course not. Sheesh, people act like Gates is the only rich dude on the planet.

  272. DEC used to be great...not sure about Compaq by jaffo · · Score: 2

    When I worked for DEC, and my family as well, we were all active with DEC and The United Way. DEC was a great company to work with, IMHO, until they started selling off the profitable divisions to try and stay afloat...the sale of Disk Drive Manufacturing to Quantum was heartbreaking for a lot of us. Things kinda went down hill from there, and I left long before Compaq bought them, but from my Sister In Law's comments, Compaq is almost as good as DEC was.

  273. FYI: AOpen = Acer... by avdp · · Score: 2

    ... which is a VERY large company, although maybe not as known in the US. And Acer treats their employees very well (at least in Taiwan). I would know about this, my fiancee has been working for them for a couple years now.

  274. Re:Bill Gates by coaxial · · Score: 2

    The point is that his "philanthropy" is effectively no different than droping change in the March of Dimes bank in the checkout line at the grocery store.

  275. Re:Social responsibilty by dublin · · Score: 2
    While BPA is a problem, it is only one of many xenoestrogens that can cause endocrine disruption, (including possibly even the increased incidence of homosexuality in recent years.)

    If your concept of "social responsibility" includes ridding the world of all of the offending substances, you're going to have a tough time.
    There's little evidence that migration of BPA from say a keyboard to a body through skin contact is significant, but it's far more likely to be a problem in the case of bottled/packaged foods that are in contact with the plastics for extended periods. Have you tried to buy juice in a glass bottle lately? It's become pretty much impossible over these last few months. And kids drink a lot of juice. The point here is that while the jury is still out on things like BPA skin exposure, we are ignoring the possibly much greater danger of plastic in food and drink contact applications. Let's keep our priorities straight - iMacs are not the most significant threat even if you're worried about these things.

    Sony:hardware::Microsoft:software
    CompactFlash: IBM Microdrive, Flash, Ether, Modem, etc.

    --
    "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
  276. Re:One socially conscientious company... by dublin · · Score: 2
    Sorry, but United Way support is one sure way for me to tell a company *isn't* serious about ensuring it's moey goes to the right things.

    In addition to serious and recurring scandals involving large amounts of UW money, there's the simple fact that this orgaization is horrendously inefficient, taking several times more off the top for its own operations than do more effective (and unfortunately far less well funded) charities.

    I stopped giving to/through United Way years ago, and I encourage everyone else to do likewise. They are an unnecessary and undesirable middleman in the funds disbursement process, and only serve to sponsor corporate campaigns that paint non-contributors as somehow evil and vile. (Opposing, or even simply not contributing to, UW in some companies can be a serious career-limiting move, something that should in itself give us pause as to the organization's power and true intent...)

    Sony:hardware::Microsoft:software
    CompactFlash: IBM Microdrive, Flash, Ether, Modem, etc.

    --
    "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
  277. Re:Seagate and Toxic chemicals by jfunk · · Score: 2

    Hard drive and microprocessor manufacturing both produce large volumes of highly toxic "stuff". Hopefully someone on Slashdot who knows more about how the biz handles this. It should definetly factor into any responsibly motivated purchasing decision.

    I remember reading an article a few years back in AMD's "PC Currents" about how they reclaim the silicon waste and donate it to art schools and the like where it is used in pottery.

    I couldn't find anything about it specifically on their website but I did find this.

  278. Re:charity by thrig · · Score: 2

    The problem I have with Bill Gates is that as far as I can tell, the amount he gives in donations is directly proportional to the amount of trouble Microsoft is in with the Justice Department.

    For instance, back in 1997:

    "Among the stingiest of the top givers was William Henry ("Bill") Gates III, ... [his] donations in 1997 came to $210 million, or barely 0.53 percent of his net holdings. Moreover, the money came with virtual strings attached; most of it was earmarked to provide public libraries with Internet access (not books, mind you), a self-serving gift for a software provider if there ever was one. Gates was subsequently quoted by Forbes magazine on the difficulties of philanthropy: "Giving away money effectively is almost as hard as earning it in the first place." Since most of his Microsoft billions are the result of the speculative stock market boom of the '90s and are therefore unearned, it's hard to sympathize."

    Source: http://www.populist.com/98.3.billionaires.html

    Which stands in clear contrast to his behaviour today. Did he grow a heart in the last three years, or is he being forced to donate by some exterior influence?

  279. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by thogard · · Score: 2

    >Free Coke (ahem, the liquid not the powder),

    A cup a day (on average) with a cost of $.20 and your talking almost $50 per employee per year.

    Of course a good high dollar programmers will offten consume 20x that.

    One places I worked found it was cheaper to provide coke than water.

  280. Please understand "understanding" by mccabem · · Score: 2

    No such preclusion?

    "...only caveat is that Microsoft will support their own software for free..."

    Kinda like there's no preclusion when all the PC OEM's will only sell you a PC with Windows on it?

    How did that caveat turn out?

    Or when Microsoft will only sell you Windows WITH Internet Explorer?

    Ask Netscape how that caveat turned out. Ooh...they're called AOL now.

    In fact Microsoft is quite evil in its subtlety of constructing these quid pro quo's....

    Am I wrong?

  281. Re:Who Really Cares?? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2
    It's in my selfish best interest to purchase from A.

    If and only if you believe that your action will influence manufacturer B -- otherwise you sacrificed something for nothing.

    And I don't believe the shit about "If only everybody did this, then...."

    Well, as a rational being - at least for purposes of this discussion B-) - I can only do as I wish others to do. (See Kant's categorical imperative.) Certainly if I want everyone to buy from A instead of B, I have to buy from A.

    Whether others follow my lead or not, I can't control. (At least, not without using force. While using force to stop polluters is certainly justified, it's outside the scope of this discussion about market choices.) I am responsible for my own actions only; the actions of others don't release me from that responsibility.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  282. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by GnrcMan · · Score: 2

    This is a company that can't even trust it's own employees to not go into a building they don't actually work in.

    Where'd you get that idea from? MS employees can get into any MS building they want 24 hours a day.

    --GnrcMan--

  283. It's not their *job*! by Boiner · · Score: 2

    It's not a company's *job* to be social responsible. It's a company's *job* to be ecomomically responsible in making money for those who've invested the capital. Frequently, that does involve 'social responsibility' as a result.

    If you want to be socially responsible, here's your best bet:

    Make the best deal you can, for the best price that you can, and donate your 'extra' money to the charity or cause of your choice. Using the company as a social proxy is in-efficient compared to making a normal buying decision and having your personal causes a separate and distinct thing.

    I'm not against the concept of social responsibility, I just think it's best done independently.

    1. Re:It's not their *job*! by DHartung · · Score: 3

      Perhaps not, but investors are under no obligation to invest in companies that maximize efficiency by breaking the law, or even obeying the law in less-than-admirable ways, such as paying workers too little, working them too hard, hiring them too young, dumping pollutants in rivers, creating products that are dangerous, bribing and stealing, and so forth.

      Unocal says in all innocence they have no idea that <a href="http://jinx.sistm.unsw.edu.au/~greenlft/1995 /187/187p21b.htm">the Burmese government is forcing villagers at gunpoint to clear the way for their new pipeline</a>. Yet they have every incentive to look the other way on a deal literally decades in the making. Is that what an investor likes to hear, that they are making profit on the backs of slaves?

      Investors who stick with companies that are socially <b>irresponsible</b> deserve criticism.
      ----

      --
      lake effect weblog
      {Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
    2. Re:It's not their *job*! by Cuthalion · · Score: 3

      However, some decisions can be financially correct but morally wrong. For instance exploiting child labor in a third world country and paying them dirt, or dumping hazardous waste somewhere legal but still dangerous, may be the 'best' deal they can make. Donating the resultant profits to charity is not a reasonable substitute for making consciencious decisions in the first place. (Only partially because it's ALWAYS easier and cheaper to break things than to fix them)

      --
      Trees can't go dancing
      So do them a big favor
      Pretend dancing stinks!
  284. Volunteer work by Epi-man · · Score: 2

    Well, I do know that every company I have ever worked for and interviewed with (all silicon folks, here in the US, but some are foreign companies) all stress to their employees that the company needs to be a good neighbor. Some even offer to pay their employees when they do volunteer work. Those ads that GE air I am sure are not fakes by any stretch. They may work the employees hard, but they do try and give back to the community (sure, we can be cynical and say it is all for PR purposes, but does that matter?).

  285. On Gates' co called "chairity"... by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 2


    Try reading this article:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/991001-000005.html

    The truth behind Gates' so-called "chairity" was discoved many months ago.

    When WILL gates learn to reign in ms's email network??? These embarassing leaks occur so frequently, that I sometimes think there must be a secret resistance working within the collective itself; feeding information to the forces of freedom.

    Anyway, The Register exposed gates' supposed "generousity" as a fraud last year. It's nothing more than a quite cynical PR exercise.

    And it's a grossly overvalued PR exercise at that. Note the paragraph which mentions just *HOW* the values of his donations are computed.

    A rathar pathaetic and transparent ruse, I would think.

    john

    --
    Imagine all the people...
  286. Re:Who ever is sells the best product... by dennisp · · Score: 2

    Ayn Rand was an egomaniac cult leader who could barely support herself selling her books that had one dimensional unrealistic characters to further her black and white self-fulfilling prophecy to simple minds who can barely understand the meaning of shades of gray; Of which her philosophy is conveniently named objectivism, as in, whatever my simple mind thinks and wishes must be objective reality, and subjectivity is just some bull shit concocted up by people who are against reality - as in, my view of the world *must* be objective, and the human individual is an incredible "heroic being" (duh, isn't that word subjective?), so my actions must be right....

    She is a purveyor of replacement dogma with the statement that her philosophy and beliefs allow for freedom of expression, growth and evolutionary thought -- essentially, the new approach fails to take into account all of the marvelous evolution which resulted in his freedom and ability to express his disdain or concern for the state of affairs extant. Self-fulfilling prophesy is always convenient and safe. It's anything but evolutionary.

    A good critique of the objectivist philosophy is at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7842/otjindex.htm. It's certainly an interesting read. Keep all this in mind when reading her books. Also keep in mind that in her time, there was paranoia of the red commie pinko threat - and she actually testified to government committee regarding all the commie pinko's in the film industry (remember McCarthy?). She has some very interesting insights into flaws in collectivism - but beyond that, there is an unforgiving dichotomy in her rigid belief system and her so called promotion of individual thought.

    As an aside, I find it incredibly funny that pages such as that of the Ayn Rand society read very much like religious and racist cult web sites.

    ----

    Now, in regard to public corporations and social contributions; I believe that there should be a separation of church and state. Any programs that don't further the company in some way are certainly questionable when considering efficiency. That doesn't mean that I'm a heartless bastard. It just means I think that if people in the company want to start such a foundation, then they can in their own free time. As for giving non-profit corporations cheaper prices -- the corporation selling to them can probably benefit through some government tax scheme anyway.

    This, however, should not be a rational basis from which one would enslave workers in foreign countries or dump toxic waste into a nearby lake. Laissez-faire capitalism shouldn't be a means to institute and promote tyranny or totalitarianism, especially in foreign economies. It also doesn't mean that they can take advantage of their employee's here or at large.

    In the microsoft case someone talked about above: If employee's feel that they have been duped and a certain corporation has found a loophole -- then let them take it to the courts and possibly set a precedent either way and have their reputation damaged (many foreign countries, of course, have no such rules, which makes these primarily complex ethical issues).

  287. Re:Who ever is sells the best product... by dennisp · · Score: 2

    I was establishing a colloquialism drawing a parallel from which a corporation would be the "state" and the curch would be the social programs. I apologize for the mixup and should have made that more clear. On slashdot I prefer writing in long incoherent rants, so that often happens :)

    "Morality is not about efficiency, it's about doing 'the right thing'"

    Yes, again, sorry for not being clear. I was referring to the establishment of social foundations, charity groups, et al in the public corporation. I meant this primarily in regard to issues it is not directly tied to. However, it would make sense if their promotion of such issues would help the company in the long run or somehow morally balance the wrongdoing they are currently doing today and/or in the past (e.g., company x who dropped toxic waste in lakes in the past working with government agency such as EDF to collaborate with other companies {y,z} to create a more environmentally friendly management process because of law or internal or external moral pressures)

    "when a company goes to a country that has lax labor laws, or is a dictatorship, it supports them."

    Yes, as I said, these are complex ethical issues which can't be glazed over with hasty generalizations. There is a difference between, say, Wal-Mart employing lower wage blue collar work in countries where socio-economic conditions that allow them to produce for less - and one where they are employing child slave labor in Bangladesh and then sticking a "Made In America" sticker on it (which they have done in the past).

  288. Re:Who ever is sells the best product... by dennisp · · Score: 2

    I have no complaint with this point. I meant this in regard to philanthropists in a company using its profits to further their normative world view in a circumstance where they aren't directly helping the company.

    If owners of a corporation agree that such philanthropy will be good PR, and the community at large will, according to economic laws of utility, put value in their philanthropic social standing - then so be it. When voting with our dollars in an economic system, we take the sum of variables from utility in our perceived world - whether positive and negative factors. Note that I say perceived because we are only able to take into consideration factors that we are aware of.

  289. Re:Social responsibilty by Head+Louse · · Score: 2

    Damn I guess I should stop licking my imac!

  290. Re:Bill Gates by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2

    Most, if not all, of American wealthy-types do give to charity because they're more comforable giving X amount (which will be lost regardless) to an organization they choose to give to than one they're forced to give to, the IRS.

    I don't think very many give anything past what isn't deductable.

  291. Re:actually not that silly of an example, by technos · · Score: 2

    Von Braun was not the first man to make a rocket engine. Solid fuel rockets have been aroung since the Chinese invented gunpowder. He wasn't the first to play with liquid fuel either. In fact, most of his work was a rehash of Robert Goddard's decade old designs. Goddard had gyro guided, blast-vane directed liquid-fuel rockets up in the air when Von Braun and company in the German Army were still trying to get a fuel pump that didn't cause the rocket to explode on the pad.

    The V-2 choke shutter was a novel idea though, although I don't know if that was Von Braun or not.

    --
    .sig: Now legally binding!
  292. Re:actually not that silly of an example, by technos · · Score: 2

    No, I meant the V-2. They used a simple cycling shutter and several small pump assemblies to control fuel whereas the US and Goddard had used rather complex gear mechanisms, transmissions, and one huge pump. Allowed the motor to go to a reliable 50% cycle for cruise, and the mixture could be adjusted so that no fuel oil sprayers were needed for startup.

    --
    .sig: Now legally binding!
  293. Re:Bill Gates by vyesue · · Score: 2

    not to be a dick, but have you ever donated 600$ to a scholarship fund? I haven't, and I consider Bill Gates to be a better man than me in the charity arena because at least he's giving up a couple tenths of a percent - I'm giving 0% to charity currently.

  294. One socially conscientious company... by chewbca · · Score: 2

    that I know of is the one I work for.. HP..

    Since I've been here I've come to realize that Hewlett-Packard does a lot for the community.
    In particular, there is a very close alliance with United Way and conducting a donation drive annually.
    Also HP focuses its efforts locally. For instance, our site's contributions directly benefits the surrounding area.

    I think companies and ESPECIALLY ones with earnings in the 10^9 $US should contribute to the surrounding community of its offices. If for NOTHING else, than to the betterment of the educational resources for the families of the community in which the company resides..

    i'm happy to work for a company that shares this viewpoint.

    :)

    --
    -- "This is my sig... there are many like it but this one is mine"
  295. advertise it by passion · · Score: 2

    If there are companies out there that engage in friendly activities, advertise it. I eat vegetarian, and try to purchase organic foods as much as possible because it's not only friendly for the earth and my body, but tastes better as well. Companies should let it be known on the packaging that they engage in friendly practices, and that your purchase of their prodcut won't go towards enslaving someone else on the other side of the planet to make more of what you bought.

    I thought that's what writing programs and building robotics was all about, reducing the amount of labor required by people instead of increasing it, and reducing the pleasure from it.

    If computers are more perishable than fruit... (the machine I bought 3 months ago is obsolete already) then where is all this stuff supposed to go after it's lifespan is finished? Why are we leaving behind this wonderful legacy of well constructed open source systems, if there won't be anyone around to use them? Contributing to the source pool adds strength to the group, so does being kind to our planet.

    Now what I'd like to see it a keyboard, mouse and case to be made out of wood, and have some nice detail carved in.

    --
    - passion
  296. A living wage is needed! by Doomsdaisy · · Score: 2

    Many people on this board are involved in the software end of things and so may not realize that the people who actually do the grunt work in the fabs are paid rather poorly. In the 1950's, '60's and early 70's, the American auto industry was booming, and a person could drop out of high school and in a few years of working for Ford, GM, Studebaker, etc. he could be making a wage that would support a stay at home wife, children, mortgage, and a car of his own. Today's Fab employees don't have the benefit of a union to represent them. Now granted, some benefits that unions once fought for are standard (such as health insurance), but the wages are not high enough for a household with a single working parent to achieve any kind of financial security. All this without a pension. The only way to achieve a living wage in the semiconductor industry is to either stay at the same job excessively long (10+ years) or to advance into some kind of engineering. The social darwinists that sometimes appear on this board will probably say that anyone who can't get out of being a fab lackey after a couple of years doesn't deserve better. But I look into my own fab and see many single mothers working the night shift so they can be home during the day because they can't afford child care. They don't have time to finish the 2 year EE degree that would get them a higher paying job maintaining the equipment. The semiconductor industry that we so often hold up as a great symbol of improvement is built on the backs of these kind of people.

    --
    These are breasts; this is source code.
    Why do you have a problem with those two things belonging to one person?
  297. Just get the word out... by TopShelf · · Score: 2
    What would be useful for those who want to include social concerns into their purchasing decisions would be to have a central source of information listing various technology companies in terms of environmental responsibility, treatment of workers, charitable endeavors, etc. (there probably is one already, I'm just not aware of it) Once enough prominent firms show some altruistic works, there might well be a "me too" effect that draws more companies into the process.

    I know there are mutual funds out there that are supposedly made up of "socially responsible" firms, so that might be a good place to start.

    That said, I think we'll see these New Economy corporations get more involved with their communities, but it will be a few years off yet, while these companies and their markets mature. With business moving along at "internet speed", charitable works end up ranking pretty low on the priority list. There's simply too much going on right now.

    --
    Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
  298. sorry I wasn't clearer . . . by Savage+Henry+Matisse · · Score: 2

    I didn't mean to imply that VB had invented the rocket (heck, Edison didn't event much any of the things he's famous for-- god bless those smarty-pants Europeans for beating him to the punch.) I meant that VB and Edison are analogous in that VB is the rocket guy much as Edison is the lightbulb & electricity guy.

    --
    Much Love,
    "S"HM
    *****
    (I refuse to spellcheck out of contempt for your belief system)
  299. Computer Companies and Charities by TheReverand · · Score: 2
    Here Is an interesting article from Salon about large companies donatin to charity. Included are HP, IBM and MS. It's dated but relevant.

    Here is a little more recent set of numbers for MS, HP, IBM, Oracle, Apple and some others.

    It even talks about Bill's personal charity foundation.

    -Marc

  300. Re:High Tech = high toxic by CSG_SurferDude · · Score: 2

    But, to be fair, many of those sites were made before the toxicity levels of those chemicals and their effects upon the enivronment were well known.

    (Much less having waste levels mandated by law, which is what really drives most companies clean-up efforts.)

    (Side-Side note: Even if you know X is bad, if you do something about, and it is not mandated by law, then your stockholders will hang you out to dry for wasting their dividends!)

    CSG_SurferDude

    --

    LongTail SSH Brute Force analysis tool is here!

  301. Re:charity by billybob+jr · · Score: 2

    I guess this just goes to show that rarely is a person really good or evil, just a human being. I dislike Bill Gates, but not really on a personal level. I dislike the power he wields over the computer industry. I can respect the fact that he made some very good (some what lucky?) business decisions early on in his career to become successful. What I don't respect is the way his corporation has acted nor do I respect many of the crappy products it has released.

    But it is nice to see him give back some money. It would be even nicer to see him take a break from his quest to rule the world and personally donated time to a cause. For all we know some PR person that makes 6 figures a year cuts the checks for publice relations purposes.

  302. Here' some info from Taiwan by nels_tomlinson · · Score: 2

    My brother-in-law and sister-in-law work for a semiconductor plant in Taiwan (Dong-Yuen, I think; it's Japanese). He is a quality control inspector, she was too, but has quit to be a mommy. They have never complained about mistreatment, though my brother-in-law had a boss who wouldn't reccomend him for a promotion because he was too valuable... that was eventually resolved. Taiwanese companies in general seem to treat their workers about the way US companies do, modulo the different expectations they have (they don't want time off for Christmas, do want time off in February for new years...). That is to say, it's a real mixed bag. My relatives seem fairly contented with their jobs, including my brother-in-law, the pharmcist who works for Hoechst (sp?) and most of the rest of them. THe standard of living there is close to ours, and life seems to be pretty good.

    --
    See what I've been reading.
  303. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by n3rd · · Score: 2

    Contrary to popular belief, Microsoft is probably actualy nice to many of its employees.

    Actually, it's more "contrary to the uninformed person's belief" rather than "contrary to popular belief". Anyone who's read a Bill Gates biography or a history of Microsoft that's more than 5 pages (ie: not some article on the web) would know that Microsoft has been good to their employees for years (heck, I guess I could almost even say "decades"). Free Coke (ahem, the liquid not the powder), all company retreats (I'm unsure if they still do this, but they used to) and how many millionaires has Microsoft made with it's stock?

    It is under such scrutiny that is can't afford not to.

    As you've seen from my above paragraph, this didn't start recently. I mean, come on! Do you really think Uncle Bill was a whip bearing slave driver until the DOJ came along? I think not, and as a matter of fact, I know not.

  304. charity by DrEldarion · · Score: 2

    I'm not sure about Dell, but our (*ahem*) good friend Bill G. has given extremely large quantities of money to charity. Guess the guy isn't ALL bad... just mostly ;)

    -- Dr. Eldarion --

    1. Re:charity by MasteroftheVoxel · · Score: 2

      Actually, the book "The Plot to Get Bill Gates" says that Microsoft was listed as the top giver to charities a few years back.
      The catch is that something like 80% of these donations where in the form of computer software such as MS Office, Windows, Encarta, etc. And when Microsoft recorded them they used the MSRP (retail price). So giving a copy of Office to a school means MS just donated 500$! No other company counts donations this way (they use a lower production cost). In fact, had MS calculated their donations the normal way, IBM would have beaten them for "most charitable".
      Just another way MS loves to delude us.

  305. Re:It's not their *job*! (whose is it?) by stephensamuel · · Score: 2
    Statistics and finance don't always tell the whole story. GDP, for example, is supposed to indicate the 'health' of an economy in financial terms. In many ways, it's entirely whacked out in terms of the contentment and happiness of the people.
    Take the Oklahoma bombing, for example: If all you care about is profits and GDP, the bombing was actually GOOD for Oklahoma. Overtime for firefighters and police in the rescue and investigation stages; Media station overtime spent covering the incident; Medical companies made a killing (excuse the pun) taking care of the non-dead victims; here were the psycharitrist and therapy bills for people who dealt with the aftermath; costs for replacing the bombed out building, and the money that went into demolishing the remains, etc..
    Then there were the volunteers: These people should be thrown in jail for the suck that they are on the economy. If it wasn't for these people, so much more would have had to be done by paid professionals -- thus further increasing the GDP. Instead all of this sorely needed work gets done and no money changes hands!

    So, if all you care about is profits and GDP, encourage acts of wanton terrorism, and blow up volunteer support sites.

    Disclaimer: If you can't get the sarcasm in this you are in SERIOUS need of help

  306. Re:Who ever is sells the best product... by medicthree · · Score: 2

    that's just great..and just what I would expect to hear in our consumer-oriented society. So using your line of logic, you view the company making Brand X to be more "socially responsible" than Brand Y even if Brand X uses slaves to make their products, while Brand Y has entirely humane conditions and donates all of its money to charity? I realize that these are ridiculous examples, but following your line of logic they would have to hold. I know that there aren't situations exactly like this in the real world, I'm just trying to point out the ridiculousness of basing a determination of social responsibility just on product quality.

  307. Re:Who ever is sells the best product... by medicthree · · Score: 2

    No, I certainly don't "get it." I don't think that's what the poster was trying to say, and even if he was trying to say that it would still be a useless statement. "Whoever is nicest has the best product" is in no way useful--is that supposed to mean that whoever has the best product must have been the one practicing the most socially responsible actions, or is it supposed to mean that the poster believes that whoever is most socially responsible to him makes the products that are the best? If it's the latter, this in no way answers the question about how socially responsible the industry is. If it's the former, it's just plain foolish.

  308. Re:Bill Gates by Yaruar · · Score: 2
    Yeah, but look at his will, he is giving 10 million in trust to his wife and each of his children (if any), the rest is going to charities helping the underprivilaged, education and health, especially int he developing world.

    Whether or not you like the company the man seems to have a vision of the benefits to come from his extraordinary wealth.

    I for one salute him on this.

    --
    Working for the (other) man
  309. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by jbarnett · · Score: 2


    Contrary to popular belief, Microsoft is probably actualy nice to many of its employees.

    I know one of my freinds that works there (Microsoft) and he knows the "dirty tricks" MS trends to play with it's enemies, but from my freind: MS is extremely loyal to it's freinds (employees). My freind claims to make 2 times for sys admin work then any other company was willing to pay, and the longer employees work their, the more benifits they receive. Sure, most people look at Microsoft as a "stable" job that is sure to be there for awhile, it isn't as sexy as a "startup pre-ipo Linux company", but if you have a wife and kids, sometimes risk isn't the best thing.

    He claims it is a really postive and uplifting place to work in, he says MS does take care of it's employees and maintains loyalies between them.

    Sure they make Crappy Software and in that sense, socially non-responsible, but proving a decent to great workplace, in that sense they are socially responsible.

    Not that I use or work for MS or anything, just stating information my freind gave me (which probably isn't worth a whole lot of /. :)

    --

    "`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
  310. thanks for making me feel bad!!! by rwade · · Score: 2

    Well...hmmm...I know also that many technology companies employ slave labor in stuff like that (such as Lucent technologies, as is implied in their proxy a while back when they voted to _not_ get rid of slave labor) and also very low wages. Unfortunetly, the worst stuff goes on with the builders of the components like Intel, so you can't just go a build your own computer. Well...what I guess you could do is just build your own components, but that might be a rather big job. What I suggest you do is write to the companies you are worried about asking them to reconsider their actions. On your next point, I know that several tech companies do a lot of charity work such as matching donations and a lot of other monetary things and also things like employee volunteering weeks and things such as that. Unfortunetly, this is a very difficult question to answer and I'm glad it was posted. Good Luck! :)

  311. Re:support your local mom&pop shop by rwade · · Score: 2

    but what about the component makers, Intel, National, etc...?

  312. Ethics by Puff65535 · · Score: 2

    Well, its only one part of the social interaction of a company with the world, but company ethics can be easier to judge than anything else. Two big names that come to mind are Kingston and Hewlett Packard. I can't speak for Kingston, but having worked for HP in the past, I can say that most managers there actually try and follow the company's ethical policy. Most companies pay lip service to "doing the right thing" but the HP environment actually fosters doing it(not to say they are angels, but the company doesn't punish those who do the right thing, and sometimes does come down hard on those who don't)

  313. Re:Define and quantify by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 2
    But that does not answer the question. If a company provides a good workplace (as you defined) but dumps poisons into the river, is that worse than the company with poor working conditions, but zero polutants?

    --
    Fight Spammers!
  314. Define and quantify by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 2
    How do you define and quantify socially responsible?

    Does donating $X to charity count more than not having slave labor? Does it count, when the company makes changes, when caught? As we know, when the clothing manufacturers were caught with slave labor, they made moves to improve it. But, companies that did not use slave labor should get more credit, than ones who cleaned up after getting caught.

    How many points do we asess against Mattel for the CPHack case? My case? Mattel's general abusive of practice?

    What about a company that produces a 'bad ' product, but donates to a charity? Maybe a gun (or whatever) manufacturer that also teaches math to kids in ghettos. How do we compute that?

    --
    Fight Spammers!
  315. Apple EHS by CrazyJoel · · Score: 2

    I don't know if this is on topic. Here's the Apple Recycles webpage.

    These are their corporate initiatives.

    --

    Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
  316. Re:Independantly? by GrouchoMarx · · Score: 2
    The problem comes when you don't KNOW if you're getting a deal because of slave labor or because of genuinely good business practices.

    For instance, The last time I looked Buy.com was selling Athlon/750s for about $350, less than half the nominal price. Is that because they got a really good deal wholesale, or because they hijacked a shipment of Athlons on their way from AMD to Dell? Technically, I have no way of knowing. (NOTE: No, I have no reason whatsoever to believe that Buy.com hijacks cargo shipments, I'm just using it as a hypothetical example. Don't read anything into it.)

    So then how can you possibly know? (This applies to nearly every industry, not just computing.) The famed "vote with your dollars" method has shown itself throughout history to not work, and besides, in many cases the question is unanswerable to start with. (Is the modem in your new Compaq made by slave labor while the company that makes the sound card gives money to charity? Then what do you do? Again, hypothetical only, no libel against anyone intended.) I only know of one way, government regulation. I know a lot of Slashdot readers are very Libertarian where the question of regulation comes in, but I for one would rather have laws coming out of Washington D.C. that say that any company that sells computer hardware in the US must pay its workers fairly than have to ponder whether slave labor for the modem outweighs huge donations to the Online Freedom Foundation for the video card.

    --GrouchoMarx

    --

    --GrouchoMarx
    Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?

  317. Nike Example by vergil · · Score: 2

    Let me preface my comment by saying that I'm glad to see this type of discussion on Slashdot.

    For those previous posters who question the conditions of sweatshops, specifically the presence of armed guards, I'd like to recount some of my observations.

    Last summer, I had the opportunity to travel to Jakarta, Indonesia to speak with sweatshop workers who labor in the many cramped factories surrounding Indonesia's capital.

    I spent a good deal of time interviewing Nike workers.

    The previous poster asserted that Nike pays its third world workers "above the poverty line." I'm not sure such a statement is accurate. During my visit, several people explained to me that the prevailing Nike wage was indeed above the amount the Indonesian government defined as a subsistance wage. However, after the two figures were adjusted
    taking into account Indonesia's skyrocketing inflation, the Nike wage was actually below this subsistance mark.

    On one occaision I managed to enter one of Nike's largest facilities as a guest of its labor union (I was accompanying a group of American anti-sweatshop activists and their Indonesian counterparts). The scale of this particular plant -- I believe it was called PT Nikomas Gemilang -- was immense, the size of a college campus. We didn't get much further beyond the main gate before a crew of managers on motorscooters blocked our way. They refused to allow us to inspect any of the factory buildings or dormitories (yep, many of the workers live on company property).

    The Nike factory was protected by a series of guardhouses sheltering a fleet of uniformed rent-a-cops, hardly surprising in a facility this size.

    More disturbing was the presence of armed, plainclothed soldiers on Nike property. The Nike managers explained that the troops were a necessary precaution because of upcoming elections. I don't know if this is true or not.

    The activists I was with issued a press release detailing the labor conditions of the plant, and mentioning the presence of the Indonesian army. Soon afterwards, Nike's public relations people posted a poorly written "rebuttal" on their website that questioned the veracity of our visit, and flatly denied the presence of soldiers on Nike property. This document was yanked from Nike's page within a day or so.

    The closest I came to interviewing workers producing computer products was a brief encounter with Targus (the company that makes laptop cases) employees. So I'm not qualified to say whether or not the manufacturers of computer components are socially responsible or not. However, I believe the chants echoed in Seattle (and re-echoed in this week's IMF/WorldBank protests in DC) accusing multinational corporations of placing "profits over people" and running a feverish "race to the bottom" to exploit countries with the lowest wages and non-existant social/environmental protections ring true to my experience.

    Several previous posters have said that the presence of multinational corporations in 3rd-world countries is beneficial because of job creation.

    Corporations such as Nike have demonstrated again and again why they have little stake in the nations and people that host their factories. According to the strict logic of profit, a corporation should have one directive -- to make the greatest amount at the least cost. This seems reasonable enough -- until you factor in the human cost of such motivation.

    Ever wonder why many multinationals prefer dictatorships? If all you see is profit, it makes sense to have your factories in a country where people that speak up for fair working conditions "dissapear", where meetings of workers are broken up by soldiers, where activists are imprisoned or worse.

    Nike used to have factories in South Korea in the '80s. As soon as the people in South Korea developed a strong labor and democracy movement that demanded, among other things, fair wages, did Nike stick around? Hell no. It relocated its plants to a dictatorship -- Indonesia. Now that democracy is stirring in Indonesia, Nike is trying to concentrate its plants in Vietnam and China.

    Nike and other corps may be taking tiny steps in the direction of social responsibility, but only because loud university protests and media footage of women wearing nothing but "Better Naked than Nike" stenciled across their chests have a negative impact on earnings.

    Some posters have said that a product's quality should be the sole criterion for determining consumer demand. Quality is pretty important to me, but I'm not comfortable purchasing products --sneakers or software-- that is produced at the expense of others.

    vergil

    --
    Insects and Grafitti Photos
  318. Pretty sure about donating. by AustenDH · · Score: 2

    I don't know of a single large company (larger than a two location hardware store chain) that does not contribute to charities. It's good business sense to make financial contributions to 501(c)(3) organizations, and is a standard business practice to do so in exchange for the tax credits they recieve. A good question to ask though, is whether or not the charity they support is a charity you want to contribute to. Does Phillip Morris contribute to the Christian Coalation or to Green Peace, or both? Do you want to support a company who finances these organizations? I like Green Peace, but I don't really want a dime of my money going to the CC. As far as worker treatment, I don't know a whole lot about those conditions. I know that from our perspective, these workers are making scant wages, but if you look at it from their ecological perspective, some of these factory workers are making a decent living. If you don't know what a company is doing as far as being a good neighbor, go to their website and read their mission statement, call and ask which organizations they work for, and as far as worker treatment, etc., that would probably take a bit of research and possibly investigation.

  319. some companies make a difference by jrlo · · Score: 2

    Compaq Canada has recently helped create TrailPAQ; in effect helping to convert 3700 kilometers of abandoned railway tracks into nature trails, with another 1700kms to come, among other things. That's a lot of trails, and far more potentially useful to the planet than broken, rusty railways ties. Read about Compaq's TrailPAQ program

  320. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by jayhawk88 · · Score: 2

    Come on now. Microsoft isn't the first company to try and screw their employees, and they certainly won't be the last. For every disgruntled MS employee posting their horror stories on web sites, I'm sure you could find a (gasp!) happy MS employee, who enjoys his/her job and the company they work for. Their not running a slave camp up there in Redmond.

    I'm sure the moderators are already reaching for their flamebait tag, but IMHO we need a little perspective here. My NT machine here at work crashes about 2-3 times a week, and my 98 game machine at home needs rebooted about once every 3 days to reclaim lost memory. Yeah, it ticks me off, but I don't consider them the "Evil Empire" because of it. They're simply an incredibly successful company that made their billions with adequate software and genius marketing.

  321. Permatemps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3

    Speaking as a student who knows many Microsoft employees and temps, I can tell you that the vast majority of their permatemps remained hourly employees by their own choice.

    Good temps are usually offered a fulltime position after about 6 months of work. This has happened for countless of my friends. Those who don't care about overtime usually take the position. However, I know many, many workaholics that plan to spend at least 60 hours a week at work and want to get paid for the time. These people usually refuse fulltime work, choosing instead to make massive amounts of up-front cash through overtime.

    Yes, they are denied benefits and stock options this way. However, their base pay works out to be up to double what a fulltime employee makes, especially if they have been around for a year or two. Many of my temp friends choose this route because it gives them a lot of freedom if they decide to leave the company. Options are great if you plan to stay around for 5 or 10 years, but if you leave after only a couple of years then you can only cash in a very small fraction of your options.

    In short, I know a lot of people at Microsoft and cannot think of a single temp who has been abused by the company. They voluntarily trade benefits and options for immediate cash. It's hard to argue that you are an exploited temp when Microsoft repeatedly offers you a fulltime position and you turn it down! However, this option will soon be denied to them because of the greed of a few contractors who want to have their cake and eat it, too.

    People love to compare the plight of the MS contractors to that of sweatshop workers. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are talking about wages that start at $20/hour and go up from there, with time-and-a-half overtime. These people are hardly starving. If MS has committed ethical violations, it is not with their work force.

  322. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by Phaid · · Score: 3

    What are you smoking, and where do I get some? Really, have you already forgotten the efforts of Microsoft to abolish time and a half overtime for their hourly contract employees? When they tried to get the state of Washington to exclude "information tech" workers wholesale from that particular benefit?

    Try going there yourself before shooting off like that.

    Contract workers are one thing, employees are another. I've been to Microsoft's campus for interop meetings they've hosted, and it's quite a nice place to work. Every employee has an office, every building has a cafeteria, there are break rooms on every floor with racks of free soft drinks. From a visitor's perspective I'll say that they cater very well. People who work at Microsoft spend a great deal of time there, and the company makes an effort to ensure that these employees don't mind being there. The department I dealt with has meetings one Friday afternoon each month where beer is served. No one complains about their salary, or the stock options, etc.

    The point is, certainly from a physical comfort standpoint it's quite a nice place to be an employee. The culture is weird and ethically I could never work there, but that doesn't mean its an unpleasant place to spend half a week.

  323. All charities are not created equal... by slew · · Score: 3

    Giving $100,000 to United Way isn't the same as...
    giving $100,000 to the ACLU which isn't the same as...
    giving $100,000 to PETA which isn't the same as...
    giving $100,000 to GreenPeace which isn't the same as...
    giving $100,000 to the Sisters of Charity...
    giving $100,000 to the Sierra Club...

    I doubt people can come to an agreement on a valid comparison as to the social-environmental
    benefits vs the dollars contributed...

    I'd rather see companies spend less on charity so that we can spend more (and get the results we
    want instead of what the sleazy charity fundraisers can trick a company into giving)...

    Personally I think most of these "charties" spend too much of thier money on themselves rather than
    the causes they champion. United way for example, is one of the lower-return-per-dollar charaties.

    Environmental contributions aren't much better...

    One of the current hot debate topics is the issue of destroying dams in the columbia basin
    (NW united states) to restore the original river flow...

    The destroy/restore side:

    http://www.removedams.org/index.cfm

    One would think this is a no-brainer, but more in-depth analysis indicates there's another side
    to this debate:

    http://www.buchal.com/links/links.htm

    Which is right? I won't give my opinion here, but suffice it to say, I don't want any company that
    delegates the task of figuring out which one is right to somebody who "unfortunatly, doesn't have
    any time to do the legwork today" (to quote a poor unfortuante soul) attempting to figure this one
    out for me...

  324. More than just relative by llywrch · · Score: 3

    In another life, I worked for a contruction consulting/management company. Our customers included Intel, AMD, Fujitsu, & Cypress.

    I remember one of the engineers referring to the hazardous chemicals used by these companies as the ``Oh" gasses. ``Oh" as in if you smelled one of these hazardous materials, you'd be dead before you could say the second syllable of ``Oh shit."

    The smarter companies that handled these things took extreme care in keeping them under control: they knew that if an accident happened with one of these chemicals, it would make Bhopal look as serioius as a fart in church.

    However, I know of one company that has been playing loose with the laws -- not one I mentioned above. This company has several buildings constructed that were never approved by the county inspectors, wherein they store this nasty stuff -- at least when I heard about it around 1990. And if they never bothered to clear it with the county, I wonder if they bothered to verify that the construction was right, & the buildings *are* safe enough to store the stuff in. Unofrtuantley, there is only one way we'll ever find out . . .

    I wonder when the day will come that a disgruntled employee -- or ex-employee -- of this copany takes a map of the campus, checks the building records at the county against it, & blows the whistle.

    It would be a lot more fun as payback than suing for harassment or lost wages.

    Geoff

    --
    I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
  325. Re:Independantly? by Samrobb · · Score: 3

    Pardon me, but you ignored a critical part of his point:

    Using the company as a social proxy is in-efficient compared to making a normal buying decision...

    In my mind, a "normal buying decision" includes things like, oh, does this company exploit third-world child labor? Do they try to legally abuse their employees, or use the law to silence critics? Have I ever heard of them being entangled with violations of environmental laws - and if I did, was it a real violation, or some tin-pot beaureaucrat making political hay?

    In other words, someone making a "normal buying decision" wouldn't think your murderer's offer of a Rolex for $10 was a good deal. They might end up looking at the same Rolex from a bunch of different companies, none of which was obviously more "socially conscious" than the others, and end up deciding none of them are either socially conscious or socially corrupt, and that saving $10 and giving it to the Little Sisters of the Poor is more worthwhile than spending 3 weeks researching Rolex resellers to determine which one was more worthy of your money.

    --
    "Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
  326. It's all about the Benjamins - follow the $$$ by jabber · · Score: 3

    Here is a general rule of thumb, that someone still has to disprove:

    Quality costs money. If something is being done in a way that doesn't make sense, figure out who stands to profit from this, and it will make sense.

    Quality parts are more expensive to make than shoddy and unreliable parts.

    Workers who make quality parts have to work more slowly/carefully, and CARE about what they make. To care about one's job, one has to enjoy it (at least somewhat). Further, to care about one's job, the job must be worth holding on to.

    For a job to be worth holding on to, it must be more qualifiably/quantitatively better (lucrative/interesting/...) than the alternative.

    High-tech production facilities can not exist in a vacuum, and so are in competition with other industries for workers (even in the Far East, a chip fab must be close to a dock, and Nike factories).

    Conclusion: The cheaper the parts, the less a company pays it's workers, the more poorly treated the company's workers are. We can be reasonably sure that workers in hard-disk plants are paid and treated better than those in Kathie Lee's sweat-shops, but I'm sure that people working for Western Digital are treated better than those in the employ of Maxtor.

    --

    -- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
  327. Ayn Rand novels by Sloppy · · Score: 3

    Ayn Rand was an egomaniac cult leader who could barely support herself selling her books that had one dimensional unrealistic characters to further her black and white self-fulfilling prophecy to simple minds who can barely understand the meaning of shades of gray

    I don't know much about her so-called cult, and I'll agree that her novels and characters were terribly unrealistic. But she was right about some important things.

    I don't know how it happened, but somehow, by the late 80s, I was a bleeding heart liberal. Too much "We are the World, We are the Children" and "Hands Across America" type mentality exposure, I guess. (Damn, I feel nauseous just thinking about certain aspects of the 80s.) I just couldn't stand the thought of anyone acting purely out of self-interest, and I thought it was the government's job to somehow force a certain set of values (arrived through some sort of democratic concensus, I guess?) upon the economy through the means of taxes and subsidies. Taxes and subsidies -- that was my answer to everything.

    Ayn Rand woke me up. And not a minute too soon, IMHO, before I threw my life away on the ridiculous premise that I'm suppose to live for the sake of others, and assume that others will help me if I screw things up.

    Ignore the laughable attempt at science fiction through John Galt's magic generator, and the wacky high-handed way that she preaches (the part where she explains how a bunch of train wreck victims deserved to die being the most ridiculous), and the incredible coincidence that Reardon Steel just happened to really live up to its hype, thanks to Reardon's almost mystic insight into metallurgy. Yeah, it was a bad novel. But the message that she preached was a good one: that we're responsible for ourselves and shouldn't depend on "society" to take care of things for us. Now what the hell is wrong with that?

    Ayn Rand's dogma is so contrary to what the media tries to pound into us, day after day, that the shock of it makes you (well, it made me) question everything. And skepticism is a damn fine thing. I'll trade you ten zombies for one Rand cultist any day!


    ---
    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:Ayn Rand novels by dennisp · · Score: 3

      Please allow me to elucidate plainly upon my original point without the weighted "cult" rhetoric which bears an extremely negative connotation:

      If you look further into various philosophies, manifesto's, movements, et al, you will find they most always bring one to question their current perceived reality. This applies across to pseudo-religion, cults, racist groups, some political movements, ad infinitum (e.g., environmentalism, punk rockers, liberalism, communism, nazism, freemasons, scientologists, *gasp* even some religions, et al etc etc). For example, if you go call up the local American communist party - do you think they will tell you that they didn't employ skepticism in shaping their idealogy? I thought not.

      You have to make the distinction between that and the thoughts elucidated heretofore in the objectivist philosophy. You might then say: "Why do you feel so strongly about such things as political manifesto's? They are harmless.." Well, I have to admit - I too, had fell in a terrible ism pothole many years ago. I too had found that this had opened me up into a world of skeptical thinking. What I later found at the help of another is replacement dogma based on the seeds of that particular belief system presented.

      And that is why I despise those wearing things such as objectivism, or environmentalism etc on their belt. Saying such things are harmless and only books flies in the face of those who are dedicated to these philosophies. Even in situations where the progenitors were revealed as complete frauds who managed to elucidate only one single, clear thought in their entire lives, people have still insisted on turning the happenstance into religions, cults, brotherhoods, movements, and so on. People will be people, no doubt.

      Anyway, when glazing over the works of philosophers such as Russell, Godel, Nietzsche, Descartes, etc - do you see them concocting rigid belief systems? I thought not. Bertrand Russell even jokes as to how one would easily herd sheep with simple grains of truth. In Ayn Rand's case, she could barely conceal the fact that her books are really a manifesto. In contrast, Orwell actually wrote books based on the merit of his ideas alone - not some cultish ism manifesto philosophy.

      Still, one asks what's wrong with the objectivist system. Well, as I said in my other post, it's mostly feel-good self-fulfilling blabble. Subjectivity seems to be lost in all this to "objective" selfishness. It's basically a simplistic look at the complex system we call human life. Black and whites are just so conveniently manipulative. If Ayn Rand really wanted you to think for yourself, she wouldn't have built such a rigid philosophy based on interesting grains of truth, but riddled with logical fallacies. "Objectivism"? Give me a break.

      Note that my original response didn't say not to read Ayn Rand's books. It was only a warning to the possibly destructive thought systems she is trying to plant in the readers mind. Just take it with a grain of salt like one should take any other manifesto. Belief systems denying the intellectual evolution of the reader are for wussies :-).

  328. Socially responsible? by seebs · · Score: 3

    I generally hope to buy from companies that are doing their best to be as efficient as possible. I'd rather spend 5% less, and buy something from a company that gives nothing to charity, then buy something from a company that makes a big deal about giving to charities. I'd rather pick my own charities, and I'd rather not support yet another layer of people who get paid to come between me and the recipients.

    This doesn't mean I don't mind companies dumping toxic wastes...

    Still, I find the most socially responsible thing I can think of is for a company to do its best to produce a good product, handle it efficiently, and not waste resources. If they do this, I am likely to end up with more time and money to spend doing the socially responsible things *I* care about.

    --
    My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
  329. Open Source? by frantzdb · · Score: 3

    Clearly Open Source software is awfull for the workers. Think about it now, most work for what? NOTHING! Most of these poor people work at awfull hours, sacrificing their nights, weekends and their sleep, and social lives. Open Source Software is clearly a socially unacceptable industry that must be stoped at all costs. Help the poor programers. They may say that they do it for fun but don't be fooled!

  330. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by Shotgun · · Score: 3

    How would you like to spend all day lining up the same two pins on a resistor to the same two holes on your board. How would you like to spend all week at it?

    I spent 4 years doing it at AT&T (later called Lucent) and it beats the hell out of construction work or being on a road crew. The nature of electronics requires a controlled environment. Sweat on a circuit board before solder is applied will play havoc with your quality control. I wouldn't bet that foreign high tech factories are as nice as those in the US, but I can almost guarantee that they are better than sweat shop conditions in textile factories.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  331. Re:Seagate and Toxic chemicals by dublin · · Score: 3
    I can also tell you that, especially in California, many of these laws are completely ridiculous, and the "toxic chemicals" may not be toxic, or even "chemicals" at all.

    Case in point: my first job out of college was at an aerospace company in southern California that built carbon fiber composites. These are inspected using an ultrasonic imaging technique in which two robot arms squirt a stream of water at opposing sides of the part and the ultrasonic "beam" is propagated through the water. Regular lab-grade deionized water was used in this procedure since you wanted good clean water and didn't want to have to worry about scale buildup, etc.

    CA law says, though, that because the deionized water had been "used in an industrial process" (which amounted to nothing more than pumping it through some tubing for a couple of weeks) it was now "hazardous waste" which had to be disposed of at great trouble and expense.

    Some of this "hazardous waste" found its way into the drains, as it should have. However - and this is an important caveat - if they had been caught, they could have been charged with "dumping hazardous waste". What a complete and utter racket. I have *no* respect for the enviros and their govenmental thugs after seeing things like this happen in the real world.

    Believe it or not, oil companies are among the most ecologically conscious companies on the planet. I worked on an emergency oil spill response network a few years back, and the oil company environmental guys take their jobs *very* seriously. I assure you that at least for the companies I worked with, they will take literally heroic, life-threatening measures to mitigate any damage - like boating into a river of fire in a combined flood/pipeline rupture near Houston a few years back to determine the correct location of the break when all the landmarks were underwater. (This rupture later proved to be due to natural causes from the 1000-year flood scouring the dirt from a few hundred yards of now unsupported pipeline, which finally couldn't stand the strain: it actually broke almost 1/2 mile from the normal river channel.)

    Make sure you have some experience with the folks responsible for environmental activities at a company befoer making your decision based solely on the rants of some whiner with a website. This was a company that many people love to hate, and I came away convinced they cared more about the environment where they operated than *anyone* else, including the enviros and especially the gov't flacks.

    Sony:hardware::Microsoft:software
    CompactFlash: IBM Microdrive, Flash, Ether, Modem, etc.

    --
    "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
  332. Depends by jheinen · · Score: 3

    FWIW, (I'm a consultant and have worked for everything from Fortune 500 companies to internet start-ups) I think smaller companies tend towards being more ethical than larger companies. Big companies usually talk a nice line about their social responsibility, but ultimately they are beholden to the stockholders and the bottom-line is paramount. Small companies, especially ones that are privately held, are more tied to an individual's conscience. They're more human.

    --
    -Vercingetorix
    "Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
  333. actually not that silly of an example, by Savage+Henry+Matisse · · Score: 3

    considering that the first rocket engines (super high quality German suckers designed by none othe rthan the Edision of rocketry, Wernher von Braun) were built by concentration camp slave labor. It was certainly the best product of its kind availible, so . . .

    --
    Much Love,
    "S"HM
    *****
    (I refuse to spellcheck out of contempt for your belief system)
  334. Slashdot Employs Illegal Migrant Workers by Municipa · · Score: 3
    for $2.20 an hour. These poor illegal aliens transmit TCP/IP by hand, via telegraph and are forced to learn PHP by gunpoint. In many South American communities, slashdot is a word uttered with great fear. The 'slash' in slashdot means and entirely different thing to these people.

    If nothing else, please post responsibly people- remember there may be a human beinging grueling over the ip header of the packet containing your ill-mannered post. And no, they don't have moderator access either.

  335. Seagate and Toxic chemicals by SClitheroe · · Score: 3

    I'm not sure if your interest specifically constrained to social issues, but I'd recommend not buying Seagate. Many, many years ago, in the days of MFM hard drives, they were charged and fined for dumping toxic chemicals into a river. As a whole, the computer industry creates a lot of extremely toxic waste. Hard drive and microprocessor manufacturing both produce large volumes of highly toxic "stuff". Hopefully someone on Slashdot who knows more about how the biz handles this. It should definetly factor into any responsibly motivated purchasing decision.

  336. It was Ceridian, not Seagate by tylerh · · Score: 3
    Seeagate didn't exist until the 80's ( founded 1979, IPO ?1985?), so I presume you mean the toxic dumping done by Ceridian, but paid for by Seagate. Assuming we are discussing the same matter, let me explain.

    Ceridian was the the disk-drive subsidiary of Control Data Corp - the place where Seymour Cray got rolling( I still remember working on the 6 bit byte, 10 byte word of the CDC cyber ) Eventually, Ceridian got bought by Seagate, making Seagate liable (under Superfund laws) for Ceridian's pollution. Thus Seagate got the cleanup tab and the publicity, even though most (or all) of the dumping occurred before Seagate even existed.

    I was a Seagate shareholder at the time, and I still remember the pain 8)

    --
    "one treats others with courtesy not because they are gentlemen or gentlewomen, but because you are" --G. Henrichs
  337. High Tech = high toxic by wholesomegrits · · Score: 3

    Something that often gets glossed over when talking about the tech industry is it's impact on the environment. A large part of being socially responsible is being environmentally responsible (Venn diagram guy, chime in [here] please). The fact is, tech industry turns the landscape into a filthy pit.

    In Santa Clara county alone, there are 23 EPA superfund cleanup sites -- making it one of the dirtiest counties in America, and number one in superfund in California. In South Dakota and North Dakota combined, there is one superfund site.

    As ranked by the EPA, here's the high tech contribution to the superfund sites:

    2. FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORP. (SOUTH SAN JOSE PLANT)
    4. SPECTRA-PHYSICS, INC.
    5. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.
    6. NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR CORP
    8. TELEDYNE SEMICONDUCTOR
    11. TRW MICROWAVE, INC (BUILDING 82)
    11. INTEL MAGNETICS
    11. FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORP (MT VIEW)
    11. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. (BLDG. 915)
    11. INTEL CORP. (SANTA CLARA III)
    12. HEWLETT-PACKARD (620-640 PAGE MILL ROAD)
    12. RAYTHEON CORP
    12. INTEL CORP. (MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANT

    Notice how AMD and Intel appear multiple times. They make fast chips, but they make a damn mess.

    So is the tech industry socially responsible? Not if you care about the environment.

    The Santa Clara county data was taken from Scorecard.

    --
    No sig is worth reading.
  338. Economist Paul Krugman has a relevant column by swm · · Score: 3

    At In praise of cheap labor, MIT Economist Paul Krugman argues, "Bad jobs at bad wages are better than no jobs at all..."

  339. Bill Gates by Shaheen · · Score: 4
    As we all know, Bill Gates is the devil.

    However, he's certainly a generous devil. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has repeatedly received donations from Gates (and other benefactors), towards advancement in many medicinal and health fields - including hunger, cancer, and others.

    Recently, Gates has donated:

    • March, 2000 - $133 million towards people being able to receive health benefits of the advancements in pharmaceuticals
    • October, 1999 - $7.7 million towards New York State public libraries for internet access and technical training/information
    • September, 1999 - $1 billion for the Gates Millenium Scholarships to pay for 1,000 college students' tuition, room, and board


    I could go further back, but you can look it all up for yourself at New.C om
    --
    You should never take life too seriously - You'll never get out of it alive.
    1. Re:Bill Gates by coaxial · · Score: 4

      However, he's certainly a generous devil.

      Recently, Gates has donated:


      • March, 2000 - $133 million towards people being able to receive health benefits of the advancements in pharmaceuticals
      • October, 1999 - $7.7 million towards New York State public libraries for internet access and technical training/information
      • September, 1999 - $1 billion for the Gates Millenium Scholarships to pay for 1,000 college students' tuition, room, and board


      And at an estimated $85 billion this means:

      • Phamaseuticals = 0.15 %
      • Libraries = 0.009 %
      • Scholarships = 1.17%


      To put this in perspective, that like me giving
      • Phamaseuticals = $75
      • Libraries = $4.50
      • Scholarships = $588


      Hardly "Giving till it hurts". Hell, lil' ol' ladies give more money to their church.
  340. support your local mom&pop shop by Ricdude · · Score: 4

    Keep the money local to your area, and out of the pockets of the big corporation CEOs, whenever possible. There are a few local people I buy parts from, and I've assembled all my machines from their available supplies. It costs a little more if you build something from scratch, but for upgrading it's usually a good deal. Their prices are pretty low, and if something breaks, I can yell at someone's face if I need to. Never underestimate the power of face-to-face contact when dealing with product returns.

    --
    How's my programming? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL
  341. Re:Depends on the company, mostly by Ricdude · · Score: 4
    Contrary to popular belief, Microsoft is probably actualy nice to many of its employees. It is under such scrutiny that it can't
    afford not to. However, some of the less popular hardware companies (AOPen, and the other really small and unheard of ones
    that you can't find at Best Buy) probably aren't as benevolent.


    What are you smoking, and where do I get some? Really, have you already forgotten the efforts of Microsoft to abolish time and a half overtime for their hourly contract employees? When they tried to get the state of Washington to exclude "information tech" workers wholesale from that particular benefit?


    Please read a little from http://www.vcnet.com/bms/ before attempting to pass this off again.

    --
    How's my programming? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL
  342. Re:Social responsibilty by Medievalist · · Score: 4

    And, of course, Windows 2000 will include real-time disk defragging purchased from Diskeeper, which is one of the many Scientologist "front" organizations that contribute their earnings directly back to the mother cult.

    Novell is heavily, though only quasi-officially, involved with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - but the Mormons, unlike the Scientologists, are not considered to be dangerous criminal organizations by several nations.

    Do a search at your favorite engine for "dianetics+scientology+criminal". On Alta Vista, you'll get 114 web pages devoted to slamming Scientology and their practices. Look for German language sites and you'll probably find even more!

    "Social Responsibility" implies not supporting terrorists or exclusionist religions, in my book.

    --Charlie
    "I think I should GAIN karma for baiting Xians"

  343. Read Cypress CEO's Position by hanway · · Score: 4

    It's old (1996) but still worth reading the response of outspoken Cypress Semi CEO T.J. Rodgers to The Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia after they criticized the company for lack of minority representation on its board. Here is the link.

  344. Re:Independantly? by KahunaBurger · · Score: 4
    In my mind, a "normal buying decision" includes things like, oh, does this company exploit third-world child labor? Do they try to legally abuse their employees, or use the law to silence critics? Have I ever heard of them being entangled with violations of environmental laws - and if I did, was it a real violation, or some tin-pot beaureaucrat making political hay?

    If these are the things you think of when making your normal buying decisions, we are in perfect agreement. However, that isn't what the person I responded to said. What I quoted was :

    Make the best deal you can, for the best price that you can, and donate your 'extra' money to the charity or cause of your choice. Using the company as a social proxy is in-efficient compared to making a normal buying decision and having your personal causes a separate and distinct thing.

    This was after focusing on the job of companies being to make money and nothing else. "A normal buying decision" here is defined as paying attention only to the product and the price.

    Now in a shopping moment, I look at where something is made and if its a company I actually know something about already. I agree you can't be an expert on every company. If I was buying stock in a company, or planning to open a business that would be buying 100 computers, I would look more in depth.

    Nutshell, I agree with you pretty much, but I don't think the person I was responding to did.

    -Kahuna Burger

    --
    ...will work for Chick tracts...
  345. Well, after reading the first 75 posts or so... by Malor · · Score: 5
    There's a whole lot of words up there. They can be boiled down, I think, to just three: "we don't know." Lots of opinion and bombast, but very few facts.

    Okay: we don't know, but surely SOMEONE does. Doesn't anyone have links to related info? Does the United Way have any information about computer company donations? I don't, unfortunately, have time to do the legwork today. :(

    Despite the protestations of the A/C above, claiming that any such thinking is a threat to freedom, etc. etc, this stuff matters . Much of the code you write will be thrown away -- the environmental damage you do while writing it will last forever.

    One thing we're realizing, in our search of the cosmos with the Hubble, is that planets like Earth may be impossibly rare; there might not be five planets like this in the whole Galaxy. We are probably sitting atop a treasure trove of literally Galactic proportions and using it as a toilet... in fact, we're actively painting the treasure room with feces.

    So, again, this stuff matters a lot. Pay attention. Pick this out over the background noise; most other concerns are less important, even if they are more urgent.

  346. Re:Who Really Cares?? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5
    It doesnt matter.Im not going to buy a Pentium III instead of an Athlon because intel uses a less polutive fab or something.Is it fast?Stable?The epitome of PC power?Thats why I buy a product.
    Ah, nothing like short-term short-sighted thinking.

    Tell me, how much good does having the epitome of PC power do you when you're dying of cancer caused by the toxins released during fabrication of your CPU?

    I like powerful CPUs. I also like being able to breathe the atmosphere. So if manufacturer A is doing a better job of keeping his toxins to himself than manufacturer B, it's in my selfish best interest to purchase from A.

    If you don't like to think of it as "social responsibility", think of it as "long term global thinking".

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  347. Re:Social responsibilty by mr · · Score: 5

    A follow up on Apple:

    Apple also makes its iMac line of computers with polycarbonate plastic. This plastic contains bisphenol A.

    Apple acknologies the plastic outgasses enough for people to notice the smell.

    A list of links from 'it causes testicles to shrink' to 'everything is ok'
    http://www.wwfcanada.org/red uce-risk/questionable.html
    http://www.sciencedai ly.com/releases/1999/10/991021075812.htm
    http://www.niehs.nih.gov/oc/news/seala nt.htm
    http://www.doh.gov.uk/hef/bisphena.htm
    The Pro BPA page telling you everything is Ok, nothign to see here...http://www.bisphenol-a.org/

    Now the question:
    Is it socially responsible to
    1) be making this kind of machine covering
    2) have these computers in schools, where endocrine disruption has more of an effect.

    Keep in mind that the Good Design (tm) award given out in Japan was NOT given to the iMac. Why? Because of the use of bisphenol-A. (this is how I found out in fact....)

    --
    If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
  348. Social responsibilty by mr · · Score: 5

    Depends on the metrics you use.

    Apple has had issues in the past WRT the number of african americans in management

    Here on /., Micro$oft is disliked for the quality of the code they sell. (think if the stuff worked.)

    Digital (now part of Compaq) is rarely given credit for their creation and then NOT getting patents on the citrus replacement for freon solvents.

    And Ray Norda gets no credit for his settling the BSD/AT&T lawsuit. (a social issue of importance to the BSD community/OpenSource software)

    The simplest metric would be to get the finationals from the companies and see what they list as charties, then do a %age. But what is important to you, say a greenpeace donation, is not important to others (say replacing freon)

    --
    If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
  349. Independantly? by KahunaBurger · · Score: 5
    Make the best deal you can, for the best price that you can, and donate your 'extra' money to the charity or cause of your choice. Using the company as a social proxy is in-efficient compared to making a normal buying decision and having your personal causes a separate and distinct thing.

    Hey, that gives me a great idea! If I started working as a pimp for underage crack whores, I would make a lot more money and could finally have enough disposable cash to donate to the Home for Little Wanderers!

    Ehem. To talk about keeping your personal causes (what we sometimes call "ethics") a "seperate and distinct thing" indicates that you may not understand why the poster was asking the question. As a person who also cares about social justice, i can tell you that part of it is personally making an impact, and another just as important part is living your life in an ethical fashion. Part of that, for me, is trying not to participate in injustice.

    To put it in simple terms, if a businessman was murdered right in front of you, then the murderer turned to you and said "hey, I don't really want to fence this rolex, You wanna buy it for 10 bucks?" Would you feel ethically comfortable about getting a deal under those circumstances? If not, why should someone who cares about human rights feel comfortable buying a less expensive keyboard that is cheap because of the use of slave labor?

    So no, you can't always just buy whatever's cheap then use the money you save to be nice, anymore than I could run a slave brothel and give the money to charity. Everything you do is a choice, and some of us try to make ethical choices part of our daily life, not just a once a year check.

    PS I consider part of the job of every human being to be acting decently. Corporate officers who can't do that part of their job won't get my money for the rest of it.

    -Kahuna Burger

    --
    ...will work for Chick tracts...
  350. Depends on the company, mostly by bonzoesc · · Score: 5
    Contrary to popular belief, Microsoft is probably actualy nice to many of its employees. It is under such scrutiny that it can't afford not to. However, some of the less popular hardware companies (AOPen, and the other really small and unheard of ones that you can't find at Best Buy) probably aren't as benevolent.

    As software programmers go, they have to be nice or they'll all leave, due to the fact that the demand for software programmers is higher than the supply.

    The point being, overseas labor allows you to disregard your employees more than if the labor was here. Also, the jobs that require a computer are also going to require an employer to be more benevolent. Oddly enough, there are probably more problems with Asian physical labor than American programming jobs. How would you like to spend all day lining up the same two pins on a resistor to the same two holes on your board. How would you like to spend all week at it? Aren't you glad you get to use a computer at work/school?

    "Assume the worst about people, and you'll generally be correct"