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.
It makes sense to me to have a single, reputable company/organization issue and sign certificates. Having a web of trust is forever as weak as the least trustworthy/ethical partner. At least this way, the very top level signee is a known, trustworthy market leader.
Problems were real, you just don't know
on
Apocalypse Not
·
· Score: 1
I was in working during Y2K, and the company I work for had several Y2K bugs which were significant enough to our operations that we had to fix them that night. These were problems that slipped through the cracks during testing. The thing is, these bugs didn't affect anyone but us, and there was a) no way to get the news out, and b) no desire to do so, or else our stock prices would have been hurt. The only failures we would have seen on TV would ahve been catastrophic ones. Nobody cares about all the little things that go wrong in various IS departments around the world...
Slashdot Mirror
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.
It makes sense to me to have a single, reputable company/organization issue and sign certificates. Having a web of trust is forever as weak as the least trustworthy/ethical partner. At least this way, the very top level signee is a known, trustworthy market leader.
I was in working during Y2K, and the company I work for had several Y2K bugs which were significant enough to our operations that we had to fix them that night. These were problems that slipped through the cracks during testing. The thing is, these bugs didn't affect anyone but us, and there was a) no way to get the news out, and b) no desire to do so, or else our stock prices would have been hurt. The only failures we would have seen on TV would ahve been catastrophic ones. Nobody cares about all the little things that go wrong in various IS departments around the world...