a) publicly companies can't have anykind of idelogoue because it would distance them from potential customers b) but they can still demand it from their employees and even refuse to work with employees they disagree with their ideology
Isn't above quite insane way of facing world? How do you know when companyes internal policies and values clash with customers? You can't know, because they are always symmetrically opposite. Other is ultraliberal, while other is anything but.
I'm not also convinced that having ideologically diffrent people is recipe for failure. First of all, average job shouldn't raise deep ideological diffrences. If employer spends his time preaching Adam Smith, Hitler or Jesus to employees, his not doing business but running a political or religous party.
Secondly, average worker can't anyway choose people he/she works with and certainly not customers. If all companies and project would be just be run by mormons just because they share same values, it would be recipe for failure too(nothing against mormons btw.).
I think its easier to get 10 persons to do things because they have the skills, than finding 10 people who have the skill and also agree with you ideologically. I know employers in real who try latter one, and I can only feel sorry for them. They certainly don't have too many options.
So based on above, what's the sense limiting employee's opinions? What's the beef? Companies don't need freedom of speech, but inviduals do.
I don't see how selection of ideas should have anything about chance to present them. By definition, they are two diffrent things.
Ideas have never killed or harmed anyone, only executing bad ideas have. And like subprime mess proves, people still choose wrong ideas.
Despite allkinds of limiations and systems that supposedly should enchance the way people select ideas.
I also think that it is diffrent to have obligation to support somebody because his/her opinions. Compared to punishing somebody for presenting opinions publicly.
What harm there could be if people could present their opinions publicly without fear of economic sanctions? Can you tell me any practical example?
I think the main problem is that we can't really separate personal opinions from business ones.
Freedom of speech is a nice thing, but in real word people don't say to employers what they think if it means they lose their jobs. Goverment mostly protects citizens being harassed by goverment itself, but it does very little if private citizen limits other persons freedom of speech or goverments agencies as employer do it.
Or lets phrase that again. Yes, anyone can say anything and freedom of speech is almost without limits. But no law guarantees using that right won't have consequences like losing your job or business. On private or public sector.
And thats the fundamental problem of political rights. If they don't protect people who exercise them economically too, they are just laws that state 'you can do this or that - if you can afford it'.
In real world it means that if you can't afford it, you have to give away your rights. Even those protected in name by constitutions. So actually, freedom of speech for example, knows bounds.
Fundamentals question is then, shouldn't political rights be also economical rights? Shouldn't they be if they can't be separated in real world?
What are those rights that can't be taken away, but you can't afford to exercise? They are no rights at all far as I can tell.
I agree with you totally.
When I think what's wrong with Vista after using 2 Vistas few months, I must say....nothing. There is no problem with them that would concern Vista itself. Vista is much more ready than Windows 2000 I got shortly after it was published. And XP...it was quite disaster far as I recall at first. Now people are so happy with XP, that I find it bit humorous.
True, I can't get all hardware working on Vista. But this is true in Linux too. And I don't hold it against linux, so why I should hold it against Vista?
But I can understand why people don't want Vista. They have things that don't work on it and they don't want to do hassle of paying, upgrading, installing etc. just so they could use Vista. They don't have the upside why to do it. Perfectly rational thinking, I agree.
But why hate Vista because of it? If you don't want to upgrade but Microsoft forces you to, it's not fault of Vista.
And if you don't have to upgrade to it, what's the problem then?
If you don't have something really important on XP and your hardware works on Vista, why would anyone prefer XP over Vista? I honestly can't think why somebody would switch back to XP if he doesn't need to.
Personally I think Vista is many ways lot smoother OS and has smarter security system than XP.
Having the admin password popup box asking me do I want to install or do things, makes me feel lot more safer than the old XP style 'what you dont see cant harm you' style of security.
Slashdot Mirror
So you are arquing that
a) publicly companies can't have anykind of idelogoue because it would distance them from potential customers
b) but they can still demand it from their employees and even refuse to work with employees they disagree with their ideology
Isn't above quite insane way of facing world? How do you know when companyes internal policies and values clash with customers? You can't know, because they are always symmetrically opposite. Other is ultraliberal, while other is anything but.
I'm not also convinced that having ideologically diffrent people is recipe for failure.
First of all, average job shouldn't raise deep ideological diffrences. If employer spends his time preaching Adam Smith,
Hitler or Jesus to employees, his not doing business but running a political or religous party.
Secondly, average worker can't anyway choose people he/she works with and certainly not customers.
If all companies and project would be just be run by mormons just because they share same values, it would be recipe for failure too(nothing against mormons btw.).
I think its easier to get 10 persons to do things because they have the skills, than finding 10 people who have the skill and also agree with you ideologically. I know employers in real who try latter one, and I can only feel sorry for them. They certainly don't have too many options.
So based on above, what's the sense limiting employee's opinions? What's the beef?
Companies don't need freedom of speech, but inviduals do.
Well, I don't agree.
I don't see how selection of ideas should have anything about chance to present them.
By definition, they are two diffrent things.
Ideas have never killed or harmed anyone, only executing bad ideas have.
And like subprime mess proves, people still choose wrong ideas.
Despite allkinds of limiations and systems that supposedly should enchance the way people select ideas.
I also think that it is diffrent to have obligation to support somebody because his/her opinions.
Compared to punishing somebody for presenting opinions publicly.
What harm there could be if people could present their opinions publicly without fear of economic sanctions?
Can you tell me any practical example?
I think the main problem is that we can't really separate personal opinions from business ones.
Freedom of speech is a nice thing, but in real word people don't say to employers what they think if it means they lose their jobs. Goverment mostly protects citizens being harassed by goverment itself, but it does very little if private citizen limits other persons freedom of speech or goverments agencies as employer do it.
Or lets phrase that again. Yes, anyone can say anything and freedom of speech is almost without limits. But no law guarantees using that right won't have consequences like losing your job or business. On private or public sector.
And thats the fundamental problem of political rights. If they don't protect people who exercise them economically too, they are just laws that state 'you can do this or that - if you can afford it'.
In real world it means that if you can't afford it, you have to give away your rights. Even those protected in name by constitutions. So actually, freedom of speech for example, knows bounds.
Fundamentals question is then, shouldn't political rights be also economical rights?
Shouldn't they be if they can't be separated in real world?
What are those rights that can't be taken away, but you can't afford to exercise? They are no rights at all far as I can tell.
I agree with you totally. When I think what's wrong with Vista after using 2 Vistas few months, I must say....nothing. There is no problem with them that would concern Vista itself. Vista is much more ready than Windows 2000 I got shortly after it was published. And XP...it was quite disaster far as I recall at first. Now people are so happy with XP, that I find it bit humorous. True, I can't get all hardware working on Vista. But this is true in Linux too. And I don't hold it against linux, so why I should hold it against Vista? But I can understand why people don't want Vista. They have things that don't work on it and they don't want to do hassle of paying, upgrading, installing etc. just so they could use Vista. They don't have the upside why to do it. Perfectly rational thinking, I agree. But why hate Vista because of it? If you don't want to upgrade but Microsoft forces you to, it's not fault of Vista. And if you don't have to upgrade to it, what's the problem then? If you don't have something really important on XP and your hardware works on Vista, why would anyone prefer XP over Vista? I honestly can't think why somebody would switch back to XP if he doesn't need to. Personally I think Vista is many ways lot smoother OS and has smarter security system than XP. Having the admin password popup box asking me do I want to install or do things, makes me feel lot more safer than the old XP style 'what you dont see cant harm you' style of security.