I agree. I've been known in the past to do some stupid things as far as blogs and stuff go. I don't do them anymore. This guy doesn't appear to have learned that lesson.
Except you made the comment that you would also try to regulate their religious practices.
That's a big no-no, and shot all of your other more reasonable arguments to hell. Id does your credibility no good at all to actively be advocating (and admitting to) violating federala law on a public forum.
That may be. But if that is the case, then most companies are being duplicitous.
I find that there is nothing more demoralizing than a company saying "we're a family" and "we have a great team" and "you're highly valued" when you know that they can and will get rid of you whenever they get the urge. It's not all about finances - finances are a tool, not an end. All of these problems start coming up when you start thinking of finances as the end rather than the means.
What's money for? It's a way of allocating resources. It's a social construct. Nothing more. And if you think about it in those terms, social constructs are NO GOOD without a society, and a society is based on interpersonal relationships. A society starts breaking down when people start playing games with money and start working harder on acquiring the money than the relationships.
When you look at it from *that* angle, you start to see how people who make money their life are cutting off their nose to spit their face. Including the guy who started this whole thread.
It's about balance. People who have an employee mindset are on one side. People who have an employer mindset are on the other. And neither side is balanced unless you have an understanding of *both* sides of the picture.
Yeah, why not. Seriously, if this person is as good a manager as he thinks and his good employees are as happy there as he thinks, no one will care, as he is certainly treating them well, right?
I agree that employees should be dedicated to their work and not feel as if they are doing you a favor.
But you should recognize that they are INDEED doing you a favor. You could not grow your company without them. Even the bad ones will get *some* work done - just not enough to make sense to keep them. And especially in a tight job market where there's a lot of positions and few talented people, you are indeed beholden to them in a very real way.
There are 10 shit employees to 1 good one, true. But that 1 good one is doing you a very BIG favor and you need to keep that in mind when dealing with them.
I just don't like your attitude. I'm trying to figure out why, but I think the closest that I can come is you strike me as the type of boss who would treat employees capriciously and arbitrarily yet expect them to be loyal, dependable, and competent. That's an unreasonable attitude, and it sure sounds to me like you're reaping the fruits of that phiosophy.
To those of you who think this fellow is out of his mind, pick up Kiyosaki's The Cashflow Quadrant. Kiyosaki might be a little bit of a fraud (his Rich Dad, Poor Dad is full of anecdotes that he most certainly did not live), but he explains financial philosophy in a way that will change the way you look at working and business forevermore. In a good way.
He lost all credibility with me when he stated in a public forum that he was eagerly ignoring employment laws.
Same goes for a mother versus a single man. And hey, if they wine and dine potential customers often, a vegetarian simply isn't acceptable. Now I'm not going to write the job description to include the expected diet, but I am going to expect my employee to eat when my client takes them to a steak house.
He actually SAID that?
These are the kind of statements that any one of his employees can go back to and put together a really airtight suit if he's wronged them. He's stating in a public forum that he doesn't give a shit about EEO laws.
Some religions have dietary restrictions, and guess what? You hire one, you've got them, and you'd better find a damned good *other* reason, because you're gonna find your pants sued off.
Yeah. If a client were to come up to me and say "I found this person on the web and he's an atheist! Fire him!", I would likely escort the client out of my office and say "You are now a liability, if I do as you ask I can be sued for religious discrimination. So, either you work with the person I've assigned to your account and you do not say one single word to him about his religion (or lack thereof), or you can take a hike. I will instruct my employee never to discuss his beliefs with you, and that should be sufficient".
I don't usually agree with "troll" ratings but I agree with this one.
You CANNOT fire someone based on their religious affiliations, at least in the US It is an equal opportunity violation, and you could get sued. Personally. I think it's one of those kinds of things that you can go after the offender's assets personally and not just as an officer of the company.
You are a classic example of Very Bad Management if you aren't trolling.
Well, as I recall, one is a fully multitasking system that already has a functional window manager and a few apps. Kind of unpolished but very much unlike linux, I think it even has its own filesystem.
I think another is truly object oriented right down to the kernel, but I can't remember details of it. I'll have to go spelunking sometime soon.
There are a couple of truly unique OSes out there, along with a rather active "demo" scene, last I checked (which was a while ago). I found some intereting ones a while ago, unfortunately I don't have the links anymore.
You never hear of them because they have very little traction. But having traction is not the point of open source, it's just a benefit.
If you assume that Linux is the only open source stuff being written.
There is some very innovative open source stuff out there that has nothing to do with Linux. Including a few next-gen operating systems.
In fact, I think that the fact that open source programmers have gotten so much out of Linux that a 70s platform is *still viable and thriving* in 2007 says quite a bit about them - and the opposite of what the article was saying.
There are some legitimate criticisms of open source - this isn't one of them.
Sitting on your desk, labeled very clearly "Main power shutoff". then when you have visitors over, just keep edging over the button and watch people shit a brick as you accidentally press it.
People are always scared of what happens when children grow up.
That's one reason why I think that the politicians are trying to erode individual rights. They're scared shitless about what's going to happen when the children grow up and start making public policy.
There's always a mod that mods these kinds of comments down as flamebait. It doesn't make them any less true.
Personally, I don't at all see the appeal of "second life". If you're going to be involved in something that is just like real life, but is not real life, and is an inferior low resolution copy to boot, why not just go to a park and watch the squirrels play?
Of course, I'm here commenting at 12:30 on a Sat. night, so I'm not exactly taking my own advice. But it's still good advice.
I start to think more and more that second life is just another manifestation of the ongoing trentd for Americans to retreat into their own little worlds and live in as much fantasy as possible. Probably because life sucks so much...
And I wouldn't work for you. Any boss that puts that little weight on ethics is probably cutting corners on other things that are at the very least not healthy for the company and at the very most could be detrimental to future job security.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. I've been known in the past to do some stupid things as far as blogs and stuff go. I don't do them anymore. This guy doesn't appear to have learned that lesson.
Why did this even make the front page? It had no redeeming value except to prove that "Zed" is a pain to work with and unprofessional.
Except you made the comment that you would also try to regulate their religious practices.
That's a big no-no, and shot all of your other more reasonable arguments to hell. Id does your credibility no good at all to actively be advocating (and admitting to) violating federala law on a public forum.
That may be. But if that is the case, then most companies are being duplicitous.
I find that there is nothing more demoralizing than a company saying "we're a family" and "we have a great team" and "you're highly valued" when you know that they can and will get rid of you whenever they get the urge. It's not all about finances - finances are a tool, not an end. All of these problems start coming up when you start thinking of finances as the end rather than the means.
What's money for? It's a way of allocating resources. It's a social construct. Nothing more. And if you think about it in those terms, social constructs are NO GOOD without a society, and a society is based on interpersonal relationships. A society starts breaking down when people start playing games with money and start working harder on acquiring the money than the relationships.
When you look at it from *that* angle, you start to see how people who make money their life are cutting off their nose to spit their face. Including the guy who started this whole thread.
It's about balance. People who have an employee mindset are on one side. People who have an employer mindset are on the other. And neither side is balanced unless you have an understanding of *both* sides of the picture.
Yeah, why not. Seriously, if this person is as good a manager as he thinks and his good employees are as happy there as he thinks, no one will care, as he is certainly treating them well, right?
Right?
Why do I hear crickets?
Is this thing on?
Oh, I believe you. I'm just fricking astonished. If I held those kinds of beliefs I sure wouldn't say so on a public forum.
Nah, I'd probably stick around and call in an anonymous tip to the state/federal agencies who investigate crap like that, and watch the fur fly.
I agree that employees should be dedicated to their work and not feel as if they are doing you a favor.
But you should recognize that they are INDEED doing you a favor. You could not grow your company without them. Even the bad ones will get *some* work done - just not enough to make sense to keep them. And especially in a tight job market where there's a lot of positions and few talented people, you are indeed beholden to them in a very real way.
There are 10 shit employees to 1 good one, true. But that 1 good one is doing you a very BIG favor and you need to keep that in mind when dealing with them.
I just don't like your attitude. I'm trying to figure out why, but I think the closest that I can come is you strike me as the type of boss who would treat employees capriciously and arbitrarily yet expect them to be loyal, dependable, and competent. That's an unreasonable attitude, and it sure sounds to me like you're reaping the fruits of that phiosophy.
He lost all credibility with me when he stated in a public forum that he was eagerly ignoring employment laws.
He actually SAID that?
These are the kind of statements that any one of his employees can go back to and put together a really airtight suit if he's wronged them. He's stating in a public forum that he doesn't give a shit about EEO laws.
Some religions have dietary restrictions, and guess what? You hire one, you've got them, and you'd better find a damned good *other* reason, because you're gonna find your pants sued off.
Yeah. If a client were to come up to me and say "I found this person on the web and he's an atheist! Fire him!", I would likely escort the client out of my office and say "You are now a liability, if I do as you ask I can be sued for religious discrimination. So, either you work with the person I've assigned to your account and you do not say one single word to him about his religion (or lack thereof), or you can take a hike. I will instruct my employee never to discuss his beliefs with you, and that should be sufficient".
And that would be it. No client is worth that.
I don't usually agree with "troll" ratings but I agree with this one.
You CANNOT fire someone based on their religious affiliations, at least in the US It is an equal opportunity violation, and you could get sued. Personally. I think it's one of those kinds of things that you can go after the offender's assets personally and not just as an officer of the company.
You are a classic example of Very Bad Management if you aren't trolling.
Nah, only took a few minutes and a freshmeat search. I just didn't try till later, it's not all that important to me.
I am, however, about to try plan 9 on vmware. Looks interesting. I have the visopsys vmware image too.
And Syllable also seems interesting as well.
SkyOS seems interesting too, but I don't think it's open source.
There are other OSes out there.
Ah, I found one.
Visopsys.
I have gotten it to run successfully under vmware. It isn't ready for prime time, but it does work, and it's kind of usable.
linky
The point is not whether they have a good userbase - the point is that they exist.
Well, as I recall, one is a fully multitasking system that already has a functional window manager and a few apps. Kind of unpolished but very much unlike linux, I think it even has its own filesystem.
I think another is truly object oriented right down to the kernel, but I can't remember details of it. I'll have to go spelunking sometime soon.
There are a couple of truly unique OSes out there, along with a rather active "demo" scene, last I checked (which was a while ago). I found some intereting ones a while ago, unfortunately I don't have the links anymore.
You never hear of them because they have very little traction. But having traction is not the point of open source, it's just a benefit.
Not everything is beholden to Linux.
If you assume that Linux is the only open source stuff being written.
There is some very innovative open source stuff out there that has nothing to do with Linux. Including a few next-gen operating systems.
In fact, I think that the fact that open source programmers have gotten so much out of Linux that a 70s platform is *still viable and thriving* in 2007 says quite a bit about them - and the opposite of what the article was saying.
There are some legitimate criticisms of open source - this isn't one of them.
Sitting on your desk, labeled very clearly "Main power shutoff". then when you have visitors over, just keep edging over the button and watch people shit a brick as you accidentally press it.
People are always scared of what happens when children grow up.
That's one reason why I think that the politicians are trying to erode individual rights. They're scared shitless about what's going to happen when the children grow up and start making public policy.
And then expect them to think for themselves with no training or experience.
Which is why we have so many porn movies with college girls.
Comparing a blog to second life is a very good example of Not Getting the Point.
There's always a mod that mods these kinds of comments down as flamebait. It doesn't make them any less true.
Personally, I don't at all see the appeal of "second life". If you're going to be involved in something that is just like real life, but is not real life, and is an inferior low resolution copy to boot, why not just go to a park and watch the squirrels play?
Of course, I'm here commenting at 12:30 on a Sat. night, so I'm not exactly taking my own advice. But it's still good advice.
I start to think more and more that second life is just another manifestation of the ongoing trentd for Americans to retreat into their own little worlds and live in as much fantasy as possible. Probably because life sucks so much...
And I wouldn't work for you. Any boss that puts that little weight on ethics is probably cutting corners on other things that are at the very least not healthy for the company and at the very most could be detrimental to future job security.