If it wasn't for microsoft saving them apple would likely be dead today.
MS *never* "saved" Apple. How does buying 150 million worth of stock (which they sold at a very nice profit) in a company that has 2 BILLION DOLLARS in liquid assets lying around amount to "saving"?
Are you honestly telling me you don't expect 1/3-1/2 or more of all US households to have an HDTV before 2010?
Yes. The problem is that there are about 40 different HDTV standards floating around - the US gvt has pushed the broatcasting industry to move to HDTV but hasn't provided any similar pressure to manufacturers to come up with a single standard. Unless you're rich, you aren't going to plop down $3,000 on a TV that might be useless in a couple of years because its incompatible. Because consumers aren't willing to commit to a risky purchase, neither are manufactuers or TV stations, which makes consumers less likely to purchase because everything is still analog and the HDTV's are still very expensive. Its a vicious cycle.
I remember going to an HDTV demonstration at PBS. I think it was about 10 years ago. This is the best example of why "leave it to the industry to decide" isn't always the answer. If the gvt had stuck its nose in and said "hey, come up with a standard, right meow" we'd probably *be* at your 1/3 -1/2 of all households today. Not only would it be better for consumers, as we'd have one standard and a lower price, but it would also be better for the electronics industry because then they could sell the damn things. And be making a killing from all the people who decide to upgrade their current set, much like the recording industry did from people upgrading their tape and record collections.
Well, the physical copy *does* belong to the recipient, but the copyright still belongs to the sender. Sort of like how you can own a DVD or a book but the copyright is still owned by the studio.
What I can't belive is how many consumers buy into "tort reform", like its going to do anything for them. All it does it make it easier for businesses to screw you over.
To paraphrase Truman, "You're wrong, I'm right and I'll prove it to you".
His "Internet thing", which is a poor euphemism for "lie", came during an on-camera appearance, live. I saw it. Words from the horses mouth.
And what were those words, exactly? It was probably similar to his anecdote about a girl who had to stand in class because she didn't have a desk. The GOP was ecstatic when they checked and found out that the girl did in fact have a desk! Another notch in the list of Gore's fibs. Except...the only reason the girl had a desk is a different student had to stand that day. I'm betting Gore said something like "well, I should have mentioned that the Internet got started with DARPA in the 60's". But regardless of what he said later, his origional statment in the interview is still true.
Unfortunately, as I pointed out, and you didn't have a defense for, he neither took the initiative nor was in a position to take any initiative concerning the creation of the Internet. Other people beat him to it.
Wrong, and I'll prove it to you. You might be making the ignorant assumption that creation and invention are one in the same, when they are not. No one person 'invented' the technologies that make up the net, as all an internet is is two or more networks that are connected to eachother. The process of creating the Internet as it is today, with many many hundereds of thousands of servers and terabytes of data was the work of many researchers, commercial interests and the US goverment. Gore was talking about taking the initiative in that creative process as a government official. What part of "during my service in the United States Congress..." is so hard to understand? But don't take my word for it, take it from Vint Cerf. As another poster pointed out:
Vint Cerf, the actual inventor of IP (as in TCP/IP), has gone on record saying:
"He was certainly among the first if not the first in Congress to realize how powerful the information revolution would be"
Or if thats not good enough for you, how about this excerpt from Microsoft's Bookshelf '96:
In 1991, Vice President Al Gore, then a U.S. senator, proposed widening the architecture of NSFNET to include more K-12 schools, community colleges, and 2-year colleges. The resulting legislation expanded NSFNET and renamed it NREN (National Research and Educational Network). This bill also allowed businesses to purchase part of the network for commercial uses. The mass commercialization of today's Internet is the direct result of this legislation.
The problem with claiming credit for this is that other people found Love Canal before he did.
Ah, more ignoring of context and splitting hairs over the meaning of words. He was talking about looking for other places that have similar problems to Toone Tennessee and came across Love Canal, not that he was the one who discovered there was pollution there in the first place. It would be like me saying I was looking around in an encyclopedia for the tallest mountain in North America and found Mt McKinley. Am I saying that I was the first person to find McKinley? Of course not. Niether was Gore taking credit for first discovering the pollution in Love Canal. Or did you miss the part where he said it wouldn't have happened if a high school student hadn't gotten involved?
Please stop trying to hand-wave away the truth. There are too many people who heard him say these things to be successful in denying it
They say that if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. The Love Canal and Internet stories about Gore are lies, and you are helping to make them the truth. Hell, maybe even Gore himself is starting to belive them as he'll make 'inventing the notecard' jokes on The Tonight Show.
historical revisionists.
The only 'revising' I'm trying to do is get people to know what actually happened and wh
"Created" versus "invented". There's not much difference.
There most certainally is a difference, and a rather huge one in this context. As you said, no one person or group "invented" the internet, since all an internet is is two networks connected together. However, the process of going from a network of a few universities and research stations into the Internet, with its hundreds of thousands of hosts and terabytes of data always was a work in progress. It was a product of government, research and business, and Gore falls in the "government" category. He said just that in the interview, "During my service in the United States Congress...." So what he said was absolutely factual.
The *only* people who are splitting hairs are the ones who ignore the context and say that Gore was taking credit for something he was not.
The debate where he said it was televised live, and I was watching it. I heard the words come out of his mouth. Along with the crap about his discovery of Love Canal and how Love Story was based on him and Tipsy.
Getting a little senile? Maybe you should consider checking into a home. The Internet thing came from an interview. Or if you're talking about the part where he did his stupid "I may have made some inaccurate statments", that was the fib, since all those statments in question were factual. But hey, I'm glad you brought up Gore Urban Legends #2 and #3 so I didn't have to. But while we're on the subject, since you're memory is so good, remember the debate when Bush took credit for legislation he VETOED?
Love Story: he was talking to reporters about a claim made by another reporter. And in fact he was part of the inspiration for the male charachter; the other part being Gore's college roomate Tommy Lee Jones.
Love canal: I'll just quote this page It also covers most of the other urban legends, like the Union Label song. Or do do a search for "gore" and "myth" on google.
Fact: Gore was misquoted by both Katherine Q. Seelye of the New York Times and Cici Connolly of the Washington Post. Their misquote was widely disseminated by Jim Nicholson of the Republican National Committee.
Fact: Gore was speaking to a school group in New Hampshire about the importance of political participation. He mentioned a schoolgirl in Toone, TN who brought a toxic waste problem there to his attention. When he decided to hold Congressional hearings on the matter, he looked for other places with similar problems and found Love Canal. He never claimed to have found the toxic waste there.
The school group he was talking to demanded that the Washington Post retract its misquote of the Vice President. The Washington Monthly reported:
"'I called for a congressional investigation and a hearing,' Gore told the students. 'I looked around the country for other sites like that. I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal. Had the first hearing on that issue, and Toone, Tennessee---that was the one that you didn't hear of. But that was the one that started it all.'
"After the hearings, Gore said, 'We passed a major national law to clean up hazardous dump sites. And we had new efforts to stop the practices that ended up poisoning water around the country. We've still got work to do. But we made a huge difference. And it all happened because one high school student got involved.'"
The context of Gore's comment was clear. What sparked his interest in the toxic waste issue was the situation in Toone - "that was the one that you didn't hear of. But that was the one that started it all."
So even if you try to nitpick your way into saying Gore was taking credit for Toone, Toone is not the Love Canal.
I noticed you didn't answer his question. He didn't even need "appropriate copyright warnings", and I think your University needs to hire better lawyers. If you take Fred's email and forward it to a big listserv, there's not much Fred can do about it. But that doesn't make it legal and a-o-k.
Russell Simmons owns the IP to the word, and you have to pay him to use it. Same thing with "def."
??? Has this been held up in court? Only way I could see that happening is if he tried to trademark it, but if thats the case its been so diluted that I doubt he'd have a case.
But I guess I wouldn't be suprised after the whole Spike Lee/Spike TV bs.
Depends on how & why they tail you. If they're just watching and your only objection is that they're there (i.e., they're not wrongly interrogating people around you, or interfering with your affairs) then it's not harrassment, it's just surveliance.
I would still say not without probable cause, but then our current SCOUS is pretty bad for rubber-stamping law enforcement tactics. At policeabuse.org, if you get pulled over they recommend NOT telling telling the officer where you are going, because then they can say you were traveling on a "drug route" and search your car on the spot. On the other hand, and I wish I could have found out how this case went, an advertizing executive in a nice SUV was being trailed by a cop in an unmarked SUV for something like 30 MILES. For no reason. The guy panicked, and started rear-end ramming the cops SUV, so the cop shot and killed the guy. That the man was black and the cop was white didn't help matters. Unfortuantly I can't remember the dudes name or the city where it happed, so a "black man killed by white cop" search isn't very specific.
If he spends half of his job in the shitter, I think his boss (POTUS) needs to be able to know this despite Ashcroft's staff gag-order.
If its affecting his job performance, sure. If not, not. Thats the problem I have with these employee surveilance systems; they make it so easy to snoop on employee's who are doing their job, not just ones who are slacking off. If Johnny can be a good attourney general while having a brown baby boy, I say more power to him.:)
You parent can sign for you on any dotted line, and you can't sign for yourself without their permission.
Thats because they're responsible for your well being, not because they own you.
If you are under 18 you don't own a single piece of property, only your parents do, even if you slaved for days and bought it. The money you slaved for belongs to your parents by law.
?? I thought that was an attitude only held by abusive parents. If not, I hope thats a matter of state law, because thats fairly disgusting.
I also like how two-faced politicians can be. On the one hand you're almost property, and on the other hand they try to "protect" the same kid from such horrible things as R rated movies and GTA3.
I think that this is a lot more instusive than those other things you mentioned, because its so much easier (save for email). They might have cameras everywhere at your office, but for somebody to find out where you were at at any given point, they'll have to watch hours and hours of footage. Lets say I want to sneak out for a cigarrette - if the boss wants to ride my ass about it, he'll have to watch hours of footage to even see that I left the office, much less where I went. With this system, all he'll have to do is run a query for my phone and then he knows my exact location.
The most immediate solution would be to hand your phone to a friendly co-worker while you zip out, and if your boss asks why you didn't answer your phone right away, tell him you were busy.:)
Don't like the fact that your pinto blew up on you? Just buy a different car. Don't like new mine that's upstream of your house, polluting your groundwater? Move somewhere else.
Just because you think you live in a world of infinite choice (you don't) and can take this shit up the ass doesn't mean the rest of us have to.
I think it was Jefferson who said something to the effect of "those who give up freedom for security will get nor deserve either". A perfect example of that is our phone system. The goverment insisted that they be able to tap into the phone system, but they made it way to easy to do, so criminals and forign nations can do it just as easily as the gvt.
You can sue and raise hell to the politicians, its worked for others. The problem with those cameras is that they aren't placed at high-accident intersections, they're placed at high-traffic intersections with low yello light times. Why? To raise more money. There have also been several cases where the cameras have been proved to be faulty - thousands of tickets were refunded for a single intersection alone.
This is why a lot of stuff that sucks happens - people make the mistake of thinking that there's an infinite range of options, so you can just switch to something else. The problem being thats not always the case.
It doesn't matter if the police can track you at all times. Nothing stops them from having a police officer follow you throughout the day anyway. (If it's not "search" or "seizure", they generally don't need a warrant.)
Thats called harrasment and you can sue for that just as easily. So yeah I say it matters.
Ironically, in the case of pseudo-orwellian observation, the cure for the problems is simply uniform application. If we can ALL see what ANYONE is doing, then abuse becomes much harder.
Uh, no thanks. Even Ashcroft likes some privacy when he needs to go to the shitter.
Todays workers are definetly different than they were before. Befor you could trust people in a way that you can't do today if you want to stay in bussiness, You live in a dream world if you think that you boss still trust you.
Bullshit, bullshit, buuuuulllllshiiiiiittttt. What, do you think that there weren't unreliable workers 50 years ago? 100 years ago? 1000 years ago? You are so full of it its not even funny.
If anyone has lost trust, its companies, notworkers. Money has always been the first priority of any business, but in todays global economy your company will sell you out in a second. You've worked at the company loyally for 10 years? Tough shit, they're going to move to Bangladesh were they can get three people to do you job for less money. Board members want to raise their stock price? They bring in "Chainsaw" Al Dunlap, slash a couple thousand jobs (and thus payroll) to bring the stock up a couple points and you're out of a job.
Why isn't it totally obvious? Because they can keep tabs on you all the time. I don't want to explain to my boss why I was in the mens room for 20 minutes with another guy (its because we went to Taco Hell for lunch and have diarrea, thank you very much) or why I spent so much time in office of the cute sales executive down the hall (my job, thank you). If I'm not doing my job, then he can ask some questions, but otherwise its none of his business where I am every second of every working day.
And a "its their time they can do whatever they want" is a crock. The company owns the phone lines but they can't monitor your phone calls willy nilly.
2. To use it, the person with the phone has to consent. For kids, sucks to be you, but I certainly can't blame parents for wanting this. For employees, tough luck. It's not like it's your personal phone that's being traced...just your work phone.
And what if you aren't at work? To say nothing for moral. I think productivity studies have been done, and this kind of monitoring has a negative effect because you always have to look over your shoulder. And if you don't like it, you don't necessarily have the choice of quitting and finding a different job.
Dude, stfu. The gvt used to go after people for publishing steps to making a nuclear device until said people pointed out that it was commonly available knowledge that had simply been connected.
In any case, its not this guys fault if another Timothy decides to blow up a building. ITS TIMOTHY'S FAULT. You're a ludite in the same vien as those people who claim that Grand Theft Auto incites violence towards women. Those ludites and you need to fuck off.
Slashdot Mirror
If it wasn't for microsoft saving them apple would likely be dead today.
MS *never* "saved" Apple. How does buying 150 million worth of stock (which they sold at a very nice profit) in a company that has 2 BILLION DOLLARS in liquid assets lying around amount to "saving"?
Are you honestly telling me you don't expect 1/3-1/2 or more of all US households to have an HDTV before 2010?
Yes. The problem is that there are about 40 different HDTV standards floating around - the US gvt has pushed the broatcasting industry to move to HDTV but hasn't provided any similar pressure to manufacturers to come up with a single standard. Unless you're rich, you aren't going to plop down $3,000 on a TV that might be useless in a couple of years because its incompatible. Because consumers aren't willing to commit to a risky purchase, neither are manufactuers or TV stations, which makes consumers less likely to purchase because everything is still analog and the HDTV's are still very expensive. Its a vicious cycle.
I remember going to an HDTV demonstration at PBS. I think it was about 10 years ago. This is the best example of why "leave it to the industry to decide" isn't always the answer. If the gvt had stuck its nose in and said "hey, come up with a standard, right meow" we'd probably *be* at your 1/3 -1/2 of all households today. Not only would it be better for consumers, as we'd have one standard and a lower price, but it would also be better for the electronics industry because then they could sell the damn things. And be making a killing from all the people who decide to upgrade their current set, much like the recording industry did from people upgrading their tape and record collections.
Well, the physical copy *does* belong to the recipient, but the copyright still belongs to the sender. Sort of like how you can own a DVD or a book but the copyright is still owned by the studio.
What I can't belive is how many consumers buy into "tort reform", like its going to do anything for them. All it does it make it easier for businesses to screw you over.
His "Internet thing", which is a poor euphemism for "lie", came during an on-camera appearance, live. I saw it. Words from the horses mouth.
And what were those words, exactly? It was probably similar to his anecdote about a girl who had to stand in class because she didn't have a desk. The GOP was ecstatic when they checked and found out that the girl did in fact have a desk! Another notch in the list of Gore's fibs. Except...the only reason the girl had a desk is a different student had to stand that day. I'm betting Gore said something like "well, I should have mentioned that the Internet got started with DARPA in the 60's". But regardless of what he said later, his origional statment in the interview is still true.
Unfortunately, as I pointed out, and you didn't have a defense for, he neither took the initiative nor was in a position to take any initiative concerning the creation of the Internet. Other people beat him to it.
Wrong, and I'll prove it to you. You might be making the ignorant assumption that creation and invention are one in the same, when they are not. No one person 'invented' the technologies that make up the net, as all an internet is is two or more networks that are connected to eachother. The process of creating the Internet as it is today, with many many hundereds of thousands of servers and terabytes of data was the work of many researchers, commercial interests and the US goverment. Gore was talking about taking the initiative in that creative process as a government official. What part of "during my service in the United States Congress..." is so hard to understand? But don't take my word for it, take it from Vint Cerf. As another poster pointed out:
"He was certainly among the first if not the first in Congress to realize how powerful the information revolution would be"
Or if thats not good enough for you, how about this excerpt from Microsoft's Bookshelf '96:
The problem with claiming credit for this is that other people found Love Canal before he did.
Ah, more ignoring of context and splitting hairs over the meaning of words. He was talking about looking for other places that have similar problems to Toone Tennessee and came across Love Canal, not that he was the one who discovered there was pollution there in the first place. It would be like me saying I was looking around in an encyclopedia for the tallest mountain in North America and found Mt McKinley. Am I saying that I was the first person to find McKinley? Of course not. Niether was Gore taking credit for first discovering the pollution in Love Canal. Or did you miss the part where he said it wouldn't have happened if a high school student hadn't gotten involved?
Please stop trying to hand-wave away the truth. There are too many people who heard him say these things to be successful in denying it
They say that if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. The Love Canal and Internet stories about Gore are lies, and you are helping to make them the truth. Hell, maybe even Gore himself is starting to belive them as he'll make 'inventing the notecard' jokes on The Tonight Show.
historical revisionists.
The only 'revising' I'm trying to do is get people to know what actually happened and wh
My point was that there is a difference between 'legit' and 'nothing you can do about it'.
/. posters prove me wrong on the whole "common sense" thing. Again.
/. :)
Unfortunately,
Uh huh. Well if you don't want to strain your 'common sense', avoid copyright discussions on
"Created" versus "invented". There's not much difference.
There most certainally is a difference, and a rather huge one in this context. As you said, no one person or group "invented" the internet, since all an internet is is two networks connected together. However, the process of going from a network of a few universities and research stations into the Internet, with its hundreds of thousands of hosts and terabytes of data always was a work in progress. It was a product of government, research and business, and Gore falls in the "government" category. He said just that in the interview, "During my service in the United States Congress...." So what he said was absolutely factual.
The *only* people who are splitting hairs are the ones who ignore the context and say that Gore was taking credit for something he was not.
No, its not.
The debate where he said it was televised live, and I was watching it. I heard the words come out of his mouth. Along with the crap about his discovery of Love Canal and how Love Story was based on him and Tipsy.
Getting a little senile? Maybe you should consider checking into a home. The Internet thing came from an interview. Or if you're talking about the part where he did his stupid "I may have made some inaccurate statments", that was the fib, since all those statments in question were factual. But hey, I'm glad you brought up Gore Urban Legends #2 and #3 so I didn't have to. But while we're on the subject, since you're memory is so good, remember the debate when Bush took credit for legislation he VETOED?
Love Story: he was talking to reporters about a claim made by another reporter. And in fact he was part of the inspiration for the male charachter; the other part being Gore's college roomate Tommy Lee Jones.
Love canal: I'll just quote this page It also covers most of the other urban legends, like the Union Label song. Or do do a search for "gore" and "myth" on google.
Fact: Gore was misquoted by both Katherine Q. Seelye of the New York Times and Cici Connolly of the Washington Post. Their misquote was widely disseminated by Jim Nicholson of the Republican National Committee.
Fact: Gore was speaking to a school group in New Hampshire about the importance of political participation. He mentioned a schoolgirl in Toone, TN who brought a toxic waste problem there to his attention. When he decided to hold Congressional hearings on the matter, he looked for other places with similar problems and found Love Canal. He never claimed to have found the toxic waste there.
The school group he was talking to demanded that the Washington Post retract its misquote of the Vice President. The Washington Monthly reported:
"'I called for a congressional investigation and a hearing,' Gore told the students. 'I looked around the country for other sites like that. I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal. Had the first hearing on that issue, and Toone, Tennessee---that was the one that you didn't hear of. But that was the one that started it all.'
"After the hearings, Gore said, 'We passed a major national law to clean up hazardous dump sites. And we had new efforts to stop the practices that ended up poisoning water around the country. We've still got work to do. But we made a huge difference. And it all happened because one high school student got involved.'"
The context of Gore's comment was clear. What sparked his interest in the toxic waste issue was the situation in Toone - "that was the one that you didn't hear of. But that was the one that started it all."
So even if you try to nitpick your way into saying Gore was taking credit for Toone, Toone is not the Love Canal.
I noticed you didn't answer his question. He didn't even need "appropriate copyright warnings", and I think your University needs to hire better lawyers. If you take Fred's email and forward it to a big listserv, there's not much Fred can do about it. But that doesn't make it legal and a-o-k.
You don't *need* copyright markings, anything you write is automatically copyrighted to you.
He's the one who invented this whole intrenat thingy anyways.
Ah ha, ah ha, ha. Ahem. You do know the whole "invented the internet" is a lie, right? And its not Gore's.
Russell Simmons owns the IP to the word, and you have to pay him to use it. Same thing with "def."
??? Has this been held up in court? Only way I could see that happening is if he tried to trademark it, but if thats the case its been so diluted that I doubt he'd have a case.
But I guess I wouldn't be suprised after the whole Spike Lee/Spike TV bs.
Depends on how & why they tail you. If they're just watching and your only objection is that they're there (i.e., they're not wrongly interrogating people around you, or interfering with your affairs) then it's not harrassment, it's just surveliance.
:)
I would still say not without probable cause, but then our current SCOUS is pretty bad for rubber-stamping law enforcement tactics. At policeabuse.org, if you get pulled over they recommend NOT telling telling the officer where you are going, because then they can say you were traveling on a "drug route" and search your car on the spot. On the other hand, and I wish I could have found out how this case went, an advertizing executive in a nice SUV was being trailed by a cop in an unmarked SUV for something like 30 MILES. For no reason. The guy panicked, and started rear-end ramming the cops SUV, so the cop shot and killed the guy. That the man was black and the cop was white didn't help matters. Unfortuantly I can't remember the dudes name or the city where it happed, so a "black man killed by white cop" search isn't very specific.
If he spends half of his job in the shitter, I think his boss (POTUS) needs to be able to know this despite Ashcroft's staff gag-order.
If its affecting his job performance, sure. If not, not. Thats the problem I have with these employee surveilance systems; they make it so easy to snoop on employee's who are doing their job, not just ones who are slacking off. If Johnny can be a good attourney general while having a brown baby boy, I say more power to him.
You parent can sign for you on any dotted line, and you can't sign for yourself without their permission.
Thats because they're responsible for your well being, not because they own you.
If you are under 18 you don't own a single piece of property, only your parents do, even if you slaved for days and bought it. The money you slaved for belongs to your parents by law.
?? I thought that was an attitude only held by abusive parents. If not, I hope thats a matter of state law, because thats fairly disgusting.
I also like how two-faced politicians can be. On the one hand you're almost property, and on the other hand they try to "protect" the same kid from such horrible things as R rated movies and GTA3.
I think that this is a lot more instusive than those other things you mentioned, because its so much easier (save for email). They might have cameras everywhere at your office, but for somebody to find out where you were at at any given point, they'll have to watch hours and hours of footage. Lets say I want to sneak out for a cigarrette - if the boss wants to ride my ass about it, he'll have to watch hours of footage to even see that I left the office, much less where I went. With this system, all he'll have to do is run a query for my phone and then he knows my exact location.
:)
The most immediate solution would be to hand your phone to a friendly co-worker while you zip out, and if your boss asks why you didn't answer your phone right away, tell him you were busy.
stratjakt
==
corporation's bitch
Don't like the fact that your pinto blew up on you? Just buy a different car. Don't like new mine that's upstream of your house, polluting your groundwater? Move somewhere else.
Just because you think you live in a world of infinite choice (you don't) and can take this shit up the ass doesn't mean the rest of us have to.
I think it was Jefferson who said something to the effect of "those who give up freedom for security will get nor deserve either". A perfect example of that is our phone system. The goverment insisted that they be able to tap into the phone system, but they made it way to easy to do, so criminals and forign nations can do it just as easily as the gvt.
You can sue and raise hell to the politicians, its worked for others. The problem with those cameras is that they aren't placed at high-accident intersections, they're placed at high-traffic intersections with low yello light times. Why? To raise more money. There have also been several cases where the cameras have been proved to be faulty - thousands of tickets were refunded for a single intersection alone.
Hmm... get a new job?
What if you can't?
Petition your company to use a different phone?
What if you can't?
This is why a lot of stuff that sucks happens - people make the mistake of thinking that there's an infinite range of options, so you can just switch to something else. The problem being thats not always the case.
It doesn't matter if the police can track you at all times. Nothing stops them from having a police officer follow you throughout the day anyway. (If it's not "search" or "seizure", they generally don't need a warrant.)
Thats called harrasment and you can sue for that just as easily. So yeah I say it matters.
Ironically, in the case of pseudo-orwellian observation, the cure for the problems is simply uniform application. If we can ALL see what ANYONE is doing, then abuse becomes much harder.
Uh, no thanks. Even Ashcroft likes some privacy when he needs to go to the shitter.
Todays workers are definetly different than they were before. Befor you could trust people in a way that you can't do today if you want to stay in bussiness, You live in a dream world if you think that you boss still trust you.
Bullshit, bullshit, buuuuulllllshiiiiiittttt. What, do you think that there weren't unreliable workers 50 years ago? 100 years ago? 1000 years ago? You are so full of it its not even funny.
If anyone has lost trust, its companies, not workers. Money has always been the first priority of any business, but in todays global economy your company will sell you out in a second. You've worked at the company loyally for 10 years? Tough shit, they're going to move to Bangladesh were they can get three people to do you job for less money. Board members want to raise their stock price? They bring in "Chainsaw" Al Dunlap, slash a couple thousand jobs (and thus payroll) to bring the stock up a couple points and you're out of a job.
Its the workers fault, my ass.
Dont work for a jerk.
What if you don't have a choice.
Dont get a locatable cell phone.
What if you don't have a choice.
Why is this such a big deal?
Why isn't it totally obvious? Because they can keep tabs on you all the time. I don't want to explain to my boss why I was in the mens room for 20 minutes with another guy (its because we went to Taco Hell for lunch and have diarrea, thank you very much) or why I spent so much time in office of the cute sales executive down the hall (my job, thank you). If I'm not doing my job, then he can ask some questions, but otherwise its none of his business where I am every second of every working day.
And a "its their time they can do whatever they want" is a crock. The company owns the phone lines but they can't monitor your phone calls willy nilly.
If you under 18 your parents OWN you.
The hell they do. Aside from being horrible parenting, the above attitude can also land you in jail.
2. To use it, the person with the phone has to consent. For kids, sucks to be you, but I certainly can't blame parents for wanting this. For employees, tough luck. It's not like it's your personal phone that's being traced...just your work phone.
And what if you aren't at work? To say nothing for moral. I think productivity studies have been done, and this kind of monitoring has a negative effect because you always have to look over your shoulder. And if you don't like it, you don't necessarily have the choice of quitting and finding a different job.
Dude, stfu. The gvt used to go after people for publishing steps to making a nuclear device until said people pointed out that it was commonly available knowledge that had simply been connected.
In any case, its not this guys fault if another Timothy decides to blow up a building. ITS TIMOTHY'S FAULT. You're a ludite in the same vien as those people who claim that Grand Theft Auto incites violence towards women. Those ludites and you need to fuck off.