"All they are getting is the rights to the information... "
But they are getting the rights from a GOVERNMENT, not with the direct consent of the individuals involved. Also, the individuals are being denied the right to sell their OWN code for their own profit, if they were to choose to do so.
By presuming to have the right to exclusively sell such information, the governments of Tonga, Iceland, and any other is presuming to ultimately own the individual. If you do not own YOURSELF, you are a slave.
Theoretically, the USA is founded on the principle of a representitive Republic governed by a Constitution that spells out what powers are given to government, and that all powers NOT granted are denied.
The Constitution does not in any place say anything about group "rights", social "rights", or government "rights". All freedoms in the Constitution are granted to INDIVIDUALS.
Now I said theoretically, because that's not how it works anymore. It would in my opinion, be grossly illegal for the US government to do any such thing as sell the US gene pool.
Given that most Americans are allowing the party in power to use cronies in power in a state to usurp an election to keep that party in power (something the USA condemmed in Serbia), I can't say that this (selling gene rights) is something that the government would be called to task on.
After all, we've now had generations of people dumbed down and under-educated on the principles that this country was founded on. They won't understand it because it's too technical. They also won't realize tha the Constitution, by the 9th and 10th amendments SPECIFICALLY prohibit the government from doing any such thing.
I don't care what "good" this may accomplish. If a company, government, etc wants to use the code of an individual, they have to negotiate it with that INDIVIDUAL. Any government which arrogantly presumes to sell rights to genetic code of it's citizens already, or is close to, presuming OWNERSHIP of it's citizens.
I believe that the FIRST and FOREMOST Human Right is the right of self-ownership. I'm mine, and forcing me to give up any part of me against my consent is slavery.
What moral and ethical right does a government have to engage in the buying and selling of citizen's genetic code?
Especially if the profit is being made by a corporation, and more importantly, the money collected is benefitting the GOVERNMENT, not the people who's right to their own genetic code has been sold without their consent.
While I hate to bring up politics, this is an example of conflicting philospohies... Socialism/Fascism/Liberalism holds that property and people ultimately belong to the State or "society". Capitalism/Conservatism holds that all rights, property are vested in individuals. Even if I do not own anything else, I own MYSELF. And that includes my own source code. If I want to release it via GPL, sell it closed souce, etc, that right is up to me.
I feel that selling the rights to the genetic code of ALL individuals in a country reeks of the sick experiments that Hitler did to Jews in the concentration camps. While I have no doubt that the are NOT torturing people, etc, they are having medical experiments conducted upon their own code WITHOUT consent. They also are being denied the right to decide for themselves when, how and by WHOM their genetic code would be allowed to be used.
And that, weakens the presumption that the individual is owned by himself, NOT the state.
This is exactly the point. Shareware/Freeware/GPL/Open Source developers will NOT have access to this signing process, and their apps will be perceived by the user as inferior when in fact it likely isn't.
Joe Q User doesn't have any clue, and thinks because "Microsoft" says it's OK, then it is. He will pass on apps that don't bear M$'s seal of approval.
And how long do you honestly think that it will be until this "feature" will run by default and refuse to run ANY app not "signed" unless the user goes into the system and manually disables it?
Exactly, about the same time it becomes impossible to "buy" a non Expireware version of any MS product...
Reliability? Why should anyone trust "signed" code approved by a company that still hasn't worked all the bugs out of 6 year old Windows `9X, and released Windows 2000 with over 65,000 documented (and God knows how many UNDOCUMENTED) bugs?
Microsoft produces inferior products that succeed because of intertia and superior marketing. Intel got away with that for awhile too, but it caught up to them didn't it?
The USA and the EU may get pissed that M$ is trying to control which software is "good" and "bad".
Why that's THEIR job! I'm not so convinced that the USA or the EU will follow thru on restraining Microsoft. And I'm not so sure that it even CAN be restrained as long as current management still have any say in any part of the operation.
Certainly the EU is more likely to stay hardline on Microsoft, since it's an American, not European company, but I still wonder as to what legal authority the EU has over M$ anyway. I suppose they could make it illegal to import M$ products, but that's unlikely, as that would highly piss off the USA.
But then I wonder if the US has any international respect anymore after the Presidential election, clearly already won based on the law, but the party in power is being allowed to force recount after recount amid many allegations of fraud to overturn an election.
Windows ME and IE 5.5 do this by default. I haven't tried to switch it off, because I don't ever LET the browser download stuff for itself... Another stupid idea guaranteed to get viruses on your computer (just like running Outlook).
Why is it that Microsoft code is "assumed" (and you know what that means) to be BETTER than 3rd party code? I can't think of ANY app I've ever bought that was buggier than the first Windows `98, or the original Office 2000. Office 2000 was so annoying it made me switch to Star Office on my `Doze machine...
Admittedly Win ME fixes much of `98's instability, but then it's still based on the 9X codebase which has been around for SIX years... If M$ programmers were good enough to be CERTIFYING other people's code as "safe" they would have fixed all those 9X bugs YEARS ago. Even ME is very far from a perfect product.
Is it me or is Microsoft INTENTIONALLY trying to piss everyone off?
First this stupid.NET idea to make you rent software, turning Office into expensive Crippleware.
Now this... I guess Microsoft wants to look at the code of all 3rd party software so they can steal it or figure out how to break it in the next service pack?
Microsoft is behaving as though they own the computer industry, as if ordained by God. They have a short memory. Windows was being rejected by the market over and over until about 1994, and didn't gain wide acceptance until `95-6. The market can decide to go in another direction, especially now that viable alternatives (Linux) exist.
Microsoft in 2000 is doing to itself what Intel did to itself last year. That allowed AMD to go from tiny market share to large market share. Microsoft is opening the same opportunity to Linux..NET and this stupid idea could prove to be M$'s RAMBUST.
Imagine M$ doing away with OEM `Doze and selling "subscription" versions to PC vendors... Millions would buy PC's with self-destructing versions of the OPERATING SYSTEM, unless they paid the fees...
I can see M$ doing this... It's the only way they can FORCE.NET on the world.
Is not to play.
If "subscription", AKA, software that you have to buy over and over and over, sells, then that says a ton about the stupidity of "consumers" and MIS managers.
I honestly don't think this idea is going to work, and if MS goes with higher cost "unlimited use" versions of office and other products, then eliminates them, I think this is where StarOffice and Corel WordPerfect can get market share.
Are they paying you more than you are paying them?
I don't think that colleges have a leg to stand on in claiming to own intellectual property of students unless it IS a work for hire (IE they provide all facilities, etc, for your work, and pay you a salary for doing the work). If you pay any tuition WHATSOEVER, you are paying "rent" for these facilities.
Unless the college is PAYING you to be there, and you aren't paying, how can any coding be work for HIRE? I'd think that any court (well, unless you get a corrupt shit for brains like Kaplan) would have a hard time deciding in favor of a college owning code, papers, etc, written by a student who is shelling out many thousands of dollars in tuition, books, etc.
Also, professors at many universities spend a lot of time writing books, researching projects, etc, that end up earning them money... Many of them do this instead of teaching students (done by grad assistants in many cases. Why aren't the universities claiming this money as theirs because it's "work for hire"?
Colleges and universities are simply wanting to deny students the right to their own intellectual property. It doesn't matter WHAT purpose it's created for, if you create it, it's yours, it's protected by copyright law. Colleges aren't companies paying you to write/code for them.
It's because statutory law (DMCA) and software licenses are being allowed to trump Constitutional law. It's sick, and it's wrong.
The concept of PROBABLE CAUSE, INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, and the protection against SEARCH AND SEIZURE, right against SELF INCRIMINATION are in the Constitution specifically because such power is always abused when absolute.
It sucks that some amount of crime (or theft) will always go unpunished because probable cause can't be established. But it's right there, in the Constitution because the Founders had LIVED with a government that was doing just that, with impunity. Now we are allowing a CORPORATE entity act just like the British, circa 1775?
I think that this whole statement by the BSA represents THREAT and EXTORTION. Too bad no one will get a lawyer and file a class action against the BSA for this.
Apply this to ANYTHING other than software. Can you send notices to all your neighbors, for example, stating "I know you stole $X from me and you better cough up by X date or else I'm going to search all your homes"
Would this stand up legally? I don't think so. First off, there is no probable cause. Secondly, this notice is a threat and extortion. Thirdly, it is also SLANDER/LIBEL, because it's defaming the "good name" of whomever it's sent to.
What really sucks is how easy it is for law enforcement to get warrants these days. It seems that most judges just rubber stamp the requests. For example, that student who had all his PC's seized by the FBI on a warrant gained only because his IP address showed up in a server log...
The Constitution states that PROBABLE CAUSE must be shown before the government may search OR seize property or persons.
Or is this part of the Constitution like the 2nd, 9th, and 10th amendments, still there but ignored because those in the government find them inconvienient?
Back when I was in Jr. High (1985 or so), and the hot machine of the day was the Commodore 64, a group of us CONSTANTLY traded copied games/etc. Anyone else remember Copy Q:) I better search my closet and make sure I destroy mine, since that program is now illegal to have...
Anyway, I've heard stories today of the SPA raiding schools and busting kids for doing what we used to do openly back then... Worse yet, the SCHOOLS themselves do so.
Now the BSA is setting itself up as a private law enforcement agency, and threatening to act as such. You are guilty until proven innocent.
The litigious nature of the post-80's US culture is sick. Why is it that when you turn loose the trial lawyers you lose the "rule" of law? (IE, "innocent UNTIL proven guilty", "probable cause", protection against unlawful search and seizure).
Or is the Constitution subservient to software licenses and statutory law (DMCA) based on them?
You basically made my point. A worker is hostage to his company if he wants to stay. Sure, if he only wants to stay 6 years he can go to another company.
I would say that most, if not all H1B's want to stay. They are being denied due process (by a bureaucracy that is so bloated, like all government agencies that it takes more than 6 years to do a simple job). This is inmoral, and against the founding prnciples of this country.
Simply, all skilled people should be able to immigrate, so long as they aren't criminals. I have no problems with skilled people who will not be a burden on taxpayers (like me), but will be a contributor.
The whole recent expansion of the H1B program was because there are a number of people who's time is running out, and the corpers want to replace them. Not keep them, mind you, (which would mean paying them what they are worth), but replace them with more that they can exploit and underpay.
The H1B visa exists for only one purpose: so that companies can get below market cost labor. This can only be done because the H1B immigrant is denied equal proteciton under hte law as with other workers. H1B's get 6 years, and as it's been pointed out in an earlier/. article, it's taking LONGER than that to proces people for citizenship/green cards.
So what happens is that the company has the H1B worker over the proverbial barrel. He/She can't fairly negotiate pay, benefits, etc with their employer because if they get fired, have their sponsorship pulled, then they have no chance at staying.
Note that the megacorps pushed for MORE H1B visas, not an extension on the 6 year limit. It's because they have no desire to see these people stay and become citizens, why, if that happened then they'd have to be paid the market rate for their skills.
I am not at all against these people coming in. In fact, I think that there should be NO restriction on skilled immigrants. These people will never be a burden on the US taxpayer.
Simply put, the H1B visa is a tool that allows businesses to get a temporary, captive workfore, that has to take below market pay because they have no choice.
IT jobs pay what they do because that is what the market that has become driven by tech skills will bear, not because we are greedy. H1B is a non-capitalist attempt to use the government to allow companies to get more than what they pay for.
What makes a Capitalist economy democratic is that in very few instances (the government, corporate monopolies) do you ever HAVE to buy someone's product.
There are bazillions of companies that make what Motorola makes. Buy their products instead, and make sure you let them know that you chose them BECAUSE of the privacy issue.
Citizens of a free country with a capitalist economy control everything with their wallets, even if they don't realize it. Look at Firestone, they are ruined because they failed to respond to the will of their customers on the SUV tire issue, and now I doubt many dealers can sell Firestone tires at any price, much less what they were being sold at before.
Those who let themselves be led to believe that they are sheep "consumers", not CITIZENS, are the ones the marketers rule.
The sad fact is, everyone's personal info has been sold by someone, probably many times over. Several states, including the one I live in, has sold your info if you have a driver's license to marketers.
Considering I've been online since 1994, I've taken these steps to avoid being bothered by maketers. And until they make it legal for them to break down your door, these measures should be effective...
1. My phone is NEVER on the hook. It's always connected to the `Net, and when it isn't, there is no phone hooked up. When boradband finally makes it out here to the middle of nowhere (East KY), I probably won't even have a phone line. WHy would I want one?
2. I can get away with that because I have a pager, and everyone I know either has `net access and gets ahold of me that way, or uses my pager. I never miss an important call, because anyone important to me knows how to get me when necessary.
3, I usually keep 2 e-mail addresses, one public, one private. The one I disclose gets horribly spammed, but the private one I only give out to people I know.
While it's annoying that my info probably is in the hands of all these marketers, I'm 100% free of them because I simply deny them the ability to call me. There have been times I've accidently left the phone on the hook, and every time it's not 10 minutes before a marketer calls.
What I don't understand is why companies like Motorola think that such tactics will benefit them? Their poducts are bought by geeks and techies, who are very informed on these issues and usually quite pissed off when a company tries crap like this.
They are unconcerned becase you are reaching Motorola's marketers...
Just goes to show you just how evil marketing as an institution is. Marketers don't care about being intrusive, they aren't concerned about privacy or convienience. Their perfect world is one where they can restrain you and force you to listen to their pitch. And they are trying harder and harder to achieve this, because the more foreceful marketing becomes (and it is far more aggressive than it was 10 years ago), the more resistant "consumers" become, and therefore the more foreceful and intrusive the marketers try to be.
One of the biggest problem with company websites, IMO, is that they let the marketers run them. Which is why you have to wade thru useless padlum to get to the product or support info, or driver you are looking for. I see this every day.
If I owned a Motorola product, like a phone or pager, etc, I'd be marching back to the dealer return the product for a refund, and demand that all info recorded by the dealer be returned.
If I were an ethical dealer, I'd find something else to sell. Plenty of other companies make the consumer products Motorola does. If this happens to any significant degree, management will rein in the marketers on this one.
You know, your post sounds just like a (former) member of my company's management, who would try to meszerize people with his endless repeating of buzzwords, hand gestures, and ending every sentence with "Right?"
You are right, of course. I'm a tech for a WV computer company, and we waste a number of hours that could be billable to customers doing in-house crap for the sales people (who don't know anything about computers), or worse, the boss's wife, who is dumb as a log, but is the president... This is why we are going to install ZENworks on every machine except the tech computers.
However, as another poster said, the best and ONLY criteria for measuring performance is by productivity. If I'm producing a satisfactory level of results, then it shouldn't matter how I get there. If I'm not, then I suppose stuff like `net usage would be a legitimate beef.
I agree with you. I work for one of the largest computer firms in WV, and am a tech with over 7 years experience. I'm consistently the most productive employee in the company, and never balk at working overtime (for which I usually don't get paid for).
Recently my company installed "Surf Watch". To which, I mostly ignore. I occasionally browse/. or the Register or some other tech site on my lunch, breaks, or when I'm waiting on the phone getting a RMA or ordering a part (quite frequent). In my line of work, reading./ or the Register, or Toms Hardware IS in the company's best interest, as I'm keeping up with the latest news and technology. If they want to fire me for this, well, I can get another job within 10 minutes anyway...
Slashdot Mirror
"All they are getting is the rights to the information... "
But they are getting the rights from a GOVERNMENT, not with the direct consent of the individuals involved. Also, the individuals are being denied the right to sell their OWN code for their own profit, if they were to choose to do so.
By presuming to have the right to exclusively sell such information, the governments of Tonga, Iceland, and any other is presuming to ultimately own the individual. If you do not own YOURSELF, you are a slave.
Theoretically, the USA is founded on the principle of a representitive Republic governed by a Constitution that spells out what powers are given to government, and that all powers NOT granted are denied.
The Constitution does not in any place say anything about group "rights", social "rights", or government "rights". All freedoms in the Constitution are granted to INDIVIDUALS.
Now I said theoretically, because that's not how it works anymore. It would in my opinion, be grossly illegal for the US government to do any such thing as sell the US gene pool.
Given that most Americans are allowing the party in power to use cronies in power in a state to usurp an election to keep that party in power (something the USA condemmed in Serbia), I can't say that this (selling gene rights) is something that the government would be called to task on.
After all, we've now had generations of people dumbed down and under-educated on the principles that this country was founded on. They won't understand it because it's too technical. They also won't realize tha the Constitution, by the 9th and 10th amendments SPECIFICALLY prohibit the government from doing any such thing.
I don't care what "good" this may accomplish. If a company, government, etc wants to use the code of an individual, they have to negotiate it with that INDIVIDUAL. Any government which arrogantly presumes to sell rights to genetic code of it's citizens already, or is close to, presuming OWNERSHIP of it's citizens.
I believe that the FIRST and FOREMOST Human Right is the right of self-ownership. I'm mine, and forcing me to give up any part of me against my consent is slavery.
What moral and ethical right does a government have to engage in the buying and selling of citizen's genetic code?
Especially if the profit is being made by a corporation, and more importantly, the money collected is benefitting the GOVERNMENT, not the people who's right to their own genetic code has been sold without their consent.
While I hate to bring up politics, this is an example of conflicting philospohies... Socialism/Fascism/Liberalism holds that property and people ultimately belong to the State or "society". Capitalism/Conservatism holds that all rights, property are vested in individuals. Even if I do not own anything else, I own MYSELF. And that includes my own source code. If I want to release it via GPL, sell it closed souce, etc, that right is up to me.
I feel that selling the rights to the genetic code of ALL individuals in a country reeks of the sick experiments that Hitler did to Jews in the concentration camps. While I have no doubt that the are NOT torturing people, etc, they are having medical experiments conducted upon their own code WITHOUT consent. They also are being denied the right to decide for themselves when, how and by WHOM their genetic code would be allowed to be used.
And that, weakens the presumption that the individual is owned by himself, NOT the state.
This is exactly the point. Shareware/Freeware/GPL/Open Source developers will NOT have access to this signing process, and their apps will be perceived by the user as inferior when in fact it likely isn't.
Joe Q User doesn't have any clue, and thinks because "Microsoft" says it's OK, then it is. He will pass on apps that don't bear M$'s seal of approval.
And how long do you honestly think that it will be until this "feature" will run by default and refuse to run ANY app not "signed" unless the user goes into the system and manually disables it?
Exactly, about the same time it becomes impossible to "buy" a non Expireware version of any MS product...
Reliability? Why should anyone trust "signed" code approved by a company that still hasn't worked all the bugs out of 6 year old Windows `9X, and released Windows 2000 with over 65,000 documented (and God knows how many UNDOCUMENTED) bugs?
Microsoft produces inferior products that succeed because of intertia and superior marketing. Intel got away with that for awhile too, but it caught up to them didn't it?
The USA and the EU may get pissed that M$ is trying to control which software is "good" and "bad".
Why that's THEIR job! I'm not so convinced that the USA or the EU will follow thru on restraining Microsoft. And I'm not so sure that it even CAN be restrained as long as current management still have any say in any part of the operation.
Certainly the EU is more likely to stay hardline on Microsoft, since it's an American, not European company, but I still wonder as to what legal authority the EU has over M$ anyway. I suppose they could make it illegal to import M$ products, but that's unlikely, as that would highly piss off the USA.
But then I wonder if the US has any international respect anymore after the Presidential election, clearly already won based on the law, but the party in power is being allowed to force recount after recount amid many allegations of fraud to overturn an election.
Windows ME and IE 5.5 do this by default. I haven't tried to switch it off, because I don't ever LET the browser download stuff for itself... Another stupid idea guaranteed to get viruses on your computer (just like running Outlook).
Why is it that Microsoft code is "assumed" (and you know what that means) to be BETTER than 3rd party code? I can't think of ANY app I've ever bought that was buggier than the first Windows `98, or the original Office 2000. Office 2000 was so annoying it made me switch to Star Office on my `Doze machine...
Admittedly Win ME fixes much of `98's instability, but then it's still based on the 9X codebase which has been around for SIX years... If M$ programmers were good enough to be CERTIFYING other people's code as "safe" they would have fixed all those 9X bugs YEARS ago. Even ME is very far from a perfect product.
Is it me or is Microsoft INTENTIONALLY trying to piss everyone off? .NET idea to make you rent software, turning Office into expensive Crippleware.
.NET and this stupid idea could prove to be M$'s RAMBUST.
First this stupid
Now this... I guess Microsoft wants to look at the code of all 3rd party software so they can steal it or figure out how to break it in the next service pack?
Microsoft is behaving as though they own the computer industry, as if ordained by God. They have a short memory. Windows was being rejected by the market over and over until about 1994, and didn't gain wide acceptance until `95-6. The market can decide to go in another direction, especially now that viable alternatives (Linux) exist.
Microsoft in 2000 is doing to itself what Intel did to itself last year. That allowed AMD to go from tiny market share to large market share. Microsoft is opening the same opportunity to Linux.
Imagine M$ doing away with OEM `Doze and selling "subscription" versions to PC vendors... Millions would buy PC's with self-destructing versions of the OPERATING SYSTEM, unless they paid the fees... .NET on the world.
I can see M$ doing this... It's the only way they can FORCE
Is not to play.
If "subscription", AKA, software that you have to buy over and over and over, sells, then that says a ton about the stupidity of "consumers" and MIS managers.
I honestly don't think this idea is going to work, and if MS goes with higher cost "unlimited use" versions of office and other products, then eliminates them, I think this is where StarOffice and Corel WordPerfect can get market share.
Are they paying you more than you are paying them?
I don't think that colleges have a leg to stand on in claiming to own intellectual property of students unless it IS a work for hire (IE they provide all facilities, etc, for your work, and pay you a salary for doing the work). If you pay any tuition WHATSOEVER, you are paying "rent" for these facilities.
Unless the college is PAYING you to be there, and you aren't paying, how can any coding be work for HIRE? I'd think that any court (well, unless you get a corrupt shit for brains like Kaplan) would have a hard time deciding in favor of a college owning code, papers, etc, written by a student who is shelling out many thousands of dollars in tuition, books, etc.
Also, professors at many universities spend a lot of time writing books, researching projects, etc, that end up earning them money... Many of them do this instead of teaching students (done by grad assistants in many cases. Why aren't the universities claiming this money as theirs because it's "work for hire"?
Colleges and universities are simply wanting to deny students the right to their own intellectual property. It doesn't matter WHAT purpose it's created for, if you create it, it's yours, it's protected by copyright law. Colleges aren't companies paying you to write/code for them.
It's because statutory law (DMCA) and software licenses are being allowed to trump Constitutional law. It's sick, and it's wrong.
The concept of PROBABLE CAUSE, INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, and the protection against SEARCH AND SEIZURE, right against SELF INCRIMINATION are in the Constitution specifically because such power is always abused when absolute.
It sucks that some amount of crime (or theft) will always go unpunished because probable cause can't be established. But it's right there, in the Constitution because the Founders had LIVED with a government that was doing just that, with impunity. Now we are allowing a CORPORATE entity act just like the British, circa 1775?
I think that this whole statement by the BSA represents THREAT and EXTORTION. Too bad no one will get a lawyer and file a class action against the BSA for this.
Apply this to ANYTHING other than software. Can you send notices to all your neighbors, for example, stating "I know you stole $X from me and you better cough up by X date or else I'm going to search all your homes"
Would this stand up legally? I don't think so. First off, there is no probable cause. Secondly, this notice is a threat and extortion. Thirdly, it is also SLANDER/LIBEL, because it's defaming the "good name" of whomever it's sent to.
What really sucks is how easy it is for law enforcement to get warrants these days. It seems that most judges just rubber stamp the requests. For example, that student who had all his PC's seized by the FBI on a warrant gained only because his IP address showed up in a server log...
The Constitution states that PROBABLE CAUSE must be shown before the government may search OR seize property or persons.
Or is this part of the Constitution like the 2nd, 9th, and 10th amendments, still there but ignored because those in the government find them inconvienient?
Back when I was in Jr. High (1985 or so), and the hot machine of the day was the Commodore 64, a group of us CONSTANTLY traded copied games/etc. Anyone else remember Copy Q :) I better search my closet and make sure I destroy mine, since that program is now illegal to have...
Anyway, I've heard stories today of the SPA raiding schools and busting kids for doing what we used to do openly back then... Worse yet, the SCHOOLS themselves do so.
Now the BSA is setting itself up as a private law enforcement agency, and threatening to act as such. You are guilty until proven innocent.
The litigious nature of the post-80's US culture is sick. Why is it that when you turn loose the trial lawyers you lose the "rule" of law? (IE, "innocent UNTIL proven guilty", "probable cause", protection against unlawful search and seizure).
Or is the Constitution subservient to software licenses and statutory law (DMCA) based on them?
You basically made my point. A worker is hostage to his company if he wants to stay. Sure, if he only wants to stay 6 years he can go to another company.
I would say that most, if not all H1B's want to stay. They are being denied due process (by a bureaucracy that is so bloated, like all government agencies that it takes more than 6 years to do a simple job). This is inmoral, and against the founding prnciples of this country.
Simply, all skilled people should be able to immigrate, so long as they aren't criminals. I have no problems with skilled people who will not be a burden on taxpayers (like me), but will be a contributor.
The whole recent expansion of the H1B program was because there are a number of people who's time is running out, and the corpers want to replace them. Not keep them, mind you, (which would mean paying them what they are worth), but replace them with more that they can exploit and underpay.
The H1B visa exists for only one purpose: so that companies can get below market cost labor. This can only be done because the H1B immigrant is denied equal proteciton under hte law as with other workers. H1B's get 6 years, and as it's been pointed out in an earlier /. article, it's taking LONGER than that to proces people for citizenship/green cards.
So what happens is that the company has the H1B worker over the proverbial barrel. He/She can't fairly negotiate pay, benefits, etc with their employer because if they get fired, have their sponsorship pulled, then they have no chance at staying.
Note that the megacorps pushed for MORE H1B visas, not an extension on the 6 year limit. It's because they have no desire to see these people stay and become citizens, why, if that happened then they'd have to be paid the market rate for their skills.
I am not at all against these people coming in. In fact, I think that there should be NO restriction on skilled immigrants. These people will never be a burden on the US taxpayer.
Simply put, the H1B visa is a tool that allows businesses to get a temporary, captive workfore, that has to take below market pay because they have no choice.
IT jobs pay what they do because that is what the market that has become driven by tech skills will bear, not because we are greedy. H1B is a non-capitalist attempt to use the government to allow companies to get more than what they pay for.
What makes a Capitalist economy democratic is that in very few instances (the government, corporate monopolies) do you ever HAVE to buy someone's product.
There are bazillions of companies that make what Motorola makes. Buy their products instead, and make sure you let them know that you chose them BECAUSE of the privacy issue.
Citizens of a free country with a capitalist economy control everything with their wallets, even if they don't realize it. Look at Firestone, they are ruined because they failed to respond to the will of their customers on the SUV tire issue, and now I doubt many dealers can sell Firestone tires at any price, much less what they were being sold at before.
Those who let themselves be led to believe that they are sheep "consumers", not CITIZENS, are the ones the marketers rule.
Vote with your wallet and your feet.
The sad fact is, everyone's personal info has been sold by someone, probably many times over. Several states, including the one I live in, has sold your info if you have a driver's license to marketers.
Considering I've been online since 1994, I've taken these steps to avoid being bothered by maketers. And until they make it legal for them to break down your door, these measures should be effective...
1. My phone is NEVER on the hook. It's always connected to the `Net, and when it isn't, there is no phone hooked up. When boradband finally makes it out here to the middle of nowhere (East KY), I probably won't even have a phone line. WHy would I want one?
2. I can get away with that because I have a pager, and everyone I know either has `net access and gets ahold of me that way, or uses my pager. I never miss an important call, because anyone important to me knows how to get me when necessary.
3, I usually keep 2 e-mail addresses, one public, one private. The one I disclose gets horribly spammed, but the private one I only give out to people I know.
While it's annoying that my info probably is in the hands of all these marketers, I'm 100% free of them because I simply deny them the ability to call me. There have been times I've accidently left the phone on the hook, and every time it's not 10 minutes before a marketer calls.
What I don't understand is why companies like Motorola think that such tactics will benefit them? Their poducts are bought by geeks and techies, who are very informed on these issues and usually quite pissed off when a company tries crap like this.
They are unconcerned becase you are reaching Motorola's marketers...
Just goes to show you just how evil marketing as an institution is. Marketers don't care about being intrusive, they aren't concerned about privacy or convienience. Their perfect world is one where they can restrain you and force you to listen to their pitch. And they are trying harder and harder to achieve this, because the more foreceful marketing becomes (and it is far more aggressive than it was 10 years ago), the more resistant "consumers" become, and therefore the more foreceful and intrusive the marketers try to be.
One of the biggest problem with company websites, IMO, is that they let the marketers run them. Which is why you have to wade thru useless padlum to get to the product or support info, or driver you are looking for. I see this every day.
If I owned a Motorola product, like a phone or pager, etc, I'd be marching back to the dealer return the product for a refund, and demand that all info recorded by the dealer be returned.
If I were an ethical dealer, I'd find something else to sell. Plenty of other companies make the consumer products Motorola does. If this happens to any significant degree, management will rein in the marketers on this one.
You know, your post sounds just like a (former) member of my company's management, who would try to meszerize people with his endless repeating of buzzwords, hand gestures, and ending every sentence with "Right?"
You are right, of course. I'm a tech for a WV computer company, and we waste a number of hours that could be billable to customers doing in-house crap for the sales people (who don't know anything about computers), or worse, the boss's wife, who is dumb as a log, but is the president... This is why we are going to install ZENworks on every machine except the tech computers.
However, as another poster said, the best and ONLY criteria for measuring performance is by productivity. If I'm producing a satisfactory level of results, then it shouldn't matter how I get there. If I'm not, then I suppose stuff like `net usage would be a legitimate beef.
I agree with you. I work for one of the largest computer firms in WV, and am a tech with over 7 years experience. I'm consistently the most productive employee in the company, and never balk at working overtime (for which I usually don't get paid for).
/. or the Register or some other tech site on my lunch, breaks, or when I'm waiting on the phone getting a RMA or ordering a part (quite frequent). In my line of work, reading ./ or the Register, or Toms Hardware IS in the company's best interest, as I'm keeping up with the latest news and technology. If they want to fire me for this, well, I can get another job within 10 minutes anyway...
Recently my company installed "Surf Watch". To which, I mostly ignore. I occasionally browse