Yes, this. And that's worse than it sounds because when potential employers call to confirm your work history there, the key question they will ask is "are they eligible for rehire?" "Yes" is taken as "they were a decent employee", and "No" is taken as "stay far away from them."
Have an account, but don't put anything of value in there, just a couple of pics and a few irrelevant article shares. That gives you access to people without being much giving much information away, or requiring you to engage.
This was how I used Facebook for a few years, but is also why I eventually deleted my FB account. My friends and family would expect that I actually paid attention to the thing, and would think that I was ignoring them when I failed to respond. Also, they'd think that a FB posting was sufficient notification for events and such.
In short, I was being deceptive by have the appearance of a presence without actually being present. All of these problems were solved by deleting my account. Now I talk with them more directly and they are aware of whether or not I've heard a given bit of news or whether or not I know that we're meeting at the pub for a game of pool.
Spoken by someone who clearly has never read it. It's really a manual on "how not to be an asshole."
I've read it, but it must have been a different version than yours. The one I read was a straightforward manual on how to emotionally manipulate people. In other words, how to be a more effective asshole.
All of my friends and family know that I don't have any such account, so they wouldn't be fooled in the first place. Even if they were, they'd certainly ask me about it! I don't see any real risk there.
"How often do you drink?" should be responded to with "I don't drink at all at work - do you have a problem with people drinking on the job?" Any question about your sex life should be politely taken as if they hitting on you.
I've been to (and conducted) a lot of job interviews over the years, and have never once been asked inappropriate personal questions like those. If it ever happened to me, I would be too stunned to come up with a witty reply. Instead, I'd just be honest and say something like "your questions indicate that this is not a professional workplace, so I am no longer interested in the position" and leave.
You'll also find that there are many tasks which are far more difficult to accomplish without one.
Such as? This is a serious question. I'm trying to think of anything that is more difficult to accomplish without social media, and I'm coming up blank.
I quit all social media a couple of years back, and have encountered literally zero problems as a result. As a bonus, it improved my life in several ways.
They've been crap for a bit longer than that. Back in the stone-age days when they were the 7/11 of electronic parts stores, they were OK. Once they seriously branched out into consumer electronics (a few years before the TRS-80), their nosedive began.
I am among the people who have been amazed they didn't go under decades ago. Good riddance to a terrible company.
This is a perfect example of why we should not be giving personal information to anyone without a VERY good reason. Even if the company you're giving it to has the best privacy policy in the world and is completely hack-proof, if that company ever goes under then you're screwed.
You may not have a signed a contract, but it's implied when you walk into a store that they have the right to protect their stuff (security cameras or whatever else).
But they don't have the legal, moral, or ethical right to search me.
You're just being a dick and making the security guard's job more difficult
It's hard to believe that the guard's life more difficult to hear "no thank you" as I stroll by, but if it does... then tough. They're being dicks by asking me to submit to a search. Fair's fair.
At least at Fry's, it truly is a customer service initiative.
Baloney. It's "loss prevention" aka "treating your customers like criminals". That it might catch a mistake in the customer's favor is purely a nice side-effect, but doesn't take away from the fact that it is belligerent and powerfully offensive.
I have never, and will never, submit to exit searches like that.
Sorry, but I do feel a little better knowing that some asshole can't walk in straight off of the street and get on the plane without some form of identification and property checks.
You couldn't do that even before the TSA bullshit started. I think the last time that was possible was the early 1970s.
If you travel that often, why haven't you signed up for the PreCheck program? It lets you go back to the pre 9/11 security screening procedure.
No, it doesn't. It just moves a lot of the intrusive, unnecessary searching into the electronic realm instead of the physical. Personally, I think this is the worst possible option. I won't touch precheck with a ten foot pole.
So yes, it is FUD. It is FUD to tell people not to believe what Microsoft is saying now because you have imagined a future where they will suddenly force people to pay for their free product retrospectively. That really is the very definition of FUD.
This is correct, but it's FUD of Microsoft's own doing. Microsoft has a long and storied history of being less than honest, so it's entirely understandable that people will be looking for the "gotcha" in anything they say.
I've been playing with Windows 10 for a while now, and it is pretty underwhelming in the sense that it is not significantly better than Windows 7. The only thing 10 really brings to the table is a handful of new "features" that don't benefit me (Cortana, etc.).
I won't be bothering to upgrade my Windows machines even for free.
Vital systems should never, ever be connected to the internet in the first place. If the people running such systems would stop being complete idiots and disconnect from the internet, there would be no need for anything like a military-style response to "cyber" attacks.
That couldn't be further from the truth. I know a lot of normal people (including my aged mother) who don't know a damned thing about operating systems but have no more problem with Linux than they have with Windows.
In terms of ease of use, they achieved parity years ago.
Finally, a real argument for why people should be using the cloud! This is literally the first one that I've seen that might tilt the cost/benefit analysis to the "use the cloud" side.
Although Azure does seem to be doing pretty well, so I don't know how accurate the statement really is.
Slashdot Mirror
Forget the jokes; this is now a reality.
Something can be a reality and a joke at the same time. This oven, for example.
Yes, this. And that's worse than it sounds because when potential employers call to confirm your work history there, the key question they will ask is "are they eligible for rehire?" "Yes" is taken as "they were a decent employee", and "No" is taken as "stay far away from them."
Have an account, but don't put anything of value in there, just a couple of pics and a few irrelevant article shares. That gives you access to people without being much giving much information away, or requiring you to engage.
This was how I used Facebook for a few years, but is also why I eventually deleted my FB account. My friends and family would expect that I actually paid attention to the thing, and would think that I was ignoring them when I failed to respond. Also, they'd think that a FB posting was sufficient notification for events and such.
In short, I was being deceptive by have the appearance of a presence without actually being present. All of these problems were solved by deleting my account. Now I talk with them more directly and they are aware of whether or not I've heard a given bit of news or whether or not I know that we're meeting at the pub for a game of pool.
Spoken by someone who clearly has never read it. It's really a manual on "how not to be an asshole."
I've read it, but it must have been a different version than yours. The one I read was a straightforward manual on how to emotionally manipulate people. In other words, how to be a more effective asshole.
All of my friends and family know that I don't have any such account, so they wouldn't be fooled in the first place. Even if they were, they'd certainly ask me about it! I don't see any real risk there.
"How often do you drink?" should be responded to with "I don't drink at all at work - do you have a problem with people drinking on the job?" Any question about your sex life should be politely taken as if they hitting on you.
I've been to (and conducted) a lot of job interviews over the years, and have never once been asked inappropriate personal questions like those. If it ever happened to me, I would be too stunned to come up with a witty reply. Instead, I'd just be honest and say something like "your questions indicate that this is not a professional workplace, so I am no longer interested in the position" and leave.
You'll also find that there are many tasks which are far more difficult to accomplish without one.
Such as? This is a serious question. I'm trying to think of anything that is more difficult to accomplish without social media, and I'm coming up blank.
I quit all social media a couple of years back, and have encountered literally zero problems as a result. As a bonus, it improved my life in several ways.
They've been crap for a bit longer than that. Back in the stone-age days when they were the 7/11 of electronic parts stores, they were OK. Once they seriously branched out into consumer electronics (a few years before the TRS-80), their nosedive began.
I am among the people who have been amazed they didn't go under decades ago. Good riddance to a terrible company.
No, the proper response to "we can't sell w/o data" is to leave without completing the purchase.
This is a perfect example of why we should not be giving personal information to anyone without a VERY good reason. Even if the company you're giving it to has the best privacy policy in the world and is completely hack-proof, if that company ever goes under then you're screwed.
You may not have a signed a contract, but it's implied when you walk into a store that they have the right to protect their stuff (security cameras or whatever else).
But they don't have the legal, moral, or ethical right to search me.
You're just being a dick and making the security guard's job more difficult
It's hard to believe that the guard's life more difficult to hear "no thank you" as I stroll by, but if it does... then tough. They're being dicks by asking me to submit to a search. Fair's fair.
At least at Fry's, it truly is a customer service initiative.
Baloney. It's "loss prevention" aka "treating your customers like criminals". That it might catch a mistake in the customer's favor is purely a nice side-effect, but doesn't take away from the fact that it is belligerent and powerfully offensive.
I have never, and will never, submit to exit searches like that.
Sorry, but I do feel a little better knowing that some asshole can't walk in straight off of the street and get on the plane without some form of identification and property checks.
You couldn't do that even before the TSA bullshit started. I think the last time that was possible was the early 1970s.
but it does feel a bit nicer when you're in a tin can miles above the earth.
It does?? It certainly doesn't do that for me. The only effect the TSA has is to make me hate flying.
If you travel that often, why haven't you signed up for the PreCheck program? It lets you go back to the pre 9/11 security screening procedure.
No, it doesn't. It just moves a lot of the intrusive, unnecessary searching into the electronic realm instead of the physical. Personally, I think this is the worst possible option. I won't touch precheck with a ten foot pole.
So yes, it is FUD. It is FUD to tell people not to believe what Microsoft is saying now because you have imagined a future where they will suddenly force people to pay for their free product retrospectively. That really is the very definition of FUD.
This is correct, but it's FUD of Microsoft's own doing. Microsoft has a long and storied history of being less than honest, so it's entirely understandable that people will be looking for the "gotcha" in anything they say.
Disk IO is better in windows 8 than in 7
But not enough to matter unless you're doing something special.
Startup times are better
Why do people cite this as if it matters?
AND you have no access to the Windows Store.
That's a benefit, not a drawback.
Any hardware that windows 7 DOESN'T RUN ON IT to the point the install refuses, is on the edge of physical death and true obsolescence.
I have a number of machines in daily use that disprove this assertion.
I've been playing with Windows 10 for a while now, and it is pretty underwhelming in the sense that it is not significantly better than Windows 7. The only thing 10 really brings to the table is a handful of new "features" that don't benefit me (Cortana, etc.).
I won't be bothering to upgrade my Windows machines even for free.
Vital systems should never, ever be connected to the internet in the first place. If the people running such systems would stop being complete idiots and disconnect from the internet, there would be no need for anything like a military-style response to "cyber" attacks.
That couldn't be further from the truth. I know a lot of normal people (including my aged mother) who don't know a damned thing about operating systems but have no more problem with Linux than they have with Windows.
In terms of ease of use, they achieved parity years ago.
That solution does nothing to actually fix the problem.
What will kill MS of its own accord is cloud.
Finally, a real argument for why people should be using the cloud! This is literally the first one that I've seen that might tilt the cost/benefit analysis to the "use the cloud" side.
Although Azure does seem to be doing pretty well, so I don't know how accurate the statement really is.