It sounds like they basically want to pay no tax at all. I'm sorry but what's the point in us having them here in the first place then if they don't contribute anything much back to society?
At this point is there any expectation that actions like this will carry consequences outside of an apology for a company like BP? After the oil spill, the Texas incident and their subsequent handling of both - it seems like an issue like this will disappear from the media's attention span in short order.
The UK is enacting severe austerity measures on its citizens and companies that develop *games* are whining about not getting large enough tax breaks? Talk about being out of touch, this isn't "let them eat cake" its "how come we aren't getting enough cake?". Meanwhile people are having their bread portions slashed.
Heh, you forgot your open tag for the sarcasm. In any case, the masses are waking up to corporate exploitation. Look at the campaigns targeting mega corps who aren't pulling their weight in taxes...
It would be nice to see a real comparison of the different environments. I use Ubuntu for my web dev environment, and frankly the lack of stable access to the latest IE 8 and 9 is killing me.
I'd like to see a report that explores:
Total Cost - OS + Software
Editors available
Browsers available
testing tools available
Over a period of 6 months, across a range of developers - # of crashes / data loss incidents experienced
It happens: http://seekingalpha.com/article/19019-sony-s-damaged-reputation-has-its-costs
I agree with you, most consumers are quite apathetic. But that doesn't inure Sony to the fruits of their labors. And the more bad press they get, the more agitators become aware of the situation - the kind of people with the means and motivation to have a positive impact on the roles of corporations in society.
The more attention this battle gets, the better his chances. If it looks like Sony is so sloppy and zealous they'd happily railroad an innocent man, enough press will ensure some damage to their reputation.
Plus as these stories continue to grow, and as people continue to see corporations in control of both parties in the US, we can look forward to an ever growing fountain of anger and desire for real change.
Of course I am as much of a cynic as you are, so my bet is that all that ever growing rage translates into is more Obama like candidates to soak up the rage and yield minor changes once in office.
I'll make sure not to hire Expensify. Why? Well if they have a language-zealot mentality, then I'm not going to like what I get.
That's not what the blog post is about.
And personally, I won't hire somebody who doesn't bother to read the citation.
Personally I wouldn't hire someone who wouldn't bother responding to a comment thread on hiring practices by using "I won't hire somebody" as a comeback... So in other words, send your resume my way we are hiring!
And people like you in the FOSS community are missing the point, again.
I'm a user. I don't care whose fault it is. I just want my webcam to work, and not have to scour the internet to find out why I get only choppy video at crappy resolutions in Linux, but HD smooth video in Windows. Finding smug little "well it works for me" replies just makes me want to give up.
And when Ubuntu freezes on me utterly, all those claims about Linux's much acclaimed stability just seem hollow - a screen freeze is like a BSOD for the budget conscious.
I've been using Linux as my desktop for the last decade, I'm no newbie. But why waste my time debugging basic functionality when I can spend a hundred bucks and just have a PC that works?
I get that putting any data on Facebook is risky because of their attitude towards data, but we have to change the discourse from "FOOL! Trusting Facebook is stupid" to "Facebook has a responsibility not to breach our trust, and ought to face consequences for doing so". We would never stand for google abusing the data we send them.
But in point of fact, putting trust in any site, be it a "super secure" storage solution like dropbox, email over https like gmail, or social networking like facebook - has its risks as surely as it lacks viable alternatives in each field. (Well, dropbox has some solid competition, like spideroak). Purchasing or utilizing a service does not entail giving up most of our basic rights, and I don't understand why we tolerate corporations forcing us to give up our right to privacy in order to use their services.
Could you explain how private messages on Facebook differ from email?
Or are you suggesting all of your gmail conversations ought to be public/available to the government upon request?
Also, did this happen in the past year or two, the utter destruction of privacy in situations where we have a reasonable expectation of such?
We've come a long way, but slipped backwards on a number of fronts. Not that progress in one area is ever an excuse for regression in another, as you seem to imply.
In any case, we've lost:
The right to privacy/dignity in public places deemed a risk by our government - such as airports.
The right to vote - as trusted verification of votes dies so does our right to have our vote counted.
Free Speech - Well its allowed as long as:
> it doesn't irritate a powerful corporation - you get sued into the ground.
> it doesn't irritate the government - you get discredited
> you have enough money to afford a platform - there is no public square anymore - or do anonymous words spread amongst the information overload of the internet count?
Immigration rights are taking a huge hit.
In the next decade, also expect attacks on public education and reproductive rights courtesy of the tea party and other Republicans.
Apply that logic to your post here on Slashdot. Several gate keepers are involved, from the manufacturers of your computer's hardware, to the software, to your Internet connection, and finally to Slashdot itself. All corporations (unless you use a version of Linux not provided by a corporation - but still provided by someone other than yourself). In each case, the corporation/individual/group between you and being heard could chose to censor you.
Even better, consider phone service. Should AT&T be allowed to censor text messages or phone calls with which they disagree?
For Free Speech to have any meaning, any power at all - we must recognize Anon-Admin's statement (http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1892280&cid=34416408). Freedom of speech is an essential right, and no one, government, corporation or group/individual has the right to take that away.
To play devil's advocate, perhaps his goal was to achieve some level of trust. Look at how we treat "anonymous cowards" here on slashdot. With suspicion by default.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds like they basically want to pay no tax at all. I'm sorry but what's the point in us having them here in the first place then if they don't contribute anything much back to society?
Right on.
At this point is there any expectation that actions like this will carry consequences outside of an apology for a company like BP? After the oil spill, the Texas incident and their subsequent handling of both - it seems like an issue like this will disappear from the media's attention span in short order.
The UK is enacting severe austerity measures on its citizens and companies that develop *games* are whining about not getting large enough tax breaks? Talk about being out of touch, this isn't "let them eat cake" its "how come we aren't getting enough cake?". Meanwhile people are having their bread portions slashed.
Heh, you forgot your open tag for the sarcasm. In any case, the masses are waking up to corporate exploitation. Look at the campaigns targeting mega corps who aren't pulling their weight in taxes...
I wish I had mod points for you.
It happens: http://seekingalpha.com/article/19019-sony-s-damaged-reputation-has-its-costs I agree with you, most consumers are quite apathetic. But that doesn't inure Sony to the fruits of their labors. And the more bad press they get, the more agitators become aware of the situation - the kind of people with the means and motivation to have a positive impact on the roles of corporations in society.
A good point. If it turns out he is innocent though and he still loses the trial, then that would be quite the pickle...
I vote we measure all of life's events in units of montage sequences produced.
The more attention this battle gets, the better his chances. If it looks like Sony is so sloppy and zealous they'd happily railroad an innocent man, enough press will ensure some damage to their reputation. Plus as these stories continue to grow, and as people continue to see corporations in control of both parties in the US, we can look forward to an ever growing fountain of anger and desire for real change. Of course I am as much of a cynic as you are, so my bet is that all that ever growing rage translates into is more Obama like candidates to soak up the rage and yield minor changes once in office.
That's not what the blog post is about.
And personally, I won't hire somebody who doesn't bother to read the citation.
Personally I wouldn't hire someone who wouldn't bother responding to a comment thread on hiring practices by using "I won't hire somebody" as a comeback... So in other words, send your resume my way we are hiring!
And people like you in the FOSS community are missing the point, again. I'm a user. I don't care whose fault it is. I just want my webcam to work, and not have to scour the internet to find out why I get only choppy video at crappy resolutions in Linux, but HD smooth video in Windows. Finding smug little "well it works for me" replies just makes me want to give up. And when Ubuntu freezes on me utterly, all those claims about Linux's much acclaimed stability just seem hollow - a screen freeze is like a BSOD for the budget conscious. I've been using Linux as my desktop for the last decade, I'm no newbie. But why waste my time debugging basic functionality when I can spend a hundred bucks and just have a PC that works?
In soviet slashdot, users defend microsoft and bash apple... wait a minute...
I get that putting any data on Facebook is risky because of their attitude towards data, but we have to change the discourse from "FOOL! Trusting Facebook is stupid" to "Facebook has a responsibility not to breach our trust, and ought to face consequences for doing so". We would never stand for google abusing the data we send them. But in point of fact, putting trust in any site, be it a "super secure" storage solution like dropbox, email over https like gmail, or social networking like facebook - has its risks as surely as it lacks viable alternatives in each field. (Well, dropbox has some solid competition, like spideroak). Purchasing or utilizing a service does not entail giving up most of our basic rights, and I don't understand why we tolerate corporations forcing us to give up our right to privacy in order to use their services.
Could you explain how private messages on Facebook differ from email?
Or are you suggesting all of your gmail conversations ought to be public/available to the government upon request?
Also, did this happen in the past year or two, the utter destruction of privacy in situations where we have a reasonable expectation of such?
We've come a long way, but slipped backwards on a number of fronts. Not that progress in one area is ever an excuse for regression in another, as you seem to imply. In any case, we've lost: The right to privacy/dignity in public places deemed a risk by our government - such as airports. The right to vote - as trusted verification of votes dies so does our right to have our vote counted. Free Speech - Well its allowed as long as: > it doesn't irritate a powerful corporation - you get sued into the ground. > it doesn't irritate the government - you get discredited > you have enough money to afford a platform - there is no public square anymore - or do anonymous words spread amongst the information overload of the internet count? Immigration rights are taking a huge hit. In the next decade, also expect attacks on public education and reproductive rights courtesy of the tea party and other Republicans.
Apply that logic to your post here on Slashdot. Several gate keepers are involved, from the manufacturers of your computer's hardware, to the software, to your Internet connection, and finally to Slashdot itself. All corporations (unless you use a version of Linux not provided by a corporation - but still provided by someone other than yourself). In each case, the corporation/individual/group between you and being heard could chose to censor you. Even better, consider phone service. Should AT&T be allowed to censor text messages or phone calls with which they disagree? For Free Speech to have any meaning, any power at all - we must recognize Anon-Admin's statement (http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1892280&cid=34416408). Freedom of speech is an essential right, and no one, government, corporation or group/individual has the right to take that away.
To play devil's advocate, perhaps his goal was to achieve some level of trust. Look at how we treat "anonymous cowards" here on slashdot. With suspicion by default.