I can't find data on causes of death amongst working age people but I don't believe you that stress is at the top (I think that's what you meant, the brackets after that sentence make your meaning unclear).
I'll elaborate (but not too much). In (statistical) populations where there are strong social ties (i.e. families drink together, employees smoke with their bosses) people tend to outlive average people who otherwise live "healthy lifestyles" (i.e. low fat diets, no smoking, etc). So in other words heavy smokers tend to outlive "healthy life-style" puritans when their environments are stress free. And stress "damages and kills brain cells." (ref. http://www.fi.edu/learn/brain/stress.html).
So if you see that heart disease, lung cancer etc is high on the statistical scale you need to remember that stress lowers the immune system, constricts blood vessels, causes heart disease, etc and so on. In other words if a casual observer lists a persons cause of death as lung cancer do to smoking then chances are that person is making a lot of assumptions without doing any research. Stress is a killer, but unfortunately it is a silent killer because it is invisible. I couldn't find specific statistics myself, but there is enough secondary knowledge that I have to make me put intellectual weight into that idea. People ("scientists", "journalists", and your average Joe Schmuck) often overlook the more ubiquitous and less obvious for an easy scape goat. At the very least I merely ask people to question there own assumptions. The easy answer isn't often the correct answer. So maybe you get my point, or maybe I need to elaborate to the point of boredom. I'll leave smoking as a (good) example merely because it is so disagreeable to the majority of people (in the Western world). So, to link things together, I will merely say that simple answers (like spying on employees) are almost always the wrong approach. It would be better to put one's time and energy to positive solutions rather than negative outcomes.
That's a rant, good for letting off steam but doesn't really do much to move debate forward.
You're not "looking" very deeply into my observations.
Is it morally acceptable to do the type of monitoring I described in my hypothetical employment scenario
It depends, but I would err on the side of caution and say no (for the reasons already stated or implied). Of course if you don't trust the person you employ then you shouldn't have hired him in the first place, or just do things yourself (I generally tend to do things for myself despite the sometimes large learning curves involved. Unfortunately it's not practical for me to fill dental cavities or perform other medical procedures so I have to use extreme caution when dealing with medical issues, but that's another story...). Sometimes you just need to accept the fact that you can't change human nature and that two wrongs don't make a right.
[If] so, is there a difference in the ethical situation when a large corporate does the same things.
Of course there are differences, which should be obvious. For emphasis, in the corporate scenario: 1) There is a bureaucracy that can too easily scape goat an individual when detailed logs are kept (it only takes a good HRM or lawyer to find a phallic symbol in a cigar). 2) The corporate scenario assumes that this is a full time job. While people can live under the stress of surveillance for short periods of time without undo medical or psychological damage, this is too unfair for the employee to deal with in a corporate environment. People don't need to work themselves to death, and employees shouldn't feel compelled to stress out their employees either. It's bizarre and irrational. Since stress is the leading cause of death (way behind cigarettes, video games, and STDs. Though right wing government/corporate advertising would have you believe otherwise) it would make sense not to stress employees out since death is by its nature uneconomic and anti-capitalist.
Without thinking too hard I came up with just two very good points right off the top of my head.
I think the answers are yes and no respectively.
Rhetoric. You're comparing two different scenarios with (supposedly) different assumptions. You're doing this in an apparent attempt to make a point. It's weak. Again, I would never hire a contractor I couldn't trust, or if I had no choice I'd have him use his own computer. Again, this is just weak argumentation you've set up.
Sometimes wrong is just wrong. A work place is a second home with a second family. Just ask any Human Resource Manager and they will tell you with a big smile on their face that you are a valued, important and trusted member of the corporate family. Family members don't sneak into their child's room looking for drugs or reading their diary.
I agree the politicians shouldn't cave in, but I think Nokia represents like a third of the value of their stock market, so it's kind of a big deal.
I remember that during the dot-com boom Nortel was valued similarly in Canada. Due to the inevitable accounting scandals and the dot-com bust Nortel is now (relatively) insignificant. Canada survived the loss of one of its most valued companies. I'm sure that there are enough competent, moral, and law abiding companies or entrepreneurs that can fill the void without asking for government handouts (moral and legal handouts like Nokia is asking for, or financial handouts that the corrupt and incompetent banking industry asks for). Sometimes you need to cull the elephants if they get too aggressive and start encroaching where they shouldn't (I know it's not a great metaphor, but it works).
The difference is that the employees can quit and get other jobs and the customers can buy other products.
Yeah employees have choices; they can quit, they can go postal, they can suck cock, etc. Unfortunately the choices that most employees have are often just as negative or worse than doing nothing.
And yes, customers can stop buying from Walmart to stop the economic collapse of their towns. This doesn't happen for some strange economic reason. They (the smiling minimum wage Walmart Worker) will sell you the rope to hang yourself, and at bargain prices.
Listen son, in the Real World people don't have a choice in whether they can work to feed themselves or not. Unfortunately work takes up a disproportionate amount of time in one's life (despite computers and robots which were supposed to eliminate the need to work). Companies need to start accommodating workers instead of spying on them, stressing them out, and treating them like shit. A company like Nokia that will go out of its way to break the law in order to harm its employees should be forced to nationalize its assets (or at least have a suitable and similar punishment), unfortunately the people who run companies tend to be hypocrites and untrustful. We need to start spying on the executives of large companies, and not the other way around.
an AFP story reporting that Nokia has threatened to pull out of Finland unless the law passes.
Let them go. Companies that hurt a country should not be tolerated. Only companies that are useful should be welcomed. A corrupt company leaving a country is not a "threat" ("a source of danger").
I agree, but as is the case here they are more likely to get modded for their political opinion than for logic.
Thats all they do, if they don't agree its "neo-con winning the day" even if it has nothing to do with partisan lines.
Not sure where this lie came from. The GP is an obvious neo-con Troll whose argumentation is based in the Austrian school of Economics. Notice how the GP doesn't give any details. Most times neocons don't give details is because they are lying about the facts. So yes, truth and honesty for me are more important than positive moderations for me. I will say the truth despite the assholes on Slashdot who claim that their political statements are non-partisan.
The above comment gets plus 4 insightful and I get modded Flamebait. I've seen sooo much abuse here this is amazing. Nobody cares about honesty here. It's only about their political agenda.
The problem was solved by new technologies invented, developed, an popularised by private individuals looking to either make a buck or solve a problem that they faced personally. Not by any committee of busybodies trying to save the world.
So in other words, if it isn't what Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly thinks is good, then it's probably stupid?
Over the next several months, however, Tice was frustrated in his attempts to testify before Congress, had his credibility attacked by Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, and was subpoenaed by a federal grand jury in an apparent attempt at intimidation.
That says it all. If Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly can't believe him, then who else in their right mind would.
Those who have aggressively pushed the issue of the dangerous Internet, such as Connecticut's attorney general Richard Blumenthal, are less than happy with the report.
Of course, because without fear it is far more difficult to control people.
There has always been an inverse relationship between substance and style in print journalism. The more pictures a newspaper has almost always means the less substance a newspaper has. I've seen the same with Web sites. The less educated will not have the knowledge to realize that flash and scripting blockers are available.
You are merely parroting the propaganda that you hear on TV. I would have expected as much. It's like telling math-fan boys the truth about studying math: it don't make you smart. We need more myth-busters and less myth-purveyors.
I would guess that it is because alcohol in moderation may be beneficial to your health.
That's the problem; too many people are into guessing.
On the other hand cigarette smoke in any quantity is considered unhealthy.
It's interesting that a link to an organization with a scientific sounding name is associated with the above comment, and yet the referenced page offers no evidence whatsoever that "cigarette smoke in any quantity is considered unhealthy." It's those types of propaganda techniques that organizations like PETA and The American Heart Association et al have been making about various causes.
I also note that you never alluded to nor mentioned any scientific studies that research the positive benefits of smoking.
Kinda makes me wonder how bullshit the warnings on cigarettes are.
Interesting that (in Canada) the government enforces cigarette companies to have pictures of diseased lungs, etc on their packaging, and yet the alcohol companies are not required to have pictures of diseased livers; which demonstrates the fact that these propaganda campaigns are politically biased.
If they insist that such warnings be placed on the entrances to religious institutions (like churches, mosques and synagogues) then I might think this idea is more than just political gainsaying.
Slashdot Mirror
"Boss" levels. Games are supposed to be fun. If you make them too difficult then they cease being fun.
Too bad Auto-tune wasn't around when Bob Dylan was made pop music.
If it weren't for Auto-Tune I wouldn't be listening to pop music anymore.
Comcast Apologizes For Super Bowl Porn
Why are they apologizing? And where can we see the re-runs?
I can't find data on causes of death amongst working age people but I don't believe you that stress is at the top (I think that's what you meant, the brackets after that sentence make your meaning unclear).
I'll elaborate (but not too much). In (statistical) populations where there are strong social ties (i.e. families drink together, employees smoke with their bosses) people tend to outlive average people who otherwise live "healthy lifestyles" (i.e. low fat diets, no smoking, etc). So in other words heavy smokers tend to outlive "healthy life-style" puritans when their environments are stress free. And stress "damages and kills brain cells." (ref. http://www.fi.edu/learn/brain/stress.html).
So if you see that heart disease, lung cancer etc is high on the statistical scale you need to remember that stress lowers the immune system, constricts blood vessels, causes heart disease, etc and so on. In other words if a casual observer lists a persons cause of death as lung cancer do to smoking then chances are that person is making a lot of assumptions without doing any research. Stress is a killer, but unfortunately it is a silent killer because it is invisible. I couldn't find specific statistics myself, but there is enough secondary knowledge that I have to make me put intellectual weight into that idea. People ("scientists", "journalists", and your average Joe Schmuck) often overlook the more ubiquitous and less obvious for an easy scape goat. At the very least I merely ask people to question there own assumptions. The easy answer isn't often the correct answer. So maybe you get my point, or maybe I need to elaborate to the point of boredom. I'll leave smoking as a (good) example merely because it is so disagreeable to the majority of people (in the Western world). So, to link things together, I will merely say that simple answers (like spying on employees) are almost always the wrong approach. It would be better to put one's time and energy to positive solutions rather than negative outcomes.
your mastery of rhetoric trumps mine.
Thanks -:)
That's a rant, good for letting off steam but doesn't really do much to move debate forward.
You're not "looking" very deeply into my observations.
Is it morally acceptable to do the type of monitoring I described in my hypothetical employment scenario
It depends, but I would err on the side of caution and say no (for the reasons already stated or implied). Of course if you don't trust the person you employ then you shouldn't have hired him in the first place, or just do things yourself (I generally tend to do things for myself despite the sometimes large learning curves involved. Unfortunately it's not practical for me to fill dental cavities or perform other medical procedures so I have to use extreme caution when dealing with medical issues, but that's another story...). Sometimes you just need to accept the fact that you can't change human nature and that two wrongs don't make a right.
[If] so, is there a difference in the ethical situation when a large corporate does the same things.
Of course there are differences, which should be obvious. For emphasis, in the corporate scenario:
1) There is a bureaucracy that can too easily scape goat an individual when detailed logs are kept (it only takes a good HRM or lawyer to find a phallic symbol in a cigar).
2) The corporate scenario assumes that this is a full time job. While people can live under the stress of surveillance for short periods of time without undo medical or psychological damage, this is too unfair for the employee to deal with in a corporate environment. People don't need to work themselves to death, and employees shouldn't feel compelled to stress out their employees either. It's bizarre and irrational. Since stress is the leading cause of death (way behind cigarettes, video games, and STDs. Though right wing government/corporate advertising would have you believe otherwise) it would make sense not to stress employees out since death is by its nature uneconomic and anti-capitalist.
Without thinking too hard I came up with just two very good points right off the top of my head.
I think the answers are yes and no respectively.
Rhetoric. You're comparing two different scenarios with (supposedly) different assumptions. You're doing this in an apparent attempt to make a point. It's weak. Again, I would never hire a contractor I couldn't trust, or if I had no choice I'd have him use his own computer. Again, this is just weak argumentation you've set up.
Sometimes wrong is just wrong. A work place is a second home with a second family. Just ask any Human Resource Manager and they will tell you with a big smile on their face that you are a valued, important and trusted member of the corporate family. Family members don't sneak into their child's room looking for drugs or reading their diary.
Best regards,
UTW
I agree the politicians shouldn't cave in, but I think Nokia represents like a third of the value of their stock market, so it's kind of a big deal.
I remember that during the dot-com boom Nortel was valued similarly in Canada. Due to the inevitable accounting scandals and the dot-com bust Nortel is now (relatively) insignificant. Canada survived the loss of one of its most valued companies. I'm sure that there are enough competent, moral, and law abiding companies or entrepreneurs that can fill the void without asking for government handouts (moral and legal handouts like Nokia is asking for, or financial handouts that the corrupt and incompetent banking industry asks for). Sometimes you need to cull the elephants if they get too aggressive and start encroaching where they shouldn't (I know it's not a great metaphor, but it works).
The difference is that the employees can quit and get other jobs and the customers can buy other products.
Yeah employees have choices; they can quit, they can go postal, they can suck cock, etc. Unfortunately the choices that most employees have are often just as negative or worse than doing nothing.
And yes, customers can stop buying from Walmart to stop the economic collapse of their towns. This doesn't happen for some strange economic reason. They (the smiling minimum wage Walmart Worker) will sell you the rope to hang yourself, and at bargain prices.
Listen son, in the Real World people don't have a choice in whether they can work to feed themselves or not. Unfortunately work takes up a disproportionate amount of time in one's life (despite computers and robots which were supposed to eliminate the need to work). Companies need to start accommodating workers instead of spying on them, stressing them out, and treating them like shit. A company like Nokia that will go out of its way to break the law in order to harm its employees should be forced to nationalize its assets (or at least have a suitable and similar punishment), unfortunately the people who run companies tend to be hypocrites and untrustful. We need to start spying on the executives of large companies, and not the other way around.
an AFP story reporting that Nokia has threatened to pull out of Finland unless the law passes.
Let them go. Companies that hurt a country should not be tolerated. Only companies that are useful should be welcomed. A corrupt company leaving a country is not a "threat" ("a source of danger").
People like this should hold a perm -1 troll.
I agree, but as is the case here they are more likely to get modded for their political opinion than for logic.
Thats all they do, if they don't agree its "neo-con winning the day" even if it has nothing to do with partisan lines.
Not sure where this lie came from. The GP is an obvious neo-con Troll whose argumentation is based in the Austrian school of Economics. Notice how the GP doesn't give any details. Most times neocons don't give details is because they are lying about the facts. So yes, truth and honesty for me are more important than positive moderations for me. I will say the truth despite the assholes on Slashdot who claim that their political statements are non-partisan.
Congratulations on your moderation. The neo-cons have won the day.
The above comment gets plus 4 insightful and I get modded Flamebait. I've seen sooo much abuse here this is amazing. Nobody cares about honesty here. It's only about their political agenda.
The problem was solved by new technologies invented, developed, an popularised by private individuals looking to either make a buck or solve a problem that they faced personally. Not by any committee of busybodies trying to save the world.
So in other words, if it isn't what Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly thinks is good, then it's probably stupid?
It's a paradigm shift that I've witnessed over the years. The RIAA/MPAA certainly have been major influencers.
School used to be so much easier and less complicated before the RIAA started influencing things.
The ISPs should not be cooperating with pseudo-government institutions who want to know the addresses of people who look at album art on Wikipedia.
Over the next several months, however, Tice was frustrated in his attempts to testify before Congress, had his credibility attacked by Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, and was subpoenaed by a federal grand jury in an apparent attempt at intimidation.
That says it all. If Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly can't believe him, then who else in their right mind would.
Huh? Already worked out!? Astronauts have already been to space, I don't know if you've received the memo..
I haven't received any memo. Tell us how they have solved the radiation problem.
Those who have aggressively pushed the issue of the dangerous Internet, such as Connecticut's attorney general Richard Blumenthal, are less than happy with the report.
Of course, because without fear it is far more difficult to control people.
There has always been an inverse relationship between substance and style in print journalism. The more pictures a newspaper has almost always means the less substance a newspaper has. I've seen the same with Web sites. The less educated will not have the knowledge to realize that flash and scripting blockers are available.
You are merely parroting the propaganda that you hear on TV. I would have expected as much. It's like telling math-fan boys the truth about studying math: it don't make you smart. We need more myth-busters and less myth-purveyors.
I would guess that it is because alcohol in moderation may be beneficial to your health.
That's the problem; too many people are into guessing.
On the other hand cigarette smoke in any quantity is considered unhealthy.
It's interesting that a link to an organization with a scientific sounding name is associated with the above comment, and yet the referenced page offers no evidence whatsoever that "cigarette smoke in any quantity is considered unhealthy." It's those types of propaganda techniques that organizations like PETA and The American Heart Association et al have been making about various causes.
I also note that you never alluded to nor mentioned any scientific studies that research the positive benefits of smoking.
Kinda makes me wonder how bullshit the warnings on cigarettes are.
Interesting that (in Canada) the government enforces cigarette companies to have pictures of diseased lungs, etc on their packaging, and yet the alcohol companies are not required to have pictures of diseased livers; which demonstrates the fact that these propaganda campaigns are politically biased.
If they insist that such warnings be placed on the entrances to religious institutions (like churches, mosques and synagogues) then I might think this idea is more than just political gainsaying.