Company owns the computer, they can do whatever they want. If you don't like it, don't log on to personal accounts from a work computer! (on a side note, they are probably breaking the law if they log in to your accounts to check, but not by gathering the passwords, and you are likely breaking your employment contract by using a work computer for personal use, even if outside of working hours)
I'm ok with my employer having control over what I do while I'm at work, and with them having control over all equipment that they own. None of that interferes in any way with my rights. The problem is when they ask for control over either my personal equipment, or what I do on my own time. The only restriction I have accepted in my employment contract that affects me while outside of work hours is a non-compete clause which says I won't start up a company that directly competes with a business that my employer is in. Beyond that I can do anything I want when I'm not at work, or on my own equipment.
If you give up your password then you give permission to access the account.
That said, I have a hard time believing that there wasn't some other law about what private information they can ask for, I highly doubt that they would have been able to ask you for your private diary before hiring you, and this is essentially similar.
Incorrect. You must pay the money TO THE UNION even if you are not a member. There is no way to not pay union dues if you work at a unionized company in Canada.
There is a theoretical exemption that works the way you suggest, but it's only if your religion does not allow paying dues to a union, and it is almost impossible to prove it to the satisfaction of the union, so you likely still end up paying union dues to the union.
This all comes from the "Rand" decision where Justice Rand issued a decision in one specific court case that suggested non-unionized members should still pay dues to the union because they also got the benefits from the union. Justice Rand did go on to say that he did NOT believe that this should be precedent setting, and that the one case was quite unusual. Unfortunately it DID set a precedent, and we're stuck with it now. A more recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada showed that this violates The Charter of Rights and Freedoms' section on Freedom of Association, more specifically the freedom to not associate, however in the same decision they decided not to reverse the previous decision, their logic was basically that unions were too powerful and allowing people to avoid paying dues could result in violence from the unions. (better to pay the protection racket then stand up for our rights I guess)
Additionally, union dues are set by the union at whatever rate they choose, and they can use them in whatever way they choose without having to account for the money to anyone. meaning that most of the money raised by your union dues will be used for various things that are not in any way related to your employment, and that you want nothing to do with.
That's ok... I was replying to a post that sounded like a fanboi right from the start, so I knew what I was getting in to. "if you don't agree with our lord and saviour steve jobs then you must be wrong!"
This is exactly what is needed. I'm sick of the idea that it is impossible to go to a major manufacturer and buy a computer without windows pre-installed. That's the part of the anti-competitive behaviour that should have been dealt with. People don't run windows because it's "better", in any meaningful way it's not, People run windows because it's pre-loaded, it's simple as that.
. If Microsoft were as utterly stupid as you indicate, Europe would just revoke Microsoft's copyright - a Government-granted monopoly, remember - and put Windows into the public domain there, thus making the "illegal" use legal.
If the EU actually wanted to hurt Microsoft they would enforce those copyrights as harshly as possibly. Microsoft may want to get paid for every copy of windows, but they'd still rather you use a pirated copy of windows than a different OS altogether. If the people in the EU woke up and realized they could function without windows, the rest of the world might find out too, and then microsoft would be in real trouble.
Unfortunately I know that the EU would never consider actually banning windows, and of course microsoft would never pull out of the EU either. most likley MS will get another little slap on the wrist and continue to illegally abuse their monopoly position as they always have.
Problem is, they're used to doing business in the USA where if you don't like the law you buy a few politicians. This whole idea in the EU of a justice system and having to follow it's decisions is just too foreign a concept for them.
Only if chrome is shipped as the default browser on the vast majority of computers sold... Microsoft didn't get in trouble for IE being popular, they got in trouble for abusing their Windows monopoly to force a default of IE on to the majority of computers. If all those people had chosen IE for themselves then the EU never would have been involved in the first place.
Neither Android, nor iOS has 90+% of the smart phone market. And that's the point, there is actual competition at work between the 2 platforms, so you can't state that either one has a monopoly on smart phones. As such it's impossible for either one to abuse a monopoly position as Microsoft has been convicted of doing.
The ruling is specifically about the convicted monopolist. Once Apple reach approx 90% market share on the desktop we can revisit their anti-competitive behaviour, but at their current market share the amount of effect they have on the overall browser usage in the EU is pretty negligible.
Something that millions of people want because they think it's cool and looks great, even though it lags behind every other system in terms of usability, functionality and cost.
What affects market share is what is pre-installed. Although modern linux distros work better than windows in almost every way, the vast majority of people will never have any OS on their machine that didn't come with it. As long as Microsoft has all the big OEMs tied in to effectively windows only contracts, Windows will be what everyone uses. It's big time anti-competitive abuse of a monopoly, but the government doesn't really care, so we're stuck with it. This is also the reason for the EU enforcing the browser selection. They know that most people will use whatever browser is shipped with the computer, so they want MS to level the playing field by forcing people to make a conscious choice of which browser instead of defaulting to IE. If only the verdict extended to the whole OS.
I think it's time that the big manufacturers allow you to buy a machine without an OS, and/or one with linux pre-installed. but until that happens, Windows will own the desktop (which makes it pretty obvious why MS is doing everything they can to prevent it)
Android does not require task managers. That is pure apple FUD. Nor does it result in any performance or battery problems. A "mistake" with no downsides and many upsides is not a mistake. As for "difficult" users don't care. they just want to be able to listen to their music while using their GPS logging app.
Your one example is a minor feature very few people use. multitasking, voice guided directions, real widget support, are things many people use. Apple also lagged behind on copy and paste, screen size, and true 4G service. And the list goes on and on for pages...
So not only did they buy yp and stockpile something it turned out they never needed, they also failed to understand the most basic of economic prinicples when selling it off. Sorry, the more you defend them, the worse they look.
And yet a blasphem law is bound to hit the atheists harder than any other group, even though they are the only ones who judge people based soley on the person and not at all based on the religion.
Hardly, a company exists to make money, so they would never dump it like this, instead they would sell it off slowly at going rates instead of pushing the rates lower by dumping it. they'd get out of their stash, and make a profit doing it. (for example look at the OPEC nations who control the release of oil production to keep the price high instead of opening up production and driving the price down) Not to mention the fact that any 1 company is entirely unlikely to have managed to get it's hands on quite this same quantity in the first place. The government on the other hand dumped all their holdings without trying to make a profit, they could have prevented the problem by selling their reserves slowly so as not to cause a major change in the price, it would have made them more money, and averted a global catastrophe. but governments don't work like that, so they dumped it and caused the price to plummet.
Or if it had never intervened in the first place the problem wouldn't have occured either. They screwed up by getting involved, and screwed up again when they dumped all their reserves at once. either way, had they never been involved we wouldn't be in the situation we're in now.
It was downloaded because it's spam copy and pasted in to almost every comment stream on the site... I don't think it has anything to do with the supposed faults it may or may not expose. and seriously, that text is so long that nobody in their right mind would read it all the way through.
It is the "going rate" unfortunately the going rate is scewed by the massive quantity the government is dumping. if the US government released for sale small amounts at a time they would have little effect on the going rate, however by selling off massive amounts at whatever price the market is willing to pay they are artificially lowering prices. once the stockpile is gone the rate will immediately correct itself and helium prices will skyrocket. had the government not got involved in the first place the price of helium would have been more likely to climb slowly and steadilly as it became harder to obtain instead of being set at artificial prices by one organization hoarding it then selling.
my config isn't anything special really, I have a server running anyway for other stuff so I loaded dnsmasq on it and took one of the hundreds of blackhole lists found on the net and put it in an include file. then I set my web server to return a completely empty file for any request to it's IP address that doesn't request a known server that I host by name and directed all those blackhole requests there (that way I see empty ads instead of ads with an error message in them) Any time I see an ad on a page that gets through I check where it came from and ad it to the list.
so in other words I simplified and the government didn't screw everything up once, they instead screwed it up twice. But the end result is the same, it would have sorted itself out better had they left well enough alone in the first place.
It will... right as soon as the US government stops dumping helium on the market at artificially low prices... Once again, free market works, except when the government steps in and messes it all up.
The very problem currently being discussed was caused by market interference by the government artificially decreasing the price, if the price were allowed to be set by the free market alone then instead of the current artificial low until a very sudden high when the reserves run out, we would be seeing a slow and steady climb allowing people to work on alternatives or adjust their habits accordingly. You state that the answer is regulation, but that is the very thing that caused the problem in the first place. The free market will solve this one, It will only happen once the government reserves are depleted and the free market is allowed to operate (and assuming the government doesn't step in again and mess it all up again) and unfortunately due to the government interference it won't be as smooth as if they had stayed out of it all together, but it will be solved eventually.
Slashdot Mirror
Company owns the computer, they can do whatever they want.
If you don't like it, don't log on to personal accounts from a work computer! (on a side note, they are probably breaking the law if they log in to your accounts to check, but not by gathering the passwords, and you are likely breaking your employment contract by using a work computer for personal use, even if outside of working hours)
I'm ok with my employer having control over what I do while I'm at work, and with them having control over all equipment that they own. None of that interferes in any way with my rights. The problem is when they ask for control over either my personal equipment, or what I do on my own time. The only restriction I have accepted in my employment contract that affects me while outside of work hours is a non-compete clause which says I won't start up a company that directly competes with a business that my employer is in. Beyond that I can do anything I want when I'm not at work, or on my own equipment.
If you give up your password then you give permission to access the account.
That said, I have a hard time believing that there wasn't some other law about what private information they can ask for, I highly doubt that they would have been able to ask you for your private diary before hiring you, and this is essentially similar.
Incorrect. You must pay the money TO THE UNION even if you are not a member.
There is no way to not pay union dues if you work at a unionized company in Canada.
There is a theoretical exemption that works the way you suggest, but it's only if your religion does not allow paying dues to a union, and it is almost impossible to prove it to the satisfaction of the union, so you likely still end up paying union dues to the union.
This all comes from the "Rand" decision where Justice Rand issued a decision in one specific court case that suggested non-unionized members should still pay dues to the union because they also got the benefits from the union. Justice Rand did go on to say that he did NOT believe that this should be precedent setting, and that the one case was quite unusual. Unfortunately it DID set a precedent, and we're stuck with it now.
A more recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada showed that this violates The Charter of Rights and Freedoms' section on Freedom of Association, more specifically the freedom to not associate, however in the same decision they decided not to reverse the previous decision, their logic was basically that unions were too powerful and allowing people to avoid paying dues could result in violence from the unions. (better to pay the protection racket then stand up for our rights I guess)
Additionally, union dues are set by the union at whatever rate they choose, and they can use them in whatever way they choose without having to account for the money to anyone. meaning that most of the money raised by your union dues will be used for various things that are not in any way related to your employment, and that you want nothing to do with.
That's ok... I was replying to a post that sounded like a fanboi right from the start, so I knew what I was getting in to. "if you don't agree with our lord and saviour steve jobs then you must be wrong!"
This is exactly what is needed. I'm sick of the idea that it is impossible to go to a major manufacturer and buy a computer without windows pre-installed. That's the part of the anti-competitive behaviour that should have been dealt with. People don't run windows because it's "better", in any meaningful way it's not, People run windows because it's pre-loaded, it's simple as that.
. If Microsoft were as utterly stupid as you indicate, Europe would just revoke Microsoft's copyright - a Government-granted monopoly, remember - and put Windows into the public domain there, thus making the "illegal" use legal.
If the EU actually wanted to hurt Microsoft they would enforce those copyrights as harshly as possibly. Microsoft may want to get paid for every copy of windows, but they'd still rather you use a pirated copy of windows than a different OS altogether. If the people in the EU woke up and realized they could function without windows, the rest of the world might find out too, and then microsoft would be in real trouble.
Unfortunately I know that the EU would never consider actually banning windows, and of course microsoft would never pull out of the EU either. most likley MS will get another little slap on the wrist and continue to illegally abuse their monopoly position as they always have.
Problem is, they're used to doing business in the USA where if you don't like the law you buy a few politicians. This whole idea in the EU of a justice system and having to follow it's decisions is just too foreign a concept for them.
Only if chrome is shipped as the default browser on the vast majority of computers sold...
Microsoft didn't get in trouble for IE being popular, they got in trouble for abusing their Windows monopoly to force a default of IE on to the majority of computers. If all those people had chosen IE for themselves then the EU never would have been involved in the first place.
Neither Android, nor iOS has 90+% of the smart phone market. And that's the point, there is actual competition at work between the 2 platforms, so you can't state that either one has a monopoly on smart phones. As such it's impossible for either one to abuse a monopoly position as Microsoft has been convicted of doing.
The ruling is specifically about the convicted monopolist. Once Apple reach approx 90% market share on the desktop we can revisit their anti-competitive behaviour, but at their current market share the amount of effect they have on the overall browser usage in the EU is pretty negligible.
Something that millions of people want because they think it's cool and looks great, even though it lags behind every other system in terms of usability, functionality and cost.
What affects market share is what is pre-installed. Although modern linux distros work better than windows in almost every way, the vast majority of people will never have any OS on their machine that didn't come with it. As long as Microsoft has all the big OEMs tied in to effectively windows only contracts, Windows will be what everyone uses. It's big time anti-competitive abuse of a monopoly, but the government doesn't really care, so we're stuck with it.
This is also the reason for the EU enforcing the browser selection. They know that most people will use whatever browser is shipped with the computer, so they want MS to level the playing field by forcing people to make a conscious choice of which browser instead of defaulting to IE. If only the verdict extended to the whole OS.
I think it's time that the big manufacturers allow you to buy a machine without an OS, and/or one with linux pre-installed. but until that happens, Windows will own the desktop (which makes it pretty obvious why MS is doing everything they can to prevent it)
Android does not require task managers. That is pure apple FUD. Nor does it result in any performance or battery problems. A "mistake" with no downsides and many upsides is not a mistake.
As for "difficult" users don't care. they just want to be able to listen to their music while using their GPS logging app.
Your one example is a minor feature very few people use. multitasking, voice guided directions, real widget support, are things many people use.
Apple also lagged behind on copy and paste, screen size, and true 4G service. And the list goes on and on for pages...
So not only did they buy yp and stockpile something it turned out they never needed, they also failed to understand the most basic of economic prinicples when selling it off. Sorry, the more you defend them, the worse they look.
And yet a blasphem law is bound to hit the atheists harder than any other group, even though they are the only ones who judge people based soley on the person and not at all based on the religion.
Hardly, a company exists to make money, so they would never dump it like this, instead they would sell it off slowly at going rates instead of pushing the rates lower by dumping it. they'd get out of their stash, and make a profit doing it. (for example look at the OPEC nations who control the release of oil production to keep the price high instead of opening up production and driving the price down) Not to mention the fact that any 1 company is entirely unlikely to have managed to get it's hands on quite this same quantity in the first place.
The government on the other hand dumped all their holdings without trying to make a profit, they could have prevented the problem by selling their reserves slowly so as not to cause a major change in the price, it would have made them more money, and averted a global catastrophe. but governments don't work like that, so they dumped it and caused the price to plummet.
Or if it had never intervened in the first place the problem wouldn't have occured either.
They screwed up by getting involved, and screwed up again when they dumped all their reserves at once. either way, had they never been involved we wouldn't be in the situation we're in now.
It was downloaded because it's spam copy and pasted in to almost every comment stream on the site... I don't think it has anything to do with the supposed faults it may or may not expose. and seriously, that text is so long that nobody in their right mind would read it all the way through.
It is the "going rate" unfortunately the going rate is scewed by the massive quantity the government is dumping. if the US government released for sale small amounts at a time they would have little effect on the going rate, however by selling off massive amounts at whatever price the market is willing to pay they are artificially lowering prices. once the stockpile is gone the rate will immediately correct itself and helium prices will skyrocket. had the government not got involved in the first place the price of helium would have been more likely to climb slowly and steadilly as it became harder to obtain instead of being set at artificial prices by one organization hoarding it then selling.
I see your panoramas and raise you proper multitasking, and real widget support.
my config isn't anything special really, I have a server running anyway for other stuff so I loaded dnsmasq on it and took one of the hundreds of blackhole lists found on the net and put it in an include file. then I set my web server to return a completely empty file for any request to it's IP address that doesn't request a known server that I host by name and directed all those blackhole requests there (that way I see empty ads instead of ads with an error message in them)
Any time I see an ad on a page that gets through I check where it came from and ad it to the list.
so in other words I simplified and the government didn't screw everything up once, they instead screwed it up twice. But the end result is the same, it would have sorted itself out better had they left well enough alone in the first place.
It will... right as soon as the US government stops dumping helium on the market at artificially low prices... Once again, free market works, except when the government steps in and messes it all up.
If prices are expected to go up it only makes sense to gradually work them in than to force everybody to go cold turkey
So what you're saying is the government never should have been involved in the first place and the free market could have handled this...
The very problem currently being discussed was caused by market interference by the government artificially decreasing the price, if the price were allowed to be set by the free market alone then instead of the current artificial low until a very sudden high when the reserves run out, we would be seeing a slow and steady climb allowing people to work on alternatives or adjust their habits accordingly.
You state that the answer is regulation, but that is the very thing that caused the problem in the first place. The free market will solve this one, It will only happen once the government reserves are depleted and the free market is allowed to operate (and assuming the government doesn't step in again and mess it all up again) and unfortunately due to the government interference it won't be as smooth as if they had stayed out of it all together, but it will be solved eventually.