A thought that just struck me - if Comcast is using web overlays to pass on this info, it will, if anything, serve to legitimise the "Your computer is infected click here and give us your credit card details to fix it" pop-ups.
Any thoughts from people who know more than me as to whether comcast just didn't think of this, or did and just doesn't care? On the one hand, they are comcast and don't have a reputation for forward thinking. On the other hand, they are comcast and don't have a reputation for giving two shits about their customers.
Any chance this is just the path of least resistance to say "Hey, we tried to help, but you ignored our warnings, the malware took you over your quota and you owe us $400," not caring if the user then is then trained to click on every bogus warning they get?
I know everyone loves to hate on apple's dictatorial approach, but just for once I'd like to talk about some of the less egregious examples of corporate censorship. He mentions XBLA in passing. I want to know what he's specifically talking about.
The indie section was a mess last time I looked, the top sellers were "personal massager" programs that did nothing more than make the controllers vibrate on command. There were several "games" that just tortured your avatar. One involved just shooting your avatar out of a woman's womb and trying to make the "baby" break as much stuff as possible. The indie section of XBLA seems more like an abandoned lot than a walled garden. If MS is exerting any control over that crap pile, they should be ashamed of themselves.
The non-indie sections of XBLA on the other hand do have better offerings, but I've heard of a few cases where MS has definitely meddled. They're pushing a "gamers have no reason to expect things for free, so you can't give them anything for free" motto it seems. Valve claimed that MS wouldn't let them release TF2 updates for free for that reason. They could have charged for it, but free updates for an already watered down version of the game? Absolutely not. At some point there was also an issue of how big a file TF2 could update, though I don't remember if that was MS putting artificial limits on it or the XBLA software couldn't handle it. I'd wonder if that's part or all of the reason steam is coming or has come to the PS3 but not the 360. MS may have said they couldn't, or steam may have decided (for good reason) to not bother. Either way, we 360 owners lost out there, and any game that my computer can run I'll be buying on steam.
Anyway, I think this discussion can use some examples that aren't apple because this problem isn't limited to iphones and ipads.
'disease' but that term implies a virus, bacteria, or other etc external agent
The word comes from the 14th century, before viruses and bacteria were known to be separate causes of sickness than genetic disorders. More importantly though, most people do seem to refer to genetic disorders as diseases. So I'd say no it doesn't.
Vote third party. Even if you lose you can brag, "Well I didn't vote for either asshole. Can't blame me."
1. If???
2. Who the hell cares about being able to say "I didn't do it?" That's kind of like burning to death in a house while gleefully announcing that it wasn't your cigarette that started the fire, you don't smoke.
3. Why do some people always assume third party candidates are worth voting for? If a politician can't get endorsed by one of the two parties (which most of them wish they were since empirically it helps their chances of winning), what does that say about his ability to do anything ON the job? It's not as if being elected is the biggest hurdle.
If it's between a candidate who I agree with on 100% of the issues but can't do anything about them, and a canidate who agrees with me on 50% of the issues but is effective at getting legislation passed, then I'm probably going to have to vote for the guy I only half agree with.
4. Those of us who are realists, who realize politics are always a compromise, and who realize that in order to elect someone you don't totally hate you have to make some coalitions, do in fact still blame you for the outcome to a degree.
Democrats doing something which they could screw up at, rather than doing nothing, would be at least a refreshing change of pace.
One wonders why republicans don't threaten to filibuster congressional democrats' orders at restaurants. Within days, most of the democrats would have starved to death.
1. That's all nationalities, ass 2. It's not all citizens, it's politicians who like to look tough on crimes but want to avoid the liabilities that come with cracking down on some of the really big white collar criminals.
There were 5, count them, 5 candidates who were registered on sufficient ballots to win the presidency. The fact that you are too fucking ignorant to be even dimly aware of what they show outside of CNN is utterly pathetic.
I voted for Thomas Jefferson.
I figure if you're going to vote for someone who has no realistic chance of winning, why not shoot for the stars? We KNOW TJ was a good leader, he helped create the country! The only thing the 5 candidates you're talking about had on him was that they're slightly more metabolically active than he is. I shouldn't have to choose between the "best of who is alive." And everyone knows all the politicians alive today are crooks and liars. We clearly need someone with years and years of experience, someone with the values that made this nation great, and someone who could not possibly be bought by special interest groups (since, as we know, he's deader than a doornail.)
Er, just to clarify, that wasn't to say that the scientists at LHC or Fermi are less senior or long-term thinkers than Hawkins. Maybe some of them were saying there's no theory of everything, but were too busy working on getting the LHC running to make a press release.
It's always these guys on the sideline talking up bullshit. You don't see the guys at Fermi or LHC spewing these nonsense. Tell the bastards to shut the fuck up and get back to work until they actually generate some *real* results.
Science isn't just "we got these results, and it means this." It's important to hypothesize out loud with peers sometimes, to get input, at very preliminary stages. For one thing, proving that there may be no theory that explains everything strikes me as very difficult to prove, though I have no concept of the math involved. Having more people make suggestions might better help him prove it? If it can't actually be proven, Hawkings saying it might cause some researchers to not waste as much effort going after a theory of everything, maybe now they're absolutely convinced it's just around the corner. If you're a physicist starting your career, you might not want to invest everything into finding a theory of everything. Realigning the field is something only a prominent scientist like Hawkings can do.
The guys at Fermi or LHC might be too focused on what they're doing at the moment to think in depth about larger issues like this. In many biological labs, the major theories that are mostly or completely unproven are usually thought up by the PIs, the more senior scientists with years of experience who write grants but don't do much lab work, wheras the postdocs and grad students are the ones doing the labwork, who haven't been in the field for as long and haven't had as long to make those big predictions.
There are plenty of exceptions to that of course. But it's not too surprising to me that the physicists who are "on the sidelines" are the ones who are coaching and calling plays.
It happens. James Watson, who was part of the team that discovered the structure of DNA, has been saying crazier things for years.
My favorite was his presentation on why men liked butts. Certainly funnier than his comments on race.
Scientists sometimes don't age well. We probably age better on average than rock stars, but then again people pay don't take what rock stars say as seriously as scientists.
I don't know, guess I picked a bad title or something?
Slashdot: dramatically overstated news for nerds... since that seems to be the evolution of news services for some reason?
I'm working on a submission: Fox news just had a bit about the internet, I'm assuming that their headline is something like "WILL USING OBAMANET 'IPv6' KILL YOU AND MAKE YOUR CHILDREN TERRORISTS?"
why does no one call for a constitutional amendment to REVERSE corporate personhood? It is probably one of the most important constitutional issues of our time and no one talks about it.
Most of us (definitely me) aren't familiar enough with such issues to know that is the right way to solve the problem. If we force the issue, make a campaign to say corporations are not people, and they defeat it, won't that be used as further indication that they are in fact people?
That and I think few people realize what's happened in the first place. If you ask people on the street about it, I think pretty much all of them would stare at you as if you were talking about trees having the right to free speech.
If a corporation is dissolved, regardless of what the executives do, the corporation has ceased to exist, i.e., died. Corporations are legal entities, and the dissolving of that legal entity is how you execute a corporation. I can't stress this point enough: a corporation is not the people who work for it.
Dissolution of a corporation is NOT similar to death for an individual for those very reasons. If you die, you're gone. If a corporation "dies" or rather, is dissolved, as you said, the execs, shareholders, and assets could be reconstituted into an identical corporation. That's a trivial consequence compared to death for an individual.
If individual people gain the ability to "die" temporarily, and if said "death" stands legally, where you could will your revived self all your possessions, but none of the legal punishments, debts, or fines you've incurred, then sure, corporate "death" is similar, and it would start to make more sense to talk about granting corporations personal rights.
Of course that would make an obvious mockery of justice if you could just knock yourself out temporarily to avoid real consequences of your crimes. Or rather, it would make the mockery that corporations already are doing just more obvious.
There need to be real consequences for corporations or else they're never going to respect the law, and that is just one reason why people get rights but corporations should not.
. For instance, I can own stock in Microsoft. If Microsoft dissolved, the corporation would buy it back, and I would get some of my money back (probably not a lot). You're suggesting I get none of my money back. Why? Who knows! I certainly don't think you have a rational explanation.
You as a financial shareholder in the company should face some consequences for what the company does ethically. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if MS makes terrible decisions and loses all it's money and assets somehow, don't you lose your money you invested? Why should it be that you face the consequences for poor financial decisions but NOT poor ethical decisions microsoft makes? If MS decides to commit massive fraud, then either you knew about it as a shareholder and are directly responsible and should at a minimum lose money, or you didn't and are guilty of not investing ethically.
I'll tell you right now, "I shouldn't because that's not how the system works or has ever worked" is not going to convince me. If a friend of mine approaches me and says "Hey, give me $200 and I'll double your investment in two days," he takes my money and buys drugs, gets busted for it, I don't get my $200 back. Rightfully so. Why should it be any different on a much bigger scale?
Judges can order that a corporation be dissolved for misconduct.
He said "die like I can." When a corporation is dissolved, couldn't that just involve all the executives and assets parting ways, possibly temporarily? Maybe in most cases where that actually happens, the CEOs are convicted on charges and go to jail, and fines are imposed too, but -actually dying-?
If we made it a law that if a corporation is convicted of significant fraud or other misconduct, all of the executives would be executed, the assets confiscated rather than any given back to the shareholders, maybe that would be analogous to dying, and we could begin to talk about corporations having the same consequences you or I face.
Alternatively if medical technology gets to a point where your cells could separate and then be rejoined to reconstitute you at a later time, and that became a good way of getting out of jail sentences, then we could also consider corporations and people to be equivalent.
More justified answer: PERSONal rights are called that for a reason. Corporations are not people. And, even if they were, who said they were citizens?
Part of me though says "Why not? Our rights and laws are fucked up enough already. Why not break it a little more and see if we can get to the tipping point where everyone realizes we need to fix some things at a fundamental level? I'd be happy if this was a period where your average americans started re-examining things like the patriot act, ACTA, and how much corporations get away with already.
Barring that, lining up a bunch of lawyers, CEOs, and special interest groups who are distorting our system, and shooting them, would at least be satisfying, though would likely lead to much worse problems for a while.
Better ban talking to people in the car with you as well. and car radios. And thinking about things you plan to do that day.
That's always the first thing people say. Why talking to someone next to you is different from talking to a handsfree set, I have no idea, but is beside the point: it seems there IS a difference even if we're not quite sure what it is. Here's the wiki page on handsfree sets while driving with all the studies cited.
I can't immediately think of why chewing tobacco should cause oral cancer more than chewing any other vegetable does, but it still does. Me saying "Oh that has to be crap, they're both vegetables!" doesn't change anything. (Although it that case, I'm sure it is known why chewing tobacco is worse, wheras maybe that's not true for handsfree sets.)
Why do people always immediately go to the restrictive solution?
It's the simplest solution, basically. It doesn't require much thinking to come up with that solution, so those solutions are always popular with people who don't like to think. It's kind of how we were raised from childhood, you're doing something annoying, you get smacked or sent to time out. Trying to figure out why a kid is acting up is sort of counterintuitive. It's the easiest thing to do from a legislative standpoint, barring someone from doing something doesn't raise taxes directly and is hard to get nailed for unless you're trying to, say, outlaw sex.
This being slashdot, the "restrict it with a technological approach" is sometimes the first to come as soon as it becomes clear that making it illegal isn't effective.
Wait what? They already started out with the threat, why would he ask?
If you have to ask, you overestimate the intelligence of game reviewers and publishers.
More seriously, that could be interpreted as "if you give our game a score lower than 8/10 then 2 chicks 1 cup" "What if I refuse to review it at all?"
ought to immediately be canned, stripped to their underwear, and unceremoniously thrown into the street
You're doing it wrong! If you fire them first, you don't get to coerce them to strip THEMSELVES down to their underwear and throw THEMSELVES into the street in vain attempts to save their jobs, then laugh at them when you tell them they're still fired.
You just don't go around openly rubbishing former employers like that as it makes prospective employers wary. After all you'll probably rubbish them when you're done too. I wonder how many opportunities he's missed acting that way.
I'd like to think there are employers who are more concerned with "What can he do for us?" rather than "OMG, what will he say about US in a few years?!? He might hurt our feeeeeellliiiinnngs!!!" Employers who fret about things like that are employers I don't really want to work for.
I don't work on computers, but I find it hard to believe that in his field, you could be brilliant and find yourself unemployable because you said working for X company was a mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
A thought that just struck me - if Comcast is using web overlays to pass on this info, it will, if anything, serve to legitimise the "Your computer is infected click here and give us your credit card details to fix it" pop-ups.
Any thoughts from people who know more than me as to whether comcast just didn't think of this, or did and just doesn't care? On the one hand, they are comcast and don't have a reputation for forward thinking. On the other hand, they are comcast and don't have a reputation for giving two shits about their customers.
Any chance this is just the path of least resistance to say "Hey, we tried to help, but you ignored our warnings, the malware took you over your quota and you owe us $400," not caring if the user then is then trained to click on every bogus warning they get?
I know everyone loves to hate on apple's dictatorial approach, but just for once I'd like to talk about some of the less egregious examples of corporate censorship. He mentions XBLA in passing. I want to know what he's specifically talking about.
The indie section was a mess last time I looked, the top sellers were "personal massager" programs that did nothing more than make the controllers vibrate on command. There were several "games" that just tortured your avatar. One involved just shooting your avatar out of a woman's womb and trying to make the "baby" break as much stuff as possible. The indie section of XBLA seems more like an abandoned lot than a walled garden. If MS is exerting any control over that crap pile, they should be ashamed of themselves.
The non-indie sections of XBLA on the other hand do have better offerings, but I've heard of a few cases where MS has definitely meddled. They're pushing a "gamers have no reason to expect things for free, so you can't give them anything for free" motto it seems. Valve claimed that MS wouldn't let them release TF2 updates for free for that reason. They could have charged for it, but free updates for an already watered down version of the game? Absolutely not. At some point there was also an issue of how big a file TF2 could update, though I don't remember if that was MS putting artificial limits on it or the XBLA software couldn't handle it. I'd wonder if that's part or all of the reason steam is coming or has come to the PS3 but not the 360. MS may have said they couldn't, or steam may have decided (for good reason) to not bother. Either way, we 360 owners lost out there, and any game that my computer can run I'll be buying on steam.
Anyway, I think this discussion can use some examples that aren't apple because this problem isn't limited to iphones and ipads.
Why can't you? Increasing your risk of blood clots or bleeding problems is a lesser problem than "Your heart is about to fail completely."
If anything, feel sorry for the fact that he still has muscular dystrophy.
'disease' but that term implies a virus, bacteria, or other etc external agent
The word comes from the 14th century, before viruses and bacteria were known to be separate causes of sickness than genetic disorders. More importantly though, most people do seem to refer to genetic disorders as diseases. So I'd say no it doesn't.
So no, nobody's going to do anything that stupid.
Why is it that those words always fill me with dread?
Vote third party. Even if you lose you can brag, "Well I didn't vote for either asshole. Can't blame me."
1. If???
2. Who the hell cares about being able to say "I didn't do it?" That's kind of like burning to death in a house while gleefully announcing that it wasn't your cigarette that started the fire, you don't smoke.
3. Why do some people always assume third party candidates are worth voting for? If a politician can't get endorsed by one of the two parties (which most of them wish they were since empirically it helps their chances of winning), what does that say about his ability to do anything ON the job? It's not as if being elected is the biggest hurdle.
If it's between a candidate who I agree with on 100% of the issues but can't do anything about them, and a canidate who agrees with me on 50% of the issues but is effective at getting legislation passed, then I'm probably going to have to vote for the guy I only half agree with.
4. Those of us who are realists, who realize politics are always a compromise, and who realize that in order to elect someone you don't totally hate you have to make some coalitions, do in fact still blame you for the outcome to a degree.
Fish gotta swim, Republicans gotta screw us, Democrats gotta screw up.
Democrats doing something which they could screw up at, rather than doing nothing, would be at least a refreshing change of pace.
One wonders why republicans don't threaten to filibuster congressional democrats' orders at restaurants. Within days, most of the democrats would have starved to death.
1. That's all nationalities, ass
2. It's not all citizens, it's politicians who like to look tough on crimes but want to avoid the liabilities that come with cracking down on some of the really big white collar criminals.
There were 5, count them, 5 candidates who were registered on sufficient ballots to win the presidency. The fact that you are too fucking ignorant to be even dimly aware of what they show outside of CNN is utterly pathetic.
I voted for Thomas Jefferson.
I figure if you're going to vote for someone who has no realistic chance of winning, why not shoot for the stars? We KNOW TJ was a good leader, he helped create the country! The only thing the 5 candidates you're talking about had on him was that they're slightly more metabolically active than he is. I shouldn't have to choose between the "best of who is alive." And everyone knows all the politicians alive today are crooks and liars. We clearly need someone with years and years of experience, someone with the values that made this nation great, and someone who could not possibly be bought by special interest groups (since, as we know, he's deader than a doornail.)
Er, just to clarify, that wasn't to say that the scientists at LHC or Fermi are less senior or long-term thinkers than Hawkins. Maybe some of them were saying there's no theory of everything, but were too busy working on getting the LHC running to make a press release.
It's always these guys on the sideline talking up bullshit. You don't see the guys at Fermi or LHC spewing these nonsense. Tell the bastards to shut the fuck up and get back to work until they actually generate some *real* results.
Science isn't just "we got these results, and it means this." It's important to hypothesize out loud with peers sometimes, to get input, at very preliminary stages. For one thing, proving that there may be no theory that explains everything strikes me as very difficult to prove, though I have no concept of the math involved. Having more people make suggestions might better help him prove it? If it can't actually be proven, Hawkings saying it might cause some researchers to not waste as much effort going after a theory of everything, maybe now they're absolutely convinced it's just around the corner. If you're a physicist starting your career, you might not want to invest everything into finding a theory of everything. Realigning the field is something only a prominent scientist like Hawkings can do.
The guys at Fermi or LHC might be too focused on what they're doing at the moment to think in depth about larger issues like this. In many biological labs, the major theories that are mostly or completely unproven are usually thought up by the PIs, the more senior scientists with years of experience who write grants but don't do much lab work, wheras the postdocs and grad students are the ones doing the labwork, who haven't been in the field for as long and haven't had as long to make those big predictions.
There are plenty of exceptions to that of course. But it's not too surprising to me that the physicists who are "on the sidelines" are the ones who are coaching and calling plays.
It happens. James Watson, who was part of the team that discovered the structure of DNA, has been saying crazier things for years.
My favorite was his presentation on why men liked butts. Certainly funnier than his comments on race.
Scientists sometimes don't age well. We probably age better on average than rock stars, but then again people pay don't take what rock stars say as seriously as scientists.
I don't know, guess I picked a bad title or something?
Slashdot: dramatically overstated news for nerds... since that seems to be the evolution of news services for some reason?
I'm working on a submission: Fox news just had a bit about the internet, I'm assuming that their headline is something like "WILL USING OBAMANET 'IPv6' KILL YOU AND MAKE YOUR CHILDREN TERRORISTS?"
Then screw IPv6, I'll wait for IPvINFINITY.
why does no one call for a constitutional amendment to REVERSE corporate personhood? It is probably one of the most important constitutional issues of our time and no one talks about it.
Most of us (definitely me) aren't familiar enough with such issues to know that is the right way to solve the problem. If we force the issue, make a campaign to say corporations are not people, and they defeat it, won't that be used as further indication that they are in fact people?
That and I think few people realize what's happened in the first place. If you ask people on the street about it, I think pretty much all of them would stare at you as if you were talking about trees having the right to free speech.
If a corporation is dissolved, regardless of what the executives do, the corporation has ceased to exist, i.e., died. Corporations are legal entities, and the dissolving of that legal entity is how you execute a corporation. I can't stress this point enough: a corporation is not the people who work for it.
Dissolution of a corporation is NOT similar to death for an individual for those very reasons. If you die, you're gone. If a corporation "dies" or rather, is dissolved, as you said, the execs, shareholders, and assets could be reconstituted into an identical corporation. That's a trivial consequence compared to death for an individual.
If individual people gain the ability to "die" temporarily, and if said "death" stands legally, where you could will your revived self all your possessions, but none of the legal punishments, debts, or fines you've incurred, then sure, corporate "death" is similar, and it would start to make more sense to talk about granting corporations personal rights.
Of course that would make an obvious mockery of justice if you could just knock yourself out temporarily to avoid real consequences of your crimes. Or rather, it would make the mockery that corporations already are doing just more obvious.
There need to be real consequences for corporations or else they're never going to respect the law, and that is just one reason why people get rights but corporations should not.
. For instance, I can own stock in Microsoft. If Microsoft dissolved, the corporation would buy it back, and I would get some of my money back (probably not a lot). You're suggesting I get none of my money back. Why? Who knows! I certainly don't think you have a rational explanation.
You as a financial shareholder in the company should face some consequences for what the company does ethically. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if MS makes terrible decisions and loses all it's money and assets somehow, don't you lose your money you invested? Why should it be that you face the consequences for poor financial decisions but NOT poor ethical decisions microsoft makes? If MS decides to commit massive fraud, then either you knew about it as a shareholder and are directly responsible and should at a minimum lose money, or you didn't and are guilty of not investing ethically.
I'll tell you right now, "I shouldn't because that's not how the system works or has ever worked" is not going to convince me. If a friend of mine approaches me and says "Hey, give me $200 and I'll double your investment in two days," he takes my money and buys drugs, gets busted for it, I don't get my $200 back. Rightfully so. Why should it be any different on a much bigger scale?
Judges can order that a corporation be dissolved for misconduct.
He said "die like I can." When a corporation is dissolved, couldn't that just involve all the executives and assets parting ways, possibly temporarily? Maybe in most cases where that actually happens, the CEOs are convicted on charges and go to jail, and fines are imposed too, but -actually dying-?
If we made it a law that if a corporation is convicted of significant fraud or other misconduct, all of the executives would be executed, the assets confiscated rather than any given back to the shareholders, maybe that would be analogous to dying, and we could begin to talk about corporations having the same consequences you or I face.
Alternatively if medical technology gets to a point where your cells could separate and then be rejoined to reconstitute you at a later time, and that became a good way of getting out of jail sentences, then we could also consider corporations and people to be equivalent.
More justified answer: PERSONal rights are called that for a reason. Corporations are not people. And, even if they were, who said they were citizens?
Part of me though says "Why not? Our rights and laws are fucked up enough already. Why not break it a little more and see if we can get to the tipping point where everyone realizes we need to fix some things at a fundamental level? I'd be happy if this was a period where your average americans started re-examining things like the patriot act, ACTA, and how much corporations get away with already.
Barring that, lining up a bunch of lawyers, CEOs, and special interest groups who are distorting our system, and shooting them, would at least be satisfying, though would likely lead to much worse problems for a while.
Better ban talking to people in the car with you as well. and car radios. And thinking about things you plan to do that day.
That's always the first thing people say. Why talking to someone next to you is different from talking to a handsfree set, I have no idea, but is beside the point: it seems there IS a difference even if we're not quite sure what it is. Here's the wiki page on handsfree sets while driving with all the studies cited.
I can't immediately think of why chewing tobacco should cause oral cancer more than chewing any other vegetable does, but it still does. Me saying "Oh that has to be crap, they're both vegetables!" doesn't change anything. (Although it that case, I'm sure it is known why chewing tobacco is worse, wheras maybe that's not true for handsfree sets.)
Why do people always immediately go to the restrictive solution?
It's the simplest solution, basically. It doesn't require much thinking to come up with that solution, so those solutions are always popular with people who don't like to think. It's kind of how we were raised from childhood, you're doing something annoying, you get smacked or sent to time out. Trying to figure out why a kid is acting up is sort of counterintuitive. It's the easiest thing to do from a legislative standpoint, barring someone from doing something doesn't raise taxes directly and is hard to get nailed for unless you're trying to, say, outlaw sex.
This being slashdot, the "restrict it with a technological approach" is sometimes the first to come as soon as it becomes clear that making it illegal isn't effective.
I hate it when my ass balls are on fire, but when they're hell balls it's okay.
Do you have typing Tourette's syndrome?
Wait what? They already started out with the threat, why would he ask?
If you have to ask, you overestimate the intelligence of game reviewers and publishers.
More seriously, that could be interpreted as
"if you give our game a score lower than 8/10 then 2 chicks 1 cup"
"What if I refuse to review it at all?"
ought to immediately be canned, stripped to their underwear, and unceremoniously thrown into the street
You're doing it wrong! If you fire them first, you don't get to coerce them to strip THEMSELVES down to their underwear and throw THEMSELVES into the street in vain attempts to save their jobs, then laugh at them when you tell them they're still fired.
Are these not the re-releases you're looking for?
You just don't go around openly rubbishing former employers like that as it makes prospective employers wary. After all you'll probably rubbish them when you're done too. I wonder how many opportunities he's missed acting that way.
I'd like to think there are employers who are more concerned with "What can he do for us?" rather than "OMG, what will he say about US in a few years?!? He might hurt our feeeeeellliiiinnngs!!!" Employers who fret about things like that are employers I don't really want to work for.
I don't work on computers, but I find it hard to believe that in his field, you could be brilliant and find yourself unemployable because you said working for X company was a mistake.