Mark Ishikawa used to work for SBUSINESS.NET (an ISP). Some (or at least one) of the sites they hosted were pornographic. Some (or at least one) of the sites they hosted were sending spam. He received this e-mail. He probably didn't want to lose his license and perhaps took action against the offending site. I don't know. My source is google. search for "Mark Ishikawa" and see what you get.
Gee, only a few years ago, it looks like Mr. Ishikawa was hosting some porn sites and contributing to the spam problem...
Received: from out2.ibm.net [165.87.194.229] by in7.ibm.net id 935310503.141204-1 ; Sun, 22 Aug 1999 08:28:23 +0000 Received: from slip202-135-81-145.bg.th.ibm.net (slip202-135-81-145.bg.th.ibm.net [202.135.81.145]) by out2.ibm.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA12758; Sun, 22 Aug 1999 08:28:16 GMT Message-Id: <199908220828.IAA12758@out2.ibm.net> From: (victim) To: "marki@SBUSINESS.NET" <marki@SBUSINESS.NET> Date: Sun, 22 Aug 99 15:28:12 +0700 Subject: You provide connectivity to criminal marketing fraud
TO: Mark Ishikawa, Coordinator, SuperBusiness
Dear Mark,
According to traceroute below, you provide connectivity to web1000.com, which operates a system of pornographic internet marketing frauds criminalized under the recent Virginia statute on UCE. They even advertise their webhosting service on the same webpage with the pornography. (I have record copies with me for future use.)
You are now on notice that you are a witting accomplice to web1000's criminal actions.
Please shut off connectivity to this fraud. If you continue to provide connectivity, the Virginia Attorney General can have your California corporate registration revoked for operating contrary to your charter (which is to conduct only legal businesses).
Kind regards,
(victim's signature block)
C:\>tracerte 216.49.10.14 0 bang1br1-tok1.ba.th.ibm.net (152.158.213.46) 187 ms 157 ms 187 ms 1 bang1br1-tok1.ba.th.ibm.net (152.158.213.46) 156 ms 157 ms 218 ms 2 sydn1br1.nz.ibm.net (152.158.248.2) 375 ms 313 ms 312 ms 3 lang1sr1-2-0-1.ca.us.ibm.net (165.87.224.14) 594 ms 500 ms 468 ms 4 lang1br2-ge-6-0-0-0.ca.us.ibm.net (165.87.32.181) 594 ms 468 ms 469 ms 5 sfra1br1-so-0-1-2-0.ca.us.ibm.net (165.87.232.41) 531 ms 500 ms 875 ms 6 sfra1sr2-5-0-0.ca.us.ibm.net (165.87.13.13) 531 ms 500 ms 500 ms 7 165.87.160.225 (165.87.160.225) 500 ms 500 ms 500 ms 8 12.123.12.222 (12.123.12.222) 500 ms 593 ms 500 ms 9 ar3-a3120s1.sffca.ip.att.net (12.127.1.149) 500 ms 562 ms 563 ms 10 12.127.196.94 (12.127.196.94) 593 ms 531 ms 532 ms 11 216.49.0.117 (216.49.0.117) 524 ms 532 ms 531 ms 12 www.webjump.com (216.49.10.14) 523 ms 532 ms 500 ms
C:\>whois -h whois.geektools.com 216.49.10.14
SuperBusiness NET, Inc. (NETBLK-SBN)
150 Almaden Blvd, Suite 500
San Jose, CA 95113
US
Please refrain from referring to the mentally retarded as REE-tards. Especially as clueless ones. It's demeaning. Besides, many of them have more common sense than "normal" folk.
Also, if El Reg paints upper management types as mentally retarded, I know some mentally retarded people who would be offended. They're much smarter and more sensible than Management.
That's true. And, as someone else already pointed out: permission cannot be assumed. It must be given explicitly. I submit that simply because a machine (non-sentient) adheres to a protocol and "answers" your laptop, one cannot logically equate that to explicit authorization. The machine does not know who you are. It does not *know* anything. It is just operating according to spec.
It seems to me this argument that because the machine functions, it is "authorizing" you to use it, the owner must be authorizing it is a bit thin. I think your instincts can tell you in any given situation whether the owners are likely to want you to use their stuff (be it a bathroom or a WLAN).
On your final note (who accepts blame) I'll have to agree with the rape analogy. What you're saying reminds me of people who think that because a woman dresses suggestively, acts flirtatious, and gets a little drunk that she bears some part of the blame for being raped. She doesn't. She ought to have known better, but because she didn't, it does not in any way make her the least bit culpable for getting assualted.
No more than me driving like an ass makes me partly to blame for that guy waving his gun and taking shots at me on the highway.
Of course, what this has to do with wireless networking and warchalking, I don't know.
Many companies use fences and locked doors to keep Joe Public from going where they are not wanted, and cameras to keep track of who is going where in those cases where seperating the authorized from the unauthorized is not otherwise fesible. Similar tools exist for the wireless environment and they generally work even better. You just might have to hire a clued network admin (just like you hired a clued fence installer and survelliance camera installer) but the results are just as good.
So if I don't put locks on my doors, when someone walks into my house and makes a 1-900 call on my phone, eats some of the food in my fridge, takes a dump in my crapper, sits on my couch and watches cable, and otherwise utilizes my home without authorization, they're not stealing right? Because, there are steps I can take and since I haven't it must be that I *want* people to do this. Or if I don't, it's my own damn fault for not being smart enough to put a lock on my door...and use it.
I respectully disagree. Not putting locks on doors, building fences, or requiring authorization on WAPs may be a dumb thing to do because you *know* someone's going to take advantage sooner or later. But those taking advantage of my lapse in judgement are still breaking the law.
Whether it represents trespass or theivery, I don't know. That seems a semantic argument best left to lawyers, but it's definitely wrong.
1) While in the can, will you have access to computers and the Net? If so, do you know the details of how it will be monitored, etc?
2) First, some background:
When I was a lad, companies were releasing software with copy-protection pretty much as the rule. Thanks to disk munchers and such, most of the protection schemes were handily defeated. It became obvious to many software publishers that the reason their software was cracked and copied was because of the challenge it presented: it was fun for us youths to crack it and feel like we outsmarted them.
It then quickly became the rule that copy-protection on media was pointless so companies stopped producing copy-protected media. As a result, many softwares were not copied because there was no point in it...no challenge. A lot of crackers basically didn't care about having piles of copies of software lying around...they just did it because they thought they were smarter than the suits.
Now, that being said, how often do you think cracking and copying software is done nowadays simply because of the geek-challenge it presents?
And, along with this, do you think the current rise in companies' use of copy-protection mechanisms has actually increased cracking activity simply because it provides a greater challenge?
And, if so, do you think all the efforts to introduce harder-to-crack copy-protection mechanisms will backfire on them?
And, if so, do you think that if companies halted these efforts and just said: "those who'll copy will copy" and only went after folks distributing for profit that cracking activities would actually decline?
Now, I realize that there are certain companies with enough "ill will" against them that no action they take will stop people from cracking and copying their software just because they want to fuck those companies...so these questions don't necessarily apply to them.
But if there's a small company releasing a small title, do you think that by including copy protection mechanisms they would only be begging crackers to have a go at their product?
Or could they still count on rampant copying regardless?
>>>>>>>>>>>>No kidding. I also need the video add-on for Neverwinter Nights.. >>>>>>>>>>>Me too >>>>>>>>>>Me too >>>>>>>>>Me too >>>>>>>>Me too >>>>>>>Me too >>>>>>Me too >>>>>Me too >>>>Me too >>>Me too >>Me too >Me too
After all, Tori Amos and Pearl Jam are both bands whose cds are generally bought by rabid fans who'd buy a cd of/dev/random, as long as it says Pearl Jam, or Tori Amos on the cover.
Yeah...once. I used to like Tori. Now she's just too fscking stupid. Takes herself way too seriously if you know what I mean.
Now, I realize I'm getting off-topic, so mod away...but, it seems to me a lot of artists are good when they have a struggle in their life...you know, like before they're famous. Then they get bazillions of people telling them how wonderful they are and (as I'm sure anyone would) they start believing it...well, they probably thought they were to begin with and now they really accept it.
Then of course, they have nothing really impressive to write about because...well, they've got it made. So they start inventing stupid shit to write about and their music generally starts sucking.
"...as long as I'm rich", and I'm the arrogant one.
I'm glad you noticed my signature. It has nothing to do with the posts. If you miss its point, well, sorry.
I'm trying to take a higher road than you here,
Aside from calling you arrogant (you may well not be...but your post sure was), I don't know what road I'm on that's any different from you. Perhaps I misspoke when I said "your arrogance" as I should have better said "the arrogance this statement implies." Of course, you said you'd try to take a higher road, after just implying I was arrogant, not you...and you did it again at the end of your post. I guess you failed at taking that higher road. It appears to me we're both calling each other arrogant. I am. I admit it. It's a character flaw. Sometimes it gets me into trouble, but I don't deny it's there. I'm working on getting over myself...but I'm just so good, you know. I quote Mac Davis
Oh Lord, it's hard to be humble
When you're perfect in every way
I know, I know. It's not very nice of me to flaunt my greatness in front of those less fortunate...but then, you need someone to look up to after all...I guess I can help you there.
1. I meant no attack on anyone, if you took anything in my post personally you have issues of your own to work out.
Oh, I took nothing personally; but, thanks for pointing out those issues I must have. You probably get a better view of them up on that high road. I merely thought your statement showed an attitude that was either: a) uninformed, b) elitist, or c) both. So I thought someone should say something to you.
2. I just replied to another saying that pehaps my "pointless" statement was too harsh.
Yes, perhaps it was. In its bluntness, it came across... well, as I said above... c) both.
What I tried to imply, and in my idoicy compared to your higher intelligence, came out sounding like a blathering idiot
Well, at least you're willing to admit it.
was simply suggesting that without the use of Remote Calls an n-tiered network would be extremely hard to achieve.
And there you are probably correct. And had it been put so initially, I doubt anyone would have argued with you at all. But simply saying it was completely useless for business is incorrect and so you ruffled some feathers.
But thanks for all your stats,
Well, they're not exactly mine...but you're welcome anyway.
Its pointless for all but smaller sites, businesses can't use it without remote calls.
I am trying not to be offended by your arrogance. I take it you think smaller sites are all just hobbyists or bloggers?
I think your view is unbelievably pretentious considering that according to this the U.K. had 3.7 million active businesses in 2001 and of them 99.1% were small businesses (under 50 employees).
there are approximately 25 million small businesses in the U.S.
new business formation reached another record level in 1998
there were 898,000 new employer businesses in 1998 -- the highest ever and a 1.5 percent increase over the record of 889,000 new
businesses in 1997
In 1998, seven of the 10 industries which added the most new jobs were in sectors dominated by small businesses (U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Department of Commerce)
small businesses hire a larger proportion of employees who are younger workers, older workers, women or workers who prefer to work part-time
small businesses provide 67 percent of workers with their first jobs and initial on the job training in basic skills
small business bankruptcies are the lowest in 19 years
Also, small businesses...
provide approximately 75 percent of the net new jobs added to the economy.
represent 99.7 percent of all employers.
employ 53 percent of the private work force.
provide 47 percent of all sales in the country.
provide 55 percent of innovations.
account for 35 percent of federal contract dollars.
account for 38 percent of jobs in high technology sectors.
account for 51 percent of private sector output.
represent 96 percent of all U.S. exporters.
Gee, now I see your point. You're right: PHP is useless to just about everybody out there.
To OOP or not to OOP
on
Programming PHP
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
When I read your post, I thought of C++...
A complete hack of a language. It's cool and all, but by making the old calls available, you allow users to still shoot themselves in the foot.
At any rate, I always thought the point of a good programming language was to give me a good gun for hitting the type of target I'm after...but if I want to aim it at my foot, well, c'est la vie.
This is so true. Please someone, mod up. In addition to what was already said, I would add that making web sites accessible to Lynx and sending e-mail as plain text enables disabled, handicapped, blind, etc. people to still enjoy your content.
A little DNS and/or routing trickery can fake it into communicating with whatever host you want. Then it's just a matter of figuring out how the host should respond. I don't know how hard that is. It depends on the encryption algorithms used during the handshake and subsequent communication. Plus the keystrength, etc.
There would probably need to be some degree of reverse engineering of whatever client is used to view the movie as well as the response from the Internet "Verifier" host.
This means that people who likes the film will buy a good quality film on DVD since there are only bad quality films around.
As long as there is DVD2SVCD, there will be quite good quality films around ripped directly from the DVD with nearly the same quality as the DVD, only it takes multiple CD-Rs to burn them. But if your DVD player supports SVCD, you can make and watch fantastic quality copies.
Me, I like to make SVCDs of the VHS tapes I own so I can eventually get rid of my VCR.
I get so sick of hearing this. Here in America (don't know so much about how it is elsewhere) we are indoctrinated to believe a company's sole responsibility is to their shareholders. The only thing that matters is ROI for the shareholders, blah, blah, blah...
It's bullshit on a grand scale. While companies do have a responsibility to their shareholders, they also have a greater responsibility to the world at large. But nobody wants to admit that because then all those morally questionable (if not outright unethical) activities designed to reward CEOs and the Board of Directors while fscking the employees, environment, and basically the rest of the world would no longer be "questionable" at all; and then they'd lose all their money and power.
Just because companies in the US routinely act as though their only responsibility is to shareholders, it doesn't make it so.
Now, before you go thinking I'm a leftist nutbag liberal socialist <insert label here>, I understand and agree that companies are usually formed for the intended purpose of making a profit. That's all well and good, and making a profit is a wonderful motivator. There's nothing wrong with profit.
I'm just saying the belief that companies have no responsibilities to anyone other than their shareholders is wrong and a company whose sole purpose is to make a profit is incorporated for the wrong reason. It's unfortunate, but I believe the mantra of the modern American CEO (as said best by Daffy Duck) is:
I've worked in both. I prefer entrepreneurial environments. You'll likely never find that in the public sector. You'll likely never find that in a huge corporation.
At my public sector (state) job, the head of IT was a typical PHB. He
knew little;
believed vendors, their salespeople, and consultants over his employees;
Had no vision and worse, no plan;
and he would not speak to his employees about any of the above.
I actually had asked my boss once what my purpose was in being there and she didn't know. A group of us asked her if this "CIO" would sit down with us and help us figure out what our roles were, what his vision was, and what the 5-year plan was. Her answer: "No. He doesn't like confrontation."
Then I asked if I could speak to him one-on-one so he'd be less intimidated. Her answer: "No. You can schedule a meeting with him, but it will be cancelled."
Now, I was going through a difficult time (divorce) so I was looking for my job to have some meaning. It didn't. I was intent on using all those sick days they gave me (state jobs do have good benefits but it was actually a problem that I used the sick days) and my boss sits me down in her office and says: I know you have nothing to do (no active projects) and are struggling with having no purpose here, but it would be better for you to come in and sit at your desk playing SOLITAIRE ALL DAY than to take another sick day.
Basically, in my experience, in the public sector you are treated like furniture. They may not use you at all, and they want to shuffle you around (...constant reorganizations make you look busy, you know...), but by God you'd better be where they put you day in and day out 'cause when they're ready to sit on you, if you're not there they get pissed.
Working in the private sector, I've been laid off four times, three companies I worked for went out of business, and I've never been with any single company more than three years. AND I LOVE IT.
But sometimes, now that I'm older and have a family and kids and all, I think: Those sit on your ass all day, do nothing, government jobs would really help my blood pressure right about now.
Slashdot Mirror
I gotta remember not to drink pop when reading
Mark Ishikawa used to work for SBUSINESS.NET (an ISP). Some (or at least one) of the sites they hosted were pornographic. Some (or at least one) of the sites they hosted were sending spam. He received this e-mail. He probably didn't want to lose his license and perhaps took action against the offending site. I don't know. My source is google. search for "Mark Ishikawa" and see what you get.
Gee, only a few years ago, it looks like Mr. Ishikawa was hosting some porn sites and contributing to the spam problem...
Received: from out2.ibm.net [165.87.194.229] by in7.ibm.net id 935310503.141204-1 ; Sun, 22 Aug 1999 08:28:23 +0000
Received: from slip202-135-81-145.bg.th.ibm.net (slip202-135-81-145.bg.th.ibm.net [202.135.81.145]) by out2.ibm.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA12758; Sun, 22 Aug 1999 08:28:16 GMT
Message-Id: <199908220828.IAA12758@out2.ibm.net>
From: (victim)
To: "marki@SBUSINESS.NET" <marki@SBUSINESS.NET>
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 99 15:28:12 +0700
Subject: You provide connectivity to criminal marketing fraud
TO: Mark Ishikawa, Coordinator, SuperBusiness
Dear Mark,
According to traceroute below, you provide connectivity to web1000.com, which operates a system of pornographic internet marketing frauds criminalized under the recent Virginia statute on UCE. They even advertise their webhosting service on the same webpage with the pornography. (I have record copies with me for future use.)
You are now on notice that you are a witting accomplice to web1000's criminal actions.
Please shut off connectivity to this fraud. If you continue to provide connectivity, the Virginia Attorney General can have your California corporate registration revoked for operating contrary to your charter (which is to conduct only legal businesses).
Kind regards,
(victim's signature block)
C:\>tracerte 216.49.10.14
0 bang1br1-tok1.ba.th.ibm.net (152.158.213.46) 187 ms 157 ms 187 ms
1 bang1br1-tok1.ba.th.ibm.net (152.158.213.46) 156 ms 157 ms 218 ms
2 sydn1br1.nz.ibm.net (152.158.248.2) 375 ms 313 ms 312 ms
3 lang1sr1-2-0-1.ca.us.ibm.net (165.87.224.14) 594 ms 500 ms 468 ms
4 lang1br2-ge-6-0-0-0.ca.us.ibm.net (165.87.32.181) 594 ms 468 ms 469 ms
5 sfra1br1-so-0-1-2-0.ca.us.ibm.net (165.87.232.41) 531 ms 500 ms 875 ms
6 sfra1sr2-5-0-0.ca.us.ibm.net (165.87.13.13) 531 ms 500 ms 500 ms
7 165.87.160.225 (165.87.160.225) 500 ms 500 ms 500 ms
8 12.123.12.222 (12.123.12.222) 500 ms 593 ms 500 ms
9 ar3-a3120s1.sffca.ip.att.net (12.127.1.149) 500 ms 562 ms 563 ms
10 12.127.196.94 (12.127.196.94) 593 ms 531 ms 532 ms
11 216.49.0.117 (216.49.0.117) 524 ms 532 ms 531 ms
12 www.webjump.com (216.49.10.14) 523 ms 532 ms 500 ms
C:\>whois -h whois.geektools.com 216.49.10.14
SuperBusiness NET, Inc. (NETBLK-SBN)
150 Almaden Blvd, Suite 500
San Jose, CA 95113
US
Netname: SBN
Netblock: 216.49.0.0 - 216.49.63.255
Maintainer: SBIZ
Coordinator:
Ishikawa, Mark (MI70-ARIN) marki@SBUSINESS.NET
+1 (408) 278-4400 (FAX) +1 408 346-0661
Maybe he got burned and that's why he's so anti-pr0n now.
See here for some of his congressional testimony.
Also, if El Reg paints upper management types as mentally retarded, I know some mentally retarded people who would be offended. They're much smarter and more sensible than Management.
It seems to me this argument that because the machine functions, it is "authorizing" you to use it, the owner must be authorizing it is a bit thin. I think your instincts can tell you in any given situation whether the owners are likely to want you to use their stuff (be it a bathroom or a WLAN).
On your final note (who accepts blame) I'll have to agree with the rape analogy. What you're saying reminds me of people who think that because a woman dresses suggestively, acts flirtatious, and gets a little drunk that she bears some part of the blame for being raped. She doesn't. She ought to have known better, but because she didn't, it does not in any way make her the least bit culpable for getting assualted.
No more than me driving like an ass makes me partly to blame for that guy waving his gun and taking shots at me on the highway.
Of course, what this has to do with wireless networking and warchalking, I don't know.
I respectully disagree. Not putting locks on doors, building fences, or requiring authorization on WAPs may be a dumb thing to do because you *know* someone's going to take advantage sooner or later. But those taking advantage of my lapse in judgement are still breaking the law.
Whether it represents trespass or theivery, I don't know. That seems a semantic argument best left to lawyers, but it's definitely wrong.
1) While in the can, will you have access to computers and the Net? If so, do you know the details of how it will be monitored, etc?
2) First, some background:
When I was a lad, companies were releasing software with copy-protection pretty much as the rule. Thanks to disk munchers and such, most of the protection schemes were handily defeated. It became obvious to many software publishers that the reason their software was cracked and copied was because of the challenge it presented: it was fun for us youths to crack it and feel like we outsmarted them.
It then quickly became the rule that copy-protection on media was pointless so companies stopped producing copy-protected media. As a result, many softwares were not copied because there was no point in it...no challenge. A lot of crackers basically didn't care about having piles of copies of software lying around...they just did it because they thought they were smarter than the suits.
Now, that being said, how often do you think cracking and copying software is done nowadays simply because of the geek-challenge it presents?
And, along with this, do you think the current rise in companies' use of copy-protection mechanisms has actually increased cracking activity simply because it provides a greater challenge?
And, if so, do you think all the efforts to introduce harder-to-crack copy-protection mechanisms will backfire on them?
And, if so, do you think that if companies halted these efforts and just said: "those who'll copy will copy" and only went after folks distributing for profit that cracking activities would actually decline?
Now, I realize that there are certain companies with enough "ill will" against them that no action they take will stop people from cracking and copying their software just because they want to fuck those companies...so these questions don't necessarily apply to them.
But if there's a small company releasing a small title, do you think that by including copy protection mechanisms they would only be begging crackers to have a go at their product?
Or could they still count on rampant copying regardless?
>>>>>>>>>>>>No kidding. I also need the video add-on for Neverwinter Nights..
>>>>>>>>>>>Me too
>>>>>>>>>>Me too
>>>>>>>>>Me too
>>>>>>>>Me too
>>>>>>>Me too
>>>>>>Me too
>>>>>Me too
>>>>Me too
>>>Me too
>>Me too
>Me too
Me too...
Just switch to Qnx or AtheOS
Now, I realize I'm getting off-topic, so mod away...but, it seems to me a lot of artists are good when they have a struggle in their life...you know, like before they're famous. Then they get bazillions of people telling them how wonderful they are and (as I'm sure anyone would) they start believing it...well, they probably thought they were to begin with and now they really accept it.
Then of course, they have nothing really impressive to write about because...well, they've got it made. So they start inventing stupid shit to write about and their music generally starts sucking.
Tori is a good example of this effect.
I think your view is unbelievably pretentious considering that according to this the U.K. had 3.7 million active businesses in 2001 and of them 99.1% were small businesses (under 50 employees).
And, according to this in the USA:
Also, small businesses...
- provide approximately 75 percent of the net new jobs added to the economy.
- represent 99.7 percent of all employers.
- employ 53 percent of the private work force.
- provide 47 percent of all sales in the country.
- provide 55 percent of innovations.
- account for 35 percent of federal contract dollars.
- account for 38 percent of jobs in high technology sectors.
- account for 51 percent of private sector output.
- represent 96 percent of all U.S. exporters.
Gee, now I see your point. You're right: PHP is useless to just about everybody out there.When I read your post, I thought of C++...
A complete hack of a language. It's cool and all, but by making the old calls available, you allow users to still shoot themselves in the foot.
At any rate, I always thought the point of a good programming language was to give me a good gun for hitting the type of target I'm after...but if I want to aim it at my foot, well, c'est la vie.
This is so true. Please someone, mod up. In addition to what was already said, I would add that making web sites accessible to Lynx and sending e-mail as plain text enables disabled, handicapped, blind, etc. people to still enjoy your content.
I'd hate to hear HTML e-mail read aloud.
I know. I was just being a little facetious.
A little DNS and/or routing trickery can fake it into communicating with whatever host you want. Then it's just a matter of figuring out how the host should respond. I don't know how hard that is. It depends on the encryption algorithms used during the handshake and subsequent communication. Plus the keystrength, etc.
There would probably need to be some degree of reverse engineering of whatever client is used to view the movie as well as the response from the Internet "Verifier" host.
I have a Dazzle product. It's okay but nothing special. It's a USB device. I don't think it will get closed caption info.
Set your clock back ;^)
Me, I like to make SVCDs of the VHS tapes I own so I can eventually get rid of my VCR.
It's bullshit on a grand scale. While companies do have a responsibility to their shareholders, they also have a greater responsibility to the world at large. But nobody wants to admit that because then all those morally questionable (if not outright unethical) activities designed to reward CEOs and the Board of Directors while fscking the employees, environment, and basically the rest of the world would no longer be "questionable" at all; and then they'd lose all their money and power.
Just because companies in the US routinely act as though their only responsibility is to shareholders, it doesn't make it so.
Now, before you go thinking I'm a leftist nutbag liberal socialist <insert label here>, I understand and agree that companies are usually formed for the intended purpose of making a profit. That's all well and good, and making a profit is a wonderful motivator. There's nothing wrong with profit.
I'm just saying the belief that companies have no responsibilities to anyone other than their shareholders is wrong and a company whose sole purpose is to make a profit is incorporated for the wrong reason. It's unfortunate, but I believe the mantra of the modern American CEO (as said best by Daffy Duck) is:
At my public sector (state) job, the head of IT was a typical PHB. He
- knew little;
- believed vendors, their salespeople, and consultants over his employees;
- Had no vision and worse, no plan;
- and he would not speak to his employees about any of the above.
I actually had asked my boss once what my purpose was in being there and she didn't know. A group of us asked her if this "CIO" would sit down with us and help us figure out what our roles were, what his vision was, and what the 5-year plan was. Her answer: "No. He doesn't like confrontation."Then I asked if I could speak to him one-on-one so he'd be less intimidated. Her answer: "No. You can schedule a meeting with him, but it will be cancelled."
Now, I was going through a difficult time (divorce) so I was looking for my job to have some meaning. It didn't. I was intent on using all those sick days they gave me (state jobs do have good benefits but it was actually a problem that I used the sick days) and my boss sits me down in her office and says: I know you have nothing to do (no active projects) and are struggling with having no purpose here, but it would be better for you to come in and sit at your desk playing SOLITAIRE ALL DAY than to take another sick day.
Basically, in my experience, in the public sector you are treated like furniture. They may not use you at all, and they want to shuffle you around (...constant reorganizations make you look busy, you know...), but by God you'd better be where they put you day in and day out 'cause when they're ready to sit on you, if you're not there they get pissed.
Working in the private sector, I've been laid off four times, three companies I worked for went out of business, and I've never been with any single company more than three years. AND I LOVE IT.
But sometimes, now that I'm older and have a family and kids and all, I think: Those sit on your ass all day, do nothing, government jobs would really help my blood pressure right about now.
YMMV.
- Develop Linux Only Game
- ????
- Profit!
Sorry...had to be done.