I don't event think you need a "no recruit" clause. A Non-compete clause is enough and event that is implicit. When employed I can't work against my employer with the tools the employer provides me. In this case employees joining their vendors based on the relationship that the company built. This wasn't (at least as HP puts it) a simple case of employees finding something better - it was them joining their client and thus costing them the business. They should have taken a cooling off period or taken an approval from HP.
Ultimately somebody is going to edit the article to add the real story. The business model is as good as saying "We'll give you a good starting article".
Basic necessities, infrastructure and other issues that people pointed out are issue in India - but how does that equate to wasting money on building a supercomputer? Would you rather have it that they spend much more buying when they can build it locally for cheaper? Also after all the dust of 'they should rather help the poor instead' argument has settled you can see that despite so many issue they still need to predict the weather.
“The skilled, motivated staff that grew up with the internet don’t want to work with closed, old fashioned systems,”... "Norton cited studies from the London School of Economics which found that investments to deploy open source in-house drives longer-term savings of 20 percent over the alternatives"... "It advises CIOs, for example, not to separate current support teams from new development teams"
It then goes on to explain the fish that they are trying to fry:
“We commissioned this study to highlight to our customers and shareholders our use of open systems and contribution to open systems,”
Ok great so you have opensource software. Before you propose any solution (any open source or proprietary) you'd think of a large number of factors. ROI is one of them. The capabilities of your staff and the availability of skills in the market would be another. The example of Tomcat and jQuery are lame to say the least. Some of the companies I worked for have use proprietary solutions AND save money in the process. For "enterprise" applications the major costs of running the show arent whether the software is open source or not. Maintenance over the life of the product costs much more (salaries, infrastructure, etc).
The article tries to associate test scores and attainment levels with the 'US being a titan of innovation' despite them. To innovate you need incentives, funding and a set of highly talented individuals. And I mean innovation in the real sense (and not like bounce-back lists on your phone).
Doing poorly in attainment levels implies that we are not doing too well creating that talent pool. When you have cash and you can provide incentives to people to do that work you just get a bunch of immigrants to do that work for you.
In countries like China and India education is easy to get for those in the middle class or above. For peanuts in fees they can get the best education the country can provide that people in America can't because their government pays for it. This is something someone in the US can't pull off without exhausting a good amount of her parents savings or taking on a sizable loan.
Oh yeah: before you say thats socialism and its 'bad' consider: these countries look at it as an investment (much like a businesses put into training programs for their employees) though its too bad that some of these will leave the country (or business in the analogy) for greener pastures. America has always had the policy of attracting and retaining the best in the world. Its just that having poorer attainment levels in the US undermines the workforce in the country and slowly substitutes it for another. A consequence of this is that the policy effectively translates to saving money in educating this generation because its cheaper to skim off the cream from other countries.
I think this article does a great disservice by pretending that the attainment levels are irrelevant by looking at the results in innovation and ignoring underlying issues.
Most did compare it with the old phone (lighter, faster, bigger). Some did have an iPhone too. But yeah - when hang out the whole day with a camera you can just choose to show iSheep.
Ha ha. Probably bias - agreed. If I'm for A and my "friend" touts that he's voting for B - I'd get my lazy ass off the couch just to even the score (and the get the world back to normal)
Also this seems the article may be pushing the conclusions a bit to far. If my online "friend" votes and it motivates me to vote it doesn't necessarily translate to me voting for the guy he voted for. If there is a strong correlation between online friends and their party affiliations then it may make sense. But I think we try to keep our party preference away from friends - its easy to lose one or the other.
Its where you buy things in bulk for a business. Doesnt make sense comparing it to consumer retail sites at all. And how surprising should this be? China as a huge supplier - hardly news.
I'm sure the iPad has numerous applications in education, but to believe that it can replace your laptop if naive at best and irresponsible at worst.
If these guys werent so illiterate - oh wait it was a school...
Slashdot Mirror
Ok - here is Fiona
I don't event think you need a "no recruit" clause. A Non-compete clause is enough and event that is implicit.
When employed I can't work against my employer with the tools the employer provides me. In this case employees joining their vendors based on the relationship that the company built.
This wasn't (at least as HP puts it) a simple case of employees finding something better - it was them joining their client and thus costing them the business. They should have taken a cooling off period or taken an approval from HP.
Which is sort of what they did in Jurassic Park with frog genes.
Really? So there are only two states: be silent or tell everything about you.
Remember those helpful reps who "Sir" you with a "Sorry but we can't". Now you can beat the crap out of them.
Do you need help?
Ultimately somebody is going to edit the article to add the real story. The business model is as good as saying "We'll give you a good starting article".
I wish they'd just send my backorderd one before telling me all the features I'll never see.
http://www.personalweb.com/Technology.html
Enjoy!
If he's got nothing and he is suing, I sure hope that the sued party can recover expensed for a frivolous lawsuit and a penalty.
Basic necessities, infrastructure and other issues that people pointed out are issue in India - but how does that equate to wasting money on building a supercomputer? Would you rather have it that they spend much more buying when they can build it locally for cheaper? Also after all the dust of 'they should rather help the poor instead' argument has settled you can see that despite so many issue they still need to predict the weather.
Most of this article reads like its 1999 now.
“The skilled, motivated staff that grew up with the internet don’t want to work with closed, old fashioned systems,” ...
"Norton cited studies from the London School of Economics which found that investments to deploy open source in-house drives longer-term savings of 20 percent over the alternatives"...
"It advises CIOs, for example, not to separate current support teams from new development teams"
It then goes on to explain the fish that they are trying to fry:
“We commissioned this study to highlight to our customers and shareholders our use of open systems and contribution to open systems,”
Ok great so you have opensource software. Before you propose any solution (any open source or proprietary) you'd think of a large number of factors. ROI is one of them. The capabilities of your staff and the availability of skills in the market would be another. The example of Tomcat and jQuery are lame to say the least. Some of the companies I worked for have use proprietary solutions AND save money in the process. For "enterprise" applications the major costs of running the show arent whether the software is open source or not. Maintenance over the life of the product costs much more (salaries, infrastructure, etc).
So in the future the protesters will wear tin foil. Sounds better than enduring rubber bullets. Why should they even pursue this stuff?
The article tries to associate test scores and attainment levels with the 'US being a titan of innovation' despite them. To innovate you need incentives, funding and a set of highly talented individuals. And I mean innovation in the real sense (and not like bounce-back lists on your phone). Doing poorly in attainment levels implies that we are not doing too well creating that talent pool. When you have cash and you can provide incentives to people to do that work you just get a bunch of immigrants to do that work for you. In countries like China and India education is easy to get for those in the middle class or above. For peanuts in fees they can get the best education the country can provide that people in America can't because their government pays for it. This is something someone in the US can't pull off without exhausting a good amount of her parents savings or taking on a sizable loan. Oh yeah: before you say thats socialism and its 'bad' consider: these countries look at it as an investment (much like a businesses put into training programs for their employees) though its too bad that some of these will leave the country (or business in the analogy) for greener pastures. America has always had the policy of attracting and retaining the best in the world. Its just that having poorer attainment levels in the US undermines the workforce in the country and slowly substitutes it for another. A consequence of this is that the policy effectively translates to saving money in educating this generation because its cheaper to skim off the cream from other countries. I think this article does a great disservice by pretending that the attainment levels are irrelevant by looking at the results in innovation and ignoring underlying issues.
Most did compare it with the old phone (lighter, faster, bigger). Some did have an iPhone too. But yeah - when hang out the whole day with a camera you can just choose to show iSheep.
To me at least it appears that when choosing friends, party affliction would be way down on the check list.
Ha ha. Probably bias - agreed. If I'm for A and my "friend" touts that he's voting for B - I'd get my lazy ass off the couch just to even the score (and the get the world back to normal)
The next 2 billion who couldn't afford the other smart phones wont be able to afford a data plan either.
Also this seems the article may be pushing the conclusions a bit to far. If my online "friend" votes and it motivates me to vote it doesn't necessarily translate to me voting for the guy he voted for. If there is a strong correlation between online friends and their party affiliations then it may make sense. But I think we try to keep our party preference away from friends - its easy to lose one or the other.
New definition of 3D: Stick 2D pictures on a box and spin them.
Its where you buy things in bulk for a business. Doesnt make sense comparing it to consumer retail sites at all. And how surprising should this be? China as a huge supplier - hardly news.
I'm sure the iPad has numerous applications in education, but to believe that it can replace your laptop if naive at best and irresponsible at worst. If these guys werent so illiterate - oh wait it was a school...
This is obligatory viewing: :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApQlMm39xr0