If I were the person and I truly knew the company was cash strapped I'd accept things that arent immediate money... like stock options, extra vacation time, setting your own hours or telecommuting for some of those 60-80 hour weeks. The latter could save you huge $$$ in terms of gas expended commuting.
Hm.. let's see... illiquid stock options, that are essentially worthless unless the company gets bought some day, instead of going bankrupt....
Extra vacation time that cannot be used while being forced into 60-80 hours weeks to get that project done, and will be completely worthless once layoff after-project-done is executed.
Telecommuting... still working those same amount of extra hours, with no fair pay addition, just from a different place.
Maybe not. Maybe you were not advertising for the position at the time.
If any person in an organization is completely irreplaceable at any point in time, someone in management needs to be disciplined harshly, for allowing that to happen.
Except (probably) there is no contract between the two parties that limits either side's obligations.
It's not extortion, because the employer wants a service from the employee, the nature of buying a service from someone ordinarily means the employee will receive cash compensation, and the employee has a right to specify what price they will demand, to do business.
And your attitude is the exact reason why I'm leaving I/T if I can do it. People who work their ass off should be rewarded and NOT replaced. Why? Because if you reward them and keep them they'll work their ass off for you AGAIN and AGAIN.
Yes... but do the shareholders make more money if you reward them, or more money if you replace them with someone new, who will work their ass off for you, until the same thing happens?
Sure, they leave once they are not rewarded.
But a company can keep doing this over and over again... for every new employee, it will be the first time, and they won't know ahead of time that there is no reward awaiting them at the end.
I'm sorry but he's right. He said it in a horribly tactless way, but to use a project launch as leverage is to show that you're manipulative and not a team player.
In other words, he'd be perfect in management?
If he uses the project as leverage, he's cold and manipulative. If he doesn't, he's a fool, perfect candidate to be manipulated by management into increasingly many job duties, with no improvement in pay, or recognition for performance.
You think companies believe that being manipulative is bad?
Companies exist to manipulate their prospective customers to buy product from them
If that were the reason, they would have considered easing their anti-competitive restrictions against Google also.
Just because they didn't put Google's name in the rules against data sharing, doesn't mean the restriction is not specially designed to make sure iAD succeeds, and AdMob dies.
New York Times folks are off their rocker.
Subscription cancelled.
Tweet refers to a specific action users take on twitter, that involves creating text that is readable by other users through apps that utilize the twitter API.
Tweets, Retweets, and private tweets are all different kinds of things, and none of them are person to person messages like email.
Sending a tweet is not called 'posting an update' or sending a status update. "Status updates" are a Facebook thing.
It's not called 'sending a message'. That's an e-mail thing.
It's not called 'posting a message'. That's a forum thing.
It's not called 'using twitter'. Using twitter in no way implies you sent a tweet.
Google didn't save actual transmissions; based on the article they parsed and saved textual data that was derived from the transmissions, instead of saving radio waveforms.
WiFi spectrum is unlicensed. The frequencies are public. Anyone can operate a radio on that frequency, as long as they follow the applicable Part 15 FCC rules. No authorization is required by the regulations to operate a receiver, disseminate, and utilize or record details of what another radio transmitted on those frequencies.
This is different from licensed frequencies, which special rules may apply to.
Google may have captured the derived 802.11 packets, but sving all the actual radio transmissions in full detail is unlikely as it would be quite impractical. Commodity 802.11 radio hardware doesn't provide such options, they would need fairly sophisticated (expensive) receiving equipment, to capture all waveforms on the WiFi frequencies, and the resulting files would be large, difficult to manage, and require custom signal processing to derive useful data from them.
When you click the new Change background image button... it displays a bunch of random images, and the text "Only select images that you have confirmed that you have the license to use."
Oh, yes, and a search box... typing the name of an image seems to show a bunch of images from other people's public Picasa albumss
I wonder what happens if you type 'goatse.cx' into the search box... hmm...
I suppose telemarketing and attempting to sell fake products is now considered an attack
Makes sense, since the whole notion of "cyber war" is really kind of fuzzy.
Including the definition of what "an attack" is or means.
By bombing them in the physical world, they avoid any ambiguity... the US is obviously at war with telemarketers.
Now, my next question is.... since when did the FTC's duties include use of munitions, and since when did they have authority to go out on their own and start bombing companie headquarters?
I guess the law that provides for it must be hidden somewhere deep in the pages of the health care bill, or some other secret law congress passed some time ago..
Invariably, that's what it would be used for... if Apple hadn't banned porn apps....... which basically (for all intents and purposes) makes the iPhone an expensive walkie talkie as far as the average prospective smart phone user is concerned.
Is lack of account for fuel consumed while idle, stopped, coasting, or stopping.
Saying "20 MPG" is oversimplistic.
Who ever travels 20 miles without ever having to stop or change speed?
Presumably efficiency is not the same under all these conditions.
If you travel to a fast food restaurant at lunch time, and go nowhere fast in line for the drive-up for 20 minutes, and when you get back, your odometer shows you drove 10 miles.
Is not going to have the same fuel consumption as simply driving 10 miles down the highway.
In this case, the measure of MPG is extremely inaccurate for the vehicle that has an inefficient consumption while idling.
Whereas, it could be pretty close for the vehicle that automatically shuts down or conserves fuel while idling.
In fact, the vehicle that's more efficient at idling could have an average lower consumption in the real world, even if the MPG are slightly poorer than another vehicle, that is inefficient for the load being applied to it.
It's a false analogy, because "murder" is not merely a violation of rules that government has artificially defined.
Murder is an infringement of fundamental God-given rights that a majority of the citizens respect.
remember, declaration of independence....
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
All he should need do to prevent a UDRP from succeeding is establish that he has a legitimate interest in the name, and not attempt to offer it for sale (esp not, for more than he purchased it).
UDRP specifies some situations where the domain can be transferred due to a dispute, if one of the rules doesn't apply, then the dispute fails.
He could make it really transparent by forming an organization named something like Bluff City Protest Drive, or Buffalo PD for short, and he's basically in the clear
But developing a website and using the domain for some other 'legitimate interest' could be enough.
As long as he doesn't do something really stupid and represent his website as an Official city site, in the text, or go to the police or some other party and say "You can buy the domain back from me... just pay me this extra money, above what I got it for.... e.g. $100"
If Slashdot posted it, along with a video of it, i'd probably believe it.
Now, if Gizmodo posted it, along with a video of it, I (1) would probably never see it, and
(2) would doubt it, if I heard about it being a Gimodo posting.
But that's not because it's not a believable concept, it's just that I would only believe it from a news source I consider trustworthy.
The average person may consider Gizmodo trustworthy (not knowing about past fiascos)
Not Apple! It looks like the DA is going after this, carefully but vigorously.
I am guessing Apple might like to make an example of the gizmo folks, and may have asked or applied some of its influence to the DA
Regardless of the outcome of the criminal proceedings, it would not be surprising at all, if Apple chooses to lob a ton of litigation at them, assuming they deem the expense worth it.
I assume the liability incurred by stealing a company's prototype, publishing trade secret information about it (illegally obtained trade secrets), and thereby seriously damaging the market for their existing product, resulting in tens or hundreds of millions in lost profits, may be huge.
For some reason I think Gizmo would have a hard time paying a $20 or $30 million judgement in Apple's favor
It is standard for press to get free access to industry conferences, for publicity reasons -- so they can cover what is going on at the conference.
Press are typically given a special press room also, and special amenities, potentially extra access, and privileges not afforded to normal attendees.
This is not specific to reviewers, and is not in exchange for a 'review' of any sort.
It is not as if Apple is going to give free iPhones to press attendees who are expected to review the product.
Usually expensive items of that nature that are provided for review as 'review items' by manufacturers must be returned after review, anyways, as a condition for getting an item for a review; it's not a transfer of ownership to the reviewer, but a lending out.
By providing free access, they are more likely to get their item looked at and reviewed at all.
Anyways... even if it was Apple's policy, they would have lots of good reasons to not let Gizmodo get ahold of a review item... namely, because Gizmodo already had alleged connections to a stolen iPhone... Apple might be legitimately concerned about not getting their review loaner back.
Just waiting for eBay [or other] to buy out Facebook and require every account be linked to a PayPal-like or verification-like account for 'proof of identity'
Not when the press org is doing Apple a service by covering their conference, which translates into more profits.
Gizmodo may have done more damage to Apple via iPhone-theft-fiasco (at Gizmodo's own profit), than benefit they have to provide Apple by attending to WWDC though.
IOW, it may ordinarily make sense to give press free or discounted access, but Gizmodo tipped the balance against themselves (ultimately at Gizmo's own expense...
This stuff happens when you leave things like secret prototypes lying around Starbucks; it's not the news media's fault that they write about it. It is by way of being their job.
It's their fault they do not immediately return it or hand it over to authorities. Instead they chose to illegally dissect and did not return it. Their holding onto someone else's property for their own purposes is obviously criminal conversion, if they actually did that.
Losing press credentials should be the worst of their worries.
After Apple is done with them, they will be lucky if Apple does not decide to pursue having gizmodo shut down over this.
Slashdot Mirror
If I were the person and I truly knew the company was cash strapped I'd accept things that arent immediate money... like stock options, extra vacation time, setting your own hours or telecommuting for some of those 60-80 hour weeks. The latter could save you huge $$$ in terms of gas expended commuting.
Hm.. let's see... illiquid stock options, that are essentially worthless unless the company gets bought some day, instead of going bankrupt....
Extra vacation time that cannot be used while being forced into 60-80 hours weeks to get that project done, and will be completely worthless once layoff after-project-done is executed.
Telecommuting... still working those same amount of extra hours, with no fair pay addition, just from a different place.
Maybe not. Maybe you were not advertising for the position at the time.
If any person in an organization is completely irreplaceable at any point in time, someone in management needs to be disciplined harshly, for allowing that to happen.
Except (probably) there is no contract between the two parties that limits either side's obligations.
It's not extortion, because the employer wants a service from the employee, the nature of buying a service from someone ordinarily means the employee will receive cash compensation, and the employee has a right to specify what price they will demand, to do business.
And your attitude is the exact reason why I'm leaving I/T if I can do it. People who work their ass off should be rewarded and NOT replaced. Why? Because if you reward them and keep them they'll work their ass off for you AGAIN and AGAIN.
Yes... but do the shareholders make more money if you reward them, or more money if you replace them with someone new, who will work their ass off for you, until the same thing happens?
Sure, they leave once they are not rewarded. But a company can keep doing this over and over again... for every new employee, it will be the first time, and they won't know ahead of time that there is no reward awaiting them at the end.
I'm sorry but he's right. He said it in a horribly tactless way, but to use a project launch as leverage is to show that you're manipulative and not a team player.
In other words, he'd be perfect in management?
If he uses the project as leverage, he's cold and manipulative. If he doesn't, he's a fool, perfect candidate to be manipulated by management into increasingly many job duties, with no improvement in pay, or recognition for performance.
You think companies believe that being manipulative is bad?
Companies exist to manipulate their prospective customers to buy product from them
If that were the reason, they would have considered easing their anti-competitive restrictions against Google also.
Just because they didn't put Google's name in the rules against data sharing, doesn't mean the restriction is not specially designed to make sure iAD succeeds, and AdMob dies.
New York Times folks are off their rocker. Subscription cancelled.
Tweet refers to a specific action users take on twitter, that involves creating text that is readable by other users through apps that utilize the twitter API.
Tweets, Retweets, and private tweets are all different kinds of things, and none of them are person to person messages like email.
Sending a tweet is not called 'posting an update' or sending a status update. "Status updates" are a Facebook thing.
It's not called 'sending a message'. That's an e-mail thing.
It's not called 'posting a message'. That's a forum thing.
It's not called 'using twitter'. Using twitter in no way implies you sent a tweet.
Google didn't save actual transmissions; based on the article they parsed and saved textual data that was derived from the transmissions, instead of saving radio waveforms.
WiFi spectrum is unlicensed. The frequencies are public. Anyone can operate a radio on that frequency, as long as they follow the applicable Part 15 FCC rules. No authorization is required by the regulations to operate a receiver, disseminate, and utilize or record details of what another radio transmitted on those frequencies.
This is different from licensed frequencies, which special rules may apply to.
Google may have captured the derived 802.11 packets, but sving all the actual radio transmissions in full detail is unlikely as it would be quite impractical. Commodity 802.11 radio hardware doesn't provide such options, they would need fairly sophisticated (expensive) receiving equipment, to capture all waveforms on the WiFi frequencies, and the resulting files would be large, difficult to manage, and require custom signal processing to derive useful data from them.
Yes, but that would be extremely deceptive and manipulative... and Google's self-proclaimed philosophy is try not to be evil
When you click the new Change background image button... it displays a bunch of random images, and the text "Only select images that you have confirmed that you have the license to use."
Oh, yes, and a search box... typing the name of an image seems to show a bunch of images from other people's public Picasa albumss
I wonder what happens if you type 'goatse.cx' into the search box... hmm...
This kind of changes the meaning of...
Nato warns of strike against cyber attackers
I suppose telemarketing and attempting to sell fake products is now considered an attack
Makes sense, since the whole notion of "cyber war" is really kind of fuzzy.
Including the definition of what "an attack" is or means.
By bombing them in the physical world, they avoid any ambiguity... the US is obviously at war with telemarketers.
Now, my next question is.... since when did the FTC's duties include use of munitions, and since when did they have authority to go out on their own and start bombing companie headquarters?
I guess the law that provides for it must be hidden somewhere deep in the pages of the health care bill, or some other secret law congress passed some time ago..
Invariably, that's what it would be used for... if Apple hadn't banned porn apps....... which basically (for all intents and purposes) makes the iPhone an expensive walkie talkie as far as the average prospective smart phone user is concerned.
I guess that means his company is really still using Windows '98 or (shudder) ME.
The use of 'XP' in the headline, summary, and link, were just chicanery designed to get our attention.
I assume the Author knew XP was more popular.
Is lack of account for fuel consumed while idle, stopped, coasting, or stopping.
Saying "20 MPG" is oversimplistic.
Who ever travels 20 miles without ever having to stop or change speed?
Presumably efficiency is not the same under all these conditions.
If you travel to a fast food restaurant at lunch time, and go nowhere fast in line for the drive-up for 20 minutes, and when you get back, your odometer shows you drove 10 miles.
Is not going to have the same fuel consumption as simply driving 10 miles down the highway.
In this case, the measure of MPG is extremely inaccurate for the vehicle that has an inefficient consumption while idling.
Whereas, it could be pretty close for the vehicle that automatically shuts down or conserves fuel while idling.
In fact, the vehicle that's more efficient at idling could have an average lower consumption in the real world, even if the MPG are slightly poorer than another vehicle, that is inefficient for the load being applied to it.
It's a false analogy, because "murder" is not merely a violation of rules that government has artificially defined.
Murder is an infringement of fundamental God-given rights that a majority of the citizens respect.
remember, declaration of independence....
Oddly, that's not so clean cut. Sometimes raising the speed limit lowers the rate of accidents.
The local government may be the a$$holes putting you and your family at risk, so they can collect a few extra bucks.
All he should need do to prevent a UDRP from succeeding is establish that he has a legitimate interest in the name, and not attempt to offer it for sale (esp not, for more than he purchased it). UDRP specifies some situations where the domain can be transferred due to a dispute, if one of the rules doesn't apply, then the dispute fails.
He could make it really transparent by forming an organization named something like Bluff City Protest Drive, or Buffalo PD for short, and he's basically in the clear
But developing a website and using the domain for some other 'legitimate interest' could be enough.
As long as he doesn't do something really stupid and represent his website as an Official city site, in the text, or go to the police or some other party and say "You can buy the domain back from me... just pay me this extra money, above what I got it for.... e.g. $100"
This year, they decided to re-write textbooks to eliminate the "liberal bias".
Unfortunately, "textbooks" included training manuals read by their IT staf...
And "liberal bias" included this notion that you needed backup systems, and not just guns, in case something bad were to happen, who knew?
It doesn't sound that farfetched to me...
If Slashdot posted it, along with a video of it, i'd probably believe it.
Now, if Gizmodo posted it, along with a video of it, I (1) would probably never see it, and (2) would doubt it, if I heard about it being a Gimodo posting.
But that's not because it's not a believable concept, it's just that I would only believe it from a news source I consider trustworthy.
The average person may consider Gizmodo trustworthy (not knowing about past fiascos)
Not Apple! It looks like the DA is going after this, carefully but vigorously.
I am guessing Apple might like to make an example of the gizmo folks, and may have asked or applied some of its influence to the DA
Regardless of the outcome of the criminal proceedings, it would not be surprising at all, if Apple chooses to lob a ton of litigation at them, assuming they deem the expense worth it.
I assume the liability incurred by stealing a company's prototype, publishing trade secret information about it (illegally obtained trade secrets), and thereby seriously damaging the market for their existing product, resulting in tens or hundreds of millions in lost profits, may be huge.
For some reason I think Gizmo would have a hard time paying a $20 or $30 million judgement in Apple's favor
It is standard for press to get free access to industry conferences, for publicity reasons -- so they can cover what is going on at the conference.
Press are typically given a special press room also, and special amenities, potentially extra access, and privileges not afforded to normal attendees.
This is not specific to reviewers, and is not in exchange for a 'review' of any sort.
It is not as if Apple is going to give free iPhones to press attendees who are expected to review the product.
Usually expensive items of that nature that are provided for review as 'review items' by manufacturers must be returned after review, anyways, as a condition for getting an item for a review; it's not a transfer of ownership to the reviewer, but a lending out.
By providing free access, they are more likely to get their item looked at and reviewed at all.
Anyways... even if it was Apple's policy, they would have lots of good reasons to not let Gizmodo get ahold of a review item... namely, because Gizmodo already had alleged connections to a stolen iPhone... Apple might be legitimately concerned about not getting their review loaner back.
Just waiting for eBay [or other] to buy out Facebook and require every account be linked to a PayPal-like or verification-like account for 'proof of identity'
Not when the press org is doing Apple a service by covering their conference, which translates into more profits.
Gizmodo may have done more damage to Apple via iPhone-theft-fiasco (at Gizmodo's own profit), than benefit they have to provide Apple by attending to WWDC though.
IOW, it may ordinarily make sense to give press free or discounted access, but Gizmodo tipped the balance against themselves (ultimately at Gizmo's own expense...
Good idea but, unfortunately for Gizmodo, tickets to the WWDC were sold out long before the iPhone prototype fiasco hit the Intertubes.
It's called buying-the-tickets-from-a-scalper.
Assuming Gizomod is willing to pay enough, there's sure to be some WWDC attendee willing to give up their tickets, for some price.
This stuff happens when you leave things like secret prototypes lying around Starbucks; it's not the news media's fault that they write about it. It is by way of being their job.
It's their fault they do not immediately return it or hand it over to authorities. Instead they chose to illegally dissect and did not return it. Their holding onto someone else's property for their own purposes is obviously criminal conversion, if they actually did that.
Losing press credentials should be the worst of their worries. After Apple is done with them, they will be lucky if Apple does not decide to pursue having gizmodo shut down over this.